"Kill or Be Killed"

I have recently been discussing Ancient Egypt in another class of mine. This period of time can be noted for it's polytheistic societies, artwork, mind-bending constructions, as well as many other significant aspects. One way of Ancient Egyptian life, however, included slavery, something that existed in many other societies for a large period of time. Upon discussing this way of life, I couldn't help but think more about the idea of slavery, and more specifically a "slave's" mentality. More than likely, a slave would be put into a position that would be harmful, whether it is to themselves or others. Would they ever consider rebelling for the sake of avoiding harm? Or, would avoiding the harm just result in a different harm from their commander? This leads me to talk about our class discussion, specifically Tolstoy and his thought about "killing or being killed". Slaves have always been in the position to take orders or obey. Some have probably been in positions where they would face the threat of death. We know that Tolstoy believes that complete nonviolence would be to "be killed" in that situation because you can't know the consequences of your actions, which in this case would be killing to save your own life. So what did the slaves think? Did they ever consider nonviolence before they were harmed, or did they simply live in a society where it was not questioned?

My First PACS Class Discussion

As a student with an art POE, I can be honest when I say I was terrified of my first PACS class. I couldn't picture any other situation than going to class and being completely lost in the readings and lecture. Luckily enough I can say that after my first class discussion, I was surprised that I was able to not only grasp the information, but contribute to the conversation.
As I read the first assigned readings, I was surprised to agree with one of the authors much more than the other. I found myself questioning Kirby Page, solely because he was constructing his argument on a religion rather than fact or something that can be tested/proven. George Coe, however, seemed to make much more sense to me. He makes the point, essentially, that the idea of nonviolence isn't really ever present. As "nonviolent" as one may seem, there is always a cause and effect in any situation. A nonviolent act can indirectly effect someone or something else "violently" or negatively, leaving "nonviolence" to never fully exist.