The Paradox of Revenge

Hi all,

My belief of revenge is that we seek it in a state of powerlessness as a result of the perpetrator's actions and revenge ultimately proposes a reversal of roles (Victim to Aggressor). In seeking revenge, avengers feel the need for the perpetrator to recognise the avenger's psychological, emotional and physical pain as well as their perspective and evoke remorse, however, revenge is essentially a paradox because when the avenger exacts revenge upon the perpetrator, the perpetrator's conscience is overwhelmed with anger, powerlessness, jealousy and the desire to reciprocate the action which disallows him from recognising the avenger's perspective or illustrate remorse for his actions. In my belief, the paradox disallows true satisfaction for the avenger as the wrongdoer himself, is just set onto a path of revenge and therefore, the vicious cycle of rivalry is established.

An example of this can be seen in Euripides' Medea, where Medea desired revenge for Jason, to make him recognise her perspective however, Jason just vowed vengeance upon Medea for her actions.

Do you guys agree with this?

Also, is simply witnessing the perpetrator in such a state devoid of power, satisfying enough for us?

Thanks.

Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo. Dantes' revenge doesn't become cyclical since as a result of his revenge, his enemies are done away with.

I think revenge is generally executed by people who have already been destroyed so the prospect of their revenge being revenged does not cause them much concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo. Dantes' revenge doesn't become cyclical since as a result of his revenge, his enemies are done away with.

---

MAJOR SPOILERS ON THE COUNT

That is not entirely true, though.

Danglars is still alive, though penniless; Villefort is still alive, though mad, but his dautgher is still there; Mercédès is still there and blames Edmond for destroying her life too.

Fernand killed himself, that's true.

There would still be a lot of people who could take revenge on Dantès, if they wanted to.

The point is that an eye for an eye does not appease the avenger's mind. he might have done something bad to his perpetrator, but in the end, it doesn't bring him anything.

At the end of The Count of Monte Cristo that point is made very poignantly Dantès has still lost Mercédès for ever, he has the death of an innocent child on his conscience, and he has still spent 14 years in prison (i.e. the prime of his life), which will never ever return. He still has those memories, he is still disillusioned with humanity, he still was not able to care for his father in his old age. The only thing that is a light at the end of the tunnel is the fact that he allowed Maximilien and Valérie to marry, something that would never ever have happened without him. That is atonement for the rest he has done. And he still asks God's forgiveness. In the end, that is the only thing that can help and that can give him the strength to love, trust (consequently allow someone else to love him) and to be happy, to forget and live for the future, not for the past.

MAJOR SPOILERS OVER

The Count puts forgiveness in the picture as an alternative, the only one, for feelings of revenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I think revenge is generally executed by people who have already been destroyed so the prospect of their revenge being revenged does not cause them much concern.

---

True, but doesn't the prospect of obtaining remorse from the victim through the recognition of the avenger's pains make the prospect of revenge ever more overwhelming satisfying and consuming. Like it's to teach a person a lesson for the consequences of their actions, but how can you teach that person if their themselves become overwhelmed with vengeance.

Hypothetical situation: If one racially or sexually discriminates me, I would want to reciprocate the pain with the prospect of illustrating the unacceptability of racism. Chances are that the person will not recognise my perspective but rather feel the desire to reciprocate that action and thus revenge is ulimately impossible to satisfy.

Or, do you think that revenge is focused solely on reciprocating pain?

Additionally, not having read the Count, are the victims' of the Count's revenge aware that it is him behind the actions?

The problem is that the result of what someone contemplates as his revenge turns out differently from what he initially envisaged.

Let's say that indeed, you racially or sexually abuse someone in return for what he did to you. Your fantasy will be that that person is going to realise it's a reciprocation and will genuinely regret what he did to you (preferably never to entertain the same views), beg for mercy. In all likelihood, he's not going to do this. He is going to regret that you do this to him, will likely want to teach you a lesson, will maybe/probably try to justify his actions and the whole thing will not turn into a begging session (which is what the initial victim essentially wishes for).

And then, if they genuinely beg (it could also be fake), it begs the question if that is really going to satisfy you. What will that do to you? Will it erase what was done to you?

In The Count (you really have to read that!), his victims know by the end who brought the misfortunes on them, some of them beg (successfully), but he is weirdly not satisfied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drnobody901

Or, do you think that revenge is focused solely on reciprocating pain?

---

I think that one might hope that by taking revenge that the person will acknowledge that they wronged you but I think that the tangibility of pain means that the focus will be on that rather than the abstractness of mercy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

And then, if they genuinely beg (it could also be fake), it begs the question if that is really going to satisfy you. What will that do to you? Will it erase what was done to you?

---

I agree with you, it has the potential to evoke temporary gratification but yes overtime it seems ultimately unsatisfactory and destructive. Especially that it's burden which prevents us from progressing although the sad truth is that we realise that only afterwards the act has been commited, as it seems in the Count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

In The Count (you really have to read that!), his victims know by the end who brought the misfortunes on them, some of them beg (successfully), but he is weirdly not satisfied.

---

Yes it seems like it portrays a very provocative insight into the human psyche. And, i do have it yet sadly it will be collecting dust on the cuboard until i've completed the ice and fire series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I think that one might hope that by taking revenge that the person will acknowledge that they wronged you but I think that the tangibility of pain means that the focus will be on that rather than the abstractness of mercy.

---

Hmm, I guess so, mercy is irrelevant to an extent but i think it's all essentially connected, the pain itself is related to remorse of one's actions, which i think Hawthorne shows perfectly in The Scarlet Letter, through the consquences of Chillingworth's revenge on Dimmesdale's conscience.

What paradox? It seems to me like you located imaginary grounds for revenge (wanting the perpetrator to see our perspective or feel remorse) and then found that led to a difficult situation. In Hamlet, Claudius was feeling remorse yet was still killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Lord Oliver

What paradox? It seems to me like you located imaginary grounds for revenge (wanting the perpetrator to see our perspective or feel remorse) and then found that led to a difficult situation.

---

I agree with Oliver. I think of revenge as war. Revenge is not for the enemy to learn or repent. Revenge is for you, for your cause, not for your enemy. If I was out for vengence, I'm not thinking of my victim, I'm thinking of my dead brother, my raped sister, my pain...ect...

When I think of revenge I think of Frankenstiens monster. He didn't want the doctor to change or understand him, he wanted him to suffer as he had suffered.

It isn't complicated by reason. It is base. It is often blind. Revenge is often above and beyond the original offense, like adding sentimental value to some worthless trinket. It is insaitiable as it is personal.

I also think of the Hatfield and McCoy feud. They didn't want to teach lessons, they wanted their enemy dead and gone. Again, they brought vengence above and beyond the original wrong, like adding sentimental value to a rag-tag quilt. They wanted suffering, not repentance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drnobody901

Hi all,

My belief of revenge is that we seek it in a state of powerlessness as a result of the perpetrator's actions and revenge ultimately proposes a reversal of roles (Victim to Aggressor). In seeking revenge, avengers feel the need for the perpetrator to recognise the avenger's psychological, emotional and physical pain as well as their perspective and evoke remorse, however, revenge is essentially a paradox because when the avenger exacts revenge upon the perpetrator, the perpetrator's conscience is overwhelmed with anger, powerlessness, jealousy and the desire to reciprocate the action which disallows him from recognising the avenger's perspective or illustrate remorse for his actions. In my belief, the paradox disallows true satisfaction for the avenger as the wrongdoer himself, is just set onto a path of revenge and therefore, the vicious cycle of rivalry is established.

An example of this can be seen in Euripides' Medea, where Medea desired revenge for Jason, to make him recognise her perspective however, Jason just vowed vengeance upon Medea for her actions.

Do you guys agree with this?

Also, is simply witnessing the perpetrator in such a state devoid of power, satisfying enough for us?

Thanks.

---

my believe about revenge and the perpetrators relation does not really coincides with yours as greatly as i would have presumed and sadlly i find your original post to be quite offensive and vile to my demeanor and the ones who are of relation to me .When it comes to politically and socially correct definition perpetuating the very meaning of the word revenge you have explained it an such a shallow and incoherent manner , for example are you even aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 5'4" 245lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know.

zeezprah sighnin out