Forgiveness

There's no forgiveness without compassion. If we see compassion in the eyes of someone who's hurt us then that counts more than apology or retribution. There are few things more healing than to see genuine understanding and sorrow in those who've done us harm.

But mostly, those who hurt us don't have compassion for us and never will, so what we do instead is fake forgiveness. Armour up and feign having moved on. The fakery in that sort of forgiveness is evident when you talk to people about their hurts. You'll see stiff masks, hear euphemisms, and get flashes of hidden anger.

The only forgiveness is through compassion -- our transgressors' compassion for us, or our compassion for them. But compassion requires understanding and sympathy. Understanding someone who's hurt us can take a long time and is often scary and hurtful. Many people don't attempt it.

Self-forgiveness is meaningless without self-knowledge. Just as we can deny the hurts that others have done, we can deny the hurts that we do: reset our self-judgement time after time, each time saying that we'll never make the same mistake again. But if we don't take the trouble to understand our mistakes and learn from them we can't possibly have the compassion to forgive ourselves. Instead, we comfort ourselves with denial. Often our self-delusion is so strong that denial looks a lot like self-forgiveness. But again, look for avoidance, euphemisms and hidden shame.

Forgiveness of others won't teach us self-forgiveness. Compassion alone teaches us forgiveness of others and self-forgiveness.

My suggestion then: don't get hung up on forgiveness. If there's enough compassion in you to forgive then you'll know straight away. If there's not then there's no point straining for it. Strive for compassion instead. Seek understanding and sympathy.

At its best forgiveness is a side-effect of compassion. At its worst the idealisation of forgiveness is a distracting deceit that holds back our wisdom, and creates an excuse to feel moral and superior while we secretly keep a slate.

A philosopher who has impacted me quite a bit speaks about love and forgiveness:

http://www.janushead.org/8-1/Ricoeur.pdf

AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

A philosopher who has impacted me quite a bit speaks about love and forgiveness:

Click to expand...

It lost me in para 2 when he said that:

the problem of forgiveness concerns a request addressed to others.

Click to expand...

This is like saying that the problem of love concerns how to milk it from others.

We don't actually need forgiveness from others to conduct our affairs. If they're strangers, their indifference suffices. If they're loved-ones, their fond delusions about us are quite adequate. Ask for forgiveness from others and by and large indifference and fond delusions are what you'll get; or else fake posturing as I've mentioned before.

Forgiveness of others is an artefact of compassion. It may or may not be requested; we can still give it.

Forgiveness by others can't actually be given on request. It's either given regardless, or faked, or not given at all.

Why might we need forgiveness by others? Heres my account: because sometimes the people we hurt hold a mirror of truth toward us by their very existence. That mirror can be very hard to face at times. Forgiveness by others allows us cover the mirror again before we're obliged to see what it shows.

My suggestion: never, never seek forgiveness from others. Seek rather compassion for those your errors have hurt; wisdom from your mistakes.

Um....

Were you raised atheist?

It's just that I really don't worry about these things.

I forgive or not forgive based on an instinctive version of Prisoners Dilemma. I try not to hate too much, because it distracts me from other more pleasant experiences like love. I do feel guilt, but am more concerned with learning and moving on, than with getting forgiveness (which however is nice).

zornhau said:

I do feel guilt, but am more concerned with learning and moving on, than with getting forgiveness (which however is nice).

Click to expand...

I quite agree. Guilt is sometimes just fear in disguise, but it's also often a symptom of compassion. Its cure is not to seek forgiveness but to make our compassion more useful.

To my thinking:

We do not forgive just for one holds sorrow/compassion in their deed wrought upon us when they make an apology. We forgive for we have the ability/desire to do so. And even does another not wish our forgiveness or ask for it? We forgive for we have ability or desire to do so. We do not have to tell them on it if they are not receptive to hearing we forgive. Tis the action of forgiving that holds meaning, not giving the words to those who do not wish to hear them.

Truthful forgiving is done regardless of the other.

We only control ourselves and our responses and actions.

In living on a path that allows us to truly "do unto others..." we forgive.

For the record I'm very, actually overly agnostic, but I kept thinking "do on to others" as I read the disertation, can you explain where or why its' different?

Don Allen said:

I kept thinking "do on to others" as I read the disertation, can you explain where or why its' different?

Click to expand...

"Do unto others" is generally recognised as an ethic. Ethics are principles of behaviour we hold ourselves to, regardless of motive. If you believe that forgiveness is just a behaviour but not a motive then there might not be much difference in the two for you.

But if forgiveness is a question of motive as well as behaviour then it becomes a moral question: a question about what motives are good or bad for us as people and why they're good or bad. I feel that David's reflection in the OP is concerned with morality more than ethics.

Don Allen said:

For the record I'm very, actually overly agnostic, but I kept thinking "do on to others" as I read the disertation, can you explain where or why its' different?

Click to expand...

I do not speak for another - only myself. I am NOT a religious person per se' in a conventional sense. I do not attend organized religion facilities, have had very little religious instruction in my lifetime.

I believe that we should be good/caring/giving for humanity's sake alone. Thus, what I say may not be viewed correctly by anyone practicing a particular religious faith. But, it is right for me. And the life I live and how I choose to live it.

When I think "do unto others" it means that I actually "do" what I can, when I can, IF I can. Regardless of reward, regardless of it being noticed, regardless of anything outside me. It is borne of something within me, a wish for Peace to all. I do what I can/when I can/IF I can. And, I do it with faithfulness that it is right for me to do so. For the sake of humanity.

For, it is kindness/giving/caring that are cornerstones (in my mind) of humanity. And, humanity can always use good spread about.

So, I always try act in a manner to others, with others that shows them kindness/caring/giving. (I am human, do err)

And, I would not expect, but hope that such is returned to me. So, I "do" as I would hope would be given in the same measure. NOT things. Just kindness/respect/caring.

If one does it for it is expected by someone else, a societal standard, they were told to do so, or they do it for their religion requires it? Then, they are really not "doing unto," they are merely paying lip service to the idea of it.

To me, that is the difference.

Christine

The thing about this article is that I'm not into it 100% either (nor about every detail I'll write here myself). Like any philosopher, Ricoeur just gives me a lot to think about. One thing I'll try to do here is address sincere requests for forgiveness.

We don't actually need forgiveness from others to conduct our affairs.

Click to expand...

This is true, quite obviously. But when we feel we've done something really utterly wrong to someone else, it's often due to the pangs of our conscience. It can go so far as extreme guilt, or a sort of self-hatred. I think here is when one should seek forgiveness-- even if from one's self. The reason I say that is because "doing something wrong" in our own eyes is a violation of a) who we think we are or b) who we'd like to be. In performing a "wrong" action, from our own perspectives, we create a split, an inner divisiveness. Forgiving oneself or being forgiven is a way of healing the wound, so to speak.

If they're strangers, their indifference suffices. If they're loved-ones, their fond delusions about us are quite adequate. Ask for forgiveness from others and by and large indifference and fond delusions are what you'll get; or else fake posturing as I've mentioned before.

Click to expand...

You know, Ruv, I agree. The thing is, indifference is related to the amnesia Ricoeur discusses. The difference between indifference and forgiveness is the healing. Many people, admittedly might function regularly if the "wrong" action they've committed is not-so-bad, and they receive indifference toward their actions. But come with me next time I visit people in jail who've wrecked their families because of drugs, people who have no visitors, and no one to ask for forgiveness (not even God). Do you really think that indifference heals them or suffices to allow them to function even according to their conscience? I mean, is there anything colder than a jail cell?

Based on stats given by the PATRICK Crusade: As of 1999, in California, prisoners with no visitors were six times more likely to re-enter prison during the first year of parole as those with three or more visitors from "family interest programs," i.e., those seeking to repair familial relations. Slowly, after these initial visitations, the family is re-introduced to renew communication. The communication's main function was to soften and eventually clear the anger, shame, and resentment of both sides. My one curiosity is whether or not forgiveness was really involved, encouraged, and if so, in what ways. But the stats, obviously, didn't specify.

Forgiveness of others is an artefact of compassion. It may or may not be requested; we can still give it.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I wonder (not assert) if forgiveness is in part an act of communication. And so I wonder whether or not "forgiveness" is possible without a request. My account: if a daughter hates her father for the wrongs he's done to her and the rest of her family, but she never shows her hatred (a sort of indifference), but eventually says or concludes that she forgives him, has forgiveness actually taken place? Ricoeur wrote that forgiveness and justice are tied up with one another, and I suppose in this regard I happen to agree.

Forgiveness by others can't actually be given on request. It's either given regardless, or faked, or not given at all.

Click to expand...

I disagree in part with this statement based on the "faked", but only because I don't think forgiveness is a one-time action. We have memories and we have emotions. An act of forgiveness is ongoing, and as such, begins upon the request (if agreed to), and may be shaky at best, but still has time to grow. An agreement to forgive is also an agreement, I think (in this moment), to continue to forgive that wrong action.

Why might we need forgiveness by others? Heres my account: because sometimes the people we hurt hold a mirror of truth toward us by their very existence.

Click to expand...

Yes.

That mirror can be very hard to face at times. Forgiveness by others allows us cover the mirror again before we're obliged to see what it shows.

Click to expand...

No. The act of asking for forgiveness must stem from the understanding that one has done wrong, otherwise, why ask for it? I think asking for forgiveness in this regard comes from seeing the mirror. The act of being forgiven allows us to see what more is in the mirror.

Seek rather compassion for those your errors have hurt; wisdom from your mistakes.

Click to expand...

What's interesting is in a way I don't see too much of a difference here. But that's because I do not equate forgiveness and forgetfulness.


AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

come with me next time I visit people in jail who've wrecked their families because of drugs, people who have no visitors, and no one to ask for forgiveness (not even God). Do you really think that indifference heals them or suffices to allow them to function even according to their conscience? I mean, is there anything colder than a jail cell?

Click to expand...

Setting aside the rhetoric, the core of this statement is the point that people need to belong, with which I agree. But there's a big difference between being included and belonging. And the gap in that, I'd suggest, is largely one of compassion. If our society has compassion for us, we'll feel that we belong there. If our society has no compassion for us, we quickly feel that we don't belong. That can be a terrible feeling.

Arguably, a lot of criminal activity stems from a lack of sense of belonging in the first place. It's even harder to build that sense of belonging after someone has a criminal record than before.

But I think that the forgiveness you're describing is the development of mutual compassion. "I don't belong with you but I have compassion for you" and "You don't belong with me but I have compassion for you" become "We belong".

I don't see that as inconsistent with anything I've said earlier. I would however note that it's not always possible to create belonging from compassion. Since you're arguing that forgiveness is about belonging, I think I'm saying that sometimes forgiveness isn't possible, or even desireable. That's a miserable truth, but I still think it's true.

Some afterthoughts on the question of forgiveness/belonging...

I think that many requests for forgiveness are actually 'rebelonging' requests in disguise -- motivated not so much by guilt as loneliness, fear and dismay at being cast out. Whether it's a betrayal of a confidence, say, or theft from a friend or loved one, or a spouse's infidelity, each incurs loss of trust and belonging; a request for forgiveness is a request to restore the old status quo.

Remorse need not be a part of that request; a mere appearance of remorse suffices. Guilt need not be part of it; it's enough to feign guilt. Our news is full of prepared statements feigning guilt and remorse, asking for forgiveness. There are whole industries (like public relations, defence law and civil law) built around such fabrications.

But compassion isn't enough to grant a request for 'rebelonging'; there must also be trust. Can you forgive someone without restoring trust to them? I think not. Is it wise to restore trust to someone who has betrayed it and lacks compassion for the impacts?

Hardly.

But I think that the forgiveness you're describing is the development of mutual compassion.

Click to expand...

Mutual compassion+. Compassion does not equal healing. Forgiveness is an active-action, while compassion a static one. Compassion is an agent of action, but not action itself.

In fact, it means the opposite (suffering with, remember) of healing. Mutual compassion may be necessary, but the extra step I'm actually discussing is the realm of forgiveness.

Likewise forgiveness without compassion is amnesia, which is certainly-- in my opinion-- what those fabrications are after. Nor do I think forgiveness restores an old status quo-- if that's the case, what wisdom has been learned? None.


AMC


ETA:

First I'd like to apologize to the OP. Your post is interesting, as you can tell. If anything work it into a short story as a theme. You won't need it verbatim.

Secondly, an important part of my spirituality and my ethics, for that matter, center around healing (psychological, spiritual, physical ), which may clarify or confuse my responses concerning forgiveness.

AMCrenshaw said:

Mutual compassion+. Compassion does not equal healing. Forgiveness is an active-action, while compassion a static one. Compassion is an agent of action, but not action itself.

Click to expand...

Actually I think it depends on what sort of healing you're talking about. Loneliness, for instance, can be healed by compassion alone. I think that some Buddhists would disagree that compassion is static or passive; I'm not sure whether I agree with them, but I do think that compassion is a motive, not simply an emotion. Therefore it evidences in behaviour.

If you're talking about the hurt of not-belonging then I'd suggest that it's healed by adoption into a respectable group that holds us in compassion. (Respectable meaning a group that we respect, regardless of whether it's respected in general). If that's a group we used to belong to, then presumably they've forgiven us whatever transgression got us ejected (even if we didn't transgress but were only thought to have done so). If it's some new group then clearly this is not about forgiveness.

I'd like to echo AMC's apology to David for dragging this off into abstruse directions. In an attempt to dig it out of philosophical reflection and into constructive writerliness...

I cannot forgive myself until I have forgiven others

Click to expand...

This is a theme for a possible story. You could maybe articulate it thus:
Then you could write a two-arc story that shows this. You could fit two arcs to the one character, or one arc to each of two characters and show them in contrast. You could include the quotation or not, depending on how well it fit the exposition.

Actually I think it depends on what sort of healing you're talking about. Loneliness, for instance, can be healed by compassion alone.

Click to expand...

Like I said, compassion alone isn't action. It's an emotion. It definitely leads to action, but compassion alone won't really do anything. Compassion is only a motive when it directly leads to action (which is in fact what the Buddhists think, but their word for compassion can transliterate to wisdom and sometimes lovingkindness). And yes, I think when it's strong enough, it does. To state again, I don't think it does universally. I have compassion for those abused dogs on those damn commercials, but I can't give them my time or my money, just a feeling which is much stronger than empathy, but which isn't enough to motivate me into action.

The rest of what you write, Ruv, I can only speculate about, since until this point I haven't fully considered the feeling of belonging. Which I will now. But the wound that needs healing during moments where forgiveness is in question, it's too multi-faceted to reduce it to belonging alone-- I know that, unless one can feel they belong in one's own skin. That might be an aesthetic question, for another time or place.

AMC

David Conner said:

"I cannot condemn others without condemning myself, because at the deepest level, I judge both by the same standard. "

Click to expand...

I can't disagree more.

I don't know you and but it's quite easy to see that you're thoughtful and compassionate. So why be so hard on yourself? Certainly you can condemn Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, et al, without condemning yourself.

Is there a point in condemning these people further than they have been? Is it possible (or even desirable) to move on from their actions with wisdom without forgetting them? Curious what you think, Fullbookjacket.


AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

Is there a point in condemning these people further than they have been? Is it possible (or even desirable) to move on from their actions with wisdom without forgetting them? Curious what you think, Fullbookjacket.


AMC

Click to expand...

Yes, there absolutely is a point, even an imperative, in condemning these people without end. The reason being, societies and individuals have short memories. There is a ready market for hate in this world, and a ready source for spreading disinformation about heinous crimes against humanity. As we speak, there are millions who swear that the Holocaust is a myth.

If crimes against humanity are not talked about, they are simply forgotten.

Seriously, is Pol Pot even remembered? I would bet the mortgage that 90% of Americans have no idea who this monster was. How do you keep the memory alive? By telling the story and condemning the man.

Yes, there absolutely is a point, even an imperative, in condemning these people without end. The reason being, societies and individuals have short memories. There is a ready market for hate in this world, and a ready source for spreading disinformation about heinous crimes against humanity. As we speak, there are millions who swear that the Holocaust is a myth.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm wondering about. Is condemnation a form of hatred? Is our imperative to sling the second arrow, prolong the hatred?

If crimes against humanity are not talked about, they are simply forgotten.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but understanding and talking about crimes does not alone equate to condemnation nor hatred.

AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

That's what I'm wondering about. Is condemnation a form of hatred?

Click to expand...

Is it bad to hate "evil" acts and those who relentlessly perpetrated them?

and those who relentlessly perpetrated them?

Click to expand...

This is the part I question the most. And I have no satisfactory answer.

AMC

benbradley said:

Is it bad to hate "evil" acts and those who relentlessly perpetrated them?

Click to expand...

I would have said that - from an evolutionary POV - that is exactly what hate is for.
Or, looked at the other way around, what harm is there in hating evil people? (As long as the hate doesn't become an self-destructive obsession.)

Or, looked at the other way around, what harm is there in hating evil people?

Click to expand...

I shudder every time I might have to use the word evil in any way other than absolute. If I say there is no evil, someone will be sure to cite Hitler, Stalin, or some other psychopath. But maybe we need our villains, to stand as symbols of what holds back the collective wellbeing of a civilization.

What can hating evil do wrong? If it turns to violence. If we perform violence, we do essentially what our villains do. If we perform violence against "the evil" only, we do essentially what our villains do. Other and destroy.


AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

What can hating evil do wrong? If it turns to violence. If we perform violence, we do essentially what our villains do. If we perform violence against "the evil" only, we do essentially what our villains do. Other and destroy.
AMC

Click to expand...

So I'll ring my great uncle - ya'know? - the Spitfire pilot who lost so many friends in the 1940s and tell him that it was all rather a waste of time. And this Jewish mate of mine whose family fled Europe in the 1930s...