RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 10:09pm

Link

Edit

I got into a debate with a friend about these two major figures and wanted to provoke discussion about the relative means they used to achieve their ends.

My friend's contention is that Malcolm X acted in his own rational self-interest and ended up gaining nothing, whereas Martin Luther's unsparing altruism/understanding/forgiveness and unity with his comman man ended up achieving a whole lot more.

I'm not an authority on either guy, but I wanted to get some responses from folks here who might be interested in further discussing the topic.

Post 1

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 1:23am

Link

Edit

Hi Justin,

I read the autobiography of Malcolm X and enjoyed it very much. It provided a context I didn't have before. He was wrong about a lot of things and he hurt a lot of people. For those reasons he's no hero of mine. He did seem to have a quality of honesty that I admire. That's what kept me interested in the book. He seemed to be honest in looking for his answers. His childhood was pure chaos. Just awful. And I'm impressed that he worked so hard to find a life that made sense; even if he never found it. He claimed to have read Aristotle and Plato and "those guys" when he was in prison. I don't know how deeply he looked but I believe he tried his best.

MLK wanted what is best for people. You judge a man by the content of his character and never the color of his skin. Just for that aphorism he gets a lot of respect from me. Both men had wrong premises that have inspired a lot of self-destructive behavior. Of the two I suppose MLK's approach was less violent and more passive but that doesn't mean it was a success. I actually think Malcolm's method was closer to getting at a rational philosophy.

America could use a major black philosopher. There is a great deal of untapped potential out there. A kind of hidden treasure. Lots of gold in them thar hills.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther: Selfishness vs. Altruism