To what extent do we cede the ground of our lives by being more or less undiscerning in many ways about choosing our enemies? We seem to run from fire to fire, scandal to scandal, conflict for conflict's sake, and in this perhaps we debase ourselves by letting activist inertia decide where we make our battles and on which paths our lives proceed. What do we gain/lose from making (non)specific people/targets our enemies? How do we become greater/stronger/more powerful/enlivened by choosing (non)specific enemies?
As a provocation:
"You may only have enemies that are to be hated, but not enemies to be despised. You must be proud of your enemy: then the successes of your enemy are also your successes."
Do taking on pathetic enemies make us pathetic?
"One day Zarathustra had fallen asleep under a fig tree, for it was hot, and had laid his arms over his face. Then came an adder and bit him in the neck, so that Zarathustra cried out in pain. When he had taken his arm from his face he had looked at the snake: it recognized Zarathusra's eyes, writhed awkwardly, and wanted to get away. 'Oh no,' said Zarathustra. 'You have not accepted my thanks! You woke me at the right time: my way is still long.' 'Your way will be short,' said the adder sadly. 'My poison is deadly.' Zarathustra smiled. 'When did a dragon ever die from the poison of a snake?'- he said. 'But take your poison back! You are not rich enough to bestow it on me.' "
edited for tags