Click here to join our WhatsApp Doubt Group

Follow us on Instagram for latest college updates

Join our Facebook Group for daily QA Questions

Subscribe to our YT Channel and learn every day

3 out of 7 daily targets are free for everyone

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

READ OF THE DAY

Morality aside, there’s another good

reason to love your enemies

A model of Quan Am, known as the bodhisattva of compassion or goddess of Mercy. Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam. Photo by Godong/UIG/Getty
A model of Quan Am, known as the bodhisattva of compassion or goddess of Mercy. Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam. Photo by Godong/UIG/Getty
Wishing your antagonists well can be seen as a moral obligation or a misguided ideal.
But it might serve your interests
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your
enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven …
– from the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament
This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace …
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
– from the Karaniya Metta Sutta: The Buddha’s Words on Loving-
kindness, translated from the Pali by The Amaravati Sangha © 2004
The idea that you should love your enemies can seem puzzling, if not of dubious coherence.
After all, how could you love an enemy? And even if you could, why should you? Wouldn’t
feelings of hatred and hostility be more appropriate for an enemy, as for anyone who seeks
to do you harm?

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

Nevertheless, this guidance appears in many different religious and ethical traditions. In
Western thought, it is perhaps most closely associated with Christianity and, in particular,
the teachings of the New Testament. In that context, an enemy is not merely a violent
adversary such as one might face in war, but rather anyone who wrongs you, treats you
unkindly, or actively wishes you ill. Moreover, the injunction to love your enemies flows from
a more general principle to the effect that you should treat all human beings with love and
kindness. In other words, it is a consequence of the commandment to practise universal love.
To love your enemies, in the sense at issue, is not to develop the same feelings of love for
them as you might have for your nearest and dearest. It is rather to free yourself of ill will,
and to actively wish your enemies well (eg, by means of praying for their wellbeing).
Accordingly, the principle that you should love your enemies is far less demanding than it
might initially appear.
That said, one might feel the guidance is too demanding still. Many of us already struggle to
forgive even those closest to us in the face of perceived transgressions. So, even if it is within
our power to love our enemies, there is a real question as to why we should attempt something
so arduous.
Some would say that you should love your enemies just because morality requires it. Indeed,
this is precisely the sort of answer one would expect from the Christian tradition. But there
is also a less obvious response: that you should love your enemies not merely (or, at least,
not only) in order to follow the dictates of a moral tradition, but rather out of self-interest,
and, in particular, out of respect for your own psychological wellbeing. When viewed from
this angle, the guidance to love your enemies no longer appears so oppressive, nor impossibly
demanding. On the contrary, it presents itself as a path to freedom; a means of ridding
yourself of the weight of resentment and hostility.
Nietzsche says that we can distinguish between what he calls ‘master-moralities’ and ‘slave-
moralities’
As we navigate toward this idea, let’s first consider a quite different perspective, derived
from the writings of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. This perspective constitutes a rare
and powerful challenge not only to the view that morality requires us to love our enemies, but
also to the view that doing so serves our wellbeing.
In On the Genealogy of Morality (1887), Nietzsche says that we can distinguish between what
he calls ‘master-moralities’ and ‘slave-moralities’. A ‘master-morality’ values traits like
strength, courage, power, wealth and pride; these it designates as ‘good’, and opposing traits
it designates as ‘bad’. A ‘slave-morality’, meanwhile, values traits like meekness, humility,
poverty and pity; these it designates as ‘good’, and the opposing traits it designates as ‘evil’.
Nietzsche believes Christian morality is the latter kind.
In Nietzsche’s view, the principles of Christian ethics are not the products of divine revelation,
but rather the all-too-human creation of a people once downtrodden and oppressed – namely,
the Jews under the pre-Christian Roman Empire. Indeed, Nietzsche would say that it should
really come as no surprise that an oppressed people would develop this kind of morality,
given the conditions under which they lived. Of course (the thinking goes) you’ll end up
valuing weakness and poverty over power and pride when you are not in a position of
dominance and strength. The progenitors of ‘slave-moralities’ are therefore praised by
Nietzsche as exemplifying a kind of genius, having transformed the very traits and behaviours
forced upon them into moral virtues, while also converting the behaviours and traits of their
oppressors into moral vices.
How does this perspective bear on the idea that we should love our enemies? First, it calls
into question whether we really are morally required to do so. After all, as Nietzsche sees it,
the injunction to love your enemies is not an objective moral principle handed down from
God. Rather, it is an entirely human construct; part of an ethical code created by a subjugated
people, which sublimates ‘slavish’ traits (like benevolence towards those who ill-treat us) into
morally virtuous ones. Second, it calls into question the idea that seeking to love our enemies
is in our own interest. Perhaps it serves an oppressed people well to think that it is morally

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

right to love your enemies, for this allows them to reconceptualise as right moral conduct a
way of acting that is forced upon them. Yet it does not follow from this that the guidance to
love your enemies offers a general path to human flourishing.
On the contrary, Nietzsche would argue that the healthiest human beings are those who
cultivate virtues such as courage, pride and strength. And he would claim that those who
exemplify these virtues are more likely to hold their enemies in contempt than to show
compassion toward them. In fact, Nietzsche is scathing about compassion in general
– mitleid in German, also translated as ‘pity’ or ‘sympathy’ – claiming that it serves only to
make suffering contagious.
There is something seductive about this line of thought. From a certain vantage point, striving
to love your enemies can appear weak and servile; a mode of action, just as Nietzsche sees it,
fitting only for those who, in effect, cannot act otherwise. That being said, I want to present
a perspective that I think is ultimately more compelling. It is distinct both from the Christian
conception that one ought to love one’s enemies because morality requires it, and from the
Nietzschean idea that loving one’s enemies is a kind of servility that undermines human
flourishing.
Practising forgiveness toward those who wrong you can lead to greater feelings of wellbeing
The view I have in mind draws on a fundamental idea in Buddhism, namely that the goal
of ethics is to provide release from dukkha, a term often translated as ‘suffering’. Avoiding
suffering, or dukkha, is a central concept in Buddhism (just as it was in Hinduism and
Jainism before it). The main idea is that, in order to avoid suffering, one has to live in the
right way, namely by following the teachings of the Buddha.
The term dukkha has no direct translation in English: it can mean pain, unease,
unsatisfactoriness, discomfort, etc. But one kind of dukkha that a Buddhist would certainly
seek to avoid is the unease that you can be made to feel when someone sets themselves up
as your antagonist. The thought here is that feelings of hatred and resentment necessarily
weigh heavily upon the soul, and hence involve suffering, which must be alleviated. A key
Buddhist insight, moreover, is that this suffering can be alleviated, or avoided altogether,
precisely through practising loving kindness even toward those who wrong you; that is to say,
through bringing oneself, via meditation and reflection, to love one’s enemies and wish them
well.
There is, in fact, a good deal of empirical evidence, drawn from contemporary research in
psychology, that speaks in favour of this perspective. In particular, there’s much evidence to
suggest that practising forgiveness toward those who wrong you can lead to greater feelings
of wellbeing. However, it is also possible to appreciate the force of this idea a priori. Consider
some advice (which I’ll paraphrase) from Buddhaghosa, the 5th-century Buddhist
commentator, in his work, the Visuddhimagga. He compares harbouring feelings of anger to
grasping a hot ember with the intent of throwing it at someone else – the first (and perhaps
only) person who gets burned is you. The point is intuitively powerful: anger and resentment
will primarily hurt the person who holds on to these emotions; the path to peace and
tranquillity, meanwhile, involves letting go of these negative emotions even toward those who
have done you wrong. We might also note that, intuitively, this is a mark against the
Nietzschean position outlined above. For what that position fails to acknowledge is precisely
the emotional burden that goes along with failing to let go and to forgive.
There is a related idea in ancient Greek philosophy, namely that living well requires finding
a state of ataraxia – of tranquillity and serenity, a place free from anxiety and stress. This
was not only a belief held in common by the various different Greek philosophical schools
(Pyrrhonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc), but also parallels in an obvious way the Buddhist
idea that living well involves avoiding suffering. Moreover, it helps further the case for
thinking that we should practise loving kindness toward our enemies in the interest of our
own wellbeing. After all, if one is perpetually burdened by resentment and anger, then one
has not achieved a state of ataraxia. However, those who practise loving kindness towards
their enemies – and who thereby, at least in some sense, free themselves of those enemies

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

(for arguably one has enemies only when there is mutual ill will) – thereby move closer to a
state of tranquillity and peace.
The Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius advised that the best revenge
against an enemy is to not be like them. As I interpret this remark, the claim is really that
the best reaction to an aggressor is to avoid seeking vengeance. Instead, one should focus on
being a good person oneself, and in the meantime wish even enemies well. If you do this, you
might deprive yourself of the satisfaction of vengeance. But the reward may be a lightness of
soul that you would not otherwise have, and hence the kind of peace and tranquillity that is
essential to living well.

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

About Quantifiers

India’s first CAT institute to be recognized on National TV for

the unparallel contribution towards the field of Education
Show – Icons of Bharat – NDTV India

Study material and test series sab dete hain, but why is
Quantifiers different? We’ve 2 USPs

Personal Attention - We understand that every kid needs a

different strategy; we not only teach, but we also mentor and
nourish.

Pedagogy – Structural preparation is the main goal, you don’t

need 600 hours of classes, you need 300 hours of the strategic
study plan to ace CAT.

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

RC TEST OF THE DAY

CAT Sectional Test - VA

Click here to take test

Or, copy paste this

https://catprep.quantifiers.in/learn/CAT-Sectional--Test--VA--24

Test can be given on phone also, but we recommend to use

PC/Laptop.

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

These are our simple pleasures, we thrive on them, our

students motivate us more than anything.

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

DI SET OF THE DAY

The following is the table of points drawn at the end of all the matches in a six-nation Hockey
tournament, in which each country played with every other country exactly once. The table
gives the positions of the countries in terms of their respective total points scored (i.e., in the
decreasing order of their total points). Each win was worth three points, each draw one point,
and there were no points for a loss. Some information in the table has been intentionally left
out. The results of none of the individual matches are known, except
that Pakistan beat India and no two teams finished with the same number of points.

Q: The total number of points won by India is ______ (Write 99 if CBD)

Q: The total number of goals scored in the match between Netherlands and Pakistan
is ______ (Write 99 if CBD)

Q. Pakistan won the match against which of the following teams?

a) Australia b) Netherlands c) South Korea d) Spain

Q: Which of the following matches was a draw?

a) India Vs South Korea b) Spain Vs Netherlands
c) Netherlands Vs South Korea d) Spain Vs South Korea

Click here to watch the video solution and check your answer

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560

 QUANTIFIERS CAT ACADEMY

QUANT QUESTION OF THE DAY

A and B work together, they take half a day more than what A, B and C together would take
to complete the same work. If B and C work together the number of days they take is 200%
more than what A, B, C would take. All three worked together from start to finish and B
earned Rs.400 as his share out of the total earnings of Rs.1800. In how many days did A, B
and C together complete the work?

1. 4 days 2. 6 days 3. 18 days 4. 8 days

Click here to watch the video solution and check your answer

CLICK HERE TO FILL THE FORM

Or

Copy paste this URL –

https://forms.gle/HvfYKJuip5oTYKeeA

Quantifiers CAT Academy SCO 215, Sec 36-D, Chandigarh 9988656560