Vengeance

[Lokasenna]

I’ve been thinking about revenge recently – not in an active sense, I hasten to add, but in an abstract one! This is purely hypothetical.

Perhaps it’s because my usual literary stomping ground, the Old Norse sagas, are so invested in the concept of blood-feud, but I find myself increasingly convinced that taking vengeance for wrongs against oneself is not only a viable thing to do, but actually a moral prerogative. Not only should one take vengeance, but I think it is also a necessary social duty to take it.

Of course, it’s not just early medieval literature that focuses on vengeance – it motivates so much of our finest narratives. Where would we be without our Renaissance revenge-tragedies? Or some of our racier 19th century mystery novels?

Many of these narratives involve vengeance becoming an active force when the processes of the law fail, and the same can be just as true of real life. Sometimes, the law just can’t help you.

I’m interested to know what other people think. Is vengeance justifiable? And what forms of vengeance? Perhaps some of you have had cause to take vengeance, and would like to talk about it?

[North Star]

In larger matters, vengeance needs to be outsourced to a societal institution, and be subservient to the good of the society. If someone doesn't pay their taxes and hides their money on a Swiss bank account, it's better to get the money than to have the person put in prison and not have the money.

But I definitely support getting reasonable vengeance in a way that will not result in you getting prosecuted.

[Bartlebooth]

I can see why someone would be motivated to seek revenge, but I firmly believe in the idea that "two rights don't make a wrong." If any punitive measures are taken, they should only be carried out to the extent that they promote the greater good. Even if someone deserves further punishment, I think that forgiveness is more valuable than vengeance. Even if punishment is dealt out, it should probably be facilitated by an impartial party. That's why we have judges deliver sentences instead of victims or their families. All that said, I have never really been wronged by anyone, so my beliefs might be different than they would be if I had been wronged.

[Pike Bishop]

In larger matters, vengeance needs to be outsourced to a societal institution, and be subservient to the good of the society. If someone doesn't pay their taxes and hides their money on a Swiss bank account, it's better to get the money than to have the person put in prison and not have the money.

But I definitely support getting reasonable vengeance in a way that will not result in you getting prosecuted.


I agree with Northstar on both counts. Vengeance is a legitimate human activity and one of the top 5 in terms of satisfaction levels outside of sex. Of course, I'm half-Sicilian/half-Jewish; so, it's in my blood. I do think, however, that gross tax evaders deserve prison sentences as much as embezzlers or those engaged in non-violent burglary or petty theft. Like them, gross tax evaders have stolen money; they have just stolen it from the other members of their nation.

Anyway, my ten favorite revenge films are:

1. The Godfather Part II
2. Memento
3. Carrie
4. Mad Max
5. The Virgin Spring
6. The Crow
7. The Outlaw Josie Wales
9. Kill Bill 1-2
10. In the Bedroom

[Pike Bishop]

Not to be outdone by their celluloid cousins, Ten Outstanding Revenge Novels/Plays:

1. Hamlet
2. Macbeth
3. Paradise Lost
4. Moby Dick
5. The Golden Bowl
6. The Oresteia
7. Great Expectations
8. Victory by Joseph Conrad
9. Galveston by Nic Pizzolato
10. Titus Andronicus (so-so)

[bounty]

I hesitate to join in for reasons that might soon become abundantly clear but...for the purpose of conversation would it be helpful to further differentiate between justice and vengeance? I think I see some mingling going on...

[Pike Bishop]

And finally, ten great revenge songs:

1. You're So Vain--Carly Simon
2. Heart-Shaped Box--Nirvana
3. A Boy Named Sue--Johnny Cash
4. One Way or Another--Blondie
5. In the Air Tonight--Phil Collins
6. Under My Thumb--The Rolling Stones
7. The Thunder Rolls--Garth Brooks
8. Cry Me a River--Justin Timberlake
9. Kerosene--Miranda Lambert
10. Since You've Been Gone--Kelly Clarkson

[Iain Sparrow]

I hesitate to join in for reasons that might soon become abundantly clear but...for the purpose of conversation would it be helpful to further differentiate between justice and vengeance? I think I see some mingling going on...


This is exactly true.
Vengeance is often exacted from a purely emotional state and can be disproportionate to the original wrong, while Justice is rational and usually institutionalized, that is society agrees upon the route justice must take. In civilized society we don't allow an individual to take the law into their own hand.


I’m interested to know what other people think. Is vengeance justifiable? And what forms of vengeance? Perhaps some of you have had cause to take vengeance, and would like to talk about it?

About fifteen years ago I was accused of a crime I did not commit, the kind of crime if you're convicted of you get sent away for most of the rest of your life. I recall commenting to my attorney one afternoon during a deposition, and one day from a scheduled polygraph, that if this were one hundred years ago I would simply search out my accusers... and kill them.

As it was, neither justice or vengeance prevailed. I passed the polygraph, hired a private investigator to find out all he could about my accusers, and that information was passed on to the authorities... who then focused on those who wrongfully accused me. Did that quench my bloodlust?.. not by a long shot. Even to this day I keep track of my accusers, know where they live and work, know email addresses, phone numbers and online habits. If they do to someone else what they tried to do to me, I will let the hammer fall.

[Pike Bishop]

This is exactly true.
Vengeance is often exacted from a purely emotional state and can be disproportionate to the original wrong, while Justice is rational and usually institutionalized, that is society agrees upon the route justice must take. In civilized society we don't allow an individual to take the law into their own hand.

It's not that Manichean. Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.

This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater. You, yourself obviously still believe in such personal vengeance, as you are still invested in punishing retaliation for those who bore witness against you.

[Lokasenna]

There are some really interesting perspectives here, and I'm a little bit surprised, in a good way, that there hasn't been an immediate rush to condemn the concept of vengeance - guess it means I'm not all that warped!

I think the discussion about making a distinction between vengeance and justice is a curious one: I think that Iain and Pike's definitions of these terms are sensible - though the tiny little anarchist deep in my soul wonders whether justice can ever really be institutionalised. What gives the state the right to decide what is just (i.e. state-mandated vengeance) and what is persecution (i.e. state-opposed vengeance)?

On some level, the measure of vengeance must be against one's own private and personal sense of morality - the code to which you hold yourself and the rest of the world. If that code is transgressed by somebody to the extent that one feels vengeance is necessary, then it is an entirely personal and subjective action. I do not think, and have never thought, that the state can be a moral entity - even if it does occasionally do moral things. I suppose also that someone of strong religious conviction might have differing views on vengeance, as Romans 12:19 has it: 'Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.'

I wonder if, therefore, a willingness to take vengeance is, on some level, a refusal to defer moral authority? Instead of leaving matters to a higher power, the state or the deity, it is a matter of seeing some wrongdoing and feeling obliged to punish it?

[YesNo]

Vengeance takes too much time and energy. One may need to defend oneself or others. That is a separate question, but going out of one's way to punish someone else for some past offense does not seem worth the effort.

I saw the recent Furious 7 movie. The bad guy was inspired by vengeance. He got his butt kicked by those defending themselves.

[Dreamwoven]

I agree with YesNo. The best response to some offence may often be to let it go.

[bounty]

lokasenna, I appreciate your mentioning romans. I was going to do likewise.

I have competing thoughts, which i think bespeaks to the fallen nature of man, and the call to the redeemed man.

when i read or watch movies (and i suspect i am not alone in this) and the bad guy is getting his comeuppance, its often not satisfying unless he takes a good licking in the process. its not enough that he is caught, and about to be put in jail too, the reader/viewer wants some retribution and suffering to go on. we want to see it taken out of his hide. i contend that's one reason why a particular play in American football is so satisfying. when a wide receiver comes over the middle to catch a pass, he is in essence invading the defensive backs territory. consider it like a home invasion. the db doesn't have to limit his response to that---he can almost quite literally have the receivers head on a platter, and when he does, we all go "ohhhhhhh" and cringe, but we love it at the same time. some folks would say the catharsis is good for us.

ive been in a few situations, on the receiving end of abuse, where the abusers are able to get away with it because they know a recourse to the "law" in those instances would prove ineffectual, and civil law precludes vengeance from occurring. i sometimes believe "polite" society (and internet forums) would be more polite if people were acutely aware that a vengeful reaction might occur to in response to their abusive behavior. i think its one reason why i like zane grey and lee child novels.

but on to the redeemed part---i think the desire for vengeance is part desire for justice, and part desire to hurt. the former part is admirable, the latter is a part of our sin nature, and as you pointed out, should at least be subservient to moral authority, if not outright cleansed from our spirits this side of heaven. there's a great story about corrie ten boom, who was in a concentration camp during WWII and who saw her beloved sister die there, meeting one of the former prison guards who asked (in an implied way) her forgiveness. she didn't know how she was going to do it, but she said she knew what god commanded and in obedience, she put forth her hand to meet his extended one, and when their hands clasped, she felts gods forgiveness flowing through her.

i still have this good angel/bad angel thing going on where id be likely to say, yeah im still going to kick your hind end...and then afterwards feel bad about and i'll ask for forgiveness.

in the meantime, i suspect i'll continue to enjoy literature and cinema where some sort of personal justice occurs and enjoy William Wallace and Beatrix kiddo going about their business.

[Pike Bishop]

Vengeance takes too much time and energy. One may need to defend oneself or others. That is a separate question, but going out of one's way to punish someone else for some past offense does not seem worth the effort.

I saw the recent Furious 7 movie. The bad guy was inspired by vengeance. He got his butt kicked by those defending themselves.

Not always. Breaking up with someone who cheated on you or deciding to no longer invite chronically sloppily drunken friends to one's parties can be done in almost no time with very little energy.

As to films, some vengeance films, like In the Bedroom, do show that vengeance can be hollow and distracting from the real issues needing to be addressed. Some, like Point Blank, show fulfilling vengeance with some qualms about that fulfillment. Others, however, like Mad Max and The Virgin Spring, show the unabashed visceral pleasure of vengeance for harm to one's loved ones that can even bring spiritual, and even literal physical, renewal.


i contend that's one reason why a particular play in American football is so satisfying. when a wide receiver comes over the middle to catch a pass, he is in essence invading the defensive backs territory. consider it like a home invasion. the db doesn't have to limit his response to that---he can almost quite literally have the receivers head on a platter, and when he does, we all go "ohhhhhhh" and cringe, but we love it at the same time. some folks would say the catharsis is good for us.

Those people and families who have actually suffered the terrors and horrors of home invasion would most likely take great exception to this analogy. There is no apt comparison between the violent invasion of one's home--which also often brings violent suffering--to a defensive back crossing into the defense's territory. Also, I'm not sure how much catharsis that comes from watching a wide receiver be violently hit...as opposed to relatives of murdered victims watching their killers sentenced. I once saw Renaldo Nehemiah almost paralyzed by such a hit...there was nothing cathartic about it.

[bounty]

now you all know why I was reluctant to join in...

[Pike Bishop]

I expressed my logical disagreement with your post, Bounty. That''s what people do on forums. When you expressed your disagreement with my definition of literature; I didn't whine about it. You are free, however, to disagree with my opinion of yours.

[bounty]

homes are territories to defend. certain areas of the football field are territories to defend. in fact, a common phrase you hear coaches saying to their teams before home games is "nobody comes into our house and pushes us around."

the "partial likeness" there is evident on its face.

id put forth that if you ask people who have had their home invaded, who didn't already respond to it in some way similar to a defensive back taking out a wide receiver the way they do (by shooting the perpetrator or breaking his knees with a baseball bat), if they would have liked to have been able to do that, many would answer yes.

I don't know if the process of watching murderers of loved ones being executed is cathartic or not but I do know that catharsis is an established phenomenon in athletics, either as a participant or an observer. that it is, tells us something about ourselves and aggression against others who have, analogously, violated our territory. to some extent, philosophically speaking, sport can be viewed as societally accepted vengeance within the rules.

in terms of renaldo Nehemiah, and your reaction to the instance to which you refer---I would, and most people would, probably feel likewise. it's a game afterall and it brings this to mind "its all fun and games until somebody pokes an eye out."

that however, doesn't change the significance or meaning of the activities that occur up until that point. what it does, is to remind us how much we value life.

[Pike Bishop]

homes are territories to defend. certain areas of the football field are territories to defend. in fact, a common phrase you hear coaches saying to their teams before home games is "nobody comes into our house and pushes us around."

the "partial likeness" there is evident on its face.

id put forth that if you ask people who have had their home invaded, who didn't already respond to it in some way similar to a defensive back taking out a wide receiver the way they do (by shooting the perpetrator or breaking his knees with a baseball bat), if they would have liked to have been able to do that, many would answer yes.

I don't know if the process of watching murderers of loved ones being executed is cathartic or not but I do know that catharsis is an established phenomenon in athletics, either as a participant or an observer. that it is, tells us something about ourselves and aggression against others who have, analogously, violated our territory. to some extent, philosophically speaking, sport can be viewed as societally accepted vengeance within the rules.

in terms of renaldo Nehemiah, and your reaction to the instance to which you refer---I would, and most people would, probably feel likewise. it's a game afterall and it brings this to mind "its all fun and games until somebody pokes an eye out."

that however, doesn't change the significance or meaning of the activities that occur up until that point. what it does, is to remind us how much we value life.

It's not the "defending" aspect of your inapt comparison that makes it inapt. It's the inappropriate comparisons of the severities and seriousnesses of the scenarios. Unlike a family literally having its home invaded by potentially rapacious and murderous people, a football defense does not face bodily harm, rape, or even murder. In fact, the defense faces no violent threat against themselves at all; they are the ones who get to violently attack the wide receiver.

And you can "put forth" your irrelevant claim about what the invaded would like to do to their invaders all you want, your analogy still fails...despite any insufficient "partial likeness." Since the members of the football defense never experience the threat, terrors, and horrors suffered by the home invaded, the penalty they impart onto the wide receiver can never be the parallel of/equivalent to the home invaded penalizing their invaders.

As to watching murderers being sentenced--I never said "executed;" try to read more closely--it is logical it would be cathartic to various degrees. Watching justice being brought to the ones who murdered your loved ones would likely bring satisfaction and a feeling of that mythical, but apparently needed by many, dynamic of closure. As to sports, I agree that, like all spectator activities--including film, the theater, and even the ballet--it has its cathartic aspects. However, that doesn't mean most football fans think the wide receiver should be "punished" for doing his job of advancing his team down the field, as if he were a hostile invader breaking into someone's home. Fans just don't take that kind of "offense" at the wide receiver's activity. If you want to support that unfounded and unlikely claim, you will need to provide some evidence.

[Ecurb]

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Christianity (along with other World Religions) represented a movement from tribal society to one in which all men could be "brothers in Christ". Vengeance, as practiced by Loka's Norseman, or by the Romans or Greeks, was not only a catharsis, but also a form of justice, and a solemn duty. The Romans (Pompey can correct me if I'm wrong) had trials, but in a murder case the plaintiff was the family of the murdered party; for us the plaintiff in all criminal cases is the "state" (or the Crown, for Brits).

This represents a fundamental change in the idea of what constitutes justice. 800 years ago this year (in 1215) King John signed the Magna Carta. John was perhaps the worst king in English history, reviled in the legendary histories of Robin Hood as well as in more conventional histories. The Magna Carta stated that no free man could be arrested or imprisoned without the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land. John was compelled to sign the document (the nobles had taken over London), and had it rescinded by the Pope. However, the document was reinstated when 9-year-old Henry ascended to the throne after John's death in 1216. Our society moved fitfully toward a different concept of justice. ("Free men", by the way, meant "nobles".)

The state has replaced God as the organ of "repayment" for transgressions. Has this advanced the cause of justice? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's a complicated issue. The State has abused its prerogatives, just as some individuals did when vengeance was not a mere passion, but a solemn duty.

[bounty]

now you all know why, again, I was reluctant to join in...

love the topic, but wont be back.

[Pike Bishop]

Considering I pointed out you made another bad argument, just like your ones about literature and actors playing the bad guys, I know exactly why you were reluctant to join in. Considering your inapt wide receiver/home invader analogy, your reluctance was probably a good idea.

You can't criticize other people's opinions and then get put out when they accurately critique yours; it's poor form.

[Ecurb]

Those people and families who have actually suffered the terrors and horrors of home invasion would most likely take great exception to this analogy. .

I've had my home invaded. I suffered neither terrors nor horrors, but I did have to buy a new computer and TV. Had I lacked the money to do so, of course, THAT would have been horrible, if not terrifying.

[Dreamwoven]

We are, of course, dealing with very different levels of violation. Having your home broken into is a major personal violation, but alongside slavery, marital cruelty, rape, losing your loved ones in murder, war or in concentration camps it is on quite a different level.

[YesNo]

Not always. Breaking up with someone who cheated on you or deciding to no longer invite chronically sloppily drunken friends to one's parties can be done in almost no time with very little energy.

I would consider both of those to be defensive responses rather than vengeance.



As to films, some vengeance films, like In the Bedroom, do show that vengeance can be hollow and distracting from the real issues needing to be addressed. Some, like Point Blank, show fulfilling vengeance with some qualms about that fulfillment. Others, however, like Mad Max and The Virgin Spring, show the unabashed visceral pleasure of vengeance for harm to one's loved ones that can even bring spiritual, and even literal physical, renewal.

Another movie, quite old, "The Princess Bride", had one of the main characters trying to get vengeance against one of the bad guys for the death of his father. Although he was also in a position of defending his friends, his vengeance lead him to wonder what his life was about after he finally killed his father's murderer and this made me wonder whether he wasted his life pursuing that murderer. Of course, he was very valuable in the defense of the couple.

Vengeance is often justified by a defense argument.

How was vengeance used in these Norse tales? I am not familiar with them.

[Pike Bishop]

You would be considering incorrectly. "Vengeance" is defined as "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution." Both the actions I mentioned were punishments inflicted in retaliation for injury or offense. So, both of the acts were acts of vengeance. Their having been defensive responses as well does not detract from their being so.

As to the Norse tales you asked about, I didn't mention any.

[YesNo]

You would be considering incorrectly. "Vengeance" is defined as "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution." Both the actions I mentioned were punishments inflicted in retaliation for injury or offense. So, both of the acts were acts of vengeance. Their having been defensive responses as well does not detract from their being so.


I don't really see leaving a partner because that person cheated on you to be vengeance. Vengeance would be staying with that partner and making the remainder of his or her life miserable or posting questionable pictures of that partner on the Internet. Basically, I can think of all sorts of vengeful acts that would make leaving the person an insignificant act of defense.

Regarding the drunken friends, they may be harder to get rid of than just not inviting them to future parties.



As to the Norse tales you asked about, I didn't mention any.

Actually, I meant that for Lokasenna.

[Pike Bishop]

I don't really see leaving a partner because that person cheated on you to be vengeance. Vengeance would be staying with that partner and making the remainder of his or her life miserable or posting questionable pictures of that partner on the Internet. Basically, I can think of all sorts of vengeful acts that would make leaving the person an insignificant act of defense.

Regarding the drunken friends, they may be harder to get rid of than just not inviting them to future parties.
What you "see" doesn't change the fact many--if not most--people who are cheated on do break up with their partners partially (or fully) out of punitive retaliation for their betrayal and emotional damage they have caused them. So, many people do break up with their cheating and/or adulterous significant others partially (or fully) out of vengeance. You are mistakenly imposing your own idealistic moral values onto other people who don't share them. And just because there may be nastier modes of vengeance like the revenge porn--which only loathsome people practice--you mentioned, it doesn't mean breaking up with a cheating partner can't be revenge as well...and it very often is.

And I never said the person was trying to get rid of drunken friends; I just said they were being punished as an act of penalizing retaliation/vengeance for continually getting sloppy drunks at them.


P.s. I have Lokasenna on ignore, so I don't read his posts. So, I assumed your Norse tales question was for me.

[Ecurb]

Vengeance is often justified by a defense argument.

.

My friend's brother, Oliver O'Donovan, former Professor of Moral Theology at Christ College, Oxford, has written a couple of books on the Christian ethics of warfare. He's a leading Anglican theologian (I mention he's my friend's brother in case anyone wonders what an atheist is doing reading Anglican theology). He thinks self defense is an inadequate justification for war (and, by inference, other instances of violence). Christ, after all, advocated turning the other cheek. He argues that the war is acceptable to the Christian only to restore a state of Justice -- not to defend oneself. In other words, it is the moral virtue of justice that is properly defended rather than individual well-being.

In certain cultures, vengeance can be seen the same way. It's a moral duty, restorative of justice and honor, rather than a personal vendetta.

[Pike Bishop]

Ecur is on my ignore list as well, but that doesn't keep the little guy from following me around. I didn't do so out of vengeance, though. I did it solely out of my preference for lucid interlocutors.

[YesNo]

What you "see" doesn't change the fact many--if not most--people who are cheated on do break up with their partners partially (or fully) out of punitive retaliation for their betrayal and emotional damage they have caused them. So, many people do break up with their cheating and/or adulterous significant others partially (or fully) out of vengeance. You are mistakenly imposing your own idealistic moral values onto other people who don't share them. And just because there may be nastier modes of vengeance like the revenge porn--which only loathsome people practice--you mentioned, it doesn't mean breaking up with a cheating partner can't be revenge as well...and it very often is.

I suppose it depends on the person whether leaving an unfaithful relationship is an act of vengeance or more an act of defense. Perhaps the unfaithfulness itself is an act of vengeance as when Walter White's wife, Skylar, had the affair with her boss in Breaking Bad. She wanted him to leave. And then she didn't want him to leave.



And I never said the person was trying to get rid of drunken friends; I just said they were being punished as an act of penalizing retaliation/vengeance for continually getting sloppy drunks at them.

I can't see why you consider it an act of punishment to not invite your drunken friends to your party, but there are many mysteries I will never resolve.



P.s. I have Lokasenna on ignore, so I don't read his posts. So, I assumed your Norse tales question was for me.

No problem. If I get more information about the specific Norse tales, I'll respond so you can see them unless I'm on the ignore list as well by that time.

So is putting someone on an ignore list an act of vengeance or something else? (I just saw your post saying it was not an act of vengeance.)


My friend's brother, Oliver O'Donovan, former Professor of Moral Theology at Christ College, Oxford, has written a couple of books on the Christian ethics of warfare. He's a leading Anglican theologian (I mention he's my friend's brother in case anyone wonders what an atheist is doing reading Anglican theology). He thinks self defense is an inadequate justification for war (and, by inference, other instances of violence). Christ, after all, advocated turning the other cheek. He argues that the war is acceptable to the Christian only to restore a state of Justice -- not to defend oneself. In other words, it is the moral virtue of justice that is properly defended rather than individual well-being.

In certain cultures, vengeance can be seen the same way. It's a moral duty, restorative of justice and honor, rather than a personal vendetta.

The Bhagavad Gita is also set in a battlefield where Krishna is telling Arjuna to fight. Easwaran interpreted it as a fight with one's self, but they are still on that battlefield and Krishna is an incarnation of the divine.

I think an argument for violence on the basis of Justice makes no more sense than using defense. If Christ said to turn the other cheek wasn't he implying that Justice is not a good argument either? Or did he say to turn the other cheek unless Justice was at stake? If there is an afterlife or a reincarnation with karma driving the outcome, isn't Justice guaranteed in the long run? Why do we need to come in to make sure it happens?

However, defense is something we an relate to and it affects our current survival.

[Ecurb]

I don't remember O'Donovan's arguments well enough to repeat them here. It seems reasonable to distinguish between defending oneself from personal harm and restoring a state of justice in the world, though. I think it was Nikolai who was talking about forgiveness in another thread. It's reasonable to forgive someone for slapping you on the cheek, but presumptuous to forgive someone for slapping other people on the cheek. We might "forgive" someone's financial debt when he owes us money, but it would be silly to forgive it if he owes someone else money.

Christians might be called upon to martyr themselves -- but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression. IF defending someone from unjust oppression is a moral imperative, then perhaps we should defend ourselves from unjust oppression as readily as we would defend others -- nonetheless the principle would involve a fight against injustice, not for self-preservation.

Whether justice is guaranteed in the long run seems irrelevant. The Christian shouldn't murder people, even though justice for the victim is guaranteed in the long run. Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.

p.s. Didn't Lokasenna start this thread? Isn't he on Pike Bishop's well publicized ignore list? Who is following whom? Also, I think Pike Bishop should be fired from his (imaginary) job as a college professor for promoting smoking via his avatar. We must protect our children!

[Pike Bishop]

I suppose it depends on the person whether leaving an unfaithful relationship is an act of vengeance or more an act of defense. Perhaps the unfaithfulness itself is an act of vengeance as when Walter White's wife, Skylar, had the affair with her boss in Breaking Bad. She wanted him to leave. And then she didn't want him to leave.

I can't see why you consider it an act of punishment to not invite your drunken friends to your party, but there are many mysteries I will never resolve.

No problem. If I get more information about the specific Norse tales, I'll respond so you can see them unless I'm on the ignore list as well by that time.
So is putting someone on an ignore list an act of vengeance or something else? (I just saw your post saying it was not an act of vengeance.)

As I noted above, it does depend on the person. Many people do break up with their partner partly or fully out of vengeance because they want retribution for the betrayal and emotional pain they suffered, and they also know their partner would not want them to break up with them. Some do simply break up with their partner because they can't trust him or her anymore.

As to parties, I wasn't talking about myself...although my wife and I--mostly my wife--do throw excellent dinner parties. In general, if someone knows the banned friend would particularly want to attend his or her parties, and banning that friend would upset them, then banning him or her to cause that upset--in retribution for the friend's sloppiness--would constitute vengeance. So, I've resolved that mystery for you. The mystery for me is how you didn't see that from the beginning.

And no, I have no intention of putting you on my ignore list. You and I may hardly see eye to eye and have significantly different views, but you're always polite, and I enjoy our exchanges. And as I said in my last post, my banning the 7 I have banned were not acts of vengeance. For peace of mind, I make it a practice of disengaging with the rude and/or the obtuse.

[Lokasenna]

now you all know why, again, I was reluctant to join in...

love the topic, but wont be back.

Don't let the obvious troll bully you out of this conversation! I think you raise some interesting points, particularly that concerning the concept of redemption. Taking personal vengeance may very well be just, but once taken I would imagine it can harder to move to a position of forgiveness: instead of letting the state or God deal with your enemy, which will inevitably put some emotional distance between you, taking vengeance will also bring your aggravation more clearly to the front of your own mind.

In terms of the house-invasion idea, I'm lucky to have never been burgled - although my family's business has broken into a number of times over the years. I can imagine that it feels like a gross violation of one's personal sapce - so much so, that one might think the punishment the law hands out is not sufficient to the emotional trauma done to you. As I say, I've never been in that position, and have no idea of how I would act.


How was vengeance used in these Norse tales? I am not familiar with them.

I'll happily field that one!

One of the main genres of saga literature, the Icelandic Family Sagas (Íslendingasögur) are overwhelmingly concerned with feuds between various Icelandic families - indeed, one can even think of it as a feud-based culture. There's nothing like a long-held and bloody-minded grudge to keep you warm through the long, cold winter nights.

One of the fascinating things about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262) is that it had a very elaborate legal system, but no government or enforcing authority: no kings, no soldiers, no police. This meant that if someone wronged you, you could prosecute them at court; if the court found in your favour, however, it was your responsibility to enact their decision. So if for example someone gave you a mortal insult and this was proven, the court would decree that you could kill that person without yourself being able to be prosecuted for murder.

Of course, in many sagas the characters end up acting outside the bounds of the court, taking unlegislated vengeance against each other: by the end of many of the sagas, there is usually a fairly high body count, not to mention the fact that the original cause of the feud has probably long since been forgotten.


I don't remember O'Donovan's arguments well enough to repeat them here. It seems reasonable to distinguish between defending oneself from personal harm and restoring a state of justice in the world, though. I think it was Nikolai who was talking about forgiveness in another thread. It's reasonable to forgive someone for slapping you on the cheek, but presumptuous to forgive someone for slapping other people on the cheek. We might "forgive" someone's financial debt when he owes us money, but it would be silly to forgive it if he owes someone else money.

Christians might be called upon to martyr themselves -- but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression. IF defending someone from unjust oppression is a moral imperative, then perhaps we should defend ourselves from unjust oppression as readily as we would defend others -- nonetheless the principle would involve a fight against injustice, not for self-preservation.

Whether justice is guaranteed in the long run seems irrelevant. The Christian shouldn't murder people, even though justice for the victim is guaranteed in the long run. Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.

p.s. Didn't Lokasenna start this thread? Isn't he on Pike Bishop's well publicized ignore list? Who is following whom? Also, I think Pike Bishop should be fired from his (imaginary) job as a college professor for promoting smoking via his avatar. We must protect our children!

But isn't allowing the state or one's god to deal with someone who has offended you much the same as forgiving people for doing something to someone else? It's still an act of deferring authority in the long run.

Religious sentiment really does complicate the issue of personal revenge, as you so rightly imply. Do religious and non-religious people operate on radically different concepts of personal morality, I wonder?


For peace of mind, I make it a practice of disengaging with the rude and/or the obtuse.

If we all practised this, poor ol' Pike would have few people to talk to.

[cacian]

is vengeance and revenge the same?
this is opportunity to find out.
i am also looking for the name from vengeance
a vengeor??
it is interesting how vengeor would rhyme with adventure.

[cacian]

Vengeance takes too much time and energy. One may need to defend oneself or others. That is a separate question, but going out of one's way to punish someone else for some past offense does not seem worth the effort.

I saw the recent Furious 7 movie. The bad guy was inspired by vengeance. He got his butt kicked by those defending themselves.

i feel usually vengeance is out of spite then anything else.
it happens even one has not done something against the vengeor
it could be the circumstances are the forces that determine who takes vebegance
for example
consider robin hood
''he stole form the rich and gave to the poor''
that is an act of vengeance inflicted upon the wealthy it sounds almost biblical,
where does one get off blaming someone born into money against someone who has not?
robin hood is at fault because because he stole
he is a thief
and vengeance usually takes even when unprovoked it.
it occurs out of spite if anything else

that is why i consider vengeance the lowest of the low.
worst then a dough that does not rise but throw

[Calidore]

One of the main genres of saga literature, the Icelandic Family Sagas (Íslendingasögur) are overwhelmingly concerned with feuds between various Icelandic families - indeed, one can even think of it as a feud-based culture. There's nothing like a long-held and bloody-minded grudge to keep you warm through the long, cold winter nights.

One of the fascinating things about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262) is that it had a very elaborate legal system, but no government or enforcing authority: no kings, no soldiers, no police. This meant that if someone wronged you, you could prosecute them at court; if the court found in your favour, however, it was your responsibility to enact their decision. So if for example someone gave you a mortal insult and this was proven, the court would decree that you could kill that person without yourself being able to be prosecuted for murder.

Of course, in many sagas the characters end up acting outside the bounds of the court, taking unlegislated vengeance against each other: by the end of many of the sagas, there is usually a fairly high body count, not to mention the fact that the original cause of the feud has probably long since been forgotten.

The intro to a collection of Icelandic sagas I have quotes someone as saying that sagas' plots can all be summed up in four words: Farmers come to blows.


If we all practised this, poor ol' Pike would have few people to talk to.

Ironically, what got me ignored was a single post trying to help with his "peace of mind" after he took someone else's post as harsher than it was intended. That somehow became defending rudeness (double ironic considering how often he scolds others on about reading comprehension) and that was it.

So bounty, don't give bullies power by capitulating. Especially when they're enforcing arbitrary rules generated and locked away in their own heads.

[YesNo]

I don't remember O'Donovan's arguments well enough to repeat them here. It seems reasonable to distinguish between defending oneself from personal harm and restoring a state of justice in the world, though. I think it was Nikolai who was talking about forgiveness in another thread. It's reasonable to forgive someone for slapping you on the cheek, but presumptuous to forgive someone for slapping other people on the cheek. We might "forgive" someone's financial debt when he owes us money, but it would be silly to forgive it if he owes someone else money.

Christians might be called upon to martyr themselves -- but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression. IF defending someone from unjust oppression is a moral imperative, then perhaps we should defend ourselves from unjust oppression as readily as we would defend others -- nonetheless the principle would involve a fight against injustice, not for self-preservation.

Whether justice is guaranteed in the long run seems irrelevant. The Christian shouldn't murder people, even though justice for the victim is guaranteed in the long run. Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.


We probably need to make clear what "vengeance", "justice", "self-defense" and "defense" are. It seems that they could be all the same thing, but I don't think they are.

When I mention defense it is mainly defending a group of people and hopefully oneself as well so the defense of those others in the group can continue, like how the good guys behaved in "Furious 7". I think there is a chemical basis for this (see Young and Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us") that encourages us through chemical rewards and punishments to start and protect pair-bonding societies.

Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.

[YesNo]

i feel usually vengeance is out of spite then anything else.
it happens even one has not done something against the vengeor
it could be the circumstances are the forces that determine who takes vebegance
for example
consider robin hood
''he stole form the rich and gave to the poor''
that is an act of vengeance inflicted upon the wealthy it sounds almost biblical,
where does one get off blaming someone born into money against someone who has not?
robin hood is at fault because because he stole
he is a thief
and vengeance usually takes even when unprovoked it.
it occurs out of spite if anything else

that is why i consider vengeance the lowest of the low.
worst then a dough that does not rise but throw

I have doubts about Robin Hood as well. The vengers or avengers may be deluded as you mentioned. I suspect all avengers believe they are acting out of righteousness and upholding justice.

[YesNo]

One of the main genres of saga literature, the Icelandic Family Sagas (Íslendingasögur) are overwhelmingly concerned with feuds between various Icelandic families - indeed, one can even think of it as a feud-based culture. There's nothing like a long-held and bloody-minded grudge to keep you warm through the long, cold winter nights.

One of the fascinating things about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262) is that it had a very elaborate legal system, but no government or enforcing authority: no kings, no soldiers, no police. This meant that if someone wronged you, you could prosecute them at court; if the court found in your favour, however, it was your responsibility to enact their decision. So if for example someone gave you a mortal insult and this was proven, the court would decree that you could kill that person without yourself being able to be prosecuted for murder.

Of course, in many sagas the characters end up acting outside the bounds of the court, taking unlegislated vengeance against each other: by the end of many of the sagas, there is usually a fairly high body count, not to mention the fact that the original cause of the feud has probably long since been forgotten.

If we had to enact the decisions ourselves, that might lead to more people being forgiven.

[cacian]

We probably need to make clear what "vengeance", "justice", "self-defense" and "defense" are. It seems that they could be all the same thing, but I don't think they are.

When I mention defense it is mainly defending a group of people and hopefully oneself as well so the defense of those others in the group can continue, like how the good guys behaved in "Furious 7". I think there is a chemical basis for this (see Young and Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us") that encourages us through chemical rewards and punishments to start and protect pair-bonding societies.

Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.

self defence is a sport whereas a vengeance is not
the furious 7
goes against
lucky seven/sleven??
even movies dont make sense these they clash bash titles random

perversion is usually in the mind more then the body
because i believe perversion is when there is lack of visual and so the body goes forward for it
because a vengeance is usually physical

[cacian]

I have doubts about Robin Hood as well. The vengers or avengers may be deluded as you mentioned. I suspect all avengers believe they are acting out of righteousness and upholding justice.

interesting you mention justice
ironically justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand is an offence
it goes against its defence

[Pike Bishop]

Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.

As I noted earlier, that goes against the actual definition of vengeance: ""punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." Once you start re-defining the term, everyone in the discussion is free to re-define it--and "justice"--as well. One could say vengeance seems like the highest form of justice, and their definition would be as legitimate as yours since both of you have rejected the actual definition. If you want the discussion to actually be about "vengeance," and not just everybody's subjective imaginings of the word, you need to substantially adhere to the actual definition.


P.s. Although it's clear you loved Furious 7, you can reference other texts as examples...;)

[Pike Bishop]

interesting you mention justice
ironically justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand is an offence
it goes against its defence

Justice does not "believe" anything; it is a concept to which we choose, or choose not to, adhere. And, as I mentioned before, for many people throughout history--including today--vengeance was/is the only available mode of justice. One could not seek out a governing third party for justice for a wrongdoing suffered at the hands of a member of another tribe. And as I mentioned above, there is often no possible third party arbiter providing justice for personal wrongdoings between individuals; vengeance again is one of the only means for justice.

[Pompey Bum]

Don't let the obvious troll bully you out of this conversation!


So bounty, don't give bullies power by capitulating.

Yes, come back Bounty. You're opinion is important to us. Most of us aren't even reading the troll at this point.


If we all practised this, poor ol' Pike would have few people to talk to.

Works for me. Don't feed a troll. Even giving him this much attention is too much, in my opinion. Starve narcissists of attention and they usually seek greener pastures.

So on that note, on with the show:


Perhaps it’s because my usual literary stomping ground, the Old Norse sagas, are so invested in the concept of blood-feud, but I find myself increasingly convinced that taking vengeance for wrongs against oneself is not only a viable thing to do, but actually a moral prerogative. Not only should one take vengeance, but I think it is also a necessary social duty to take it.

Thanks for starting this thread, Lokasenna. I've been reading it for the last few days and giving it some thought. Then in the evenings, I typically subject myself to the Evening News, which, when it is not about puppies being rescued from drainage pipes by children with leukemia, tends to be about the Middle East. Last night I saw a Yemenese man standing in front of a bombed out building with a discreetly positioned (from the Network's point of view) corpse of a child a few paces behind him. The man was yelling emotionally at the camera, addressing the new king of Saudi Arabia, and vowing to take his revenge. It made me wonder if he would be successful, and who would then inherit the "prerogative" of vengeance; and after that, then what?

Then it struck me that a missing component of this conversation has been a consideration of the consequences of acting on vengeful feelings; especially in consideration of escalating cycles of revenge, perhaps in consideration of Gandhi's famous remark about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. And even Gandhi was hardly being just, since the principle of "an eye for an eye" as originally codified in Mesopotamia was itself intended to end cycles of family blood feuding by providing a standard law.

Don't think, by the way, that I am naive about Gandhi--I'm not. But I must say, as a middle aged Man, I have seen in even my short life a bloody cycle in which people who wanted to murder thousands in planes and buildings, motivated by a perceived prerogative for revenge; followed by a war against people who were uninvolved, hugely popular in the beginning due (whatever excuses were contrived at the time) to a perceived prerogative for vengeance for those events; followed by a radical insurgency that is presently murdering religious minorities en mass, beheading hostages with knives on Youtube, burning at least one prisoner of war alive, etc., with the foot soldiers at least motivated by the way Western treatment of Muslims has been portrayed to them; followed by what? Very likely a Shi'ite genocide against Sunni Muslims in response to the current troubles. And that, obviously, is the barest possible schematic; there are many more trajectories of perceived prerogatives for vengeance at play.

So I guess my first question is: how much do we really want to live in 10th century Scandinavia? :) My second question would be something about the greater historical perspective of revanchism and the effects it had in Europe from the Napoleonic era to the Holocaust; but I'm off for a salad with hummus at the moment.

[Pike Bishop]

Now, Pomp Bum is another ignoree. My putting him on my ignore list was neither vengeance nor justice; he just so fit the qualifications of my list I mentioned earlier.

[North Star]

Hammurabi's code was little more than institutionalized vengeance, and as far from justice as possible, e.g. an architect's family could be killed for an error he made.

To quote Hamlet, 'Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping?'

[Pompey Bum]

True, but beside the point. The intention of the code was to end blood feuding that was causing internal weakness in the face of dangerous neighbors. My point was that Gandhi's position lacked historical perspective, not that Hammurabi's laws were humane. In fact, I don't even think I mentioned that law code. It wasn't the only or even the first attempt at a law code in Mesopotamia, contrary to what one often hears.

Also, sorry to bump my post from the last page, but in case anyone else feels like responding:


Don't let the obvious troll bully you out of this conversation!


So bounty, don't give bullies power by capitulating.

Yes, come back Bounty. You're opinion is important to us. Most of us aren't even reading the troll at this point.


If we all practised this, poor ol' Pike would have few people to talk to.

Works for me. Don't feed a troll. Even giving him this much attention is too much, in my opinion. Starve narcissists of attention and they usually seek greener pastures.

So on that note, on with the show:


Perhaps it’s because my usual literary stomping ground, the Old Norse sagas, are so invested in the concept of blood-feud, but I find myself increasingly convinced that taking vengeance for wrongs against oneself is not only a viable thing to do, but actually a moral prerogative. Not only should one take vengeance, but I think it is also a necessary social duty to take it.

Thanks for starting this thread, Lokasenna. I've been reading it for the last few days and giving it some thought. Then in the evenings, I typically subject myself to the Evening News, which, when it is not about puppies being rescued from drainage pipes by children with leukemia, tends to be about the Middle East. Last night I saw a Yemenese man standing in front of a bombed out building with a discreetly positioned (from the Network's point of view) corpse of a child a few paces behind him. The man was yelling emotionally at the camera, addressing the new king of Saudi Arabia, and vowing to take his revenge. It made me wonder if he would be successful, and who would then inherit the "prerogative" of vengeance; and after that, then what?

Then it struck me that a missing component of this conversation has been a consideration of the consequences of acting on vengeful feelings; especially in consideration of escalating cycles of revenge, perhaps in consideration of Gandhi's famous remark about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. And even Gandhi was hardly being just, since the principle of "an eye for an eye" as originally codified in Mesopotamia was itself intended to end cycles of family blood feuding by providing a standard law.

Don't think, by the way, that I am naive about Gandhi--I'm not. But I must say, as a middle aged Man, I have seen in even my short life a bloody cycle in which people who wanted to murder thousands in planes and buildings, motivated by a perceived prerogative for revenge; followed by a war against people who were uninvolved, hugely popular in the beginning due (whatever excuses were contrived at the time) to a perceived prerogative for vengeance for those events; followed by a radical insurgency that is presently murdering religious minorities en mass, beheading hostages with knives on Youtube, burning at least one prisoner of war alive, etc., with the foot soldiers at least motivated by the way Western treatment of Muslims has been portrayed to them; followed by what? Very likely a Shi'ite genocide against Sunni Muslims in response to the current troubles. And that, obviously, is the barest possible schematic; there are many more trajectories of perceived prerogatives for vengeance at play.

So I guess my first question is: how much do we really want to live in 10th century Scandinavia? :) My second question would be something about the greater historical perspective of revanchism and the effects it had in Europe from the Napoleonic era to the Holocaust; but I'm off for a salad with hummus at the moment.

[cacian]

Justice does not "believe" anything; it is a concept to which we choose, or choose not to, adhere. And, as I mentioned before, for many people throughout history--including today--vengeance was/is the only available mode of justice. One could not seek out a governing third party for justice for a wrongdoing suffered at the hands of a member of another tribe. And as I mentioned above, there is often no possible third party arbiter providing justice for personal wrongdoings between individuals; vengeance again is one of the only means for justice.

do youmean to say
there is no justice
it does not exist which in this case i agree
the law is a way to make money
it is not interested in what people are or what they have to say
it is evident to me
can i ask who that is in your avatar picture?

[Pike Bishop]

do youmean to say
there is no justice
it does not exist which in this case i agree
the law is a way to make money
it is not interested in what people are or what they have to say
it is evident to me
can i ask who that is in your avatar picture?
"
No, I meant to say exactly what I said: "Justice does not "believe" anything; it is a concept to which we choose, or choose not to, adhere"...which is true. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means it only materially exists if people bring it into material reality and adhere to it enough to maintain its existence.

As to my avatar picture, it is a picture of Paul Auster, one of the best American Postmodern novelists--and best American novelists--of the last 50 years...as well as one of the best English translators of Mallarme.

[cacian]

"
No, I meant to say exactly what I said: "Justice does not "believe" anything; it is a concept to which we choose, or choose not to, adhere"...which is true. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means it only materially exists if people bring it into material reality and adhere to it enough to maintain its existence.

As to my avatar picture, it is a picture of Paul Auster, one of the best American Postmodern novelists--and best American novelists--of the last 50 years...as well as one of the best English translators of Mallarme.

I am not read of him but he does look interesting.
do you have a favourite story of him?

[Pike Bishop]

His greatest novel, New York Trilogy, is a brilliant intermingling of three novellas/short stories into one central text. If you want to try something a bit less challenging, his linear novel The Music of Chance is also brilliant. It is not quite the masterpiece New York Trilogy is, but is an elegantly written and crafted book.

[Iain Sparrow]

As to my avatar picture, it is a picture of Paul Auster, one of the best American Postmodern novelists--and best American novelists--of the last 50 years...as well as one of the best English translators of Mallarme.

Best American novelists of the last 50 years?.. I enjoyed Moon Palace, but that was about it. The other book I read of his, forget the title, and a short story in either the Atlantic or perhaps The New Yorker was so emo I had to suppress my gag reflex.

[Pike Bishop]

Auster is definitely one of the best American novelists of the last 50 years. The New York Trilogy, The Music of Chance, In the Country of Last Things, The Book of Illusions, Oracle Night, The Brooklyn Follies, and even the lesser Moon Palace are all brilliant. Leviathan and Mr. Vertigo were solid novels as well. Judging him on the small sample you had is like condemning James for The Princess Casamassima, Faulkner for The Reivers and Soldier's Pay, and Melville for Mardi.

You clearly have a clear idea of what constitutes the best American novelists of the last 50 years. So, what are your standards in determining who those authors are, and who do you think meets those qualifications and why? I hope you based those evaluations on more than one book and one short story you so eloquently deemed "emo"...;)

[bounty]

everyone---I appreciate your encouragement and invitation back, thank you...


from ecurb: In certain cultures, vengeance can be seen the same way. It's a moral duty, restorative of justice and honor, rather than a personal vendetta.

this is making me think of when a woman's "honor" has somehow been violated and the menfolk practice some personal justice on the perpetrator---especially as civil and criminal law doesn't touch on the issue.


from ecurb: ...but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression....Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.

I think this has an appeal to it, but I also know within Christian circles there are varied responses to the thought of physical confrontation (whether it be institutionalized war, or personal defense). the pacifistic religions come to mind--the quakers, Mennonites, church of the brethren, the amish.

im reminded of Gandhi who I believe was influenced by Christ in his nonviolent/passive (and successful) resistance of british oppression in india.

yet at the same time, there is this little story thats illustrative of the dual nature I think we have warring in us. there's a man who breaks into a quaker's house, bent on robbing it. he enters the kitchen and sees the quaker homeowner standing there with a rifle pointed at him and he says, "mister, I wouldn't harm thee for the world, but you happen to be standing right where im about to shoot my gun."

how all that is reconciled with "pray for those who persecute you" is a toughie!


from lokasenna: Taking personal vengeance may very well be just, but once taken I would imagine it can be harder to move to a position of forgiveness

I think that's insightful. the very act of forgiveness means you are giving up your "right" to inflict harm on the other person for the harm he has caused you. I can see it being really difficult to whup someone and then say right at the end, "okay, now I forgive you."


from YesNo: Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.

I think lokasenna has some insight into that when he says its a refusal to defer to authority.


from cacian: justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand

yes, you can indeed speak in a personification like that.


from pompey: especially in consideration of escalating cycles of revenge

I think this is especially true at the individual level. one wonders, short of being killed, how often the other person would say, "well, he certainly showed me what's what, I got what I deserved and I guess we'll be leaving it at that."


from pompey: I have seen in even my short life a bloody cycle in which people who wanted to murder thousands in planes and buildings, motivated by a perceived prerogative for revenge...(and then you gave a short version of subsequent events)

this one is a whole lot tougher I think---we might have to propose an alternate universe where we have to answer the question, what might have been the better response as opposed to "followed by a war against people who were uninvolved, hugely popular in the beginning due...to a perceived prerogative for vengeance for those events...?"

which makes me think this though too---is there such a thing as institutional vengeance at the nation state level?

[Pike Bishop]

From Cacian: "justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand."


yes, you can indeed speak in a personification like that.

You can speak in a personification about an abstract concept all you like, that doesn't change the fact "justice" is still an abstract concept which humans successfully or unsuccessfully bring into material reality. So, "justice" still doesn't believe in anything, and since nothing about the definition of "justice" inherently precludes vengeance, justice does not inherently reject vengeance and/or taking the law in one's own hand.

[North Star]

A better response would have been to hunt down those people actually responsible for the attack.

The Lillehammer affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair), and the whole Israel response to the Munich massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre#Aftermath) is another good example of vengeance leading to plain injustice.


In a February 2006 interview, former Mossad chief Zvi Zamir answered direct questions:

Was there no element of vengeance in the decision to take action against the terrorists?
"No. We were not engaged in vengeance. We are accused of having been guided by a desire for vengeance. That is nonsense. What we did was to concretely prevent in the future. We acted against those who thought that they would continue to perpetrate acts of terror. I am not saying that those who were involved in Munich were not marked for death. They definitely deserved to die. But we were not dealing with the past; we concentrated on the future."
Did you not receive a directive from Golda Meir along the lines of 'take revenge on those responsible for Munich?
"Golda abhorred the necessity that was imposed on us to carry out the operations. Golda never told me to 'take revenge on those who were responsible for Munich.' No one told me that."

The Israeli mission later became known as Operation Wrath of God or Mivtza Za'am Ha'El. Reeve quotes General Aharon Yariv—who, he writes, was the general overseer of the operation—as stating that after Munich the Israeli government felt it had no alternative but to exact justice.

We had no choice. We had to make them stop, and there was no other way ... we are not very proud about it. But it was a question of sheer necessity. We went back to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye ... I approach these problems not from a moral point of view, but, hard as it may sound, from a cost-benefit point of view. If I'm very hard-headed, I can say, what is the political benefit in killing this person? Will it bring us nearer to peace? Will it bring us nearer to an understanding with the Palestinians or not? In most cases I don't think it will. But in the case of Black September we had no other choice and it worked. Is it morally acceptable? One can debate that question. Is it politically vital? It was.

[Pike Bishop]

Nobody's denying vengeance can't go wrong; it can. And hunting down those who initiated the Munich attack would have been vengeance, and justice, as well. I've only correctly claimed that much of what we consider justice does have an aspect of vengeance to it. Also, as I've said in my earlier posts, past and present tribal cultures--in all continents--only had, and some still only have, vengeance as a means of justice. When a member of one Plains Indian tribe killed a member of another one, there was no third-party governing body to administer justice. The members of the aggrieved tribe only had vengeance as a venue for justice.

This also, as I've noted earlier, applies to justice in personal relations as well. There are few governing "bodies" ready and able to administer justice to address a wrong between two people. It usually has to come from the aggrieved party his or herself. That doesn't always require vengeance, but savvy, thoughtful vengeance in these cases can bring justice without extensive damage to either side.

[Pompey Bum]

@North: I agree, although the modern state of Israel is hardly a model for overcoming spiraling cycles of retribution.

@Bounty: Thanks for coming back. I encourage you to continue ignoring rudeness and to enjoy talking here among friends. :)

I don't really buy the presumption that the human need for revenge is categorically different from what nation states or even terrorists organization do with it. I wonder if we can agree that the hunger for vengeance is a natural to the human condition (whether we actually take revenge or not). Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way. For me that is the real issue.

[Pike Bishop]

10 Best Vengeance Scenes in Film:

1. Carrie: The prom scene
2. The Godfather: The baptism scene
3. Inglorious Basterds: The screening scene
4. Hard Candy: The roof scene
5. Unforgiven: The parlor scene
6. Pulp Fiction: The basement scene
7. Kill Bill 2: The trailer battle with Elle Driver
8. The Virgin Spring: The scene where the rejuvenating spring appears
9. Enter the Dragon: The mirror room scene where Bruce avenges his sister
10. John Wick: The final scene where John avenges his dog

[Pike Bishop]

10 Best Vengeance Scenes in Literature and High-End Fiction:

1. Macbeth: Where Macduff reveals he wasn't "of woman-born"...before he ices Macbeth.
2. Hamlet: Where Hamlet--finally--kills Claudius when he realizes he's out of time
3. Julius Caesar: Where Marc Antony delivers his brilliant funeral elegy sealing Brutus' and Cassius' fate
4. Titus Andronicus: Where Titus serves Tamora that special pie
5. The Libation Bearers: Where Orestes asks his existential query before dispatching his father's killer
6. The Golden Bowl: Where Densher realizes Milly has left him all her money, leaving him eternally guilt-ridden
7. The Cask of Amontillado: The cellar scene where Montresor proves to Fortunato he's no chump
8. A Storm of Swords: Where The Red Viper lethally poisons the Mountain--and crows about it--before his own brutal demise
9. The Secret Agent: Where the previously timid Mrs. Verloc repays her husband for his misuse of her brother
10. Dolores Claiborne: Where Dolores "repays" her husband for his years of violent abuse

[YesNo]

I don't really buy the presumption that the human need for revenge is categorically different from what nation states or even terrorists organization do with it. I wonder if we can agree that the hunger for vengeance is a natural to the human condition (whether we actually take revenge or not). Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way. For me that is the real issue.

Revenge might be part of our biology that encourages pair-bonding and defense of the groups we belong to. Unfortunately, we also can use our rationality to justify cruelty and violence which goes beyond what is necessary for defense.

One can become "defenseless" by taking some distance from what one feels the need to defend to ask if the defense is really in everyone's best interest. Some of the things we defend that are not worth defending as strongly as we might feel the need are our opinions or our "honor", whatever that is.

[Pike Bishop]

Pompey Bum: "Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way."

First of all, this statement about human nature is dichotomous. If humans have the inherent ability to move away from a behavior/predilection, then "turning away" from it is as much of a "default value" as that predilection itself. So, neither activity stands "higher" than the other as far as primal predilections go.

Secondly, the statement is extremely culturally biased. As I noted earlier past and present tribal cultures have had no other means to attain justice for actions committed by members of opposing tribes than vengeance. So Pompey's claim--as quoted above by YesNo--inaccurately and condescendingly judges the use of vengeance necessary to those tribes as a "lower," "default" behavior, as opposed to the "higher" modes of justice available to more "civilized" cultures.

[bounty]

from northstar: A better response would have been to hunt down those people actually responsible for the attack.

The Lillehammer affair, and the whole Israel response to the Munich massacre is another good example of vengeance leading to plain injustice.


some years ago I read one day in September, by simon reeve, which is all about that. its an interesting, yet sad read to say the least.

northstar, when you say "people actually responsible for the attack"---are you thinking of the masterminds (so to speak) who weren't necessarily in munich?

when you write "leading to plain injustice", are you meaning the innocent people who were mistakingly killed in Norway? what a horrible thing, can you imagine.


from pompey: I wonder if we can agree that the hunger for vengeance is a natural to the human condition (whether we actually take revenge or not).

oh I absolutely buy into that...


Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way. For me that is the real issue.

I agree...and for me, in part, that leads me to question whether or not I should be receiving vicarious pleasure from, or even reading, books (or watching movies) where vengeance is a prominent characteristic. I mentioned earlier, I still would cheer Beatrix kiddo and William Wallace---and jack reacher, and mitch rapp and practically every protagonist in zane grey (the grand daddy of western literature, that's right, literature) books.

it makes for good reading and viewing...but one wonders if theres a cost, and what cost, associated with it...


from YesNo: Unfortunately, we also can use our rationality to justify cruelty and violence which goes beyond what is necessary for defense.

I agree...I think one of our single greatest talents is self-justification...

[YesNo]

Pompey Bum: "Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way."

First of all, this statement about human nature is dichotomous. If humans have the inherent ability to move away from a behavior/predilection, then "turning away" from it is as much of a "default value" as that predilection itself. So, neither activity stands "higher" than the other as far as primal predilections go.

Secondly, the statement is extremely culturally biased. As I noted earlier past and present tribal cultures have had no other means to attain justice for actions committed by members of opposing tribes than vengeance. So Pompey's claim--as quoted above by YesNo--inaccurately and condescendingly judges the use of vengeance necessary to those tribes as a "lower," "default" behavior, as opposed to the "higher" modes of justice available to more "civilized" cultures.

The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation. Taking the path of vengeance leads to unhappiness, suffering and cycles of blame. That would be enough to make it lower.

Having alternatives also imply that we can make choices.

[Pike Bishop]

The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation. Taking the path of vengeance leads to unhappiness, suffering and cycles of blame. That would be enough to make it lower.

Having alternatives also imply that we can make choices.

You may think you can make that valuation for everyone, but you can't and have yet to prove otherwise. Not everybody shares your values or life experience. Vengeance doesn't always lead to unhappiness, suffering, and cycles of blame. Vengeance, in many of its forms, often leads to catharsis, gratification, expurgation, happiness, and peace of mind. I expounded on this in my post earlier in the thread:

"It's not that Manichean. Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.

This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater."

So, historically, many people have successfully resorted--and do successfully resort--to vengeance to attain justice and were/are happy with the result. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?

[YesNo]

You may think you can make that valuation for everyone, but you can't and have yet to prove otherwise. Not everybody shares your values or life experience. Vengeance doesn't always lead to unhappiness, suffering, and cycles of blame. Vengeance, in many of its forms, often leads to catharsis, gratification, expurgation, happiness, and peace of mind.

Whether other people share my view or not is irrelevant. Others are welcome to try to convince me that I'm wrong, but so far I have not been convinced.

[Pike Bishop]

Whether other people share my view or not is irrelevant. Others are welcome to try to convince me that I'm wrong, but so far I have not been convinced.
Of course its relevant, unless you actually think your view trumps everyone else's. You claimed: "The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation"

Well, billions of people throughout history have happily resorted--and happily resort--to vengeance for justice with no negative results. So, hey clearly did what you said and made the valuation vengeance is not "lower;" so, you're in no position to tell them they're wrong. And while I had no intention of "convincing" anyone, and its clear your mind is made up, I have made quite a compelling argument for the legitimacy of vengeance as justice. You have yet to effectively counter that argument in any way.

[Delta40]

The need for vengeance is emotional and an event can be so easily medicalized rather than justified through the courts for example. How do we reconcile that? Is it possible that while the need for vengeance may be more emotional than rational and we tend to say 'No thanks, we're British' it doesn't detract from the fact that emotionality still needs validating? Society has created an elaborate health system to deal with this aspect containing psychologists and psychiatrists. (in a structured rational way of course) not to mention prescribed medications to help us with mood swings etc. I'm not confident that the justice system is capable of addressing the emotional need when it has the potential to manifest into a major health issue. Admittedly I haven't thought any further at this point because it's early in the am.... :-)

[Pike Bishop]

The need for vengeance is emotional and an event can be so easily medicalized rather than justified through the courts for example. How do we reconcile that? Is it possible that while the need for vengeance may be more emotional than rational and we tend to say 'No thanks, we're British' it doesn't detract from the fact that emotionality still needs validating? Society has created an elaborate health system to deal with this aspect containing psychologists and psychiatrists. (in a structured rational way of course) not to mention prescribed medications to help us with mood swings etc. I'm not confident that the justice system is capable of addressing the emotional need when it has the potential to manifest into a major health issue. Admittedly I haven't thought any further at this point because it's early in the am.... :-)

As to vengeance inherently being more emotional than rational, I've already addressed that misconception in one of my earlier posts:

"It's not that Manichean. Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.

This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater. You, yourself obviously still believe in such personal vengeance, as you are still invested in punishing retaliation for those who bore witness against you."

As to our court systems taking into account the emotional need for vengeance in its sentencing, that would be a bad idea. The court is already exacting institutional--and granting some degree of personal--vengeance when it hands down sentences beyond the actual need for rehabilitation...as it should. However, sentencing emotionally to satisfy the victim's relatives' emotional needs opens up our sentencing process to innocent people being convicted and excessive sentences, including the death penalty. The justice system is definitely not an appropriate milieu for emotional vengeance.

[YesNo]

Of course its relevant, unless you actually think your view trumps everyone else's. You claimed: "The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation"

My position does trump everyone else's as my position, the one that I accept. And I think my position is correct, but I am willing to listen to an argument against it. You are welcome to have your own position.



Well, billions of people throughout history have happily resorted--and happily resort--to vengeance for justice with no negative results. So, hey clearly did what you said and made the valuation vengeance is not "lower;" so, you're in no position to tell them they're wrong. And while I had no intention of "convincing" anyone, and its clear your mind is made up, I have made quite a compelling argument for the legitimacy of vengeance as justice. You have yet to effectively counter that argument in any way.

At the moment I don't see any empirical data for either your assumption that vengeance leads to happiness or my assumption that it does not, so I will stick with my own position.

As far as being in a position to tell others they are wrong, all I am doing is stating my opinion, just as you are stating your opinion. I am in a position to do that just as you are in a position to state your view.

I mentioned before, you have not convinced me. That means you have not made a compelling argument from my perspective. I acknowledge that I have not convinced you, but I am actually more interested in convincing myself that I am on the right track. I do appreciate your responses. They help me clarify my position.

[Pike Bishop]

At the moment I don't see any empirical data for either your assumption that vengeance leads to happiness or my assumption that it does not, so I will stick with my own position.


If you're sticking to your position despite admitting you have provided no empirical evidence to support it, you can't criticize my position for my having yet to do so either. However, if you want to read about people who were happy and satisfied with vengeance, read about survivors of the Holocaust who attended the Nuremberg Trials and supported the executions of Nazi War criminals. They were perfectly happy with that vengeance.

[Delta40]

If you're sticking to your position despite admitting you have provided no empirical evidence to support it, you can't criticize my position for my having yet to do so either. However, if you want to read about people who were happy and satisfied with vengeance, read about survivors of the Holocaust who attended the Nuremberg Trials and supported the executions of Nazi War criminals. They were perfectly happy with that vengeance.

And their subsequent generations have no cause or case to argue at all because as you know they grew up happy since everybody just went about their business thanks to the great healing power of Justice being done.

I'm not advocating retaliation so much as questioning the capacity of justice to replace another need or resolve something entirely and the complications that arise from that.

[Pike Bishop]

And their subsequent generations have no cause or case to argue at all because as you know they grew up happy since everybody just went about their business thanks to the great healing power of Justice being done.

I'm saying this respectfully: your first sentence is a barely coherent run-on. If you want others to understand you, you need to watch your grammar a bit. However, if you're implying the descendants of the holocaust survivors are relevant to my point, they're not. The Holocaust survivors legitimately wanted vengeance against the Nazi Holocaust architects, along with their justice for what those men did. They were almost all advocating for vengeance by execution. And when they got that vengeance, they almost all expressed cathartic satisfaction with it. Anyone who would have told them they were wrong for doing so would have been immensely callous and inappropriate.

[Delta40]

Pardon my grammar. I probably needed to phrase that more as a question. I do see your point obviously and what an example to use but if one opposes the death penalty they must be consistent. For me, this is the best society can do, mete out death through the justice system but lets not fool ourselves into thinking this means happy ever after endings. The descendants are relevant because they carry the legacy forward having been shaped by the victims themselves. Take a look at the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. I don't believe justice is a fixer. It doesn't remove PTSD, bitterness, hatred - all things which descendants may have to shoulder and pass along to the next generation. That is very relevant.

[Pike Bishop]

The descendants are relevant because they carry the legacy forward having been shaped by the victims themselves. Take a look at the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. I don't believe justice is a fixer. It doesn't remove PTSD, bitterness, hatred - all things which descendants may have to shoulder and pass along to the next generation. That is very relevant.

The descendants are not relevant to the issue of whether the Holocaust survivors were happy and satisfied with their vengeance; that was the topic of discussion. However, your actually having the gall to actually blame the Israel/Palestine conflict and future suffering of their descendants on that justified vengeance is both inexcusable and wrong. I say that as both a Jew and a human being.

You have no idea of the degree of horrific suffering and loss that the survivors of the Holocaust went through. So, for you to sit there and judge their righteous and deserved vengeance, and make horrid speculations on its consequences, is really awful. I hope you never encounter an actual Holocaust survivor and/or one of their descendants and say such terrible things to their faces.

[Dreamwoven]

There is a Second Generation website for any interested: http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/2ndGen_Holocaust.htm. In a sense I agree with you both, Pike, and Delta. Vengeance does not help, nor does it help the children of holocaust victims, all it does is transfer the sense of needing vengeance to the next generation. This is the way feuds start and continue down the generations.

[Pike Bishop]

There is a Second Generation website for any interested: http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/2ndGen_Holocaust.htm. In a sense I agree with you both, Pike, and Delta. Vengeance does not help, nor does it help the children of holocaust victims, all it does is transfer the sense of needing vengeance to the next generation. This is the way feuds start and continue down the generations.

I'm sorry, Dreamwoven, nothing you said above shows you agree with me at all. And if you, too, are going to inexcusably and irrationally blame holocaust survivors for the Israel/Palestine conflict and other future suffering because they supported righteous vengeance against their Nazi tormentors who killed their loved ones, you should be ashamed of yourself, as well. That is simply reprehensible. You are in no position, ethically or experientially, to negatively judge their deserved and cathartic vengeance.

And I checked your link. Not only is it not an official historical site; it has no accounts whatsoever of the Nuremberg trials, its executions, and its affects. You can't just throw any link out there; you need to attach one that supports your position. Considering how horrible yours is towards those Holocaust survivors; you will find it hard to find one.

[Dreamwoven]

I said in a sense I agree with you both. I can see both points of view. That is why I have not joined this debate on one side or the other.

[Delta40]

You chose the holocaust as an example. How dare you use your descendency as a passport to accuse me of things you have no knowledge about? I suggest you stick to the points of the discussion and use another example.

[YesNo]

If you're sticking to your position despite admitting you have provided no empirical evidence to support it, you can't criticize my position for my having yet to do so either. However, if you want to read about people who were happy and satisfied with vengeance, read about survivors of the Holocaust who attended the Nuremberg Trials and supported the executions of Nazi War criminals. They were perfectly happy with that vengeance.

How do you know they were happy, let alone "perfectly" happy?

[Pike Bishop]

You chose the holocaust as an example. How dare you use your descendency as a passport to accuse me of things you have no knowledge about? I suggest you stick to the points of the discussion and use another example.

I didn't claim "descendancy" nor did I "use it as a passport." And the one without knowledge is you; that's why you reprehensibly blamed holocaust victims' righteous vengeance against Nazi mass murderers for the Israel-Palestine conflict and other ills:

"The descendants are relevant because they carry the legacy forward having been shaped by the victims themselves. Take a look at the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. I don't believe justice is a fixer. It doesn't remove PTSD, bitterness, hatred - all things which descendants may have to shoulder and pass along to the next generation."

Not only is this erroneous placing of blame terrible, it is completely unsupported by any facts at all. If you are going to inappropriately--and, to many, offensively--blame victims' righteous vengeance for things entirely unconnected to it, you need to back it up. You have yet to do so.

[Pike Bishop]

How do you know they were happy, let alone "perfectly" happy?
How do you know they or anyone who participated in vengeance was unhappy? You certainly haven't provided any support for your claims. As to the Israeli Holocaust survivors, I read many of their stated desire for the executions and many of their statements of relief and gratification after they were carried out

Nobody can know for sure if anybody was entirely unhappy or happy with their vengeance. If we need to do so to make either claim, the whole discussion is pointless.

[Poetaster]

For vengeance, isn't there always the danger that a a series of grievances becomes a cycle of violence? In moments like that I think Aeschylus's Oresteia is still a powerful lesson of the benefits of cool, honest, and fair justice. Now you don't always have that - but it is surely an ideal we should aim for. There are times for intimidation, but ultimately we must be 'civilized'.

[Pike Bishop]

I have answered your first question many times, and vengeance is not always violent, by the way. So, I will answer your question again:

"Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.

This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater."

So, civilization and justice actually often depend on vengeance. Also, to use the Oresteia as an argument against vengeance itself is like using Macbeth as an argument against listening to your wife. It's both extremely anecdotal and illogical. And to actually compare those seeking righteous vengeance, like the Israeli Holocaust survivors, to Clytemnestra, Elektra, and Orestes is just plain wrong.

[Poetaster]

And to actually compare those seeking righteous vengeance, like the Israeli Holocaust survivors, to Clytemnestra, Elektra, and Orestes is just plain wrong.

I don't feel like I've done that. I wasn't addressing any point or post, I was just dumping my thoughts (yes, I am the kind of ******* who responds to threads without reading them in full).

Violence certainly does have it's place - but how long can you make someone suffer for their crimes? Remember that Myrtilus placed a curse on Pelops, initiating the cycle of violence that lead to the action of those plays. The resolution of The Oresteia is the ideal, a celebration of civilized justice and the satisfaction of both sides against unchecked violence.

Say if all nations on earth launched their nuclear weapons, using 'vengeance' as justification, and that meant the end of the human race - well, maybe that would mean we were not good enough for this planet. If forgiveness can save life on this planet though, however much it deserves to be there, I'm going to ultimately advocate it.

[Delta40]

I don't have to back anything up. You introduced the word blame in your text to grant yourself permission to accuse me. Please stop drawing preposterous conclusions just because you chose the holocaust as an example for the purpose of this discussion. I'm perfectly happy not discussing it so move on will you?

[Pike Bishop]

I don't feel like I've done that. I wasn't addressing any point or post, I was just dumping my thoughts (yes, I am the kind of ******* who responds to threads without reading them in full).

Violence certainly does have it's place - but how long can you make someone suffer for their crimes? Remember that Myrtilus placed a curse on Pelops, initiating the cycle of violence that lead to the action of those plays. The resolution of The Oresteia is the ideal, a celebration of civilized justice and the satisfaction of both sides against unchecked violence.

Say if all nations on earth launched their nuclear weapons, using 'vengeance' as justification, and that meant the end of the human race - well, maybe that would mean we were not good enough for this planet. If forgiveness can save life on this planet though, however much it deserves to be there, I'm going to ultimately advocate it.

You clearly didn't read my post; so, I politely ask that you do so before misrepresenting my arguments. I never said vengeance was always violent, I never defended violence per se, and I never said vengeance should be protracted. So, your arguing as if I did is just posting irrelevant, inaccurate straw men. And the Oresteia is hardly the ideal of vengeance for the rest of the world; that is an erroneous claim you need to back up. It was a tragedy, which means its heroes had tragic flaws and made significant errors; so, their actions weren't even ideals for Aeschylus.

And using your extreme nuclear war scenario to negate the legitimacy of all vengeance is as absurd as using the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify all torture. Finally, now that you do know that the vengeance of the Holocaust survivors is part of the discourse, you are comparing their vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and Nuclear War. That is reprehensible, and you really should consider the ramifications of your statements.

[Pike Bishop]

I don't have to back anything up. You introduced the word blame in your text to grant yourself permission to accuse me. Please stop drawing preposterous conclusions just because you chose the holocaust as an example for the purpose of this discussion. I'm perfectly happy not discussing it so move on will you?

The only one who made preposterous claims was you. And you do have to back up your offensive claims blaming Holocaust victims vengeance against Nazis for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if you want to support them as true. However, since they are not true, you clearly can't do so. So, your making those claims against those Holocaust victims is truly sad. And I introduced nothing to correctly "accuse" you; I didn't need to. Your claims were ridiculous and callous, and I just correctly pointed out they were.

As to the discussion being over, I'm fine with that. We can move on.

[Poetaster]

You clearly didn't read my post; so, I politely ask that you do so before misrepresenting my arguments. I never said vengeance was always violent, I never defended violence per se, and I never said vengeance should be protracted. So, your arguing as if I did is just posting irrelevant, inaccurate straw men.

I'm not talking about non-violent vengeance, only violent vengeance, since the original poster mentioned the Icelandic sagas. If I didn't make that clear with my first post then I apologize.

I feel the need to stress: I'm not a part of whatever conversation you are having. Since we are coming in on different beats, we aren't likely to have a very meaningful conversation. I suggest we stop things here, or we'll end up with Miltonic fire.


And the Oresteia is hardly the ideal of vengeance for the rest of the world; that is an erroneous claim you need to back up.

That's why I mentioned cycles of violence, and nuclear weapons. It's basically saying 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'. I know it is on me to prove what I said, but can you think of a place where adapting that attitude would not make good moral sense?


It was a tragedy, which means its heroes had tragic flaws and made significant errors; so, their actions weren't even ideals for Aeschylus.

Yes, I've read Aristotle's Poetics too. Unless you can prove he was documenting the Athenian philosophy of composition, I'm going to continue assuming he was only recording his own thoughts on what makes good literature. As well-thought out as they might be, it's unlikely everyone agreed with him. Especially Aeschylus, who died before Aristotle was born.


And using your extreme nuclear war scenario to negate the legitimacy of all vengeance is as absurd as using the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify all torture.

I'm pretty sure I didn't 'negate the legitimacy of all vengeance'. In fact, I'm pretty sure I did the exact opposite of that.


Finally, now that you do know that the vengeance of the Holocaust survivors is part of the discourse, you are comparing their vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and Nuclear War. That is reprehensible, and you really should consider the ramifications of your statements.

What is reprehensible about saying the Jewish people can only take so much vengeance for crimes committed against them? This feels like an argument from emotion. Personally, since I am only talking about violence and not whatever you have been talking about, I'm as glad Israel isn't sending terrorists to Germany for 'pay back' as I am glad that camp guards are still being tried in courts of law. At some point, you have to stop.

If that makes me reprehensible in your eyes then I can live with that. That is only how you see it after all, and I don't feel I need to be bound to any code of ethics other than my own.

We are not on the same beat, and so aren't having a very fruitful discussion.

[Pike Bishop]

I feel the need to stress: I'm not a part of whatever conversation you are having. Since we are coming in on different beats, we aren't likely to have a very meaningful conversation. I suggest we stop things here, or we'll end up with Miltonic fire.

That's why I mentioned cycles of violence, and nuclear weapons. It's basically saying 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'. I know it is on me to prove what I said, but can you think of a place where adapting that attitude would not make good moral sense?

Yes, I've read Aristotle's Poetics too. Unless you can prove he was documenting the Athenian philosophy of composition, I'm going to continue assuming he was only recording his own thoughts on what makes good literature. As well-thought out as they might be, it's unlikely everyone agreed with him. Especially Aeschylus, who died before Aristotle was born.

I'm pretty sure I didn't 'negate the legitimacy of all vengeance'. In fact, I'm pretty sure I did the exact opposite of that.

What is reprehensible about saying the Jewish people can only take so much vengeance for crimes committed against them? This feels like an argument from emotion. Personally, since I am only talking about violence and not whatever you have been talking about, I'm as glad Israel isn't sending terrorists to Germany for 'pay back' as I am glad that camp guards are still being tried in courts of law. At some point, you have to stop.

If that makes me reprehensible in your eyes then I can live with that. That is only how you see it after all, and I don't feel I need to be bound to any code of ethics other than my own.

We are not on the same beat, and so aren't having a very fruitful discussion.


1. Firstly, if you want to end a discussion, the appropriate thing to do is stop continuing it; otherwise, you're just jockeying for the last word. I am, however, fine with ending the discussion.

2. As far as the cycle of violence; I am against it, as well. However, not all vengeance leads to a cycle of violence, and many other forms of justice do.

3. Aeschylus being born before Aristotle does not, in any way, make the Oresteia any less of a tragedy, nor does it make the actions of its "heroes" any less tragic or misbegotten. So, their actions were a perfect example of tragically bad vengeance, not a substantial indictment against vengeance itself.

4. And you absolutely negated the legitimacy of all vengeance with your poorly-chosen nuclear war and Oresteia examples. They directly implied that vengeance is inherently damaging and will lead to the world's destruction. You can't negate legitimacy any more than that.

5. Again, you misread my posts. I never said anything about all acts of vengeance by the Jewish people. So, your erroneously saying I did is an inaccurate, misleading strawman. I only addressed the specific righteous vengeance of Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis. So, what I correctly found reprehensible about your argument was your comparing that vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and in Nuclear War. That was reprehensible. Also, since I was only talking about Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis, everything you said about Israel's later actions was irrelevant to my argument.

Finally, we agree we're not on "the same beat," so there is no point in our continuing our discussion.

[Poetaster]

1. Firstly, if you want to end a discussion, the appropriate thing to do is stop continuing it; otherwise, you're just jockeying for the last word. I am, however, fine with ending the discussion.

This honestly isn't how I think. I'm only interested in truth, and couldn't care less about having 'the last word'. I was merely pointing out that a Miltonic fire is pointless setting.


2. As far as the cycle of violence; I am against it, as well. However, not all vengeance leads to a cycle of violence, and many other forms of justice do.

Then it seems from this we don't disagree.


3. Aeschylus being born before Aristotle does not, in any way, make the Oresteia any less of a tragedy

I never said it was - frankly, here is where I must ask you to reread my post. Aristotle has his formula for what he considered a good tragedy, but however skilfully he formulated it, it's still merely his opinion. It was not the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composition that all writers followed, and I have no interest in molding Aeschylus onto Aristotle's ideas just to agree with him. Unless you can prove Aristotle was recording the Athenian philosophy of composition, and not his own ideas?


nor does it make the actions of its "heroes" any less tragic or misbegotten. So, their actions were a perfect example of tragically bad vengeance, not a substantial indictment against vengeance itself.

This is why we have The Eumenides. Without Athene stepping in to calm the Furies and organize the court, with the people of Athens acting as jury, the entire Oresteia is pointless. That, I dare say, is the point.


4. And you absolutely negated the legitimacy of all vengeance with your poorly-chosen nuclear war and Oresteia examples. They directly implied that vengeance is inherently damaging and will lead to the world's destruction. You can't negate legitimacy any more than that.

Violent vengeance. Legal vengeance has the power to do more than cause more blood shed and misery - which is why I was talking about cycles of violence.


5. Again, you misread my posts. I never said anything about all acts of vengeance by the Jewish people. So, your erroneously saying I did is an inaccurate, misleading strawman. I only addressed the specific righteous vengeance of Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis. So, what I correctly found reprehensible about your argument was your comparing that vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and in Nuclear War. That was reprehensible.

If that's the case, you are finding a statement reprehensible despite the fact it was never made. This, too, is an example of a strawman. I've already said twice it isn't what I said, so if you want to continue taking offence then ... knock yourself out.


Also, since I was only talking about Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis, everything you said about Israel's later actions was irrelevant to my argument.

It is. But not irrelevant to what I was saying, which is more evidence than I need for thinking we are having two completely different conversations. For the record, I couldn't give a rat's *** if some holocaust survivors are taking personal pleasure in seeing justice done and war criminals hung. I'm happy for them in fact.


Finally, we agree we're not on "the same beat," so there is no point in our continuing our discussion.

Literally all I'm interested in now is if you can prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas.

[Pike Bishop]

This honestly isn't how I think. I'm only interested in truth, and couldn't care less about having 'the last word'. I was merely pointing out that a Miltonic fire is pointless setting.

I never said it was - frankly, here is where I must ask you to reread my post. Aristotle has his formula for what he considered a good tragedy, but however skilfully he formulated it, it's still merely his opinion. It was not the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composition that all writers followed, and I have no interest in molding Aeschylus onto Aristotle's ideas just to agree with him. Unless you can prove Aristotle was recording the Athenian philosophy of composition, and not his own ideas?

This is why we have The Eumenides. Without Athene stepping in to calm the Furies and organize the court, with the people of Athens acting as jury, the entire Oresteia is pointless. That, I dare say, is the point.

Violent vengeance. Legal vengeance has the power to do more than cause more blood shed and misery - which is why I was talking about cycles of violence.
If that's the case, you are finding a statement reprehensible despite the fact it was never made. This, too, is an example of a strawman. I've already said twice it isn't what I said, so if you want to continue taking offence then ... knock yourself out.

It is. But not irrelevant to what I was saying, which is more evidence than I need for thinking we are having two completely different conversations. For the record, I couldn't give a rat's *** if some holocaust survivors are taking personal pleasure in seeing justice done and war criminals hung. I'm happy for them in fact.

Literally all I'm interested in now is if you can prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas.

1. You said "I suggest we stop things here," and yet you're still posting. So, that is jockeying for the last word. I have little doubt you will continue to do so.

2. You absolutely implied Aeschylus being born before Aristotle was a factor in the Oresteia being a tragedy or not. You said: "As well-thought out as they might be, it's unlikely everyone agreed with him. Especially Aeschylus, who died before Aristotle was born." So, you need to read your posts better as well. And whether or not Aeschylus agreed with Aristotle, the Oresteia does fit the consensual notion of tragedy, and the "heroes" actions do fit consensual notions of "tragic" and "misbegotten."

So, I don't have to prove Aristotle was recording his ideas or not; it's irrelevant. Since I showed that, you have to prove why it's relevant, and you haven't and can't.

3. Nothing in the Eumenides proves your point at all, particularly since you don't even say what that point is. And try to avoid saying "dare say'" it's very pretentious.

4. And your Oresteia and Nuclear War examples did negate and defame the vengeance of Holocaust Victims against their Nuremberg Nazi tormentor/murderers. Since that vengeance consisted of executions, it was violent vengeance you fallaciously countered with your examples. So, again you reprehensibly compare the two with your response above. And my saying so here, and in previous posts, is no strawman. It is the plain truth. And if you want to keep deluding yourself and dishonestly tell yourself you didn't make that comparison...knock yourself out.

5. It is callous, dismissive, and inappropriate to say you could give a "rat's ***" about the holocaust survivor's vengeance against those who tortured them and murdered their loved ones. Your saying so means you give the situation no more gravity than you would someone choosing a type of shampoo. Of course, considering the terrible comparisons you've made about those Holocaust survivors, I'm not surprised at all.

[Poetaster]

You absolutely implied Aeschylus being born before Aristotle was a factor in the Oresteia being a tragedy or not. You said: "As well-thought out as they might be, it's unlikely everyone agreed with him. Especially Aeschylus, who died before Aristotle was born." So, you need to read your posts better as well. And whether or not Aeschylus agreed with Aristotle, the Oresteia does fit the consensual notion of tragedy, and the "heroes" actions do fit consensual notions of "tragic" and "misbegotten."

That might have been how you read my post, but it isn't what it said. What it said was not everyone in Athens who was writing would have agreed with Aristotle. Aeschylus died before Aristotle was born, so unless Aristotle was recording the Athenian philosophy of poetics, applying Aristotle to Aeschylus and assuming that is how Aeschylus planned his writing is problematic at best. Your comments completely ignore The Eumenides, which is the most important part of the entire series.


So, I don't have to prove Aristotle was recording his ideas or not; it's irrelevant. Since I showed that, you have to prove why it's relevant, and you haven't and can't.

You suggested The Oresteia corresponds to Aristotle's theory of poetics, I'm disputing that because of The Eumenides. If you don't see the relevancy there then I don't know what to say. The Eumenedies isn't a perfect tragedy in Aristotelian terms, which suggests to me Aristotle's ideas were his own and any attempt to apply his ideas of the perfect tragedy to a series written before he was born is anachronistic.

You don't even need to read The Oresteia very closely to see all three plays need each other. So, now the relevancy should be clear - show the proof of your statement.


3. Nothing in the Eumenides proves your point at all, particularly since you don't even say what that point is. And try to avoid saying "dare say'" it's very pretentious.

Thanks for the tip, but it seemed appropriate considering the sentence it appears in. Also, my point is in what I'm writing.

[Pike Bishop]

1. It wasn't an issue of how I "read your post." It was an issue of what your quote actually said, and your quote said exactly what I claimed it did. Even your own explanation says it said what I said it did. So, thanks for the support. And, no, applying Aristotle to Aeschylus is not "problematic at best." That's ridiculous. Using your logic, nobody could make any valid criticism of any author's text who came before them. Please tell me what college English class taught you that fallacy.

And, as I noted in my previous posts, I'm not just applying Aristotle's Poetics to the Oresteia. I'm applying consensually held notions of "tragedy" and "tragic" behavior. And, since I was only addressing the vengeances of Clytemnestra, Elektra, and Orestes, I don't have to address the Eumenides. That's like saying, one has to address Henry V to judge Hal's nocturnal assault of Falstaff in Henry IV. Again, where are you learning these things?

2. I'm not surprised you "don't know what to say," because there is nothing you can say. We are not having a discussion on the Oresteia itself and all its texts. We are having a discussion on vengeance and the relevance of some of its characters particular vengeances in it....big difference. So, no, as I showed above with my Henry IV-V parallel, there is no need to discuss all relative texts to discuss the ethics of the one or more characters' actions in one text. Brilliant thinkers from Samuel Johnson to Karl Marx to Sigmund Freud to William James often make--as many of us do--successful references to actions or characters in texts without even referencing the text itself. So, your unfounded claim one must discuss all related texts to address characters and/or actions in one text is simply irrational.

[Poetaster]

1. It wasn't an issue of how I "read your post." It was an issue of what your quote actually said, and your quote said exactly what I claimed it did. Even your own explanation says it said what I said it did. So, thanks for the support. And, no, applying Aristotle to Aeschylus is not "problematic at best." That's ridiculous. Using your logic, nobody could make any valid criticism of any author's text who came before them. Please tell me what college English class taught you that fallacy.

And, as I noted in my previous posts, I'm not just applying Aristotle's Poetics to the Oresteia. I'm applying consensually held notions of "tragedy" and "tragic" behavior. And, since I was only addressing the vengeances of Clytemnestra, Elektra, and Orestes, I don't have to address the Eumenides. That's like saying, one has to address Henry V to judge Hal's nocturnal assault of Falstaff in Henry IV. Again, where are you learning these things?

Again: The Eumenides isn't a perfect Aristotelian tragedy, is it? You only need to study both to see that. Aristotle's identification is the accepted notion of what a tragedy is, but that makes The Eumenides problematic when applying Aristotelian ideas. If you don't know that, you've not read The Eumenides. Who is the 'hero' of the Eumenides? The only answer is Orestes, right? Like Choephori, then what's his fatal flaw in The Eumenides? he's already killed Clytemnestra - now he's running from the vengeance of the furies. It can't be that he thinks he can get away from the Furies, because he doesn't think that at all. He is getting help from Apollo, who is putting the furies to sleep - and despite Apollo's help the furies are still keeping up with Orestes.


2. I'm not surprised you don't have anything to say, because there is nothing you can say. We are not having a discussion on the Oresteia itself and all its texts. We are having a discussion on vengeance and the relevance of some of its characters particular vengeances in it....big difference. So, no, as I showed above with my Henry IV-V parallel, there is no need to discuss all relative texts to discuss the ethics of the one or more characters' actions in one text. Brilliant thinkers from Samuel Johnson to Karl Marx to Sigmund Freud to William James often make--as many of us do--successful references to actions or characters in texts without even referencing the text itself. So, your unfounded claim one must discuss all related texts to address characters and/or actions in one text is simply irrational.

I'm no longer talking about vengeance beyond The Oresteia now. I've said that, and otherwise explained myself sufficiently to leave it alone.

It's alright if you can't prove Aristotle wasn't recording Athenian philosophy of composition, by the way. I don't mind if you just say 'I can't'.

[Pike Bishop]

You are no longer talking about vengeance, and you're now prattling about the Eumenides in a way that has no relevance to my previous arguments. So, I assume we're done.

And nobody can prove what was going on in any writer's head when they were writing a text. So, your even asking such a question is ridiculous. And, as I showed above it was also entirely irrelevant to our discussion. You don't have to say anything--including "I know"--about that. That's just the cold, hard truth.


P.s. I'm still looking forward to hearing what English and Philosophy classes you have taken. They have clearly taught you some fascinating falsehoods.

[Poetaster]

You are no longer talking about vengeance, and you're now prattling about the Eumenides in a way that has no relevance to my previous arguments. So, I assume we're done.

You made a claim I disagree with, so I'm asking you about it. Also, 'prattling' is hardly polite - I feel I've been respectful to you, the least you can do is return the courtesy.


And nobody can prove what was going on in any writer's head when they were writing a text. So, your even asking such a question is ridiculous. And, as I showed above it was also entirely irrelevant to our discussion. You don't have to say anything--including "I know"--about that. That's just the cold, hard truth.
Thank you. At least you admit it.


P.s. I'm still looking forward to hearing what English and Philosophy classes you have taken. They have clearly taught you some fascinating falsehoods.

All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle. I feel I let what I know speak for itself.

[Pike Bishop]

I apologize about "prattling." That wasn't what I was trying to say. I meant to say "rambling" because you were rambling on with irrelevant questions about the Eumenides. And I admitted nothing because I had never claimed to know what Aristotle was thinking, and my knowing so--and your silly question--was irrelevant.

And what you know hasn't spoken very well for itself in your erroneous arguments. And what I know is you have--and I say this respectfully--a notion of textual analysis and context that needs decided improvement. The fact you think only having read Aeschylus and Aristotle is enough to adequately discuss them and their connections is proof of that. The fallacious arguments you made today are as well. It is never too late to take an on-line philosophy and/or English/literary criticism course.

[Poetaster]

I apologize about "prattling." That wasn't what I was trying to say. I meant to say "rambling" because you were rambling on with irrelevant questions about the Eumenides. And I admitted nothing because I had never claimed to know what Aristotle was thinking, and my knowing so was irrelevant.

I don't understand. If you use Classical/Aristotelian ideas to assess the 'tragedy' aspects of a tragedy, and I point out a 'tragedy' doesn't conform to the ideas of tragedy, where is that not about what the guy, who literally wrote the book defining classical tragedy, thought? Besides, that isn't what I was asking. What I was asking you to prove was that Aristotle was recording the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composing plays - so that we can know Aeschylus had those rules in his head before Aristotle wrote them.


And what you know hasn't spoken very well for itself in your erroneous arguments. And what I know is you have--and I say this respectfully--a notion of textual analysis and context needing decided improvement. The fact you think only having read Aeschylus and Aristiotle is enough is proof of that. The fallacious arguments you made today are as well. I truly suggest you take a literature and a philosophy course to help improve things. If you want a recommendation for an excellent on-line course, I would gladly give one.

I have said I have read Aeschylus and Aristotle. This does not mean I have only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. I'll give you two hints as to my academic background, if you really must: 'MA' and ''English' is the wrong term'.

I'll not dignify your assessment of my textual analysis skills with any more than pointing out, you didn't seem to think I've read more than just Aeschylus and Aristotle.

[Pike Bishop]

I don't understand. If you use Classical/Aristotelian ideas to assess the 'tragedy' aspects of a tragedy, and I point out a 'tragedy' doesn't conform to the ideas of tragedy, where is that not about what the guy, who literally wrote the book defining classical tragedy, thought? Besides, that isn't what I was asking. What I was asking you to prove was that Aristotle was recording the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composing plays - so that we can know Aeschylus had those rules in his head before Aristotle wrote them.



I have said I have read Aeschylus and Aristotle. This does not mean I have only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. I'll give you two hints as to my academic background, if you really must: 'MA' and 'English' is the wrong term.

I'll not dignify your assessment of my textual analysis skills with any more than pointing out, you didn't seem to think I've read more than just Aeschylus and Aristotle.

1. Believe me, I completely get that you don't understand. I made specific references to specific acts in the Oresteia. I didn't make references to the entire trilogy. So, we were only discussing whether those acts were tragic, not the entire play, nor the entire trilogy. So, your rambling about The Eumenides was extraneous and irrelevant.

And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

2. I didn't say you only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. Again, you do read my posts poorly. I correctly disputed your erroneous claim your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. It's not. You need a sound knowledge of phenomenology and literary criticism. The fact you asked your ridiculous question about Aristotle and actually thought it was relevant is proof of that. So, you don't need to "dignify" my assessment of your textual analysis skills. It is already dignified and accurate.

[Poetaster]

1. Believe me, I completely get that you don't understand. I made specific references to specific acts in the Oresteia. I didn't make references to the entire trilogy. So, we were only discussing whether those acts were tragic, not the entire play, nor the entire trilogy. So, your rambling about The Eumenides was extraneous and irrelevant.

No you haven't. I've reread this entire exchange and all you've mentioned are the 'vengeance' of Clytemnestra, Electra and Orestes. They aren't specific 'acts' of any parts of The Oresteia. Considering Ancient Greek plays did not work on acts, rarely even scenes, so all you could mention was the plays themselves as the 'acts'. In which case, how can my critical assessment be at fault when Aristotelian theory of tragedy can only be applied to 2 of the 3 plays?


And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

Yes. And not the Athenian philosophy of poetical composition. You have admitted vicariously you can't, so no bother.


2. I didn't say you only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. Again, you do read my posts poorly. I correctly disputed your erroneous claim your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. It's not.

I made no such claim. I only said 'All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle. I feel I let what I know speak for itself' and 'I have said I have read Aeschylus and Aristotle. This does not mean I have only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. I'll give you two hints as to my academic background, if you really must: 'MA' and ''English' is the wrong term'.' I purposely made no mention of anything other than that, this also doesn't speak well of your own textual analysis I'm sorry to say.


You need a sound knowledge of phenomenology and literary criticism. The fact you asked your ridiculous question about Aristotle and actually thought it was relevant is proof of that. So, you don't need to "dignify" my assessment of your textual analysis skills. It is already dignified and accurate.

Then I'm glad you admit I at least seem to know what I am talking about. If so, how is my question about Aristotle's Poetics 'ridiculous'?

[cacian]

vengeance to understand it is a form of extremism that escalades into various escapades.
it is determined and not always obvious to an everyday mind
i consider capital punishment a form of vengeance.
it goes on under the said law and that is why others less prolific under a same title
ie an average person goes on implicating it on others under one form or another.
vengeance is a learned behaviour because it is highly stated in the book of law and religion
it is the study of also.
expect no better.

[Pike Bishop]

Poetaster,

1. Their acts of vengeance were their vengeance. I'm sorry you can't grasp that. I'm also sorry you don't know "act" has two meanings. That would be sad if it wasn't so funny...;)

2. Again, nobody can know what anyone--including Aristotle--was thinking. You asking whether I could and actually thinking the question was relevant just proves what I said about your knowledge. Again, thanks for your support.

3. You absolutely made such claim. You said "All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle" and "I feel I let what I know speak for itself.' Those statements absolutely assert your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. Just like I said you did. So my textual analysis was dead on. Your syllogistic reasoning, however, was not

4. Finally, you don't seem to know what you are talking about, and I never said you did. The fact you think my saying you need more knowledge and ask ridiculous questions said so shows you don't. And further proof of that is your asking me about your question. I've correctly shown why your question was ridiculous in my last post: "And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

Again, try to read better. And I'm sorry you're not proud of your education and can't just admit what it is; apparently you have reason to hide it.

[Poetaster]

Poetaster,

1. Their acts of vengeance were their vengeance. I'm sorry you can't grasp that.

1) those are not 'specific acts' like I said, I'm seriously doubting you have even read The Oresteia, and 2) I do 'grasp' it - the thing is: that's not what I was asking. What I was asking about - have been all along - is The Eumenides and how it doesn't conform to Aristotelian ideas of tragedy.

You can't say you haven't noticed that.


3. You absolutely made such claim. You said "All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle" and "I feel I let what I know speak for itself.' Those statements absolutely assert your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. Just like I said you did. So my textual analysis was dead on.

No they don't assert that, they do not even suggest it. Don't be so silly. I'm sorry, but if you think so then your textual analysis does need work.

Edited to add: funnily enough though, just having those two texts is both all you are relying on too, and clearly more than enough to show you up, which is hilarious.

Here's a third, final hint (three being a major symbol in The Oresteia of course): I was being coy, because I consider my education part of my private life, and as such not any your business. I didn't ask you for your education, partly because I don't care - and also it's irreverent.


The fact you think my saying you need more knowledge and ask ridiculous questions "admits" that shows how poor your reading truly is.

You know that wasn't the reason I asked that question, you aren't a fool. I have to question your seriousness here.


And further proof of that is your asking me about your question. I've correctly shown why your question was ridiculous in my last post: "And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

Again, try to read better. And I'm sorry you're not proud of your career and can't just admit what it is; you should have no reason to hide it.

The thought 'He must be asking were the ideas Aristotle wrote in Poetics displayed in any of his contemporaries' didn't cross your mind? :hand: You can't fool me. :hand:

[Pike Bishop]

I'm beginning to resent your English teacher. I said "acts" as in "acts of vengeance" and you went off on a rant about "acts" within plays. Some words have two meanings, Poe. I'm sorry that reality jars you so.

The rest of what you wrote is just rambling. I completely showed you said what I claimed you did twice. All you can do is spurt out fallacious and hollow ad hominems that aren't worth my time. And your final sentence with those odd green faces was just an incoherent run-on. So, this discussion is over, as are all discussions, between you and me. I have no time for your ridiculous questions, your repetitive "defenses" of them, or your non-sequturs

So, welcome to my ignore list and good luck with your "discussions."

[YesNo]

How do you know they or anyone who participated in vengeance was unhappy? You certainly haven't provided any support for your claims. As to the Israeli Holocaust survivors, I read many of their stated desire for the executions and many of their statements of relief and gratification after they were carried out

Nobody can know for sure if anybody was entirely unhappy or happy with their vengeance. If we need to do so to make either claim, the whole discussion is pointless.

I have mentioned the movie "Furious 7". It is one of the highest-grossing films worldwide which is why I keep bringing it up (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/26/furious-7-now-fifth-highest-grossing-film-worldwide). It has a vengeance theme. The bad guy is vengeful. The others show how to defend oneself without invoking revenge. The popularity of this movie implies that people generally perceive that vengeance is inappropriate and leads to unhappiness.

Another famous movie, "Munich" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408306/), takes the vengeance theme deeper. In this movie the message is that one is defiled by succeeding at revenge. For me, the most memorable part of that movie was the way the female assassin caressed her cat goodbye after being fatally wounded by the "good" guys.

What these two movies show is that succeeding at vengeance is problematic. Vengeance defines the bad guy and defiles the good guy. I don't see this as a path to happiness.

Vengeance comes with other emotions tagging along in particular fear and negativity that stay in a person's mind because they cannot get satisfaction from revenge even when the bad guys have been executed or the cheating spouse has been abandoned. What some people want is no longer revenge (they have got their revenge), but freedom from vengeance, fear, defilement and negativity which the revenge has not cured but only heightened.

[Poetaster]

I'm seriously doubting you ever took an English class. I said "acts" as in "acts of vengeance" and you went off on a rant about "acts" within plays. Some words have two meanings, Poe. I'm sorry that reality jars you so.

It doesn't 'jar' me. It doesn't exactly bother me if you cannot write clearly, or consider an alternate, very different meaning of the word 'act' when talking about drama. This doesn't particularly bode well for your knowledge of Literature - never mind just English Literature.


The rest of what you wrote is just rambling. I completely showed you said what I claimed you did twice. All you can do is spurt out fallacious and hollow ad hominems that aren't worth my time.

You don't understand what an ad hominem is.


So, welcome to my ignore list and good luck with your "discussions."

Throwing your toys out of the pram. And editing your posts so they are more mean-spirited - showing your true colours. You are an intellectual coward.

[Pike Bishop]

I have mentioned the movie "Furious 7". It is one of the highest-grossing films world wide which I why I keep bringing it up (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/26/furious-7-now-fifth-highest-grossing-film-worldwide). It has a vengeance theme. The bad guy is vengeful. The others show how to defend oneself without invoking revenge. The popularity of this movie implies that people generally perceive that vengeance is inappropriate and leads to unhappiness.

Another famous movie, "Munich" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408306/), takes the vengeance theme deeper. In this movie the message is that one is defiled by succeeding at revenge. For me, the most memorable part of that movie was the way the female assassin caressed her cat goodbye after being fatally wounded by the "good" guys.

What these two movies show is that succeeding at vengeance is problematic. Vengeance defines the bad guy and defiles the good guy. I don't see this as a path to happiness.

Vengeance comes with other emotions tagging along in particular fear and negativity that stay in a person's mind because they cannot get satisfaction from revenge even when the bad guys have been executed or the cheating spouse has been abandoned. What some people want is no longer revenge (they have got their revenge), but freedom from vengeance, fear, defilement and negativity which the revenge has not cured but only heightened.

1. No, the popularity of the movie implies and shows people are a big fan of the franchise, love car chases and beautiful people, and enjoy a good time at the movies. Your imposing your own morals on to hundreds of millions of people is both critically solipsistic and unsupported by facts.

2. Munich just shows a particular example of problems with vengeance. The problems they faced can be found in police and military justice that have no vengeance involved as well. So, again, you are taking the anecdotal and trying to make it the exemplary. I hope you know that is not a logical, rational mode of forming an argument. It's like if I said I have two examples of vengeance where nothing went wrong and said that proves vengeance always works. Logic doesn't work that way.

3. Again you make a blanket statement that has no basis in truth. Billions of people throughout history have had vengeance. It is again solipsistic of you to assert that vengeance always comes with "other emotions tagging along in particular fear and negativity." You don't come close to having proof or support of that.

[bounty]

So, welcome to my ignore list and good luck with your "discussions."

can you please, pretty please with sugar on top, put me on your ignore list too??

[Pike Bishop]

No chance, Bounty. Your posts are far too (inadvertently) humorous for me...;)

[Delta40]

The only one who made preposterous claims was you. And you do have to back up your offensive claims blaming Holocaust victims vengeance against Nazis for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if you want to support them as true. However, since they are not true, you clearly can't do so. So, your making those claims against those Holocaust victims is truly sad. And I introduced nothing to correctly "accuse" you; I didn't need to. Your claims were ridiculous and callous, and I just correctly pointed out they were.

As to the discussion being over, I'm fine with that. We can move on.

You seem like a particularly educated person so I'm disappointed to find that once again you are making a false claim against me. I believe that is three times now. I agree with other posters that it is emotional. Since I don't know you I can only assume it has something to do with you personally and as you identified yourself as Jewish, I imagine your connection to a subject like the holocaust might hold more currency for you and it is possible that you may draw sweeping conclusions. I never blamed the Jewish people at all but I did express my concerns about inter generational suffering and I must say here as a mother nurturing children, I would be most likely to think that way (the reason why I entered this discussion). You on the other hand, have done nothing but insult and accuse me, a person who in the aftermath of destruction, would only care about the children.

How dare you flaunt righteous vengeance in my face and when I make further enquiries from the position of a nurturing being, you adopt an almighty defense and spew out vile rhetoric in the hope that I'll tip toe off because your feelings are hurt?

I told you earlier that I don't fare well in serious discussions and I was trying to understand the topic. All you have done so far is done nothing short of accuse me of anti-semitism. Is that really the best you can do as an individual who is so obviously well read?

For those of us who are not, you are neither a teacher or mentor and I am no further in my education.

Have a pleasant day.

[Scheherazade]

~

Since this thread has moved away from its original intent,

it will now be closed.

~