Reconciliation and Forgiveness

TimeLine

Are they mutually exclusive? Whilst I would like to explore this question philosophically by ascertaining the nature of forgiveness, it does arrive from a shift in my appreciation for the ethics behind forbearance in relation to reconciliation without necessarily forgiving the said party. Think Luke 17:3-4:

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

The problem with that is clearly the authenticity behind 'I repent' that has always stood firm within me, where a repetition of behaviour clearly outlines that the person is unwilling to actually admit to his/her wrongdoing.

To give you some perspective, I have not spoken to my mother for sometime as any attempt quickly turned sour, the latter due to her constant denial when I would remind her of the many wrongs she has done to me, instead getting defensive and shifting the blame to me making it impossible to communicate or reason with her. I experienced some serious difficulties and over the past several years have spent most of my time confronting previous experiences as a matter of healing and I have done really well thus far, having now transformed into a physically healthy, happy and successfully independent person.

She recently contacted me on instagram to my dismay and it afforded a new method of communication that enabled a distance from her rather emotive behaviour. She never treated me well and I basically grew up and lived on my own, but she herself was mistreated rather contemptibly and in her efforts to survive both for herself and for her children, she developed such issues. The experiences I had recently enabled me to understand the astounding effects that other people can have to your mental health and I began to appreciate just how much she went through. It allowed me to remember amidst the so many wrongs those beautiful moments such as when she would hug me in bed as a child and I could feel her breath crawl down the back of my head. I am still afraid to take it beyond what it is now, to actually reconcile, but having forgiven her it is really nice talking to her about things.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing?

Agustino

The problem with that is clearly the authenticity behind 'I repent' that has always stood firm within me, where a repetition of behaviour clearly outlines that the person is unwilling to actually admit to his/her wrongdoing. — TimeLine

The authenticity is irrelevant. We are not to judge our neighbor. If they lie, that is their fault. But if you act and expect them to lie, that is your fault, for you have justified their behavior by your low esteem of them. They will say that you expected them to lie again anyway. Their behaviour would condemn itself if you weren't to condemn it.

Baden

↪TimeLine

The difference to me seems to be a matter of trust. You can forgive someone on the basis of compassion alone but true reconciliation requires a rebuilding of trust.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

Both, it seems to me. But it also seems you still don't trust her, which is not at all unfair considering the circumstances.

TimeLine

The authenticity is irrelevant. We are not to judge our neighbor. If they lie, that is their fault. But if you act and expect them to lie, that is your fault, for you have justified their behavior by your low esteem of them. They will say that you expected them to lie again anyway. Their behaviour would condemn itself if you weren't to condemn it. — Agustino

Authenticity is certainly relevant and while your example may be correct, likewise it is not about expecting them to lie but rather whether your actions of continually forgiving them despite the lack of honesty reduces apologies into nothing but a word with no meaning or substance. We find evidence or "proof" when mistakes are not repeated so indeed you can reconcile with such a person, but you cannot forgive.

Baden

The authenticity is irrelevant. We are not to judge our neighbor. If they lie, that is their fault. But if you act and expect them to lie, that is your fault, for you have justified their behavior by your low esteem of them. — Agustino

This is incoherent. We constantly judge our neighbours. We've been designed that way and it's impossible not to judge at some level. Those that couldn't or wouldn't are dead ends on the tree of life. And no, you don't justify someone else's behaviour by taking reasonable precautions against it. Don't pretend you actually act that way in real life. You wouldn't last five minutes.

Agustino

Evidence is founded when mistakes are not repeated so indeed you can reconcile with such a person, but you cannot forgive. — TimeLine

Whether they accept your forgiveness or not is a different story, but you should always forgive.

Authenticity is certainly relevant and while your example is correct, likewise it is not about expecting them to lie but rather whether your actions of continually forgiving them despite the lack of honesty reduces apologies into nothing but a word with no meaning or substance. — TimeLine

Their lack of honesty is theirs, why is that relevant to you? Their apology has no meaning or substance. That says something about them, not about you. If you treat them as if that's the case though, you will justify their behavior and aggression towards you by the low esteem you hold of them.

unenlightened

I find forgiveness rather odd. In order to forgive, one must first condemn. It seems like an internal moral economy; you done me wrong, you owe me - but I'm going to forgive the debt. But then, I'm not going to forgive the debt until you repent, that is until you acknowledge the debt. This being a part payment? Or an undertaking not to do me more wrong? Perhaps forgiveness is a gift that can only be meaningfully given to one who feels a need for it.

Reconciliation is a more mutual affair; we reconcile our points of view of the past; we understand each other. It's not something I can do on my own, and it's not inherently unequal. It requires truth.

Agustino

And no, you don't justify someone else's behaviour by taking reasonable precautions against it. Don't pretend you actually act that way in real life. You wouldn't last five minutes. — Baden

Virtue and compassion are like two sharp swords Baden - they may seem weak if you haven't understood their logic.

We constantly judge our neighbours. — Baden

I think you are equivocating on this word. Yes, you do form opinions of people, however, the type of judgment that is in discussion here is not the passive, automatic one, but the active one that impacts your behavior towards them.

And no, you don't justify someone else's behaviour by taking reasonable precautions against it. — Baden

Yes you do. If we live together, and I lock myself in one room at night for fear that you will kill me, that would justify aggressive behavior from you and may actually even bring it about.

Now this isn't to say that in some situations we don't take the very pragmatic course of action when the risks are too high. But the logic is still the same.

TimeLine

By saying that, you are actually saying something about yourself.

Their lack of honesty is theirs, why is that relevant to you? Their apology has no meaning or substance. That says something about them, not about you. If you treat them as if that's the case though, you will justify their behavior and aggression towards you by the low esteem you hold of them. — Agustino

Because @baden is correct, our relations and interactions are the fundamental basis of who we are and we contrast and identify ourselves with others that make them just as much a part of us as our own subjectivity permits. When he said:

... true reconciliation requires a rebuilding of trust. — Baden

He is denoting authenticity and this reflects not only your personal moral position, but your ethical convictions as well. What you are saying is that you don't care about other people, you don't care about the well-being of the community as long as you are safe from being morally liable, which I find to be paradoxical.

How you forgive does actually say something about you.

Baden

Yes you do. If we live together, and I lock myself in one room at night for fear that you will kill me, that would justify aggressive behavior from you and may actually even bring it about. — Agustino

If you'll just open the door and then we can talk. Oh, never mind, I'll speak through the keyhole. No, it doesn't. Which is why that defence would not be used by even the zaniest of lawyers in a court of law. Now, it might cause aggressive behaviour, but that's a different thing. If someone acts afraid of you, you are not justified in being aggressive towards them on the basis of that fact. True or false?

Agustino

Because baden is correct — TimeLine

I agree with him regarding reconciliation.

What you are saying is that you don't care about other people, you don't care about the well-being of the community as long as you are safe from being morally liable, which I find to be paradoxical.

How you forgive does actually say something about you. — TimeLine

Yes indeed. A person who requires excessive contrition in order to forgive - who demands authenticity - is a person who lacks the virtue of magnanimity of soul. Don't judge and you will not be judged.

T Clark

Authenticity is certainly relevant and while your example may be correct, likewise it is not about expecting them to lie but rather whether your actions of continually forgiving them despite the lack of honesty reduces apologies into nothing but a word with no meaning or substance. We find evidence or "proof" when mistakes are not repeated so indeed you can reconcile with such a person, but you cannot forgive. — TimeLine

I have a different attitude towards forgiveness than you do. I think it's a factor of personality and also experience. For me, forgiving someone is something you do for yourself, not the other person. It's a surrender, a release. There is one thing in my life I did that I really regret. Many years later, I asked my friend for forgiveness. She thought about it and said - well, I don't really think you need to be forgiven. Then she did anyway, just in case she was wrong and to make me feel better. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't believe in forgiveness. I don't believe it's necessary. If you ask for it, you're asking the other person to let you off the hook.

I remember talking about responsibility a few posts ago. I said, to me, the way to take responsibility is to acknowledge the action, make it right to the extent you can, and try not to do it again. Anything else seems unnecessary and even self-indulgent to me.

As for reconciliation, again - it's something you do for yourself. You can forgive someone and not reconcile. This person that keeps hurting you and then apologizing - maybe you can just put them out of your life. That's not necessarily unkind, mean spirited, or inappropriate. It can be not worth the trouble to reconcile.

Agustino

If someone acts afraid of you, you are not justified in being aggressive towards them on the basis of that fact. True or false? — Baden

In reality no. But what will actually happen is that you will start fearing that they might take some sort of action against you because they are afraid, which will paradoxically drive you to violence yourself.

Agustino

↪TimeLine

It follows from the fact that a great soul can accept those smaller than themselves.

TimeLine

I find forgiveness rather odd. In order to forgive, one must first condemn. It seems like an internal moral economy; you done me wrong, you owe me - but I'm going to forgive the debt. But then, I'm not going to forgive the debt until you repent, that is until you acknowledge the debt. This being a part payment? Or an undertaking not to do me more wrong? Perhaps forgiveness is a gift that can only be meaningfully given to one who feels a need for it. — unenlightened

It is all dependent on the condemnation itself, indeed there are many people who economise their behaviour with others, seeking forgiveness not because there exists any genuine issue but rather as a display of authority and power, dragging things out unnecessarily to play the victim as an actual method to control. But, in the instance where there was an actual situation - say for instance a car accident that involved a fatality - some form of condemnation exists depending on the causes. Was the person drink-driving? Was the person speeding? There needs to be a justification behind the condemnation first before seeking forgiveness.

Reconciliation is a more mutual affair; we reconcile our points of view of the past; we understand each other. It's not something I can do on my own, and it's not inherently unequal. It requires truth. — unenlightened

The problem here is that reconciliation requires forgiveness. So, what happens then?

T Clark

Whether they accept your forgiveness or not is a different story, but you should always forgive. — Agustino

I remember when Pope John Paul II went to the prison where the man who had shot him was locked up. They sat down, talked, and John Paul forgave him. It was a simple act of kindness and commitment and I found it very moving. I remember the guy was shocked and moved.

T Clark

We constantly judge our neighbours. We've been designed that way and it's impossible not to judge at some level. Those that couldn't or wouldn't are dead ends on the tree of life. — Baden

This is completely and absolutely not true. Not judging is not an act of virtue or kindness, it's the most effective way of dealing with problems. Judging leads you in the wrong direction and makes you less effective.

Agustino

I remember when Pope John Paul II went to the prison where the man who had shot him was locked up. They sat down, talked, and John Paul forgave him. It was a simple act of kindness and commitment and I found it very moving. I remember the guy was shocked and moved. — T Clark

Of course. It's actually part of the hidden strategies of war in Chinese history as well. Forgiveness of the enemy. It's funny that the Chinese are more Machiavellian than Machiavelli by being rulers that you want to serve under, instead of rulers that are hated and feared - which pretty much is in direct contradiction with Machiavelli's weak advice. Which is precisely why in Western history we have few great strategic minds.

TimeLine

It follows from the fact that a great soul can accept those smaller than themselves. — Agustino

A person who requires excessive contrition in order to forgive - who demands authenticity - is a person who lacks the virtue of magnanimity of soul. Don't judge and you will not be judged. — Agustino

Are you saying there is no hell?

It also follows that you cannot reason with an ignorant egotist, like those people who pretend to be holier-than-thou when they clearly contradict themselves. Being honest is not an excessive requirement, it is reasonable and virtuous and if you cannot see that saying it is moral to forgive a person consistently making the same mistakes when if you were a moral person you would prefer to help them see the meaning behind the apology itself so that they stop making the same mistake - where does the substance in our moral fibre come from? - than, what can I say other than good luck to you, O magnanimous one.

unenlightened

The problem here is that reconciliation requires forgiveness. So, what happens then? — TimeLine

Well it does, to the extent that the agreement we reach is such. It may require restitution as well or instead. I'm thinking squaring accounts, reaching agreement. If we agree that I owe you, you can forgive the debt, or I can look to pay it, or both, but we might agree that I don't owe you after all.

TimeLine

I remember when Pope John Paul II went to the prison where the man who had shot him was locked up. They sat down, talked, and John Paul forgave him. It was a simple act of kindness and commitment and I found it very moving. I remember the guy was shocked and moved. — T Clark

I wonder what rewards - other than protection - he received for his conversion.

Agustino

Are you saying there is no hell? — TimeLine

I'm saying hell and heaven are just reactions to Love.

It also follows that you cannot reason with an ignorant egotist, like those people who pretend to be holier-than-thou when they clearly contradict themselves. — TimeLine

if you were a moral person you would prefer to help them see the meaning behind the apology itself — TimeLine

If you are a moral person all you have to do is be a mirror so that they can look at themselves as they are.

T Clark

Because baden is correct, our relations and interactions are the fundamental basis of who we are and we contrast and identify ourselves with others that make them just as much a part of us as our own subjectivity permits. When he said:

... true reconciliation requires a rebuilding of trust. — Baden
He is denoting authenticity and this reflects not only your personal moral position, but your ethical convictions as well. What you are saying is that you don't care about other people, you don't care about the well-being of the community as long as you are safe from being morally liable, which I find to be paradoxical. — TimeLine

Again - trust is not a gift or an actuarial calculation. Just like forgiveness, you do it for yourself, not the other person. There is a calculation of sorts - I know he may, even is likely to, repeat the offense, but I lose more by not trusting than I do by trusting. A lot of it comes down to consequences. You don't leave your children with a sex offender. You don't give your life savings to someone you don't trust very much.

Baden

This is completely and absolutely not true. Not judging is not an act of virtue or kindness, it's the most effective way of dealing with problems. Judging leads you in the wrong direction and makes you less effective. — T Clark

You seem to be using the word "judging" in the derogatory sense, which means essentially "unfairly judging", something like being prejudiced. I'm using it in the general sense as in making judgements of people's intentions and likely behaviours. So, yes, we should make our judgements carefully and fairly but in the end we must judge someone, for example as sincere or insincere, in order to know how to act towards them.

T Clark

I wonder what rewards - other than protection - he received for his conversion. — TimeLine

I think he was forced to see the Pope as a human being. Forced to consider the human cost of his action. That's the first step in taking responsibility. And then, maybe it was a momentary feeling that didn't change him at all.

Baden

You don't leave your children with a sex offender. You don't give your life savings to someone you don't trust very much. — T Clark

Yes, because you judge them in the sense I meant.

Agustino

↪TimeLine

The problem with your approach is that violence breeds more violence. You will be seen as an aggressor, and hence the other person's aggression will be justified which will make them behave even worse. Your demand for honesty is a threat, and it will be met with fury and revulsion. That is why Jesus said in the Sermon on The Mount to forgive your aggressors and wrongdoers and to love your enemies.

If you don't give up your weapons for fear that the other will kill you, then the other will also not give up his weapons for fear that you will kill them, and like so conflict will escalate, and it will be only your mutual violence - paradoxically - that keeps the peace. That is the structure of human society from time immemorial. Jesus represents a break with this structure - He says - love your enemies and those who persecute you. Choose to be killed instead of to kill if you are forced to choose. Imitate Christ, just as He imitated the Father, who has been the victim from time immemorial.

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. — John 1:9-11

The history of the world is the continuous expulsion of the victim - of God.

T Clark

You seem to be using the word "judging" in the derogatory sense, which means essentially "unfairly judging", something like being prejudiced. I'm using it in the general sense as in making judgements of people's intentions and likely behaviours. So, yes, we should make our judgements carefully and fairly but in the end we must judge someone, for example as sincere or insincere, in order to know how to act towards them. — Baden

If you mean judging like "that tiger may eat me," fine, I'm ok with that. If you mean "That person is evil and deserves retribution," No, and for practical and concrete reasons - it doesn't lead you to the most effective way of dealing with that person.

TimeLine

Judging leads you in the wrong direction and makes you less effective. — T Clark

Are you saying the law has lead us in the wrong direction?

I have a different attitude towards forgiveness than you do. I think it's a factor of personality and also experience. For me, forgiving someone is something you do for yourself, not the other person. It's a surrender, a release. There is one thing in my life I did that I really regret. Many years later, I asked my friend for forgiveness. She thought about it and said - well, I don't really think you need to be forgiven. Then she did anyway, just in case she was wrong and to make me feel better. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't believe in forgiveness. I don't believe it's necessary. If you ask for it, you're asking the other person to let you off the hook. — T Clark

I actually understand this, however I could be wrong. Are you attempting to convey that when any acknowledgement of wrong is formed, forgiveness is unnecessary because it has been articulated either subjectively or to the said-party and the forgiveness is really an acknowledgement of the acknowledgement itself? So it isn't really forgiveness but rather an acknowledgement? I would like you to think about building trust when you think of your response to this.

As for reconciliation, again - it's something you do for yourself. You can forgive someone and not reconcile. This person that keeps hurting you and then apologizing - maybe you can just put them out of your life. That's not necessarily unkind, mean spirited, or inappropriate. It can be not worth the trouble to reconcile. — T Clark

I agree, I think reconciliation is a lot clearer in that it is a mutual effort, however there needs to be meaning in this reconciliation, an honesty and authenticity that would enable it to adequately work, which requires building trust. Keeping that person out of your life is indeed not an unkind thing to do neither is it immoral, on the contrary it is a form of punishment as you attempt to articulate both your position on this said wrong and what you expect from others to be allowed to be in your personal space.

@Augustino is saying that if his wife cheats on him repeatedly, he needs to represent himself as a moral person by continuously forgiving. He is being paradoxical.

T Clark

If the judgment is "this man may hurt my children," well, geez, don't leave your kids with him. If the judgment is "society should get revenge on him." What's the point. Put him in jail if he's done something wrong.

Agustino

Augustino is saying that if his wife cheats on him repeatedly, he needs to represent himself as a moral person by continuously forgiving. He is being paradoxical. — TimeLine

I may not want to be married with her anymore, but I would forgive her and be friends with her. Not to forgive her is to justify her actions and approve of them. It would be to tell her that she was right to cheat on me, because I am a bad guy, and I didn't deserve her anyway.

But to forgive her would show great magnanimity of soul, and expose her evil to herself. You do not realize that this is actually the biggest punishment that can be dealt. It's much worse than anything else I could do, for it is the only action that refuses to justify her behavior.

Reconciliation and Forgiveness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions