Tagged: “forgive”
In your most recent answer to my question about scholars misunderstanding the term forgiveness, can you give an example of a failure of some scholars to understand forgiveness in its “full sense” and a failure of some other scholars to understand forgiveness in “a true sense”?
A failure to understand forgiveness in its full sense, for example, is when a scholar equates forgiveness only with a part of what forgiveness is in its essence. An example of this is equating forgiveness only with a motivation to forgive. A motivation to forgive is one component of forgiving, but not the entire essence of it, as I explained in an earlier answer. A failure to understand forgiveness in its true sense, for example, is when a scholar claims that we can forgive situations, such as when a tornado strikes one’s house. Because you cannot be good to a tornado, it follows logically that you cannot forgive a tornado or any other non-human entity. Situations are non-human entities. Therefore, you cannot forgive situations, despite some scholars’ claim to the contrary.
In your answer to my recent question about why so many people use the word “forgiveness” but misunderstand it, I have this follow-up question: Is it true that if I read a journal article with the word “forgiveness” in the title, then that article actually might not be about forgiveness at all, but instead may have distortions about what forgiveness is?
Yes, this is a very insightful point. Just because a journal article passes the peer-review process, this does not mean that the article actually is about forgiveness in its full sense or even in a true sense. Be careful when you read the academic literature on forgiveness because the authors’ understanding of forgiveness may be distorted. Ask yourself: What truly is forgiveness and are these authors being consistent in understanding what it is?
I will never forgive my ex- without his apology. Forgiveness is conditional, right? We should withhold forgiving until the other apologizes. This gives me a sense of respect.
Actually, forgiving unconditionally, without the other first apologizing, is important. Otherwise, you give the other person too much power over your own healing, over your own inner peace. Here is an essay from Psychology Today in which I defend the idea that forgiveness does not require an apology from the one who acted unjustly:
Why Forgiving Does Not Require an Apology
What do you mean when you say that forgiving is a paradox?
A paradox is an apparent contradiction that actually is not a contradiction. When we forgive, we give goodness to those who are not good to us. This seems contradictory to justice, but it is compatible with mercy. As we give such goodness, it seems that the other is taking advantage of us and so we will never heal emotionally. Yet, the paradox is this: As we give goodness to the other person, we as forgivers can heal quite deeply in a psychological sense through this act of goodness.
If others keep pressuring a person to forgive, doesn’t that make forgiving a bad thing?
The problem here is not with forgiving but instead with people not being gentle with those who are hurting. Putting pressure on others is not the fault of forgiveness itself.
