Insults: Strategy Six

This is a continuation of the insult blog I began last week. Scroll down to earlier blogs. (I promise I'll learn how to hyperlink soon)

Strategy Six: Answer the fool according to his folly 

Finally the strategy everyone has been waiting for. How gratifying it can be to slight those who slight me. How often I have retorted back to those who mock me. God mocks a proud mocker, and I ridicule all the insecure that wish to aggrandize themselves at my expense. And why not, are they not doing something unjust by slandering my name? Am I not entitled to vengeance: to punish those who hurt me with their spiteful words? 

Unfortunately, for many of us, this is the strategy we mostly use and often in the wrong way, thereby undermining our pursuit of happiness. We retort back words of derision just as fast as we receive it. Or, maybe we respond with gestures of our fingers, awful looks, or even violence. I have seen some pretty brutal fights in my youth over a few words. Such actions disquiet our souls, give power to the insulter/s, and weaken our sense of worth (explained below). Furthermore, all these types of actions are contrary to the love of neighbor, for the intentions of the actions are to direct evil to the person with the hope of gaining some pleasure in seeing them suffer in someway, which belongs to hatred. It is for this reason that I normally advise others and myself to stick to strategies one through five to deal with insults.

However, I do think there are times when it is not only appropriate to respond to a mocker, but one’s duty to do so. But when are these ‘times’? To answer this question, I would like to get a bit more philosophical, for my suspicion is many will not like the restricted times I give for this strategy and simply disregard them by just responding in a willy-nilly fashion.

Because we are social animals by nature (a fact the use and learning of language makes manifest), we come to recognize through our interactions with each other a common human experience. In other words, we see in our fellowman a specific difference of rationality that we ourselves partake in. Such a power manifesting itself in an individuated body reveals a human person rather than simply an object or thing. A thing (with certain restrictions) is something you can use, throw away if need be, sell, buy, disregard, and modify at will, whereas a person by its nature is an end in themselves. People should never be used as a mere means. Their rationality, as communicating through their bodies, reveals a selfhood of infinite value. To mistreat the body is thus to mistreat the person, for the person is revealed by the body.  

This common human experience of personhood revealed by bodies allow, on the one hand, for each of us to know that we are individuated selves: I am not you and you are not me. On the other hand, we know there is an oneness between each of us because once we go beyond all the individual differences we see a common humanity. This common humanity we all sense when we rejoice in human achievements and weep at human failures. Seeing Michael Phillips act like a fish and achieve something no man has ever achieved shows us the greatness of man. Yet, hearing about a mother murdering her daughter, even if not true, reveals the ugliness and depravity of man.

But it is in this simultaneous experience of individuation and oneness that compels us to love each other as ourselves, for when we love ourselves we also love humanity, and since we love humanity we naturally begin to love other individuated humans. Though we might fail often at truly loving others, we still know, perhaps only dimly, that we ought to will the good of other men. Such a willing of the good to the other is just what friendship is in the true sense of the word. True friendship is to see the other/s as an extended self and to long for this extended self to perfect itself into a virtuous human person/s. Vice versa, to will evil upon someone by way of slander is to partake in an act of hatred. Rather than seeing the person as an extended self, you see them as a thing to be degraded, an object to be used for aggrandizement or amusement. But such an insult on a person is also an insult on humanity and, therefore, an insult on yourself.  Thus by hating another person with an insult you are hating yourself.

I hope from the preceding argument you can see the three general principles that will answer the question when are the ‘times’ to respond. As already mentioned, there is never a time when we ought to respond to an insult with a further insult. It should be clear why such an action is weakening our sense of worth, for by hating others we hate ourselves. This is the first principle.

The second principle is we need to respond when it is for the betterment of the person doing the insulting. Thus, if it so happens that this other self is acting contrary to his social nature by being unjust by insulting you, one of the loving acts you can do is to correct them in a way you would want to be corrected. Remember, though, since you are responding to them for their benefit, it is wise to remain silent if you see no hope of the person being apologetic or if a response will provoke further insults (see Proverbs 26:4). 

The third principle is you need to respond if the person doing the insulting will undermine the common good or cause others to stumble. This is most ostensible in the case of the Military: a sergeant cannot let a private undermine his authority through insurrection.  The motivation here is to protect not the one insulting (though you might indirectly do this by punishing him/her) but rather those around him/her.  A boss, a father or mother, a teacher or principle, or any one in a position of power could use this principle to respond to an insult. I would add that I use this principle when responding to people that mock or defame Christianity. In public settings, I feel it is important to respond loving to those who mock the living God for the benefit of on hears.

I would like to close by saying that all three of these principles should be used with in a marriage. Too often in marriage, couples respond vindictively to their spouses’ insults. By first not responding in anger, we show that we truly love them in spite of their hateful language. Secondly, we truly love them by suggesting indirectly that what they say really hurts us (I say indirectly because studies show that couples who use direct confrontation tend to divorce at higher rates (Gottman and Silver 1994)). Thirdly, by lovingly responding to your spouse, you protect the common good of your family if you have kids around or protect friends/family that might be overhearing.   

“Another person will not do you harm unless you wish it; you will be harmed at just that time at which you take yourself to be harmed.” Epictetus

Gottman, J. M. and N. Silver (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail : what you can learn from the breakthrough research to make your marriage last. New York, Simon & Schuster.