Have you ever been asked that question? Are you a lover or a fighter?
From my own perspective, it’s one of those black & white questions, a binary on or off, a yes or a no, a lover or a fighter. It’s a logical fallacy that’s just far too simplistic.
Now I know it’s often asked as an innocent question, maybe on dates, where one party needs to know whether someone is willing to reconcile or not, a great way to “sus someone out” before going further. It can help filter “swipe lefts” from “swipe rights”. But in my world view, it’s perfectly acceptable to be capable of both. In fact I’d recommend it.
Love and reconciliation are defaults in my pagan world view. The biblical “love thy neighbour” is true. But seeing as Christianity is a modern religion and has taken from earlier traditions, pagan forerunners had such foundations.
The Lover
In ancient Egypt, the concept of Ma’at was a mix of truth, balance, and cosmic order. In 1200 BCE “The Instruction of Amenemope” contained a passage along the lines of:
“Do not build a trap against a person… do not refuse your neighbour.”
That’s a very kind “love thy neighbour” respect.
The Egyptian “Book of the Dead” or “Spells for Coming Forth by Day” was another tome extoling virtue. Whilst it’s often seen as some sort of manual for the afterlife, an ancient “How to Win Friends and Influence People” in some ways, if you read Dale Carnegie’s book, it’s very clear about sincerity.
And besides, reading a manual and acting positively is never as good as being genuinely righteous.
There are similar virtues in Ancient Greek Xenia and Stoicism, in Mesopotamia’s “Code of Hammurabi”, and rules of reciprocity in Norse and Celtic traditions too.
The Fighter
Our innocent dating question posits that if you’re not a lover, then you must be fighter. So is it hinting that if you don’t love your neighbour then you’re hostile and warlike?
That may be the simplistic takeaway. But nothing’s ever as simple as it may seem is it?
Again, from, my own pagan and logical perspective, to take up the sword is a last resort. By default we are all, and all should be, lovers. But, if love does not work and if all avenues have been exhausted, then surely being a fighter is a genuine and perfectly acceptable role, right?
Think about Private Joker in Stanley Kubrik’s “Full Metal Jacket” – at one point in the film he quips about “the duality of man” all the while being stationed in a land steeped in the tradition of Yin and Yang for aeons.
Taking stock of Eastern philosophy, you aren’t either/or, you are both a lover and a fighter.
In the “Tao Te Ching”, it also frames the fighter as a philosophy of last resort. Check this out:
“Weapons are tools of ill omen, not the tools of the gentleman. He uses them only when he has no other choice. Peace and quiet are what he prizes. Victory is not a cause for rejoicing.”
That offers the perfect balance.
Cognitive Bias and Dissonance?
I didn’t go looking for examples to back up my theory, they were already there. They’d been in place for thousands of years, over many generations of human existence. So any cognitive bias was not sought nor is haughtily proven.
Being a lover and a fighter is a huge part of being human. You have to be able to be both. Therefore, what can potentially be framed as cognitive dissonance is also a moot point – you can and you should be able to hold both values in your heart and your head.
Going back to Private Joker, the irony is on full view, even on the DVD cover and film poster – His GI issue helmet has both “Born to Kill” graffiti’d onto it and “peace” symbol, the famous CND pin badge (I have many myself). The movie is a journey of his struggle to come to terms with his situation over the course of his tour of Vietnam, and find balance for his own cognitive dissonance. Is he a lover or a fighter?
Final Thought
As a westerner, we have god and devil, good and evil; coincidence, huh? Yet I’ve broken out of my own 1970s junior school CofE upbringing and found my own truth many years ago.
What and who we were, pre-Christianity, is just as, if not, more valuable than the Western and Christian traditions we seem to believe and cling on to. We are older than that. Deeper than that. More than that.
So, when asked if you are a lover or a fighter, you are unlikely to be neither but far more likely to be both. Afterall, are you a lover who fights, or a fighter who loves?
One of my own favourite quotes is from Robert Heinlein’s 1973 sci-fi novel “Time Enough for Love” where he states:
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects.”
Specialisation is being the lover or the fighter. As humans, we have the unique capacity top be both.