Is revenge inferior to non-revenge?

How many of you have actually found satisfaction in revenge?
Care to share your stories? I would love to hear them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suspect that those who actually derrive satisfaction from achieving vengece are actually filling a need or desire that existed before whatever act happened that supposedly caused them to seek revenge in the first place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cole Grey:

And why is an eye for an eye right? If I am wronged, why should I not be compensated equally?

Koyaanisqatsi:

Agreed.

And what is morally inferior about desiring superiority?

I agree.

Onefinity:

Since justice cannot erase the past, I ask how it can return one to wholeness?

water:

I must agree with this, alas, based on personal experience. I once attempted to hurt someone equal to how much I hurt, but no matter what I did, it did not seem sufficient, and by the time I realized how fruitless it was, I had lost something very valuable to me. However, if one can overcome the restrictions and limitations of revenge, and accept the satisfaction of asserting that one will not be trod upon, that there is rammifications to one's actions, then to partake of it is not only acceptable, but perhaps even positive. Ontop of that, one can be hurt in a non-emotional manner, which is far more easy to avenge by similarly injuring that person.

Doing evil things? Why are they evil?

I would give the following reasons for why we might possibly seek revenge, off the top of my head:

1. To achieve equity. Having been robbed of something, to rob a person of something similar is to return to the state of equality, which can be said to erase everything but the memory of being wronged.

2. To see that they will know either that one cannot get away with hurting oneself, as a matter of pride, or that they cannot get away with hurting people in general, as a matter of justice.

3. To attain satisfaction of seeing another in pain who has caused oneself such, and to exert superiority over such.

God cannot possibly be injured or satisfied, owing to his immutability, nor can God, through punishment, erase the wound. Similarly, Epicurus has demonstrated to us down through the ages, that by no means can God be just, as is evident in the evil of the world, of which we are lead to believe God is the creator and sustainer, or if not, unperfect in one way, and thus possibly non-existent.

And if there is no law, there is no justice?

I for one, do not. However, by seeking the law system to help her, she is still seeking vengeance.

Neither morally inferior or superior, simply their Will to Power to do so, as Nietzsche would say.

If such is the case, then vengeance and justice may thus be conceived of as united, under the first posulation for the reasons for vengence, that I offer above. Indeed, I was even thinking of considering it the Desire for Justice, whih is equity before wrong commited.

one_raven:

I have, by crushing an opponent who was a braggart in a game and who purposefully attempted to make others feel bad when they similarly failed. I found great satisfaction in raping from him the smugness which marked his character.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

one_raven,

None, as I also couldn't find a sufficient way to revenge myself.

There are few people whom I wanted to hurt because they have hurt me, but they're dead now. I find it interesting, how little and belitteling it all seems to me now. I remember seeing them in their coffins, and I thought "Now what? Are you going to go at them now? ... But when would have been the right time?"

The stupid thing about revenge happens when you find the offender in a position where he cannot defend himself, for whatever reason.
An open, fair fight is a good thing. But for this, you need the other person's consent. But nowadays, few people have the sense of honour to go for a duel!

I sometimes think of going to my fourth grade teacher who has caused me a lot of harm, and get even. But what can I do? Beat up the old hag? She'll have just bruises, nothing more.
There is a sick aspect to this: My hope that she'd say "How dare you come at me, you little wench?!" If she'd say this, the original situation would be reestablished, I'd be the victim again, but with the difference that I am stronger now. But this isn't the right thing either. I can't make sure she'd experience what it is like to be expulsed from a class because you were a thorn in the incapable teacher's eye (I was an A student though); I can't make sure she'd experience what it is like to be thrown into a poorer class and then be treated like a monster by the whole school because you have offended your teacher. I can't make sure she'd experience four and a half years of having someone persecute you and belittle you one every step of the way.
The only real way to revenge myself would be to have her go through exactly the same I have been through. But this can't be done; now, any remake of this would be a mere farce.

I think so too.


* * *


Prince_James,

But how can you be compensated equally? In what cases?
A girl who has been raped -- should she go and rape her rapists to revenge herself?

For one, if one desires superiority, one thereby states that one considers oneself inferior.
For two, desiring superiority expresses that one measures one's self-worth by external means, in relation to other people.
As in saying "I am a worthy person only if I am superior to others". But worthy to whom? It is an aimless worth. And it disappears as soon as other people disappear, or one's ability to overpower them is diminished.

Ideally, maybe. Say that someone kicked you in the shin, leaving you a bad bruise. You kick them back, but unfortunately break their bone. Now what?
If anything, a proper threat will achieve far more. Like tying the person down, making it clear to them you are fully able to hurt them. But then refrain from hurting them and letting them go. But such a scenario is rare in real life, and very hard to do.

Trying to reproduce the mental hurt will take quite an effort on my part. It will involve hurting others and damaging things that had nothing to do with the other person's offence to me.
For example, I could kill that teacher's cat, this would surely hurt the teacher. But has her cat ever done any harm to me? No. So why kill it? If anything, the teacher will be sorry for the cat, but not sorry for having hurt me.

Had I killed her cat, my revenge efforts would be misplaced.

Like you said, in revenge, this tends to happen:

"I once attempted to hurt someone equal to how much I hurt, but no matter what I did, it did not seem sufficient, and by the time I realized how fruitless it was, I had lost something very valuable to me. "

I could seek and find ways to hurt that teacher, but this would take me a lot of time and effort, at least that. Time and effort that I could spend on doing something good, like playing with my cat or learning French.

Also, in plotting against her, I would be doing something which I detest in other people. I couldn't stand myself afterwards!

This is what the exercise of law tries to do.
But what do you do with the murderer of your child, or a rapist? What can you rob them of?

Yes.

But how long does this superiority last? What is it worth?

Please read the paper by Kalomiros I have linked to in the other thread (about beliefs).

Justice cannot exist without law.

Is that right or wrong?
There was the suggestion once that rape should not be treated as a crime, and that women should take it as a price they have to and should pay in the name of evolution. They should accomodate the men and let them rape them; if women defend themselves, they are in fact trying to oppose evolution -- which noone should ...

Beware, you have made yourself an enemy.

 

It isn't about erasing the past, or going backwards. It is going forward to wholeness. That wholeness is a form that transcends the previous wholeness, because of the experience, and so a transcendence and an evolution has occurred. It includes the previous, having needed it, but it is in a new form.

 

Water:

Yes, or accept something else as equal payment.

Realizing present inferiority is the first step towards attaining superiority. Improvement needs one to objectively look at things.

Why should one not base one's self-worth in relation to other people? If one was all alone, one would be the most superior, but in the company of others, there are standards of superiority judged by the self and by the group. If one desires either, then seeking such superiority is good for that individual. But yes, one has to recognize that superiority is something which can be lost.

The cycle could accelerate, though at the same time, one could judge one's desire for revenge based on intention. Ontop of that, one can prevent another from taking immediate revenge by hurting them in such a way, also. But yes, a bit unfortunate if one steps over bounds, but nothing too horrible about it either.

At this this can be better, yes.

One doesn't necessarily have to hurt a cat, or anything but the person, if you're willing to accept an equal level of pain from that person alone, as opposed to others. If not, then go about and do what you feel is necessary with others related to them.

Yes. If you don't value revenge, then it isn't worth it.

Their life? Their freedom? Their sanity? Their money?

It is worth only as much as it is worth to the individual.

Be glad to.

Okay.

In what way...is rape evolution? Ontop of this, women and men have no obligation to help evolution. No creature does. A creature has only obligations to the self, and even then, can do away with that obligation.

Indeed, I have.

Onefinity:

Elaborate?

 

You said something about those who find satisfaction in revenge wanted to attack someone anyway.

Intetesting point.

Anyway, here's a pseudo-story.

I like to go out and knock kids around at the local shows. You know, scenesters that fake hardcore. I also like to pre-game, if you know what I mean. Confrontation becomes much more visceral. Swinging and hitting and pushing and moving becomes second nature, right there in the gut.

Anyway, some kid decides it's cool to mosh by head butting through the crowd. Real obnoxious. When he comes to hit me, I roll with the hit, grabbing him by the neck. He's at hip level and moving toward me, so he's very easy to manipulate. I throw him into the stage. So hard and far into the stage, he skids into an amp.

I still get warm and tingly and feelign alright in my crotch when I recall this story.

More recently I was hitting and knocking dwon and breaking kids that pushed me. That made me feel real good, too.

 

Roman:

What do you mean by "pre-game"?

 

Prince_James,

Would you rape someone who has raped you, or raped your child? What is an equal payment for a rape?

Because in this, one's self-worth directly depends on other people. In practice, this means that one is nothing without others.
Do you think it is good to think of oneself as being nothing without others?

Superior to what?! If there is noone to compare oneself with, then neither superiority nor inferiority exist.

Talk is cheap.

And what satisfaction would you have? It is only if you take their life, that you might get some satisfaciton and security, as you prevent this person to hurt you again.
But how reasonable is it to kill someone who has stolen your purse? It might be reasonable to kill a rapist. But how to set the boundaries? Would you also kill someone who has hurt you by accident?

 

Water:

An equal payment would be anything which subjectively satisfies oneself in lieu of the same action on that person. Would I rape someone who raped me? If a man? No. I find the idea of homosexual contact to be personally disgusting (not objectively disgusting, that is, I do not find men attractive at all nor desire to have sex with them). If a woman? I find it hard to imagine I could be raped by her, but possibly, perhaps? I'd likely think of something in lieu of that, such as severe physical punishment or massive monetary awards, either through the legal system or on my own accord.

If one values it, I see no reason to not think it good. We are social creatures, after all, and in order to truly be superior or inferior is to judge based on interaction with others, no? If alone, we are necessarily the most superior and inferior, due to the fact that nothing can either be above or below us.

Superior to all challengers, which would be none. Though at the same time, one would be inferior to all challengers. So yes, superiority and inferiority are really best when judged against "other", just as many other attributes.

Satisfaction is subjective. It might be that money would ease their pain, others might require injury.

Reasonable? The "punishment doesn't fit the crime", I would say, in the case of a purse-snatcher, though the subjective value of the purse must be taken into account, as well as the fact thatone owuld be hard pressed to claim that it is morally wrong, objectively, to overstep what is "reasonable" to society. However, since society does exist, and it has laws and such, it may not be beneficial to act against them, as one will surely face punishment. However, if one feels it worth it, go for it. One only has oneself to blame if one later suffers.

 

Nothing at all. I was not showing distaste for desiring superiority, but distaste for those who cannot achieve it in themselves, and resort to exacting revenge without "honour". Prime examples being those who resort to using others to exact revenge on their behalf.

Again, though, the motivation for revenge might have considerable influence on this point. Those who seek revenge for social slights or standing are probably the lowest of the low, while the man seeking revenge on the one who killed his wife has probably the most pure motivation, by way of example.

 

Koy:

Why is it bad to use others for revenge?

Why?

 

an eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind.

Fairness is an imaginary idea, like unicorns.

(And no, not like God, you rats (EDIT-anyone who was going to say that, that is). God is an existing undefined, let's not get into that.)

 

Why does there seem to be a general idea that "revenge" must neccesarily be something violent or harmful? I.e., if a person thinks his "revenge" is just never talking to the other person again, then that's his "revenge". "Revenge" is decided by the doer, not the receiver. There is, of course, extremism in seeking revenge, but that's just one type/style.

Baron Max

 

Cole Grey:

And what would be terribly wrong about this?

Must we? I'd be interested why you think GOd is an existing undefined.

Baron Max:

Well put.

 

Blind world = crap.

P.S. I think the God thing would be off topic but here it is - God exists. Whether God is a misunderstood conception of the higher possibility of humanity, or a physical reality which our perceptions and scientific instruments haven't become advanced enough to test, or a big man in the sky who hides away from us so sinners have a chance to burn in hell... God exists. Even if only as a concept.

 

Cole Grey:

Interesting and well put.

 

to take revenge is to be a reaction
to show mercy,
is to blesseth him that gives and him that takes

 

Jacob:

Why not be a reaction?

And why is it a blessing to show mercy? One is allowing evil to go unpunished.

 

Precisely.