0
   

War

 
 
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 05:53 pm
@xris,
I'm honestly moved! You all are a bit silly really (or is it just me ;-) ). I may be back once, how can you really ever turn your back on philosophy?? I'l not dead yet, I just need a sabbatical. I may be back. Or not? Don't mind. Just go on please. This is a great place!
Justin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 06:35 pm
@Catchabula,
Great having you back Amigo! Peace my friend!
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:53 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Catch i have not taklen offence at your attitude or your opinion but what upsets me and it happens every time pacifists join a discussion on war, i have a close family member who is pacifist,they refuse to answer certain questions. I would say always that" jaw jaw is better than war war".My problem is when one side acts without warning and with savagery, do you defend yourself, ever? Its that simple...Soldiers in the main train for peace to be maintained..

I think history would show you that those who put the most into their military are the most inclined to go to war short of a good reason... Look at the great military built by Bismark...And for the place Germany went to war over he once commented that he would give nothing for it, and look what was given for nothing... No war is better fought than out of defense...Defense gives every advantage possible to an army. Attack exposes every weakness of an army... Democracy is a defensive form of social organization fit only for defense, and all but useless at offense.. Certainly people should train for concerted action, and physical fitness should be general... Technology should be kept at a high rate, and not exported until old... War machines and munitions ought to be maintained... And everyone should be trained to soldier and to general... So much of history is written by generals that it should be read... The defeated do not write much history, excepting Napoleon... And war and conflict are history...But on that score a good defense always has beat a good offense... And democracy is the best defense because it saves a people from stupidity as no other form of government...
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 09:36 am
@Fido,
Ok! Momentmal! Here he is again, rolling back on the stage! Mr. Idiot, Mr. Pathetic Wounded Ego, Mr. Not Being Able to Dig it, Mr. Wanting to Be Right, Mr. Silly, Mr. Sissy, Mr. Weak, Mr. Small. Mr. Only taking one day to realise that he could never miss this joint and whatever it stands for. Mr. Seeking (Sea King??). Mr. himself, everything included, except wisdom. I say f*** as loud as I can and I hug you all. Justin, you knew this would happen, did't you? Ok, enough, back to the project. Too much words and too few thoughts, as usual (I need to exercise that citing)

[Xris] "Catch, I have not taken offence at your attitude or your opinion but what upsets me most and what happens every time when pacifists join a discussion on war is that they refuse to answer certain questions (I have a close family member who is pacifist). I always would say that "jaw jaw is better than war war". My problem is: when one side acts without warning and with savagery, do you defend yourself, ever? It's that simple... Soldiers in the main train for peace to be maintained".

[Xris] "Should I cross over and help you when you are attacked by thieves or not?"


1)

But that thief who attacks me, that "bad other", that's me! That's us!

Driven by hunger and misery, or conditioned by whatever circumstances we could all be the thief, or the victim, or the one who's helping the victim, or the one who's helping the thief.

Provided we are all men (and women) there is no "other" in this world, and the other is who he is, determined by his choices and his personal response to circumstances. Same as me.

The other could be me, I could be the other. Even more: we have so much in common that in this respect we can safely say that the other IS me! And that I am the other. We are all individuals, but as such we are more than that. All together we are mankind.

Being part of mankind makes us equal, to the point of being practically interchangable in this matter. In this respect all individual differences are accidental. Man is mankind, I am man, I am mankind. There is no "other side".

So it is not: "they are bad" and "we are good". It is not: "we are right" and " they are wrong". It is not: "we have allies" and "we have enemies" , etc.

It is: we are both good if at least one of us chooses for the good. One of us choosing for the good means mankind choosing for the good (and vice versa).

Or it is: we are both bad if at least one of us chooses for the bad. One of us choosing for the bad means mankind choosing for the bad (or vice versa).

Stated more clearly: each one of us could be attacking and fighting the other, but for the same money we could unite instead of fight. The conditions for unity being real and favorable.

It's just a matter of opening our eyes, seeing our common interests and nature, seeing ourselves in the other, and making the right choice for both of us, for all of us. Meaning peace.

Armies are used to wage war. They always were, whatever be their ideology or official justification. The presence of armies makes wars not only possible but even probable. We can either help to expand the world's armies or help to reduce them.

If I reduce my army and the other does not, and if there is a war, I may be destroyed. But that other is me, making his choice, right or wrong. I may be the one who's killing him. Each of us can do either right or wrong. Mankind is acting either right or wrong.

Standing before you I am you, whatever I think or choose or do. You are me, you are my image. Our situations mirror each other.

It's all about me aka mankind, choosing what we are. It's all about my choices. My choices are your choices.

I can either choose war or peace. I choose peace.

I choose for the reduction of armies.


2) Something on armies, considering what's above:

Situation 1 (real world): I have an army and the other has an army. According to the above this can be stated as mankind has an army. One day I will set my army against my fellow human being, meaning myself. I will fight and destroy myself, or at least threaten to do so. This is the situation that we're in today, a tragical deadlock. The result (look around you) being WAR. Somewhere, everywhere. Sometimes, always.

Situation 2: I have an army and the other has no army, being the same as the other has an army and I have none. There is still an army. The bad and the blind in me may prevail and I may try to conquer the other. forgetting that the other is me. The other will do the same if he has an army, also forgetting that he is me. Man will conquer man, and there will be bloodshed and horror. Again man will fight himself. The result being WAR. Somewhere, everywhere. Sometimes, always.




3) Some more Terribly Serious Epithaphs:

"My" name was Will O'Brien, aka Dimitri Nikolajevitch.
I bore all names, though I was not nameless.
I bore but one name, and it is your's.
I bore the name of Man.

Or:

I walked the path of peace
I was humilated
I was tortured
I was killed
I was forgotten.
The path is still there.

Or:

Here we are.


xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:32 am
@Catchabula,
Welcome back Catch...I do understand your motives and how you express them ,dont take offence but you have not answered my direct question. Well i dont think so. If you have an answer i to would be a pacifist i assure you . Even if there was no armies it would not stop aggressive behaviour and when countries become aggressive it results in violence and thats what we call war..It could be with just stones or catapults but it is war.Human ingenuity has made armies that take the place of untrained civilians and catapults have been superseded by horror weapons but it does not remove the original intention..If i saw anyone harming another i would be compelled by humanity to help stop the attack.
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:49 am
@xris,
Oh well, back to the drawing board (something shaky with those notions "good and "bad"). Seeya later Smile
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 04:44 pm
@Catchabula,
Trying to give some clues for further investigation. This subject is obsessing.

1.1) Personal assumptions.
-Philosophy is hard work, not play.
-Philosophy is about thoughts, not about words.
-Philosophy is about thoughts, not about feelings.
-Thoughts must be expressed as parsimoniously as possible (Ockham).
-Say only what's important enough to be said.

1.2) What is the question precisely?
-The question is: Why do we still need war?
-We need a clean reading of the question.
-We must distinguish from questions that are / seem related.
-A first subquestion: what is war?

1.3) Approaching the core concept ("war").

1.3.1) In general.
-The role of conceptual hygiene (clarity)
-The value of conceptual variety,
-The drama of misunderstanding.

1.3.2) A number of definitions.
[Using reference works as well as literature]
[Follows a list of definitions, with sources]
[Ask Dorothy to check the references]

1.3.3) A tentative analysis.
-The essential components of the core concept.
-Connotations of the core concept,
-Peripheral versus irrelevant concepts.

1.4) A survey of methods.

1.4.1) The subjective approach.
-What is subjective reasoning (here)?
-Subjective versus rhetorical.
-A subjective transcendance of the subjective: the testimony of the artist.
-The unfathomable sea of emotions.

1.4.2) The objective approach.
-Some metaphysical assumptions.
-What is objective reasoning (here)?
-Is objectivity ever possible in this matter?
--Cons. our lack of experience.
--Our limited information.
--Our moral convictions.
--Our feelings (inevitable?)
-Rationality as objectivity and consistency.
-The role of experience.

1.4.3) The moral approach.
-The necessity of moral judgement.
-Can moral judgment transcend the subjective?
-Is moral judgment blurring or sharpening our understanding of war?

1.5) Contributions of the sciences.
-Exact science versus humanities.
-The interdisciplinary shadowlands.
-Mathematics (game theory)
-Biology (evolutionary genetics)
-Fysiology (hormones)
-Psychology (agression)
-Sociology (territoriality)
-Economy (competition)
-Education (conditioning)
-History (case-studies)
-Politics (ideology)
-The role of philosophy (awareness; criticism)

1.6) The present postings in this thread.
-The arguments (summary and possible restatement)
-A comparative analysis.
-The application of formal logic (I can't do it!)
-Paths for further thinking.

1.7) A first synthesis:
-Sound Reasoning about war: possibilities and limitations.


Trying the other way around now. Only bones and no flesh. Just started to work on this matter. There'll be more :eek:
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 04:37 am
@Catchabula,
Catchabula wrote:
[This posting is under construction]
As an academic exercise im trying to take your position but im finding it as hard..best of luck Catch . Xris
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 10:31 am
@xris,
Thanks Xris. I know pretty well that this kind of approach is a dead end too, as well as also a little step forwards. But it's nice to have somebody around who's reading your stuff critically, correcting you in various ways, making sure that your path to wisdom does not become your path to madness. My previous posting was pointing towards the unsystematic nature of the approach until now, but of course that may be inherent to the principle of posting; it needs some attentive recapitulation and synthesis now and then. The last answer tried to point towards the (slight) merits of what you call the "academic" approach, making a thorough terminological investigation for example, and being aware of the "manner" in which you are reasoning. Besides there was also few use of the discoveries of the "official" sciences until now, nobody mentioning Darwinian paradigms in relation to the question, if I remember well. On the other hand you also noticed that the academic approach is "detached", being something else than existential "engagement" and action, the notion of "action" not even mentioned in my last Scheme of Things. As usual the "truth" must be in the middle somewhere, hiding like a Christmas present for the grabbing hands of unpatient children. Not the approach of "passion", tending all to soon to exageration and extremes (nice poem, Fido), but a loving and attentive and humane atitude, morally conscious and realistic, rational and yet involving the heart and its best (yes, Aedes is great guy, a doctor for the soul). As to me I consider myself as a seeker and an experimenter, bringing some opinion to boiling point, adding some acid to another, and see how far they all stretch; I am kind of schizo really, a martian trying to figure out man (in fact I come from Altair IV ;-) ). Weird where you arrive sometimes: being a hater of hate and yet to hate is definitely saying something about hate (thanks Justin). What is humanity in the moral sense other than some kind of safety-valve, protecting us for the extremes of both heart and mind? Why do we still need war? Because we have both war and peace in our very bones, and man is just man. Oh sorry Xris, that didn't answer your question. Sorry for that, but I'm sure there will be an answer somewhere. Why else would I be hanging around? Smile
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 03:20 pm
@Catchabula,
Yer probly jest anether damned humin... So listen Human person... Keep low, don't mess with people, be cool and don't run till I do, and then you better try to beat me or you will never catch up... Its a dangerous world out there; and every mouse has its cat, and every cat has its hawk, and every hawk has its windshield so drive safely...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 03:26 pm
@Fido,
i am really trying honest..ide be a hero if i could answer my own question.
0 Replies
 
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 06:37 pm
@Fido,
Ok with me boys. Yes, we humans are quite a zoo. I fell on Earth, just like all of us, and we must make the best of it. I'll be around in case somebody needs me Smile
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 04:01 am
@Catchabula,
Thanks Catch..we may well find the answer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » War
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 01:30:43