One of the other reasons I oppose this tactic is it's profoundly destructive of human life without being in any way correlated with rightness of a cause. A world where people kill themselves both for Gaza and the Israeli hostages isn't helped in discernment by summing the supportive deaths on each side.
I think some of the romance of it comes out of the Civil Rights movement and the real moral weight of people enduring violence nonviolently for the sake of justice. And MLK realized that when police *didn't* respond to sit-ins with beatings, but with non-violent arrest or simply closing the lunch counter, he lost momentum. That's why he went to Birminham, where non-compliance was most likely to be met with brutal violence.
But I think it remains significant that his non-violence extended to himself—he never chose violence thought he chose to walk into the path of violent, vicious hatred. And nowadays, the police _are_ more careful—the highway blockages for Gaza would draw more sympathy if they were shot, but the police quietly arrest them, and instead of being underdogs, they just read as obstructionists.
Injustice? Where? In Gaza? Seems quite just to me that after years of enduring rockets and terror attacks Israel is rooting them out. There is far more starvation in Sudan about which nobody cares and actually no starvation in Gaza. Plus which according to polls there is huge support for Hamas among the civilians. I don't see injustice. I see quite the opposite.
I see nothing at all admirable in the act. His comments on Reddit make clear that he welcomed a complete genocide of Israeli, young and old, for the most superficial of reasons. He was inflamed, if you forgive the pun, by the wildly overheated rhetoric on his online forums. And the act was not only one of despair but utterly futile. It drew no additional attention to the war (“genocide”) in Gaza, which has maxed out on coverage, but only to himself. It was an empty, hideous, absurd and ultimately narcissistic act.
Let’s bracket the cause he killed himself for. I haven’t read his Reddit comments and have no desire to; I take your word that his views were horrific and stupid. I think we both agree that Mishima’s cause wasn’t worth pursuing at all, much less dying for, that’s why I began with him. And I agree completely that Bushnell’s suicide was futile, even potentially counterproductive — I believe I said as much.
Nonetheless, I can’t so easily brush it aside. Let me ask you: how do you feel about Simone Weill’s death? (Assuming it was self-willed; there’s plenty of dispute about that.) It’s appalling, I think, but nonetheless compelling, unavoidably so. Do you feel the same? Or do you dismiss her easily as an empty narcissist?
I’ve never read Weill and feel unprepared to speak authoritatively about her death. But once self-sacrifice stops serving a moral end — I.e., once it can no longer be said to save life, either directly as in the case of a soldier or fireman or indirectly by drawing attention to suffering in a way calculated to alleviate it — then it can only be understood in terms of honor, psychology or aesthetics. Honor societies, like Japan, that demand suicide under certain circumstances are utterly alien to me. I can’t really pass judgment on them because the entire framework they offer for making meaning of life is so remote from mine. I can only understand them in anthropological terms. Psychological reasons for suicide, such as physical or emotional agony or despair, are not admirable but understandable. I assume we can all reach such extremes of suffering that we can no longer bear being alive. And the last, the aesthetic reason, seems in every case hideous to me. It takes something sacred, a human life, and converts into an object to be destroyed for pleasure or effect. Weill’s suicide can be understood as either a moral act (unlikely), a result of agony (plausible), or an aesthetic act rooted in her Catholic faith.
I find her death profoundly sad—the fruit of self-mastery applied in the service of a bad philosophy. (Not unlike Javert! Admirable from some angles but a bad pattern for life)
One of the other reasons I oppose this tactic is it's profoundly destructive of human life without being in any way correlated with rightness of a cause. A world where people kill themselves both for Gaza and the Israeli hostages isn't helped in discernment by summing the supportive deaths on each side.
I think some of the romance of it comes out of the Civil Rights movement and the real moral weight of people enduring violence nonviolently for the sake of justice. And MLK realized that when police *didn't* respond to sit-ins with beatings, but with non-violent arrest or simply closing the lunch counter, he lost momentum. That's why he went to Birminham, where non-compliance was most likely to be met with brutal violence.
But I think it remains significant that his non-violence extended to himself—he never chose violence thought he chose to walk into the path of violent, vicious hatred. And nowadays, the police _are_ more careful—the highway blockages for Gaza would draw more sympathy if they were shot, but the police quietly arrest them, and instead of being underdogs, they just read as obstructionists.
I agree with all of that, Leah.
Sorry but,
“no impossible.” here seems little bit confusing. Maybe you meant “nigh-impossible”?
Thank you!
Injustice? Where? In Gaza? Seems quite just to me that after years of enduring rockets and terror attacks Israel is rooting them out. There is far more starvation in Sudan about which nobody cares and actually no starvation in Gaza. Plus which according to polls there is huge support for Hamas among the civilians. I don't see injustice. I see quite the opposite.
I see nothing at all admirable in the act. His comments on Reddit make clear that he welcomed a complete genocide of Israeli, young and old, for the most superficial of reasons. He was inflamed, if you forgive the pun, by the wildly overheated rhetoric on his online forums. And the act was not only one of despair but utterly futile. It drew no additional attention to the war (“genocide”) in Gaza, which has maxed out on coverage, but only to himself. It was an empty, hideous, absurd and ultimately narcissistic act.
Let’s bracket the cause he killed himself for. I haven’t read his Reddit comments and have no desire to; I take your word that his views were horrific and stupid. I think we both agree that Mishima’s cause wasn’t worth pursuing at all, much less dying for, that’s why I began with him. And I agree completely that Bushnell’s suicide was futile, even potentially counterproductive — I believe I said as much.
Nonetheless, I can’t so easily brush it aside. Let me ask you: how do you feel about Simone Weill’s death? (Assuming it was self-willed; there’s plenty of dispute about that.) It’s appalling, I think, but nonetheless compelling, unavoidably so. Do you feel the same? Or do you dismiss her easily as an empty narcissist?
I’ve never read Weill and feel unprepared to speak authoritatively about her death. But once self-sacrifice stops serving a moral end — I.e., once it can no longer be said to save life, either directly as in the case of a soldier or fireman or indirectly by drawing attention to suffering in a way calculated to alleviate it — then it can only be understood in terms of honor, psychology or aesthetics. Honor societies, like Japan, that demand suicide under certain circumstances are utterly alien to me. I can’t really pass judgment on them because the entire framework they offer for making meaning of life is so remote from mine. I can only understand them in anthropological terms. Psychological reasons for suicide, such as physical or emotional agony or despair, are not admirable but understandable. I assume we can all reach such extremes of suffering that we can no longer bear being alive. And the last, the aesthetic reason, seems in every case hideous to me. It takes something sacred, a human life, and converts into an object to be destroyed for pleasure or effect. Weill’s suicide can be understood as either a moral act (unlikely), a result of agony (plausible), or an aesthetic act rooted in her Catholic faith.
I find her death profoundly sad—the fruit of self-mastery applied in the service of a bad philosophy. (Not unlike Javert! Admirable from some angles but a bad pattern for life)