Hitler
Peace
01/14/08 16:10 Categories: Theology
Sometimes we think that peace is a state where there is no disagreement. Reality is necessarily far from such ideas. If peace is the disappearance of disagreement, then it is a reality that will never ever be possible. Peace is neither a lack of discussion. Not only is disagreement a reality, but for real peace then the conversations which highlight the root of the conflict must be engaged upon.
So what is peace when there is deep, even never ending, disagreement? I suppose peace then must be rooted in respect. That respect can be rooted in a great many things, but hopefully humanizing the other is enough. That is, refusing to dehumanize those who we disagree with is one of the main routes to peace. Instead of allowing ourselves to see those that we disagree with as foolish, irrational, or idiotic, we realize that there are aspects of our own thought processes that are foolish, irrational, and even sometimes idiotic.
I suppose the second necessity to peace is humility: the humility to admit that we do not have truth locked up in our own little box. Others have glimpsed truth, and are even living it out as well as they can. Thus the seeming ridiculous statement must be understood: even Hitler did not understand himself as evil. He thought that his goal was noble, pure and desirable.Is there a possibility of peace with the likes of Hitler? There seem to be two options: (1) hurt him before he hurts us; (2) allow him to hurt us. This is never a light and easy decision: the effects of both are disastrous. If we engage with (1), then we are forced to dehumanize the Hitlers of the world, which is exactly the evil which they are engaging in. This quickly leads to a discussion of whether the means justifies the ends. Does killing lead to peace? It seems that it only can when that killing is an annihilation of the other, otherwise there is some offspring of the violence, some relative or friend who has a vengeance to seek. Annihilation or nothing seems to be the only answer.
I suppose what really needs to be thought about is (1) how could Germany change so quickly? It seems that most people realized quickly, or maybe they always knew it, that the Aryan pursuit was very wrong. (2)What is it that allows humans to do so much wrong to others, particularly when commanded by someone ‘higher up’? (3) How do we, as peacemakers, re-teach humanity, or maybe just call attention to the humanity of the ‘other’ (the one being killed, i.e., the Jews)? What methods/actions have done that in the past? Most often the most effective actions seem to be real nonviolent resistance. When I allow you to do wrong to me, then I have been as fully human as I can: No one has greater love than this, to give up their life for a friend. That may be recognizing everyone else as my friend and refusing to kill, but to be killed instead in their place.
|
Seeking Truth
05/15/08 08:09 Categories: Theology | Philosophy
Maybe life is not so much about figuring out what is truth. Maybe it is more about figuring about what is false. There is little truth that is in any sense ‘provable’ in any ultimate or definite sense. Berkeley’s solipsism is difficult to refute, though I have never met anyone who actually believes in it. Even pragmatism does not function well as a decisive rubric for analyzing truth claims - there are a great many truths that are deeply impractical. The first that comes to mind is to love others as yourself, which truly leads to a better way of living life. At first, it is apparent that the most pragmatic way of doing life is to only look out for oneself, but the resulting life is disastrous (eventually). Nietzche’s Ubermensch would be another example - Hitler is not exactly the sort of person that few would morally tolerate, but according to Nietzche’s ethic, he is a perfectly moral character.
