Vengeance

[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.