Who hasn't watched a film or TV program which shows a predator going after its prey? A hawk swooping down on an unsuspecting field mouse. A fox snaring a rabbit. A great white shark manhandling a dolphin. A lion bringing down a wildebeest.
And what of weather? There are countless depictions of the fury of storms. Tornadoes, tsunamis and hurricanes devastating large swaths of land. Earthquakes shattering buildings and bridges. Floods ripping gashes through towns and communities. Blizzards and avalanches burying human and animal alike in a death chamber of ice and snow. And volcanoes spreading plumes of noxious gas and molten lava in all directions.
As the last two verses covered of the TTC talk about the evils of war and violence, it begs the question: Isn't nature violent? If Taoists honor the natural processes around us and many of those processes seem ruthless, shouldn't Taoists embrace war and aggression as natural?
Before we can answer these questions, we must take a look at the definition of violence. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, violence is defined as "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse".
While nature can be forceful, I would argue that the element of intent is lacking and, therefore, it is not violent at all. We merely describe it that way because we view it in human terms and, since humans who act in these particular ways are violent, we say that nature is violent too.
(In many ways, this is very similar to the way most fundamentalist Christians view their God. They have created a supreme being that mirrors their own image (not the other way around). Their "God" exhibits all the petty emotions -- anger, lust, jealousy, inattentiveness, violence -- that humanity does!)
But with other beings in nature and the weather, this lack of conscious intent is glaring. For example, a lion kills when it is hungry. Once it has eaten, it rests and does not begin the hunt again until it needs more nourishment.
Lions don't run around killing prey indiscriminately, leaving most of the carcasses to rot in the sun. A hawk doesn't swoop down out of the sky to kill a mouse or rabbit, then fly off leaving the dead creature behind.
Compare this to humans. In war, soldiers don't kill other soldiers, then eat them. If they did, most everyone would be sickened and call them barbarians (or worse). They kill because of political objectives. It's not about the process of life and death. Yes, killing another soldier may preserve your life, but, if neither of you are there involved in a war, this wouldn't be a concern.
A hurricane doesn't ravage the sea and land because it has an axe to grind. Katrina didn't slam into the Gulf Coast because the people of Louisiana and Mississippi called the wind and clouds bad names. No, that hurricane came on shore because of a multitude of natural processes that lacked human intent.
The nature of our world simply is. We may call it violent, but that's only placing human terminology on forces we don't understand.
And what of weather? There are countless depictions of the fury of storms. Tornadoes, tsunamis and hurricanes devastating large swaths of land. Earthquakes shattering buildings and bridges. Floods ripping gashes through towns and communities. Blizzards and avalanches burying human and animal alike in a death chamber of ice and snow. And volcanoes spreading plumes of noxious gas and molten lava in all directions.
As the last two verses covered of the TTC talk about the evils of war and violence, it begs the question: Isn't nature violent? If Taoists honor the natural processes around us and many of those processes seem ruthless, shouldn't Taoists embrace war and aggression as natural?
Before we can answer these questions, we must take a look at the definition of violence. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, violence is defined as "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse".
While nature can be forceful, I would argue that the element of intent is lacking and, therefore, it is not violent at all. We merely describe it that way because we view it in human terms and, since humans who act in these particular ways are violent, we say that nature is violent too.
(In many ways, this is very similar to the way most fundamentalist Christians view their God. They have created a supreme being that mirrors their own image (not the other way around). Their "God" exhibits all the petty emotions -- anger, lust, jealousy, inattentiveness, violence -- that humanity does!)
But with other beings in nature and the weather, this lack of conscious intent is glaring. For example, a lion kills when it is hungry. Once it has eaten, it rests and does not begin the hunt again until it needs more nourishment.
Lions don't run around killing prey indiscriminately, leaving most of the carcasses to rot in the sun. A hawk doesn't swoop down out of the sky to kill a mouse or rabbit, then fly off leaving the dead creature behind.
Compare this to humans. In war, soldiers don't kill other soldiers, then eat them. If they did, most everyone would be sickened and call them barbarians (or worse). They kill because of political objectives. It's not about the process of life and death. Yes, killing another soldier may preserve your life, but, if neither of you are there involved in a war, this wouldn't be a concern.
A hurricane doesn't ravage the sea and land because it has an axe to grind. Katrina didn't slam into the Gulf Coast because the people of Louisiana and Mississippi called the wind and clouds bad names. No, that hurricane came on shore because of a multitude of natural processes that lacked human intent.
The nature of our world simply is. We may call it violent, but that's only placing human terminology on forces we don't understand.
actually, if you talk to farmers, you'll note that animals don't always kill just for food. cougars, for example, will kill all of the sheep in a barn and only eat one. why? because they are opportunists. in the wild they would not be able to catch and kill so many animals at one time, so their instinct says to kill as many as they can and eat as much as they can. just this past winter 2 wolves came to our porch and killed a cat of ours, but didn't eat it. animals often kill for territorial reasons. lions will kill the cubs of other lions purely for competition's sake. humans killing each other for the sake of competition isn't really all that different, except by doing so we often harm the rest of the world, not just each other.
ReplyDeleteI like "the nature of our world simply is". I think we discriminate (see things as violent/peaceful, good/evil, tasteful/distasteful) due to our conditioned perception as being separate from the universe. We see ourselves as separate from the universe and see each "other" object in the same light. Therefore to see one animal killed by another evokes emotions that stem from our imagining the same happening to us. We react with "that's violent".
ReplyDeleteIf we could truly experience the universe as one we would perhaps not see anything as being created or destroyed.
Ive always wondered, if we are part of nature and part of our nature has violence in it, then doesnt that mean violence is natural?
ReplyDeleteTit for Tat,
ReplyDeleteI think TaoTeChan I answered your question above, particularly in the last sentence.
In addition, if we were to adopt the kind of conceptualization that you suggest, then any type of thought, action or behavior could be viewed as "natural". Would you be okay with saying pedophilism and cannibalism are natural?
Iktomi,
The example of cougars killing sheep in the barn can only occur through the interference in the natural order by humankind. We're the ones who construct the barns and then crowd them with sheep.
if we were to adopt the kind of conceptualization that you suggest, then any type of thought, action or behavior could be viewed as "natural".(TRT)
ReplyDeleteYes this is true. I think how we allow things within the framework of a community is the question. If we base our views on love and connectedness then would pedophilia or cannibalism be beneficial? I would say no, though there are some cultures that think cannibalism was ok. In terms of a global community it doesnt seem to work. Unfortunately, rarely is it a black or white answer.
yes agreed, but there are plenty of examples of plants and animals killing for competition's sake, not just food or survival. nature is pretty "violent" according to human standards.
ReplyDeletehowever human beings are far more destructive than any animal or plant left to its own devices, and therefore we need ethics whereas nature does not need ethics. nature regulates itself, and the death of one animal means a better life for others. human beings do not self-regulate by nature, because we are such a powerful force and capable of far greater destruction.