i would still have to say that i dont necessarily agree with your assessment even if we substitute passivism for pacifism, although this is a very good distinction to make. clearly i was referring to pacifism throughout, but passivism applies as well here, just in a different way.
passivism is socially useful and necessary, pacifism is not (at present), or at least not nearly as much or as universally. so passivism is justified extrinsically to the extent that social cohesiveness is of value, which it certainly is to most of us. however, passivism is not inherent or intrinsically justified in itself-- its ONLY justification comes from its pragmatic usefulness to furthering other values, such as the benefits gained from social living. likewise, pacifism has no inherent or intrinsic value… while pacifism represents a psychological mechanism of compensation and rationalization, passivism could also manifest from these causes, in lesser degrees, but typically derives not from pathological or unconscious personal utility, but from social utility, which may or may not be called pathological depending on ones personal perspectives on society itself (it would, however, be called almost universally unconscious, although not COMPLETELY universally).
neither theory is justified for its own sake, i.e. for its own values or ends. of course by this standard not much is when it comes to ideology or philosophy, and its a common staple of modern knowledge that nearly every conceivable position, belief, value, derive from pragmatic bases. nothing wrong with this, per se, but its still useful to examine this process and bring it to light in order to better understand it.
passivism and pacifism are beliefs/ideologies/paradigms/attitudes which superceed instinct, and which can superceed even upon social utility when taken to extremes or absolutes. that they may or may not derive from pathological mechanisms within the mind/cognition/emotion is relevant, but also not getting at the heart of the issue: both philosophies are anti-nature and anti-life to the extent that they preempt the sort of aggressive, struggling, conflicting relationships between individuals and groups which is the basis of all life and evolution. while they are socially and psychologically useful, this usefulness itself speaks to a more fundamental weakness or conditionality of man himself-- that he cannot bear to live in a world where conflict and threat of aggression is present, where some dominate others and this is condoned and encouraged. i would agree that i prefer not to live in this world either, but that is only because i have been so conditioned and genetically-weakened along with the progressive dilluting of the gene pool that i certainly would have no chance to survive. who is to say that such social systems of inherent conflict or chaos or dominance are not preferrable to modern systems? it seems that we need to look objectively at the problem of comparing them, which is likely impossible to do completely but nevertheless can be accomplished in degrees.
that is not the point of this post; i would only say that the growth, development, evolution and increasing fitness and strength of ALL LIFE is caused and sustained by conflict, aggression, death, struggle and suffering– but that these are of course not the ONLY means or methods of life. certainly love and passivism exist for a reason, to promote relations within groups and within families, for example. but that they exist for this secondary purpose is important, for underlying that is the basic conflict-oriented nature of reality and life. life cannot grow, evolve or survive in an environment that lacks threats; not for very long, anyways. in our case, we survive in this way because we have created environments that are so overspecialized that we separate from nature itself… we live in bubbles where there is (relatively or ideally) no harm, the least conflict and suffering and struggle; however, any life or species which overspecializes like this is setting itself up for extinction or at least severe levels of destruction: consider a bacterium which specializes to attach a certain individual cell only, and becomes VERY good at attacking that cell. now if that cell becomes extinct, so does the bacterium. likewise, if the DNA in man evolves to survive only in one particular (and artificial) niche, how will he manage if suddenly thrust our of this coccoon into other environments and hazards?
all that aside, the point is: passivism and pacifism are valuable for various reasons, psychologically and socially, individually and in terms of group functioning. however they are not inherently valuable outside of these paradigms, and even the existence of their usefulness within these systems itself tends to illuminate the artificial and constructed nature of human societies… how they are built in opposition to the fundamental maxim of life, which is conflict and aggression, dominance and war. sure, we are of course justified to seek out means of limiting these things in our lives, by the very fact that we are CAPABLE of doing so; yet we would also be wise to remember that either genetic weakness or overspecialization are dangerous games to play with nature, and its always the case that nature seems to get in the final word. if we observe that evolution and growth and progress require systems of competition and aggression, winners and losers in meritocracies judged by reality itself, then we would be wise to not forget this while constructing and evaluating our psychological and sociological premises and mechanisms, such as passivism and pacifism.
they play a useful role, but we should never let this relative usefulness convince us of their having any FUNDAMENTAL or UNIVERSAL or ETHICAL or OBJECTIVE or UNCONDITIONAL value, because such values are non-existent with regards to passivism or pacifism, and if they were to obtain would cause (and indeed are causing) tremendous harm to our life and existence itself, by preventing much of the growth and progress that is characteristic of and necessary for all life itself.
