Some Guidance Please?

[ec1968]

Hi Everyone

I'd appreciate some guidance on what folks think of the philosophy 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. I've always thought that it is not only too simplistic but also quite a dangerous stance to take, and I'd appreciate the views of those on here who have studied the world in greater depth than I have.

Many thanks.

 

[Mountain Crown]

Hi ec1968,

My understanding is that this proverb deals with maintaining a practical perspective towards various parties during a conflict.

It seems to me that proverbs assume common sense, and therefore treating them as absolute propositions for all areas of life can lead to problems. -fwiw

Others may have more insights to add.

 

[Laura]

Good answer, Jerry.

That particular philosophy may mean that a psychopath get's hold of your mind and convinces you to fight against people who are HIS enemy, thereby doing his dirty work for him. Situations should be evaluated slowly and carefully. There is good, there is evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

 

[vinny]

I agree it is overly simplistic. But more than that, it is the standard 'trap' that is used time after time, with false-flag attacks etc, whereby 'someone else' is vilified in order to popularise a particular administration, to justify "we're the good guys here", or on a more basic level: "you need us".

 

[msante]

Hi Everyone

I'd appreciate some guidance on what folks think of the philosophy 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. I've always thought that it is not only too simplistic but also quite a dangerous stance to take, and I'd appreciate the views of those on here who have studied the world in greater depth than I have.

Many thanks.

I think apart from being simplistic judgments, in this particular case it seems to me mistaken. It seems easy to imagine a scenario where the sentence is not valid.
Suppose two groups agents STS vying for power. Eventually I could be a candidate STO victim of both groups. In this case 'my enemy's enemy is not my friend'.
Personally, I do not sympathize approval of any "slogan" of this nature. I feel that it numb our critical sense. I think when you agreed to a considerable number of these judgments, we become ruled by dogma, and we become easy target for those who want to govern our will.

 

[luke wilson]

I think apart from being simplistic judgments, in this particular case it seems to me mistaken. It seems easy to imagine a scenario where the sentence is not valid.
Suppose two groups agents STS vying for power. Eventually I could be a candidate STO victim of both groups. In this case 'my enemy's enemy is not my friend'.
Personally, I do not sympathize approval of any "slogan" of this nature. I feel that it numb our critical sense. I think when you agreed to a considerable number of these judgments, we become ruled by dogma, and we become easy target for those who want to govern our will.

I dont understand your scenario. What do you mean by you could be a candidate STO victim of both groups?

I dont think the saying means friend in the absolute sense. More it means you have a shared aim in the form of a common enemy so it is always open to you both to work together for atleast a short duration as it is in both your interests.

An example I can think of eventhough I dont really know much about history is, during the 2nd world war. America and russia worked together against the common enemy that was nazi germany. So they were allies at that time. However, after defeating the nazis, things obviously changed. Now germany and america are allies and you could say russia isnt much of an allie anymore.

In modern times, India and Brazil could stand side by side and say we are allies because they are both developing countries and could decide to work together to support certain international policies so as to not have there progress stifled by countries that are already developed that might have a different agenda for example on issues related to climate change. However, it is not to say that when they are both developed they will still be friends and support each other on the international stage.

Rumor has it, the taliban used to be allies to the american government back in the 70's against the russians in afghanistan and now they are enemy no.1.

Things change. Relationships change. You have friends today who might end up being your enemy tommorrow and enemies today who might end up being friends tommorrow. It's all part of the learning process in this great cosmic school we find ourself in.

 

[msante]

I dont understand your scenario. What do you mean by you could be a candidate STO victim of both groups?

Excuse me, maybe my example was a bit silly. The idea was that the enemy of your enemy is sometimes also an enemy. I think that sentence ('my enemy's enemy is my friend') can not be used as a general rule.

An example I can think of eventhough I dont really know much about history is, during the 2nd world war. America and russia worked together against the common enemy that was nazi germany. So they were allies at that time. However, after defeating the nazis, things obviously changed. Now germany and america are allies and you could say russia isnt much of an allie anymore.

In modern times, India and Brazil could stand side by side and say we are allies because they are both developing countries and could decide to work together to support certain international policies so as to not have there progress stifled by countries that are already developed that might have a different agenda for example on issues related to climate change. However, it is not to say that when they are both developed they will still be friends and support each other on the international stage.

Rumor has it, the taliban used to be allies to the american government back in the 70's against the russians in afghanistan and now they are enemy no.1.

Things change. Relationships change. You have friends today who might end up being your enemy tommorrow and enemies today who might end up being friends tommorrow. It's all part of the learning process in this great cosmic school we find ourself in.

In my personal opinion, there are many details to consider in cases like these. Have to see what is the agenda of the supposed ally. In many cases, although I can share a common goal, its long-term agenda can be detrimental to your "cause."
I must say also I feel uncomfortable with the idea of using others for my purposes and then discarded.
In any case, these examples you used are not the kind of collaboration that I think would be desirable in a STO profile, as each party seeks its own benefit and nothing more.

 

[ec1968]

Good answer, Jerry.

That particular philosophy may mean that a psychopath get's hold of your mind and convinces you to fight against people who are HIS enemy, thereby doing his dirty work for him. Situations should be evaluated slowly and carefully. There is good, there is evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

Laura

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding this. Do you mean that you consider good and evil to be relative rather than absolute concepts, and that there are circumstances where something that would ordinarily be considered to be evil might actually be good? And linking this back to my original question, does it mean that something we might consider to be an evil act if perpetrated against a friend could actually be seen as good if it were done to an enemy?

These questions might seem to have come from nowhere, but they relate to something I read recently. Because I know I have a propensity to either misunderstand or see things out of context, I'm trying to gather as many views as I can without going back to the original source and saying 'ha, you're being a hypocrite, or contradicting yourself'. The old me would have done so quick as a rat up a drainpipe, but somehow since coming to this site I've been a bit more reflective!

 

[Psalehesost]

Do you mean that you consider good and evil to be relative rather than absolute concepts, and that there are circumstances where something that would ordinarily be considered to be evil might actually be good? And linking this back to my original question, does it mean that something we might consider to be an evil act if perpetrated against a friend could actually be seen as good if it were done to an enemy?

I can try to answer: Good and evil (as seen from conscience rather than morality) stem from absolute sources, ie. the thought centers of Being and Non-being. The way they manifest here in this complicated world, they however cannot be codified in a static set of rules, as a result of the relativity of the situations in which they manifest. Discerning how they manifest is tricky, and so context enters the picture as necessary to discernment. You might think of it as trying to see where in the relative (the situation) which absolute (good and evil) could be manifesting.

An example Laura has written in many places:

There are those who think that truth or lies are always static, that a lie is a lie is a lie and that to be "good," one must ALWAYS tell the "truth." However, it is not always that easy. For example, consider France during the Nazi occupation. Undoubtedly, many of those involved in the resistance lied daily and regularly about their plans and activities. What was different about their lies was the INTENT and the SPECIFIC SITUATION. In such a situation, speaking the truth to a Nazi soldier who would use that truth to destroy one's fellow resistance fighters would be "evil," so to say, and lying would be "good." The greater truth that the lie served was Freedom from Tyranny. The "observer" of the situation knew the objective truth that revealing his plans or betraying his brothers would bring their deaths. The reality of the Nazis was based on subjective lies, and by responding to these lies leading to tyranny with an opposite lie that led to freedom was then an effective cancelling of the subjectivity leaving the field clear for objectivity. This simple example ought to give the reader much to think about in terms of the socialized belief in a "black and white" exposition of "truth or lies" and "good and evil."

 

[henry]

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding this. Do you mean that you consider good and evil to be relative rather than absolute concepts, and that there are circumstances where something that would ordinarily be considered to be evil might actually be good? And linking this back to my original question, does it mean that something we might consider to be an evil act if perpetrated against a friend could actually be seen as good if it were done to an enemy?

Perhaps part of your problem is that you seem to be looking at the problem in the abstract. As your question is very general, a general answer would be “yes”. But as ark is fond of saying, the devil is in the details. As Laura wrote, " Situations should be evaluated slowly and carefully.” The details of each situation need to be studied. If someone is acting out, is it because he or she is pathological, or could s/he be a souled person who is deeply wounded? One’s approach in dealing with such a person will differ. That is what is meant by the context determining which is which.

These questions might seem to have come from nowhere, but they relate to something I read recently. Because I know I have a propensity to either misunderstand or see things out of context, I'm trying to gather as many views as I can without going back to the original source and saying 'ha, you're being a hypocrite, or contradicting yourself'. The old me would have done so quick as a rat up a drainpipe, but somehow since coming to this site I've been a bit more reflective!

Perhaps you could bring what you read here so that we could all look at it.

 

[ec1968]

I can try to answer: Good and evil (as seen from conscience rather than morality) stem from absolute sources, ie. the thought centers of Being and Non-being. The way they manifest here in this complicated world, they however cannot be codified in a static set of rules, as a result of the relativity of the situations in which they manifest. Discerning how they manifest is tricky, and so context enters the picture as necessary to discernment. You might think of it as trying to see where in the relative (the situation) which absolute (good and evil) could be manifesting.

Thanks Psalehesost, I think I'm getting there.

Perhaps you could bring what you read here so that we could all look at it.

Galahad, yes that would really be the easiest, but given my lack of understanding it would be very unfair on the original author. Previously I wouldn't have hesitated because I would have thought I'd caught them out in some contradiction of their beliefs, but now that I have more self-awareness I can see that that would be the wrong thing to do. Given all of the very helpful inputs here to-date I'm learning that there is more to an apparent contradiction than meets the eye.

Thanks everyone, your willingness to help a newbie out is much appreciated. Cheers

 

[Aidylsun B.]

Hi, ec1968

This is the first time I’ve heard the phrase “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. I found several resources, including references to, "The Art of War" that attempt to define the meaning but I like this February 14, 2010 New York Times article best. Maybe you’ll find it helpful, too. (You may want to read through the math problems in the article that will prepare you for the writer’s opinion.)

"The Enemy of My Enemy"
By STEVEN STROGATZ
February 14, 2010, 5:30 PM

Here’s a snippet from the article:

“Perhaps the most familiar parallel occurs in the social and political realms, as summed up by the adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This truism, and related ones about the friend of my enemy, and so on, can be depicted in relationship triangles.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/

 

[Joe]

Laura

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding this. Do you mean that you consider good and evil to be relative rather than absolute concepts, and that there are circumstances where something that would ordinarily be considered to be evil might actually be good?

Since no one gave the most obvious example ec1968, maybe a very commonly offered example will help.

Imagine you are in the French resistance during WWII and are planning an operation with your comrades to free dozens of children from a Nazi prison. Before the operation, the Nazis knock on your door and show you a list of the names of your comrades and ask: "are you and these people in the resistance?"

Do you lie or tell the truth? To lie is "evil", to tell the truth is "good". Your choice. Do you act on conventional morality or some other measure of what is right and wrong in this specific situation.

That's a simple example, but I'm sure if you ponder on the topic you can come up with more complex, and probably more difficult, positions into which you could place yourself.

 

[Guardian]

Imagine you are in the French resistance during WWII and are planning an operation with your comrades to free dozens of children from a Nazi prison. Before the operation, the Nazis knock on your door and show you a list of the names of your comrades and ask: "are you and these people in the resistance?"

Do you lie or tell the truth?

I'm gonna lie through my teeth, and if there happen to be any child sexual predators in the neighborhood, I'm gonna give their names to the Nazi and claim they are in the resistance. Should keep the Nazi busy long enough for us to get the kids out of the prison.

There are times when your Predator's Mind can save your behind. Preserving life (including my own) is on my short list of "Really good reasons to lie"

I just realize that would be an interesting thread :P

 

[Buddy]

Hi Everyone

I'd appreciate some guidance on what folks think of the philosophy 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. I've always thought that it is not only too simplistic but also quite a dangerous stance to take, and I'd appreciate the views of those on here who have studied the world in greater depth than I have.

Many thanks.

Without waxing too philosophic, I'd say that particular 'philosophy' is about the best mechanical man can do without the third force. Otherwise, he might see that this 'saying' doesn't take into consideration the possibility that the enemy's enemy is someone who hates everyone. In such a case, to call him your friend is to totally eradicate the definition of 'friend' and possibly place yourself in danger, OSIT. :)