Behind every rational thought is an irrational impulse. Humans are irrational by nature. They don't always make sense, and they probably never will. That having been said, it's amazing the number of ideas that has been presented, through our irrational nature, and yet somehow we attempt to support it with our rational logic. This is what the website reminds me of.
For now, this is my take on non-violence. Personally, I see nothing wrong with their message. I believe that Warriors are non-volent as well. However, the difference lies in the opinion of how peace should be obtained and maintained. Conflict is given. Pacifists don't believe violence is an option while many Warriors do.
Here are some of my points of rebuttal:
People have often used Vietnam as an example of why war is not a good idea. How many people here think fighting against the Axis powers during WWII is a bad idea? I sure don't. My point: On very rare occasions, I believe it is possible for a fight to be both necessary and just. And the alternatives are worse than death itself. And during those times, war is an appriopriate option. To simply use Vietnam as an example, and not include other theaters of war for balance is biased.
The website has neglected to mention the good points of Capitalism. I mean, Communism fell apart while Capitalist systems of society have continue to rise in terms of standard of living. Doesn't that mean anything? Of course, Capitalism has its flaws. All systems have their flaws. Let me say it outright: There is no such thing as a perfect macroeconomics system. None. But to provide only the bad points without the good is biased in my opinion.
Oh, I love the parable of Arjuna the warrior. My personal interpretation is that Arjuna rode out to the battlefield and fought not with his spear, but with his heart. And that action alone has served his true duty as a Warrior. Arjuna did the right thing, the only thing that he could do in such a situation. Realize, however, that in the real world, love will not always work. Strictly in terms of tactical value, it's yet another form of psychological warfare that will only work if it can appeal to the other party's sense of emotions and conscience. Good luck trying that one on psychopaths devoid of any emotions.
"Nonviolence means an effort 'to do battle with injustice' without risking the destruction of our opponents, both because we cannot be absolutely certain we are right" (McReynolds 2) I agree on a philosophical level. On a higher level, no one ever really knows for a fact whether anything that we do is actually right or not. With a bar that high, I wonder if I'm doing the right thing breathing air or drinking water. And yet I still do it because if I want to live, that's what I'll do. Some guy jumps out of nowhere with a knife and attempts to impale me. I manage to turn it around and stab him instead. Am I right? I don't know. But I wanted to live and I did what I had to do to survive. As Descarte's Dream Argument has illustrated, I believe there is such a thing as pushing the bar of standard too high. Apologetically, we can only do the best we can.
Object permanence is an old hat. Anyone care to test their uncertainty of reality against 10 rounds from my Glock .40? No? I thought nobody knows what absolute reality is? It's that bar setting too high again. Look, I don't know what the true nature of reality is either. But I will say that metaphysics without reality checks (when applicable) to balance can be dangerous.
I question his basics in part six. How did the author conclude that being non-violent will lead someone to be honest, open, truthful, overcome fear, act from strength, etc? Relation? Sounds more like emotional elements rather than logical connections. And are these exclusive elements? Does that mean that those of us who are willing to arm and fight are dishonest, closed, fearful, and cowardly? Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. But, this makes no sense to me.
In closing, I really don't have a problem with what he is proposing. In fact, I agree with him whole-heartedly because I think a Warrior is also a pacifist, with one major addition: The Warrior thinks that fighting is an acceptable option while the pacifist does not. I don't think one way is better than the other. But which path to take is up to the individual to decide.
