I'm a little shy about sharing posts publicly, but I have to write to you about the reflections you shared on Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theories.
I've long been an admirer of Bonhoeffer: what a valiant soul ... what an exemplary life!
It is very hard to judge the roots of human failure in others -- not to mention in ourselves.
And I'm sure Bonhoeffer was trying to find it in his heart to forgive the horrors perpetrated against Jews and so many people during World War II.
For him, it was clearly hard to believe that human beings could be so evil. He was probably trying to apply Jesus's words (on the cross) to the dire situation then facing him:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
For it is our own incapacity to forgive that ultimately stabs us in our own hearts.
Nonetheless, we must struggle to recognize how it is that we human beings (all of us) tend to go astray, to close our hearts, and hence to condemn ourselves to endless suffering.
Otherwise we will continue condemning ourselves and one another ad infinitum.
One of your commentators said that "we all have the right to our own opinions". That is so because we were all created with free will.
Without free will, not even Love would be possible. Love, acts of kindness, cannot be forced. A good act loses its virtue if it is forced.
But, most importantly, having the freedom of opinion & speech also means that we are responsible for our opinions, and even our own thoughts.
The problem with our society is that we are always talking about "rights" without their accompanying "responsibilities."
Every single time a right is mentioned, the responsibility that goes hand in hand with it should be cited, and highlighted.
We should ask ourselves: how do my "opinions" affect others, other people's lives, other people's inalienable rights? Are they helpful or hurtful? If so, why?
As human beings, we are urgently called to a constant (or periodic) examination of conscience, for we are all more intimately related to one another than we realize.
The intellect ultimately should be subjected to conscience, to an examination of the heart, and the moral will, that gives rise to ideas ... and allows them free rein.
It is crucial for us to be willing to "question ourselves", to "survey our minds and hearts." As French Gaston Bachelard put it his Psychoanalysis of Fire (p. 100-101):
"To admit that one has erred is to pay the most signal homage to the perspicacity of one's mind. By so doing,we re-live our education, intensify it, illuminate it with converging rays of light. We also externalize, proclaim and teach it." In fact, the capacity to stand beside ourselves, from time to time, to question ourselves -- not only about our objective facts and logic, but also about our subjective attitudes, is key. Bachelard continued: "When our objective knowledge is the objective knowledge of the subjective, when we discover in our own heart the human universal, when, after having honestly psychoanalyzed our study of self, we integrate the rules of morality with the laws of psychology... then the fire which was consuming us suddenly enlightens us."
In this regard, I am truly thankful for your wonderful reflections, with which I deeply agree.
I commend your work, sharing your thoughts so candidly and profoundly. Also your courage in doing so.
And the Socratic method of questioning/probing the minds and conscience of his fellow citizens, which you cite, was most admirable.
It is Socrates's patience and his kind humor in the midst of the terrible ignorance of our unexamined lives, is precisely what we all need.
May we all continue in the search for personal, interpersonal, and collective peace through these important reflections.
Poignant. Socrates dialogued against demagogues, not demagogues with big pharma military media info tech amplifying every permutation of current absurdities to sew discord for relatively short-term selfish gain at everyone and everything else's expense.
Alexandra, I am really appreciating your thoughts on this topic right now. I don't think I can add more, other than one more category: people who ask for help and then refuse to listen to anything productive you have to say/offer. All they want to do is complain about their misery.
I really would like to see this country become more community-oriented, where we listen to people and offer our thoughts in civil, respectful ways, but alas, that is not so, but we can start in our own communities with some healthy boundaries in place. So well said. Thank you, Alexandra!
I very much appreciate your ambivalence over Bonhoeffer.
I think one problem we run into is that we have to make judgments about how promising it is to engage people and how we should engage them, and those judgments require hard won expertise and social and emotional intelligence that are part of our development.
As adults I think we often tend to think of this in terms of tricks or practices we can use to make things go more smoothly. I can't help thinking civility is more of a developmental and cultural issue rather than just a rule and practice-based one. We need the cultural scaffolding to encourage and support our individual development of the appropriate skills and virtues.
If I had to come up with a rule and practice based framework for this I think I would begin by making the fundamental distinction between transactional relationships and trust relationships. We can often deal with "stupid" or "ignorant" people in a transactional way by establishing boundaries with them and by bargaining with them in a way they recognize as beneficial despite their presumed deficits. We can also deal with strangers in general that same way, treating them with basic dignity as human beings without necessarily inviting them to exploit us. Some people are so good at exploiting us we need to try to avoid them or else risk becoming what we despise by taking them on at the level of their inhumanity.
On the other hand I think we should hope to achieve more with most people, to make ourselves mutually more vulnerable and earn mutual trust and respect independently of social and political attitudes and agendas. At that point we are capable of the more difficult conversations because we have a human connection of listening and responding rather than just one of bargaining and boundaries and persuasion.
I think you have an error in your wording. “How can we resist the urge to essentialize, label, and cut people off based on one option they hold?” Is “option” correct? “Opinion” seems more correct to your line of reasoning than “option” does.
Very well said - in fact, I enjoyed everything you said! I only wish I could be more adroit, and give some affirmations; however, I'm swamped right now due to the war in Europe--I serve on the BoD for Word to Russia (actually for all the former republics of the once Soviet Empire) - your attitude and depth would do us all so much the more in human relations right about now! Bless you for your kind efforts on so many levels!
I regret being delayed in reading your notes on Bonhoeffer. Interesting comments about Bonhoeffer. I've always held him in high esteem since reading "The Cost of Discipleship". In addition, he was able to perceive the events and actions of Germany's government in a period when a large number of his fellow citizens seemed to be compliant and the danger in remaining silent because it was "them" and not you who was being vilified.
Engaging others in topics on which you may hold different views can be a minefield these days. I believe it's important to "choose your battles". Some acquaintances I am fairly certain will approach an issue from a point of view that will run counter to my own. But I still like to ask them about their impressions, sometimes indirectly. I don't like to draw conclusions until I've looked at all the possible interpretations. At times I find there is hope -- people whom you think are locked into one view can surprise you. The ability for us to change and grow is reason enough for optimism.
It's fascinating to learn that you shut down particular subjects with certain individuals (close to you). Isn't this the fundamental problem with our culture, over the past generation?
I suggest that your comment oversimplifies a fundamental problem, & omits context. The author wasn't advocating for cancel culture. We have a responsibility to try to keep ourselves honest & realistic, & due to our blind spots, we often need the help of those around us to achieve that. To accept that help is an act of trust. It's also a team effort - we work together to find the truth and to live by it. But when someone has demonstrated time & again that they lack both that trust & that trustworthiness, there comes a point where the effort to engage them is simply wasted. Am I barking up the right tree here?
You raise fine points but I suppose the history & context is lacking about the two of them, of course. I have an extremely difficult relationship with a sibling and can relate to this; what has ended that relationship is their sheer hostility & foul language. Profoundly disagreeing with someone is fine—any subject shouldn't be shut down—and that shouldn't end a familial relationship but it's the verbal assaults (& even threats) that'll do that.
Happy new year, Marcus. I totally agree that nobody should be subjected to abuse. "Profoundly disagreeing... shouldn't be shut down" I think needs some caveats. Alexandra discussed the challenge to balance the extremes of 1) inability to disagree civilly and 2) arguing with an irrational rock-hard belief/affirming falsehood. If we only speak with people we agree with (1), we stop learning and we miss the opportunity to correct false beliefs. But if we try to debate with someone who is unwilling to consider the possibility of being wrong, we waste our time and energy, or we compromise ourselves by affirming something we believe to be untrue (2). Between those extremes is 3) healthy, intelligent debate, where we present and genuinely consider opposing ideas. If we are sincere in our search for truth and in our humility, then we can disagree whilst effectively being on the same team with the same goal - truth. Implicit here is that we ourselves must be brave enough to always be mindful of the possibility of being wrong (This is what I meant by "trustworthiness"). And that is the responsibility we bear when we consider shutting down a conversation - Have I sincerely challenged my belief? Do I reject the opposing view because it is irrationally arrived at and held, or simply because I am attached to my own belief? If I can rigorously satisfy myself of these criteria being met - and a trustworthy 3rd party can be useful to check my own reality - and the "wrong" views are not open to honest reconsideration, then that conversation may well be a waste of time and energy, and maybe even destructive of a relationship. It can be a tough call to make, though.
I love your line quoting ... "argues that civility requires us to see and respect the humanity and dignity of others—including people unlike us, those who can do nothing for us, and those we disagree with." Over half way through my sixty-seventh trip around Old Sol and consequently experiencing a host of personal 'interesting events', from health to finances, to relationships, watching the national and world landscapes emerge in the most revolutionary way ever - through the internet - I always go back to the notes I would leave my kids when I left to travel on business (I called it flying the skies throughout North American and Mexico looking for cash under rocks). The note said every time. 1) Love God and Everyone else. Every single human. 2) Obey your mom 3) Think positive and 4) Be careful. I remember reading Bonhoeffer somewhere in my late thirties. As always you put is well... so well!!!
Alex, may I call u Alex, Ms Hudson, Let me impose on u just a bit, I have never read such articulated Imposition as u have written, One thing set me off about u and u r read, I enjoyed it emensely and could not put it down, keep my email address, because I would like to here more , it's like reading a bed time story and to enjoy your read and Intellectual!
When does an intellectual falling become a mess,
Well that's when u neither have anything n common, as a fellow person or to share!
But people have the right to there on beliefs & opinions, right or wrong! When the World saw Adolf Hitler as a bad man, (evil) not to leave out Putin today, he's not bad, but just mis-guided, mis led, both he and Adolf share a common goal tho, Adolf was out to conquer the World, as many Conqueror's before him, Roman empire, Gangus Know, Alexander the Great, Napolian, they also have something n common, time in which to Conquer the world, not enough of it, n time it will catch up with u, then conquer who ever doing the Conquering! Putin is not looking at the World , he just wants back what was once, for the USSR, either by mediation or forcably, history always has a way coming back around an Starring back at u n the face! Putin on the other hand takes Ukraine, then he will want Poland, ChezsRepublic, no telling what he will go after next!
Chinese let it be known they want they had laid claim. Too, the World!
I'm a little shy about sharing posts publicly, but I have to write to you about the reflections you shared on Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theories.
I've long been an admirer of Bonhoeffer: what a valiant soul ... what an exemplary life!
It is very hard to judge the roots of human failure in others -- not to mention in ourselves.
And I'm sure Bonhoeffer was trying to find it in his heart to forgive the horrors perpetrated against Jews and so many people during World War II.
For him, it was clearly hard to believe that human beings could be so evil. He was probably trying to apply Jesus's words (on the cross) to the dire situation then facing him:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
For it is our own incapacity to forgive that ultimately stabs us in our own hearts.
Nonetheless, we must struggle to recognize how it is that we human beings (all of us) tend to go astray, to close our hearts, and hence to condemn ourselves to endless suffering.
Otherwise we will continue condemning ourselves and one another ad infinitum.
One of your commentators said that "we all have the right to our own opinions". That is so because we were all created with free will.
Without free will, not even Love would be possible. Love, acts of kindness, cannot be forced. A good act loses its virtue if it is forced.
But, most importantly, having the freedom of opinion & speech also means that we are responsible for our opinions, and even our own thoughts.
The problem with our society is that we are always talking about "rights" without their accompanying "responsibilities."
Every single time a right is mentioned, the responsibility that goes hand in hand with it should be cited, and highlighted.
We should ask ourselves: how do my "opinions" affect others, other people's lives, other people's inalienable rights? Are they helpful or hurtful? If so, why?
As human beings, we are urgently called to a constant (or periodic) examination of conscience, for we are all more intimately related to one another than we realize.
The intellect ultimately should be subjected to conscience, to an examination of the heart, and the moral will, that gives rise to ideas ... and allows them free rein.
It is crucial for us to be willing to "question ourselves", to "survey our minds and hearts." As French Gaston Bachelard put it his Psychoanalysis of Fire (p. 100-101):
"To admit that one has erred is to pay the most signal homage to the perspicacity of one's mind. By so doing,we re-live our education, intensify it, illuminate it with converging rays of light. We also externalize, proclaim and teach it." In fact, the capacity to stand beside ourselves, from time to time, to question ourselves -- not only about our objective facts and logic, but also about our subjective attitudes, is key. Bachelard continued: "When our objective knowledge is the objective knowledge of the subjective, when we discover in our own heart the human universal, when, after having honestly psychoanalyzed our study of self, we integrate the rules of morality with the laws of psychology... then the fire which was consuming us suddenly enlightens us."
In this regard, I am truly thankful for your wonderful reflections, with which I deeply agree.
I commend your work, sharing your thoughts so candidly and profoundly. Also your courage in doing so.
And the Socratic method of questioning/probing the minds and conscience of his fellow citizens, which you cite, was most admirable.
It is Socrates's patience and his kind humor in the midst of the terrible ignorance of our unexamined lives, is precisely what we all need.
May we all continue in the search for personal, interpersonal, and collective peace through these important reflections.
Thanks again for your work!
Eileen Rizo-Patron
Thank you so much for being here and for sharing these thoughts, Eileen!
I thought I was the only one who thought like this now I know I'm one of three who think like this. Alexandra, Bonhoeffer, and me.
Glad you found it useful!
Oh - there are a few others!!
Excellent. Thoughtful. Demands engagement and dialogue. I look forward to your book. Cheers, Robert
Thank you so much for reading, and for your kind words!
Poignant. Socrates dialogued against demagogues, not demagogues with big pharma military media info tech amplifying every permutation of current absurdities to sew discord for relatively short-term selfish gain at everyone and everything else's expense.
Brilliant entry. Thank you so much for your distinctions and for introducing me to this amazing mind.
Alexandra, I am really appreciating your thoughts on this topic right now. I don't think I can add more, other than one more category: people who ask for help and then refuse to listen to anything productive you have to say/offer. All they want to do is complain about their misery.
I really would like to see this country become more community-oriented, where we listen to people and offer our thoughts in civil, respectful ways, but alas, that is not so, but we can start in our own communities with some healthy boundaries in place. So well said. Thank you, Alexandra!
I very much appreciate your ambivalence over Bonhoeffer.
I think one problem we run into is that we have to make judgments about how promising it is to engage people and how we should engage them, and those judgments require hard won expertise and social and emotional intelligence that are part of our development.
As adults I think we often tend to think of this in terms of tricks or practices we can use to make things go more smoothly. I can't help thinking civility is more of a developmental and cultural issue rather than just a rule and practice-based one. We need the cultural scaffolding to encourage and support our individual development of the appropriate skills and virtues.
If I had to come up with a rule and practice based framework for this I think I would begin by making the fundamental distinction between transactional relationships and trust relationships. We can often deal with "stupid" or "ignorant" people in a transactional way by establishing boundaries with them and by bargaining with them in a way they recognize as beneficial despite their presumed deficits. We can also deal with strangers in general that same way, treating them with basic dignity as human beings without necessarily inviting them to exploit us. Some people are so good at exploiting us we need to try to avoid them or else risk becoming what we despise by taking them on at the level of their inhumanity.
On the other hand I think we should hope to achieve more with most people, to make ourselves mutually more vulnerable and earn mutual trust and respect independently of social and political attitudes and agendas. At that point we are capable of the more difficult conversations because we have a human connection of listening and responding rather than just one of bargaining and boundaries and persuasion.
I think you have an error in your wording. “How can we resist the urge to essentialize, label, and cut people off based on one option they hold?” Is “option” correct? “Opinion” seems more correct to your line of reasoning than “option” does.
Very well said - in fact, I enjoyed everything you said! I only wish I could be more adroit, and give some affirmations; however, I'm swamped right now due to the war in Europe--I serve on the BoD for Word to Russia (actually for all the former republics of the once Soviet Empire) - your attitude and depth would do us all so much the more in human relations right about now! Bless you for your kind efforts on so many levels!
Thank you for reading and for your kind and thoughtful words!
I regret being delayed in reading your notes on Bonhoeffer. Interesting comments about Bonhoeffer. I've always held him in high esteem since reading "The Cost of Discipleship". In addition, he was able to perceive the events and actions of Germany's government in a period when a large number of his fellow citizens seemed to be compliant and the danger in remaining silent because it was "them" and not you who was being vilified.
Engaging others in topics on which you may hold different views can be a minefield these days. I believe it's important to "choose your battles". Some acquaintances I am fairly certain will approach an issue from a point of view that will run counter to my own. But I still like to ask them about their impressions, sometimes indirectly. I don't like to draw conclusions until I've looked at all the possible interpretations. At times I find there is hope -- people whom you think are locked into one view can surprise you. The ability for us to change and grow is reason enough for optimism.
It's fascinating to learn that you shut down particular subjects with certain individuals (close to you). Isn't this the fundamental problem with our culture, over the past generation?
I suggest that your comment oversimplifies a fundamental problem, & omits context. The author wasn't advocating for cancel culture. We have a responsibility to try to keep ourselves honest & realistic, & due to our blind spots, we often need the help of those around us to achieve that. To accept that help is an act of trust. It's also a team effort - we work together to find the truth and to live by it. But when someone has demonstrated time & again that they lack both that trust & that trustworthiness, there comes a point where the effort to engage them is simply wasted. Am I barking up the right tree here?
You raise fine points but I suppose the history & context is lacking about the two of them, of course. I have an extremely difficult relationship with a sibling and can relate to this; what has ended that relationship is their sheer hostility & foul language. Profoundly disagreeing with someone is fine—any subject shouldn't be shut down—and that shouldn't end a familial relationship but it's the verbal assaults (& even threats) that'll do that.
Happy new year, Marcus. I totally agree that nobody should be subjected to abuse. "Profoundly disagreeing... shouldn't be shut down" I think needs some caveats. Alexandra discussed the challenge to balance the extremes of 1) inability to disagree civilly and 2) arguing with an irrational rock-hard belief/affirming falsehood. If we only speak with people we agree with (1), we stop learning and we miss the opportunity to correct false beliefs. But if we try to debate with someone who is unwilling to consider the possibility of being wrong, we waste our time and energy, or we compromise ourselves by affirming something we believe to be untrue (2). Between those extremes is 3) healthy, intelligent debate, where we present and genuinely consider opposing ideas. If we are sincere in our search for truth and in our humility, then we can disagree whilst effectively being on the same team with the same goal - truth. Implicit here is that we ourselves must be brave enough to always be mindful of the possibility of being wrong (This is what I meant by "trustworthiness"). And that is the responsibility we bear when we consider shutting down a conversation - Have I sincerely challenged my belief? Do I reject the opposing view because it is irrationally arrived at and held, or simply because I am attached to my own belief? If I can rigorously satisfy myself of these criteria being met - and a trustworthy 3rd party can be useful to check my own reality - and the "wrong" views are not open to honest reconsideration, then that conversation may well be a waste of time and energy, and maybe even destructive of a relationship. It can be a tough call to make, though.
Great insight again. It can be an extremely tough call, especially with family. Happy 2776th New Year!!
Well that was obscure, but I just learned what year Rome was founded. Thanks! :)
Glad to see somebody got it, without me explaining it! 😁 That's how old our calendar is.
I love your line quoting ... "argues that civility requires us to see and respect the humanity and dignity of others—including people unlike us, those who can do nothing for us, and those we disagree with." Over half way through my sixty-seventh trip around Old Sol and consequently experiencing a host of personal 'interesting events', from health to finances, to relationships, watching the national and world landscapes emerge in the most revolutionary way ever - through the internet - I always go back to the notes I would leave my kids when I left to travel on business (I called it flying the skies throughout North American and Mexico looking for cash under rocks). The note said every time. 1) Love God and Everyone else. Every single human. 2) Obey your mom 3) Think positive and 4) Be careful. I remember reading Bonhoeffer somewhere in my late thirties. As always you put is well... so well!!!
Alex, may I call u Alex, Ms Hudson, Let me impose on u just a bit, I have never read such articulated Imposition as u have written, One thing set me off about u and u r read, I enjoyed it emensely and could not put it down, keep my email address, because I would like to here more , it's like reading a bed time story and to enjoy your read and Intellectual!
When does an intellectual falling become a mess,
Well that's when u neither have anything n common, as a fellow person or to share!
But people have the right to there on beliefs & opinions, right or wrong! When the World saw Adolf Hitler as a bad man, (evil) not to leave out Putin today, he's not bad, but just mis-guided, mis led, both he and Adolf share a common goal tho, Adolf was out to conquer the World, as many Conqueror's before him, Roman empire, Gangus Know, Alexander the Great, Napolian, they also have something n common, time in which to Conquer the world, not enough of it, n time it will catch up with u, then conquer who ever doing the Conquering! Putin is not looking at the World , he just wants back what was once, for the USSR, either by mediation or forcably, history always has a way coming back around an Starring back at u n the face! Putin on the other hand takes Ukraine, then he will want Poland, ChezsRepublic, no telling what he will go after next!
Chinese let it be known they want they had laid claim. Too, the World!