Well written, Vanya, it must have taken you some heart to publish this one. There's lots I would comment here, but I'd rather you and I share thoughts on these topics over a drink some day. As someone who lived through a war on my doorstep very much like what's happenining now in Ukraine, it filled me with a deep sadness from the day it started, not just the destruction and the killing, but because I've seen what it does to people's souls.
But I'll mention one thing - you write about objective truths and universal human values. I used to think these things are real, but I don't anymore. There's nothing objective in the idea one shouldn't kill. At best it's "don't kill members of the same tribe", to keep social order, but the Other can be slaughtered and enslaved. The belief that the Other deserves rights is a comparatevly new and, I've come to realize, very fragile idea that tends to slip away easily under a bit of pressure. And if you want to turn people on each other, all you have to do is convice someone that another is an Other and watch as they rationalize how destroying the Other is what makes one Good. So yes, a world where this doesn't happend needs to be earned indeed, and the work is long, hard and ungreatful. And requires a lot vigilance.
Thank you sir! Definitely a drink one day would be fantastic.
I'm not a huge believer in objective truths and universal human values per se, especially ones enforced by any doctrine, but non-violence seem to be emergent for us globally, at least, as you said, within each and every "tribe".
Violence may be unavoidable or necessary for survival—that's the is the world we live in. If you're attacked you have no choice but to be violent otherwise you'll die which is no bueno. It's hard to believe for me there'll be a global peace one day — it's probably delulu and naive.
So "At best it's "don't kill members of the same tribe", to keep social order, but the Other can be slaughtered and enslaved. The belief that the Other deserves rights is a comparatevly new and, I've come to realize, very fragile idea that tends to slip away easily under a bit of pressure" — this is a fair judgment in a sense that it's how it seems to be in reality.
It is, however, a slippery slope. If we give an institution or ourselves a mandate on violence in certain cases it'll might as well boomerang and the range of that mandate might expand not in your favour before you can blink. If you can justify killing the Other, why can't you do that with your own tribe one day? One who says killing the Other is good risks one day becoming the Other for someone who follows the same reasoning.
Perhaps, we should detach violence or non-violence from "good" or "evil", not only because it's often "grey" and not black or white but mainly because it makes it instrumental. People strive to be good, so if we attach violence to those categories, it starts being used as means for reaching "goodness". And I think my main thesis is it, violence, killing, destruction, etc. should never be instrumental. We should never allow anyone to think that if they kill someone that would make them "good" or "bad". As you mentioned, killing, whether the Friend or the Other won't do good for their soul / psyche. But the thing is, it doesn't apply to people who aren't in direct confrontation—they are far away and don't care as long as they’re safe themselves. There's nothing "bad" happening to them, they don't feel that suffering on themselves, neither as a victim nor as an aggressor, so there's no “inner balance” of sorts and perhaps that is exactly what makes it easy for them support it (or at least ignore). For people on a battlefield, "good" or "bad" aren't even categories I think, because for them it's total chaos, a mess—the Friend gets killed, the Other is killed in return, again—a battle for survival. Maybe, if people start thinking that killing is net negative or at least pointless when there's a choice, they would question once more the necessity of it or the reason or the consequences of it when they face it themselves, even remotely.
P.S. Even though I wrote this essay, there's still a lot of mess in my head regarding the topic.
Very important work at a very important time in history — when "checking yourself" and your values is harder than it's portrayed in just-so literature and forces larger than yourself are always shifting the moral landscape beneath you step by step.
Thank you for reading! YES, it's immensely difficult now given the number of the competing forces and abundance of choices, it provides both freedom and creates so much confusion that it's common to choose the easiest of the presented ways. Perhaps acknowledging the problem and growing awareness of it could be the first step in improving the situation if not solving it completely . . .
Incredible post. I think about this a lot as I watch what's happening in the west. "Good" people doing nothing as the march of tyranny slowly creeps along. My heart goes out to you and your family. As you pointed out, at least you are speaking to one another, so there's hope. Amazing courage to publish these thoughts.
“People rarely deem themselves to be wrong, and if they do, they immediately cease to be so because both the very fact of admitting wrongness and its consequences makes them right, magically.”
I was wrong, I admit it. This admission lifts the stone of knowing that my beliefs are flawed. Perhaps if I find a better way to lift the stone. Maybe lifting the stone isn’t the right thing to do. In recognizing my wrongness and acting upon it, seeking to understand the roots of my beliefs. Digging. This is hard work. It is in open dialogue and intellectual humility that we can find a path to this recognition and thus, action.
This piece has stayed with me for a couple of days now. Thank you for writing it (sounds so banal) -- it is powerful. And the Oelze painting is the perfect illustration. I noticed that one person is turned away from the unfolding events. And it makes me remember a question that wells up now and then. How do we know when it begins?
Thank you Minna! Well spotted, I really love this painting, even wanted to write a whole story inspired by it.
I think it’s hard to know when it begins. Perhaps when you start having serious doubts for the first time?.. People who have inside information and disagree with the government’s actions is usually a sign as well. Some said even in 1999 about Putin,that the country is lost with him and they immediately left. I bet many would think they acted weird back then but well… Also, a lot of political fiction is usually ahead of its time, a few such cases. Not just because writers have a keen eye on things but because they hyperbolise problems and it ends up being a prediction 🤷
That's a very personal post for me, since I have lived through very similar conversations with my relatives. And yeah, I also more and more find myself going back to literature about Nazi Germany and life there for emotional/reasoning advice; unbelievably, it became relevant to any Russian-speaking person. I can also recommend Viktor Klemperer's "Language of the Third Reich", as one of the many answers to "Why?" and "How?".
Your debate reflects the very same metaphysical debate happening in the West: has history ended / changed fundamentally or not?
For the reactionary, Putin is just Peter the Great who conquered half of Ukraine and half of the Baltics. Doing stuff like that is historically normal. 2024 normal is the same as 1700 normal.
For the liberal, history has ended or changed fundamentally. Britain just does not go conquering half of Ireland, this stuff is just not done anymore. After WW2 the UN was founded explicitly to put an end to the stage of history where this is normal.
Well written, Vanya, it must have taken you some heart to publish this one. There's lots I would comment here, but I'd rather you and I share thoughts on these topics over a drink some day. As someone who lived through a war on my doorstep very much like what's happenining now in Ukraine, it filled me with a deep sadness from the day it started, not just the destruction and the killing, but because I've seen what it does to people's souls.
But I'll mention one thing - you write about objective truths and universal human values. I used to think these things are real, but I don't anymore. There's nothing objective in the idea one shouldn't kill. At best it's "don't kill members of the same tribe", to keep social order, but the Other can be slaughtered and enslaved. The belief that the Other deserves rights is a comparatevly new and, I've come to realize, very fragile idea that tends to slip away easily under a bit of pressure. And if you want to turn people on each other, all you have to do is convice someone that another is an Other and watch as they rationalize how destroying the Other is what makes one Good. So yes, a world where this doesn't happend needs to be earned indeed, and the work is long, hard and ungreatful. And requires a lot vigilance.
Thank you sir! Definitely a drink one day would be fantastic.
I'm not a huge believer in objective truths and universal human values per se, especially ones enforced by any doctrine, but non-violence seem to be emergent for us globally, at least, as you said, within each and every "tribe".
Violence may be unavoidable or necessary for survival—that's the is the world we live in. If you're attacked you have no choice but to be violent otherwise you'll die which is no bueno. It's hard to believe for me there'll be a global peace one day — it's probably delulu and naive.
So "At best it's "don't kill members of the same tribe", to keep social order, but the Other can be slaughtered and enslaved. The belief that the Other deserves rights is a comparatevly new and, I've come to realize, very fragile idea that tends to slip away easily under a bit of pressure" — this is a fair judgment in a sense that it's how it seems to be in reality.
It is, however, a slippery slope. If we give an institution or ourselves a mandate on violence in certain cases it'll might as well boomerang and the range of that mandate might expand not in your favour before you can blink. If you can justify killing the Other, why can't you do that with your own tribe one day? One who says killing the Other is good risks one day becoming the Other for someone who follows the same reasoning.
Perhaps, we should detach violence or non-violence from "good" or "evil", not only because it's often "grey" and not black or white but mainly because it makes it instrumental. People strive to be good, so if we attach violence to those categories, it starts being used as means for reaching "goodness". And I think my main thesis is it, violence, killing, destruction, etc. should never be instrumental. We should never allow anyone to think that if they kill someone that would make them "good" or "bad". As you mentioned, killing, whether the Friend or the Other won't do good for their soul / psyche. But the thing is, it doesn't apply to people who aren't in direct confrontation—they are far away and don't care as long as they’re safe themselves. There's nothing "bad" happening to them, they don't feel that suffering on themselves, neither as a victim nor as an aggressor, so there's no “inner balance” of sorts and perhaps that is exactly what makes it easy for them support it (or at least ignore). For people on a battlefield, "good" or "bad" aren't even categories I think, because for them it's total chaos, a mess—the Friend gets killed, the Other is killed in return, again—a battle for survival. Maybe, if people start thinking that killing is net negative or at least pointless when there's a choice, they would question once more the necessity of it or the reason or the consequences of it when they face it themselves, even remotely.
P.S. Even though I wrote this essay, there's still a lot of mess in my head regarding the topic.
Very important work at a very important time in history — when "checking yourself" and your values is harder than it's portrayed in just-so literature and forces larger than yourself are always shifting the moral landscape beneath you step by step.
Thank you for reading! YES, it's immensely difficult now given the number of the competing forces and abundance of choices, it provides both freedom and creates so much confusion that it's common to choose the easiest of the presented ways. Perhaps acknowledging the problem and growing awareness of it could be the first step in improving the situation if not solving it completely . . .
Incredible post. I think about this a lot as I watch what's happening in the west. "Good" people doing nothing as the march of tyranny slowly creeps along. My heart goes out to you and your family. As you pointed out, at least you are speaking to one another, so there's hope. Amazing courage to publish these thoughts.
“People rarely deem themselves to be wrong, and if they do, they immediately cease to be so because both the very fact of admitting wrongness and its consequences makes them right, magically.”
I was wrong, I admit it. This admission lifts the stone of knowing that my beliefs are flawed. Perhaps if I find a better way to lift the stone. Maybe lifting the stone isn’t the right thing to do. In recognizing my wrongness and acting upon it, seeking to understand the roots of my beliefs. Digging. This is hard work. It is in open dialogue and intellectual humility that we can find a path to this recognition and thus, action.
This piece has stayed with me for a couple of days now. Thank you for writing it (sounds so banal) -- it is powerful. And the Oelze painting is the perfect illustration. I noticed that one person is turned away from the unfolding events. And it makes me remember a question that wells up now and then. How do we know when it begins?
Thank you Minna! Well spotted, I really love this painting, even wanted to write a whole story inspired by it.
I think it’s hard to know when it begins. Perhaps when you start having serious doubts for the first time?.. People who have inside information and disagree with the government’s actions is usually a sign as well. Some said even in 1999 about Putin,that the country is lost with him and they immediately left. I bet many would think they acted weird back then but well… Also, a lot of political fiction is usually ahead of its time, a few such cases. Not just because writers have a keen eye on things but because they hyperbolise problems and it ends up being a prediction 🤷
That's a very personal post for me, since I have lived through very similar conversations with my relatives. And yeah, I also more and more find myself going back to literature about Nazi Germany and life there for emotional/reasoning advice; unbelievably, it became relevant to any Russian-speaking person. I can also recommend Viktor Klemperer's "Language of the Third Reich", as one of the many answers to "Why?" and "How?".
It sucks, man, it really does.
thank you❤️
and the book recommendation is very timely, might be useful as a research future essays! cheers
Yesterday, a new Vlad Vexler video dropped with some similar sentiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdS-lwb58KU
Your debate reflects the very same metaphysical debate happening in the West: has history ended / changed fundamentally or not?
For the reactionary, Putin is just Peter the Great who conquered half of Ukraine and half of the Baltics. Doing stuff like that is historically normal. 2024 normal is the same as 1700 normal.
For the liberal, history has ended or changed fundamentally. Britain just does not go conquering half of Ireland, this stuff is just not done anymore. After WW2 the UN was founded explicitly to put an end to the stage of history where this is normal.