TinyBubbles
anarchist
- MBTI
- ^.^
- Enneagram
- .
People talk about the power of the love, the power of a smile to change a person's day for the better, but I wonder, just how much good does "love" do? I don't mean love for yourself or your family or friends, those come naturally, I'm talking about love for people who don't deserve it, who do the wrong thing towards you or towards the community --people who hurt you, or who hurt someone you care about. Do they too "deserve" to be treated with love, or would alternative means be necessary to even things out?
People are not saints. It's a harsh world we live in, the practical must override the ideal, if we are to progress at all. Right? Or not? We can't all be like Jesus and love each other unconditionally.. can we?
Say you're in a relationship with someone and they cheat on you with someone else. You find out, and your partner apologizes, and says s/he loves the other person and not you, and plans to go away with them. What, then, would you feel about the person who replaced you in your partner's life? Jealous? Angry? Hurt? Bitter? Sad that you were lied to? I bet you wouldn't feel love for them, or at least, you wouldn't ACT with love towards them - if the two can be separated. If you act with love towards them, it would be like you're OK with it, and how could you do that unless:
1. you were not very attached to that person to begin with, or
2. you're selfless and don't care who they're with, as long as they're happy.
In the second case, their actions have created a moral imbalance, to which you've declined to respond. The imbalance will remain.. and if it happens again, and again, it'll be like your desires have no significance whatsoever and only what is good or enjoyable to the other person would matter at all. How then could you not feel deprived?
In the first case, since you were not attached to them at all, the consequences of their actions have not hurt you, because you were in a sense not involved. But everyone's attached to something.. or someone.. aren't they? The buddhist philosophy of complete non attachment might ALLOW for a completely loving, tolerant world, but I think it's unrealizable, because people do get attached, and I'd even say it's a good thing, because what is life if you're not immersed in something or someone wholeheartedly? In my opinion, that would be no life at all, but a wait for death.
Uhh.. getting back to the original point, can love really have the same constructive effect as FORCE? Love is usually passive, it is non-directive, it lets what will be to be.. it does not try to control or change (usually), it is peaceful and accepting, not intolerant and demanding, as is force. But in a situation where an injustice has been done- for example, if a theft has been committed- then force will have a better chance of correcting that imbalance than will love. If you ask a thief to return stolen goods in a nice and loving manner, and enforce no consequences for not doing so, he'd probably keep them. But if you threaten the thief with imprisonment or some other type of punishment should he not return them, that forceful action will more likely compel him to return the goods and thus set the balance straight.
I guess the assumption here is that there can BE injustice, that you can objectively quantify actions in terms of right and wrong, good and bad, and use those classifications to justifiably enforce a certain course of action over others. Maybe it's not true. Maybe right and wrong depend entirely on the viewer, and not some overall balance of good and bad. If so, then responding to events with love would make a lot more sense than trying to "correct" them with force, since love would at least make it easier to get along, and you'll probably be happier... and happiness is the whole point of life, isn't it?
What do you guys think?
People are not saints. It's a harsh world we live in, the practical must override the ideal, if we are to progress at all. Right? Or not? We can't all be like Jesus and love each other unconditionally.. can we?
Say you're in a relationship with someone and they cheat on you with someone else. You find out, and your partner apologizes, and says s/he loves the other person and not you, and plans to go away with them. What, then, would you feel about the person who replaced you in your partner's life? Jealous? Angry? Hurt? Bitter? Sad that you were lied to? I bet you wouldn't feel love for them, or at least, you wouldn't ACT with love towards them - if the two can be separated. If you act with love towards them, it would be like you're OK with it, and how could you do that unless:
1. you were not very attached to that person to begin with, or
2. you're selfless and don't care who they're with, as long as they're happy.
In the second case, their actions have created a moral imbalance, to which you've declined to respond. The imbalance will remain.. and if it happens again, and again, it'll be like your desires have no significance whatsoever and only what is good or enjoyable to the other person would matter at all. How then could you not feel deprived?
In the first case, since you were not attached to them at all, the consequences of their actions have not hurt you, because you were in a sense not involved. But everyone's attached to something.. or someone.. aren't they? The buddhist philosophy of complete non attachment might ALLOW for a completely loving, tolerant world, but I think it's unrealizable, because people do get attached, and I'd even say it's a good thing, because what is life if you're not immersed in something or someone wholeheartedly? In my opinion, that would be no life at all, but a wait for death.
Uhh.. getting back to the original point, can love really have the same constructive effect as FORCE? Love is usually passive, it is non-directive, it lets what will be to be.. it does not try to control or change (usually), it is peaceful and accepting, not intolerant and demanding, as is force. But in a situation where an injustice has been done- for example, if a theft has been committed- then force will have a better chance of correcting that imbalance than will love. If you ask a thief to return stolen goods in a nice and loving manner, and enforce no consequences for not doing so, he'd probably keep them. But if you threaten the thief with imprisonment or some other type of punishment should he not return them, that forceful action will more likely compel him to return the goods and thus set the balance straight.
I guess the assumption here is that there can BE injustice, that you can objectively quantify actions in terms of right and wrong, good and bad, and use those classifications to justifiably enforce a certain course of action over others. Maybe it's not true. Maybe right and wrong depend entirely on the viewer, and not some overall balance of good and bad. If so, then responding to events with love would make a lot more sense than trying to "correct" them with force, since love would at least make it easier to get along, and you'll probably be happier... and happiness is the whole point of life, isn't it?
What do you guys think?
Fight corruption, fight crime, fight fight. Maybe fighting everything creates more problems in the long run?
