-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Freedom & Modern Systems of Control
- Thread starter northape
- Start date
- Status
^Could you answer this question?
Those are the same thing. No "or".
Could you explain this scenario where a person or group of people creates a world completely at peace by fighting until they "force" everyone else to agree? How would that play out, in your opinion? And what's what they would be agreeing with?
Why are we talking about proactive violence or defensive? It goes without saying they are different.
As to the long question, it's happening on this planet right now and seemingly has done for a long time. We have to keep watching to know how it plays out.
Because you repeatedly post a statement about proactive violence and support it with arguments about defensive violence.
The fact that most people would defend themselves or their loved ones from an attack has nothing to do with going out of your way to force anything.
The idea that attacking first someone else that you fear is "defense" is just the justification of the aggressors.
hugfortysix
Established member
Give this a read.....what is love?
(sorry for the thousand words)
Kind regards,
The Traveler
@blig-blug Yes, as an objective view of what humanity as a whole seems to have behaved like.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
The Romans popularised the phrase. It's still used as a justification to keep making weapons today.
You're again behaving like I am trying to promote this observed human behaviour during a philosophical discussion.
We have established that we cannot force everyone to behave a certain way. So violence defends peace against violence. That is the system we live in as I see it.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
The Romans popularised the phrase. It's still used as a justification to keep making weapons today.
You're again behaving like I am trying to promote this observed human behaviour during a philosophical discussion.
We have established that we cannot force everyone to behave a certain way. So violence defends peace against violence. That is the system we live in as I see it.
Last edited:
Deterrence:
Lookup -> Able Archer 1983.
Kind regards,
The Traveler
Lookup -> Able Archer 1983.
Kind regards,
The Traveler
If it's about part of humanity for the last 5000 years or so, and most of it for the last 500, yes. No disagreement there.
I'm trying to understand your point. You see I don't disagree with your description of the main dynamics for the last centuries. But I don't see how it relates with self defense, charging meth heads, and the likes. Self defense and the desire to dominate others are very different.
Very interesting.
Extremely intelligent people like Von Neumann have fallen for this line of thought in the past:
This is a different thread, no word limit here!
And that's where I disagree. It goes beyond that. It's caused by fear that you may be the victim otherwise. Without that fear, a desire to not be a victim doesn't lead to proactive, unprovoked aggression. That's why most people aren't bullies.
And there are bullies, so the reason most people aren't one is not that "society prevents it by violence" or something like that. The theory that it's only possible to be either a victim or an aggressor doesn't hold up.
I feel like you've pointed to the original cause of the problem. Fear governs many people's lives, and they don't even see it.
We're so afraid of the other that we're ready to send nukes just to feel some relief. Once again, it all starts in our minds.
The solutions to all our human problems are there too. No need to fix the world - fix yourself.
The fear is well founded. The general premise of biological life is to consume your neighbour and utilize his energy for yourself.
Spiritual development is a luxury afforded to those biological lifeforms that have completely dominated their environment.
Spiritual development is a luxury afforded to those biological lifeforms that have completely dominated their environment.
Or maybe to those who are in total balance with their environment
Wrong in more than one way. Many life forms don't consume other life forms, so it's not "the general premise of biological life".
We aren't talking about "life" in general anyways, we are talking about human beings. Human beings are a social species and have lived for hundreds of millennia (!) without generalized aggression. That doesn't mean without conflict or without instances of interpersonal violence. But there's no evidence whatsoever of the state of "homo homine lupus" that you take as a given. If you disagree, please provide evidence of widespread violence and aggression in paleolithic times. Just stating it to be so doesn't cut it.
Furthermore, despite the fact that being a bully is a real possibility that some people do choose, most people don't, and they aren't victims either. Please explain how this state of affairs is compatible with the idea that you can only be either an aggressor or a victim.
You have stated your viewpoint multiple times already, stating it once again won't move the conversation forward. So please engage with other people's arguments. I have engaged with yours.
Last edited:
I feel like fink is expressing what he observes.
Not sure where the need for it to be backed by data comes from.
The competition for limited resources at the cost of your neighbours is a very real thing, even trees "fight" for light, which is basically the only real resource of low entropy energy we have.
Colorful toads will happily advertise their defense mechanisms because the ones that didnt died.
Personally, I think there is more to the story, a slightly less dark tune to it, cooperation is also a thing.
But separation does indeed seem to bring this sort of competitive and cold dog-eats-dog kind of experience.
Not sure where the need for it to be backed by data comes from.
The competition for limited resources at the cost of your neighbours is a very real thing, even trees "fight" for light, which is basically the only real resource of low entropy energy we have.
Colorful toads will happily advertise their defense mechanisms because the ones that didnt died.
Personally, I think there is more to the story, a slightly less dark tune to it, cooperation is also a thing.
But separation does indeed seem to bring this sort of competitive and cold dog-eats-dog kind of experience.
Last edited:
I'm not denying conflict or competition.
Precisely.
Because he's not expressing observations, he's making absolute statements about human nature, human history, and even the nature of life. Statements of fact. And that kind of statement needs to be backed by something else than "I say so".
If he were expressing observations it would be a different conversation.
Almost every living thing consumes other living things to survive. How is that up for debate? There are very few exceptions.
You are obsessed with this proactive violence thing. I don't know how else to tell you that is not what I am saying.
I'll finish here with a question that doesnt need answering, just thinking about, because we are all friends and this isn't improving.
Did you personally earn the priviledge of being able to survive a peaceful way of life or was it handed to you by generations of struggle and hardship?
You are obsessed with this proactive violence thing. I don't know how else to tell you that is not what I am saying.
I'll finish here with a question that doesnt need answering, just thinking about, because we are all friends and this isn't improving.
Did you personally earn the priviledge of being able to survive a peaceful way of life or was it handed to you by generations of struggle and hardship?
No, there are whole kingdoms of exceptions. Plants and mushrooms come to mind.
You are saying that aggression is necessary in order to not be a victim, are you not?
Good that it doesn't, because you haven't engaged with my arguments yet. If you don't want a conversation we don't need to have one, but if you do, you need to address the objections others raise to your statements.
Don't worry. It's just frustrating to take the time to think about the topic and write some counter-arguments for them just to be ignored. Repeating the same over and over is not conductive to other people understanding what you think and why. So that's likely why apparently I can't understand what you are saying. To keep repeating it won't help, addressing my objections and/or any misunderstandings they may imply would.
But it's not personal, there's no problem.
@fink, I think you're just a product of your culture, like me and everyone else. This conditioning sits at the basis of our views.
Still, you should be capable of understanding that some other outlook is possible. It's difficult to search for water in a desert, but even a desert could change into a jungle.
Humans are capable of everything we can imagine and beyond. This warmongering and aggression are just a small part of the spectrum. Why focus so much on our animal side?
Yeah, it's there. Seeing it makes it possible to move on and develop into something better. Why obsess with this survival mode? Even if you prepare for some doom event, no one guarantees that you will make it. Be smart about it, always have a plan B, but don't obsess over it. I feel it becomes a pathology otherwise.
Peace
Still, you should be capable of understanding that some other outlook is possible. It's difficult to search for water in a desert, but even a desert could change into a jungle.
Humans are capable of everything we can imagine and beyond. This warmongering and aggression are just a small part of the spectrum. Why focus so much on our animal side?
Yeah, it's there. Seeing it makes it possible to move on and develop into something better. Why obsess with this survival mode? Even if you prepare for some doom event, no one guarantees that you will make it. Be smart about it, always have a plan B, but don't obsess over it. I feel it becomes a pathology otherwise.
Peace
- Status
Similar threads
