That's the title of my nonviolence talk in Tampa. I'm arguing that nonviolence is not simply the absence of something--not at all, all the way down to the ontological level. Rather, nonviolence is a kind of weird presence, a disturbing coexistence with inconsistent beings. Violence is simply the attempt to rid ourselves of an intrinsically disturbing inconsistency and uncanniness.
2 comments:
This sounds excellent. Glad that you're posing nonviolence as something in its own right, rather than as a privation. I've been trying to do this as well. Looking forward to the recording.
I'm looking really forward to this. I've seen Zachary's and your advocacy for nonviolence, though I haven't really seen a philosophical argument for it from either of you yet. (Though Zachary I do dig your definition of violence as "the vertical actualization of a power as harm.")
From both nonviolence and not-necessarily-nonviolence (I don't want to label them pro-violence a la the "pro-abortion" label pro-lifers use), I get arguments of tactics. Tactical arguments are fine, but only if you accept utilitarianism in a deep way. I feel like the nonviolence both of you reference is more cosmic, philosophical, and deep.
A buddhist utilitarian told me that nonviolence is always the path, though at times nonviolent action may seem violent on the surface. If a being is in torture, it may be right and nonviolent to end their life. If a malevolent tyrant is oppressing a nation, rebellion using fighting may be nonviolent. This pushes the meaning of nonviolence to the brink for me.
Post a Comment