Extreme acts of self-sacrifice can function as argument rather than abandonment of it
Evidence
The act was not intended as suicide in the ordinary sense. In the Buddhist theological framework Quảng Đức was operating within, the self that burned was not the essential self. The act was a sacrifice of form, not of essence — a making-visible of a commitment that the formal processes had been unable to express. The debate had been fully conducted. What the debate had produced was the recognition that the form of argument available was inadequate to the situation. The act was not a departure from argument — it was a different kind of argument. — Jamal Awil, The Whispering Archive, 569
Categorization
- DEFINE: Clarifies the Buddhist distinction between sacrifice of form and of essence — essential to reading the self-immolation as persuasion rather than pathology. Non-Western frameworks can render ‘irrational’ acts as rigorous argument.
- XREF: connects to: Drone warfare adopts assassination ethics while refusing assassination’s self-sacrifice; Gratitude in folklore can demand the ultimate sacrifice of life itself — , A Year of World Stories, 8823; One should act against criticism rather than defend against it — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 900 (+17 more)
Related
- Moses combined practical consolidation arguments with appeals to self-sacrifice to win over reluctant parties. (similarity 0.83)
- Pious submission can be a genuine autonomous choice, not imposed subjugation (similarity 0.80)