• Referate Anatomie
• Referate Astronomie
• Referate Automatica
• Referate Biologie
• Referate Chimie
• Referate Diverse
• Referate Drept
• Referate Economie
• Engleza
• Referate Filosofie
• Referate Fizica
• Referate Franceza
• Referate Geografie
• Referate Germana
• Referate Informatica
• Referate Istorie
• Referate Marketing
• Referate Matematica
• Referate Medicina
• Referate Muzica
• Referate Psihologie
• Referate Religie
• Referate Romana

Link sponsorizat :

Philosophy of Nonviolence

hese notes - which will stretch over several issues of [Nonviolence Web Upfront], and take the place of the usual " Op Ed" pieces - are an effort to summarize the basic philosophy of nonviolence. (They might be the basis of a pamphlet when done; revised, condensed, etc.). We write and talk about nonviolence as if it were simply a technique. I believe it is much more, that it is a " one-edged philosphy" which cannot easily be used to defend or advance injustice, and which is of value only if tested in the real world.

When I came into the pacifist movement in 1948 the concept of nonviolence as a method of change was new to the United States, the direct result of Gandhi's teachings and actions in India. Historically nonviolence had been seen either as an expression of the Gospels, or as a variant on the stoic philosophy of Marcus Aurelius. But neither the Christian nor the stoic teachings gave us a method to deal with injustice except through endurance. This was fine if I was the one suffering, but it did not provide a way to stop you from inflicting injustice on a third party. The Christian could choose to endure great injustice - but what of the non-Christian who had done nothing to merit the suffering, and sought relief from it?

THE PROBLEM OF DEALING WITH EVIL

Particularly after World War II with the horror of the mass killing, there was a sense that pacifism alone - the refusal to kill - was not good enough. Communism offered one answer but, as expressed by Lenin and Trotsky, it was an answer in which the end justified the means and by 1945 it was clear that, at best, Communism was a " lesser evil" than Fascism. Into this vacuum, this " historic place" where we found ourselves confronted by the reality that men such as Hitler and Stalin existed, that the atom bomb was possibly a final step in human history, the pacifist movement embraced what we call today " Nonviolence" as opposed to the earlier word " pacifism".

And it was here that I entered the pacifist movement, as old ideas and new ones were explored and tested. It was one of the twists of history that when nonviolence did re-enter American life, it was returning home. Henry David Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience had been read by Tolstoy, Tolstoy had been read by Gandhi, and Gandhi had been read by Martin Luther King Jr. It was an ideology which had been around the world, affecting and being affected by all it encountered.

THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY WITHOUT HOLES

In trying to understand the philosophy of nonviolence, it is important to keep in mind there is no living, vital philosphy which does not have " holes" in it. Let me give two examples. Marxism (and I am heavily indebted to Marx) has an inherent contradiction in that it argued " history is on our side, socialism is inevitable, the result of contradictions which will lead to the collapse of capitalism". Fine, if socialism is inevitable, then why not sit back and wait for it? Why risk one's life - as so many courageous socialists and communists did - in a struggle, the end of which was already certain?

Buddhism, to which I am also personally indebted, tells us that Buddha sat under a tree, meditated, and discovered the truth, a large part of which was non-attachment. Why then did he bother to teach it? If Buddha had gained the answer, why was he still so " attached to the world" that he taught at all? In both cases I have heard the answers - they do not persuade me. Philosophies, those which can change the course of lives, and alter history, are marked by contradictions. Only minor ideologies have all the answers.

Nonviolence does not answer all questions. It is filled with contradictions. My own grasp of nonviolence is a blend of things I have read in Gandhi, heard from Bayard Rustin and A. J. Muste, from reading Eastern philosophy, the gospels, Karl Marx, etc. This is an effort to outline what I have learned, knowing there is not a single idea here which is original with me.

A BASIC ASSUMPTION OF NONVIOLENCE

Let's begin with a basic assumption of nonviolence. There is an absolute reality, but none of us are absolutely certain what it is. Each of us sees part of it, none of us can grasp all of it. Let's think of reality - the " real world" - as the earth itself. If we ask a handful of widely scattered people what the " reality of the earth is", the man who lives on a small island in the Pacific will say it is almost entirely water, except for the patch of land on which he and his family live. A woman in Kansas will say it is flat, dry except when it rains, and is covered by wheat. The nomad in the Sahara desert will say the earth is dry, sandy, constantly moving with the wind, and there is little vegetation. The hunter in the Brazilian rain forest will insist the earth is wet with water, the air is thick with...

Nota: Textul de mai sus reprezinta doar un extras din referat. Pentru versiunea completa a documentului apasa butonul Download.