War is a wretchedness. A misfortune. A nuisance. An infliction. Not the standard, which the statement “I’d rather be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war” infers.
It is not those that are unable to defend themselves that are to be blamed for the harms caused by war. It is those waging the offensive war and causing the harm in the first place. One man’s value is not dependent upon what other men do or lies in relation to them.
Each man is complete in himself. He is not bad for not entertaining or responding to the bad actions of other men. That’s distorting and misplacing the blame and responsibility of an action from the doer unto the one it is done upon, which is very disturbing and wrong.
The fact that feminine men can’t avert masculine aggressive men as well as a masculine man doesn’t make being a feminine man bad. It simply means that they are unable to do something which they have no capacity to do.
Should life and the forms of life be restricted and the value of life be reduced because men need to be warriors and that that along with war is the sum of life? Who and what gives life meaning before and during the war and when the war is over? For what is the war fought?
Is a woman of less value or inferior for not being as strong as a masculine man and not filling his role? No. Then why simply because a man is a man should he be of any less value than that of such a woman, for not being traditionally strong and masculine? Why should he override his nature for the virtue of filling a role and thereby live hollowly, instead of cultivating the nature he has and using that to fill his own role and live a life fulfilled?
– I’d rather be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.
There would be no garden to be in if there was no gardener. And the gardener wouldn’t have to be in a war if being a warrior was regarded as something very unfortunate or if there were no men who cultivated violence and fought those wars.
And who knows, though it is unpleasant, the gardener in the war may be the only one who outlives the war. And perhaps the gardener can supply the warriors with things that they may not have been able to fight without.
I believe all men have their purpose, whether they are “weak” or the “strong” ones. We complement each other and fill our own roles in society. What is the strong masculine man fighting for if not to give grace and freedom to all of his people?
– You can’t call yourself peaceful unless you’re capable of great violence, if you’re not capable of violence you’re not peaceful, you’re harmless.
That’s like saying, “You can’t call yourself violent unless you’re capable of great peace, if you’re not capable of peace you’re not violent, you’re harmful”, which is a very faulty statement. Violent and peaceful are to a great extent practical actions and present states of being, not contextual theory and potential relevance. It would be strange that the original statement should be true but the other not, when it carries the same proportions.
Or it’s like saying “You can’t call yourself strong unless your capable of great weakness, if you’re not capable of weakness you’re not strong, you’re muscular (or whichever other word would fit the comparison better)”.
Peacefulness is an action and state of being, not a capacity.
The definition of peaceful is not contingent on being capable of violence. That’s choosing peace when you are capable of being violent, which is one meaning of peaceful, but far from the only one.
One can also seek peace, even if one is not capable of violence. One can emanate peace. One can embody peace. One can believe in peace. All those are forms of being peaceful in and of themselves.
As used in the original quote, one can be ‘harmless’ and ‘peaceful’ at the same time, beside the fact that those words may just be synonyms and using them against each other is just a play of words.
Choosing peace when you can be violent and simply being peaceful at the virtue of being peaceful are two different things, though the former may be an extension of the latter.
Even if you are not capable of violence now, you can seek violence and train yourself to be capable of it. Not doing that is also being peaceful.
And there are a thousand ways that an ordinary human can choose to be violent and is capable of violence – both in small and big actions – whether it’s about not stepping on an ant or not injuring a person. Choosing not to do those actions is being peaceful. The violence being great or not has nothing to do with it.
One can also be capable of violence in physical action, but are incapable of it in mental thought and by virtue of being peaceful (in other words it is something unimaginable due to how wrong the person thinks that violence is), and as such they are incapable of it. So it also depends on what one means by “incapable”.
Let’s appreciate the gardener for tending to life and let’s appreciate the warrior for protecting it.
We are all warriors within our own gardens, and gardeners within our own wars (the garden here representing a safe haven and place to return).
The Searcher Who Wants to Give 