SOLITARY, POOR, NASTY, BRUTISH AND SHORT

Well, as for the first question, I suppose I agree, except for the Brutish part. I've never even been to England.

Regarding the second question, I have come to believe that the less we get involved in other nation's affairs, the better, but politics also was never my calling or strong suit.

I don't agree. For most of human history we have lived in community with others, poverty is relative and you can be poor in spirit regardless of material possessions, there is love, kindness and beauty as well as ugliness in all societies, and of what use is a long life if you experience everything you need to in a short one?

Our obligation to other cultures is proportional to the extent to which we have damaged them by the intrusion of our own civilization.

I don't know what history you are talking about.

In the past 10,000 years of recorded history the strong have dominated over the weaker groups around them in every civilization that I have ever read about.

Have you read about The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Maya and Chinese? They have all dominated other cultures around them. I know of very few examples of people living in "community" except when they needed help against a common foe, or were equal enough in strength to realize it wasn't worth trying to subjugate each other.

I suspect this has been human nature since before we came down from the trees

I think Hobbes may have been dead on about teenage cultures, particularly those isolated from responsible adult influence.

Nasty? Yes. Brutish? Yes. Short? With luck teenagers grow up.

(Speaking with a Brutish accent )

The problem for the "West" with its 26 times per capita wealth relative to the poorest nations is the practical problem of redistribution. Even if we "educate" poorer nations in methods of more efficient food production we tend to "interfere" with local social systems. Perhaps its all a Darwinian "thing".

truth
I've had substantial contact with peasant Mexico and (to a lesser extent) Guatemala (the rural maya), and in those societies Hobbes does not sound too far off. I understand that in Edwardian (not to mention Victorian) London, poverty was rampant. Terry has focused on "community" as a corrective for Hobbes' "solitary." This is true in some areas, but in others being of the exploited classes in a society is the dark side of community, while at the same time individuals within an exploited class have provided some support and solidarity for each other. But I have also seen the dark side of intraclass "community"--competition, malicious gossip, witchcraft assasination, ostracism, etc.
I personally believe that the affluent societies should take on the task of improving the lives of third and second world nations. If we do not wish to live up to our Christian credos, we should at least desist from actions that thwart the development of such nations.

Hobbes was no Lockesmith, but knew a good sturdy nailed boot when he saw one. But seriously, there are many "backwards" societies that really don't want first world help. I think that the affluent world feels beholden to aid the less fortunate nations of the world partly out of guilt for causing much of the trouble in the first place, and I also think there is more than just a touch of hubris involved.

I think this description applies mostly to the slave and serf societies in the west in the past 2500 years but not to humanity as a whole. For most of humanities existence we have been hunter/gathers living at a band level of social organization, ie mobile communities of less than 75 people, generally less than 50. If you lived past childhood your life was generally rather long and pleasant (about 50 years). Exceptions were those living in marginal mostly artic like environments where life was short and brutish.

Well, you could hardly describe the lives we live now in that way - but I dare say that nasty, brutish and short is much preferable to a life spent on a couch in front of a TV subsisting on beer and potato chips that so many Americans enjoy now.

Nasty, brutish, and short it may be, but at least you know you're alive.

Somehow, part of me agrees with rufio, but as I get older, I am finding that my priorities are changing. The "live like Rimbaud" philosophy just isn't all that appealing right now. This whole debate has been going on for years, and it still hasn't been answered. Pfft, what can you do. Is the glass half empty, half full, or do you just think, "hey, someone drank from that?"

I guess it's true what Krishnamurti said, that the split of subject and object ( person from person, i.e. individuality) is the cause of most (if not all) of human (and all other kinds) suffering. (heavily paraphrased).

When I, as person, city, nation, etc. see my self, its needs, desires and interests in opposition and in competition with others what can result?

We (as groups, as individuals) are still in flight or fight mode and considering that most haven't got a clue what K and other sages are talking about, i.e. most don't know they are 'identified', we are indeed a young being, (collectively)

Interesting thoughts twyvel, and I am familiar with some of Krishnamurti's ideas. I also subscribe to the belief that we will never be able to settle our differences until we KNOW (which is different for me than just simple "acceptance" or "acknowledgement") that we are all one and the same, and interconnected beyond what we currently understand.

The older I get the less faith I have in humanity. So much potential, so much waste.

we have very nice and comfy lives as 1st world county members.

I don't think we are responsible for the rest of the world - they usually dislike being interfered with, and when we try things go wrong.

However, I think we should try to encourage human rights. For example, not trading with countries with atrocious human rights standards (ex. China)

This life stinks. And I don't think money has nothing to do with it. I would much rather live in a world where you don't need a job. Just keep to yourself, mind your own business, live in a shack by the sea, and tend a garden. Like polynesean islands.

I was under the impression that most human suffering was caused by other humans. or by humans on themselves because they are under pressure by other humans. Anything good that happens between human beings usually turns out bad (50% of all marriages end in divorce, you know). Anything good that a human being creates for himself never goes bad, provided no other human being interferes.

Re: truth


Christians may think that God wants some people to be slaves or suffer in other ways in order to fulfill his Plan. We must not interfere with God's designations. What does it matter if people are miserable in this world, if they will be in paradise for the rest of eternity? And how can you demonstrate your compassion if no one is living in abject poverty?

ebrown, I did not say that no one dominated anyone. As JLN said, my point was that human beings generally do not live alone but in community groups which can be anything from a family clan to a large complex society. In large societies where you cannot know everyone, people form smaller groups for social interaction, cooperative labor (companies), protection (gangs and neighborhood associations) and political power. Membership in specific groups may be based on kinship, interests/hobbies, age, heritage, geography or any other common factor.

Even "disadvantaged" groups can find joy in their lives, at least if the Travel Channel is to be believed. They sing, dance, tell stories, celebrate marriages and births, perform rituals, work together, fight together and mourn together.

Yes, people are cruel to each other. But they are also kind, loving and supportive. We are not all brutes.