3 ms·

So not only must we let those who wrong us off the hook and feel for them, if we can't it's because we aren't virtuous enough. I'm perfectly comfortable ignori

by yarrel 6y ago

So not only must we let those who wrong us off the hook and feel for them, if we can't it's because we aren't virtuous enough. I'm perfectly comfortable ignoring that moral claim. If people want to talk about letting go, talk about letting go. Talk of forgiveness is simply misleading.

basch 6y ago
>If people want to talk about letting go, talk about letting go. Talk of forgiveness is simply misleading. That is what forgiveness is, moving on, but not bottling it up or pretending it didn't happen. >Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as responsible for the action), forgetting (removing awareness of the offense from consciousness), pardoning (granted for an acknowledged offense by a representative of society, such as a judge), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship). Forgiveness is more like pity. Understanding the environment around a persons life led them to do what they did, maybe feeling bad for them, that thats who they are. Reaching a state of forgiveness does not mean you think they no longer hold responsibility for what they did, or that they should be excused from consequences. You can forgive someone (no longer allow their action hurt you) AND still pursue consequences for their actions.
dsubburam 6y ago
Exactly. There is the case where the person who has given offense sincerely offers an apology, having become aware of their wrong, with an affect of proportionate contrition. The injured party might now deem to forgive them, and restore the offender's previous status in the relationship--e.g. as a friend, good neighbor, etc. Redefining "forgiveness" from this bilateral way that we have come to traditionally understand it, into this unilateral context of letting go, not only makes language poorer (through dilution in its explanatory power), but also diminishes the bonds of society, which are preserved through various relationship mechanisms including apology and forgiveness (which serves as an improvement over having a physical altercation on the one hand, and an abandonment of relationship on the other).
- basch 6y ago
  >Redefining "forgiveness" from this bilateral way I would argue that the bilateral requirement is the redefinition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness "In most contexts, forgiveness is granted without any expectation of restorative justice, and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is incommunicado or dead)." >The injured party might now deem to forgive them, and restore the offender's previous status in the relationship--e.g. as a friend, good neighbor, etc. That is more than forgiveness. It is reconciliation.
- johnchristopher 6y ago
  It's not just about restoring the previous status (actually, you rarely can't). It's sometimes about strengthening that relationship. It changes it anyway, not necessarily in a bad way.

by yarrel 6y ago

basch 6y ago

>If people want to talk about letting go, talk about letting go. Talk of forgiveness is simply misleading. That is what forgiveness is, moving on, but not bottling it up or pretending it didn't happen. >Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as responsible for the action), forgetting (removing awareness of the offense from consciousness), pardoning (granted for an acknowledged offense by a representative of society, such as a judge), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship). Forgiveness is more like pity. Understanding the environment around a persons life led them to do what they did, maybe feeling bad for them, that thats who they are. Reaching a state of forgiveness does not mean you think they no longer hold responsibility for what they did, or that they should be excused from consequences. You can forgive someone (no longer allow their action hurt you) AND still pursue consequences for their actions.

dsubburam 6y ago

Exactly. There is the case where the person who has given offense sincerely offers an apology, having become aware of their wrong, with an affect of proportionate contrition. The injured party might now deem to forgive them, and restore the offender's previous status in the relationship--e.g. as a friend, good neighbor, etc. Redefining "forgiveness" from this bilateral way that we have come to traditionally understand it, into this unilateral context of letting go, not only makes language poorer (through dilution in its explanatory power), but also diminishes the bonds of society, which are preserved through various relationship mechanisms including apology and forgiveness (which serves as an improvement over having a physical altercation on the one hand, and an abandonment of relationship on the other).

basch 6y ago
>Redefining "forgiveness" from this bilateral way I would argue that the bilateral requirement is the redefinition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness "In most contexts, forgiveness is granted without any expectation of restorative justice, and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is incommunicado or dead)." >The injured party might now deem to forgive them, and restore the offender's previous status in the relationship--e.g. as a friend, good neighbor, etc. That is more than forgiveness. It is reconciliation.
johnchristopher 6y ago
It's not just about restoring the previous status (actually, you rarely can't). It's sometimes about strengthening that relationship. It changes it anyway, not necessarily in a bad way.