posted
As a people, can we ever be content with peace? Historically, during times of peace, we grow further and further apart until, at long last, we are thrust onto yet another bloodied battlefield. We seem most united when at war with an external entity. Is it truly human nature to create our own enemies? Do we do this as an externeralization of our personal conflicts? Do we realize our enemies, as well as our saviors, in order give ourselves hope for a more stable future? If saviors and enemies are mere perceptions, do they actually have the power with which we attribute them?
posted
These are all very good questions. I believe it is in human nature to have an opinion. Whether or not these opinions are founded is irrelevant. Now since it is in human nature to have an opinion we must realize that sooner or later we will disagree. It is also in human nature to disagree then. Usually the harder one battles in this disagreement, the stronger they hold to there opinions. Not out of a strong belief system, but out of a hatred of being wrong. This, along with natural human stupidity, attracts aggression. This aggression leads to war. So I would say in some instances of highly aggravated disagreement, it is in human nature to war. -Adeimantus
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is also human nature to run naked between trees, and have wild, free sex as often as possible.
As we've repressed that nature, why is it impossible to repress war? Isn't that a worthy goal? To end war?
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we can ban streakers in this country because we have a govrnment that can make it illegal to do it. We have no world government to yell at all the countries to be good, and you also couldn't make a law telling you not to argue.
It is human nature to war, we have so many stupid animal programmings in us they overlap and we all find what takes more precedence, and so we all have to argue and war.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is the core of human nature to have feelings. The strength of these feeling determines whether or not we can overcome them. The person can overcome such feelings as running naked and wild sex. In people collectively, it is harder to overcome feelings of unity. When in unity, if opposition arises, then struggles occur. It is easier to stir the emotions of a group of people than of one. Yes, it is a worthy goal to end war. To be at peace. Unless, that is, when we are at peace we must forfit certain basic rights in order to be at peace. Then, if the only answer, war.
Is it not a worthy goal to retain our human rights?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sorry for not explaining my statement, I just hate to repeat myself.
Adiemantus: Uh huh, that last bit. That's what I meant by the "foolish" part. What I meant by the "poor" part is that the only way there will be "world peace" is if we blow earth to smithereens. No, merely killing all humans wouldn't be enough.
So many people are saying they want to entirely get rid of strife these days. They don't realize that competition and strife are the only things that have allowed us, or any other species, to survive.
I'm definitely not arguing for war here, I'm just saying people need to quit worrying about "peace" so much, and stick to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Most war is started over food, and many are continued because of a lack of proper education. To solve a problem like that, you really have to go to those roots. However, to much prosperity can be a bad thing also, because there's always some jerk looking for more, and if everybody else is too comfortable and soft to stop him, things really go to hell.
posted
I agree that world peace is impossible. Too many different conflicts of interest. Its the same with world unity. Impossible without conflicts. Thus, war. And I believe that war is bad when its unnecessary.
posted
But really, look at what your arguing, if you look at history, nearly every war's roots lie at religion. With an agnostics point of veiw, religion provides comfort, and so it is good, but if its killed trillions, and shows no sign of stopping, do we get rid of religion? Or we only use religion for comfort, we pray when someone dies, but when foreign relations get shaky, we all become athiests. It just doesn't make sense. Democracy started the war in Iraq, we can't diminish war when it doesn't suit are purposes, we can't get rid of it, what we should aim for I have no idea.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted some of the wars of old were over religion, but there were more factors than just religion. WWI was over the assasination of an arch duke and his family. WWII was started because Hitler was greedy.(Thats an understatement, but I'm just making a point) Wars of the modern world are not about religion, in fact some have nothing to do woth religion: Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War, Iraq, etc...even as far back as the revolutionary war. Religion is comforting, a diversion from the hostilities of life and beseaching a higher power to cause some good.
"Democracy started the war in Iraq, we can't diminish war when it doesn't suit are purposes, we can't get rid of it, what we should aim for I have no idea."
We can't diminish war when it doesn't suit our purposes? I agree that we can't get rid of war, though I don't really know what you mean by that. We can lower the frequency and need for war with a strong diplomatic movement. The need for war only seems to arise today when terroristic forces and dictators arise and conspire. We shouldn't need war. Only the dumb need to fight. The samrt people of the world can settle disputes with words and agreements. If that can't work and we've exhausted all resources to us to provoke an agreement, then, war. But it should be the last straw.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To steer us back towards the initial topic, what makes a heroic leader? What is it that makes a savior? What is it that makes a monster? Where do these fine lines rest?
posted
A "savior" in ones eyes is almost always an enemy in someone else's eyes. Gandhi in some peoples eyes was the epitimy of all that is good yet many still despised him and he was assasinated by one of his own religion. I know it was an extremist but you can see my point. There really is no true meaning for a savior because the term can be used for so many different types of people. The germans for a long time considered Hitler their savior. Hitler brought them back to unity and back onto the world stage as a powerful nation. He brought them out of debt and gave them a sense of pride to be german. He was a savior to them. However, he killed millions of jews and was one of the most hated beings of all time. So you see, savior is not really a term that can easily be defined, or in my mind, defined at all. A perfect leader as well I believe is very close to immpossible. ( sorry that I sound pessimistic, I'm not but I'm just trying to state my beliefs) Humans are imperfect beings. The idea of one universal ruler is also not a good idea. as an old saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". I can confidintly say that no single one of us has not commited something that they are not proud of. Concupisince(incorrect spelling but word means attraction to sin) is part of our lives and of our nature. Evolution has caused us to always crave power for power is associated with survival. When you have power you are considered more valuable( I know assinations and murders ruin that idea but the jist is still the same) There is no way to be a perfect leader for another reason. That is, as is shown in many of these threads and the world around us, it is impossible for everyone to agree on a law or whatever else is imposed under their rule. For what makes a monster, I belive that a good part of the definition is determined by what they do. For instance, commiting certain acts such as attemted genocide by Hitler or torturing their own subjects such as both Stalin and Hussein did obviously constitutes a monster. However, the reason behind things can justify a monster just as easily. During Gandhi's time Britain did not allow anything to be crafted in India because Britain wanted more money. All of these ideas, perfect leader, savior, and monster really can be bent to fit many descriptions. Hopefully one day it will be possible to obtain a perfect world but thousands of years of history are telling us otherwise and with the production of more and more deadly weapons the chances become slimmer and slimmer.
posted
that question steel will lead to a circle. as i said before, a hero to one is not always a hero to others. They'll give you an answer and someone will say that that person isn't a hero
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose then that the point is this: our mortality fascinates us. Our heros are most heroic after their deaths.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
it seems to be that way. Death facinates people and when someone dies it makes them seem more important. Take eulogies for example-we talk about all the good things the dead people did even if they weren't all that great. If someone dies for a cause though, people make them into heros. A man rescues a little kid from a burning building and dies in the process is a hero. Someone who is flying food to some helpless country and their plane crashes could be a hero. Even an environmentalist who is trying to protect an old tree and gets struck by lightening could be a hero to someone. When someone dies for a cause, whatever that cause may be, it makes it seem more heroic and shows that they put their life on the line...like a hero often does.
posted
I can't name a hero for you because we wouldn't agree. Heroes do great things in life and just because a hero lives to be 97 and dies of old age, does not mean he is any less heroic. Why should a hero have to be a martyr? Maybe heroes are only martyrs becuase we think they have to be?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, no two people will have the same perspective on what a hero is.
How do you define a hero? One who gives everything for everyone? One who's willing to sacrifice selflessly? How big of a sacrifice? It's all in perspective.
Eh... about the war topic... I'll think on it.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the connection between having an absolute and havng an ending for this eternity. I dont believe that anything is absolute. Give me an example of anything that might be considered absolute and i'll refute it.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are an absolute? You can't even provide substantial evidence that you're even alive other then that you believe to be in a reality and in this reality you believe yourself to be living. How, then, do you consider yourself absolute?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am what I am. I have an identity that will never not be. I will far outlive man and the universe. I am the alpha and the omega. I am who was, who is, and who will be. As are you.
posted
But that is only a belief that you have. It doesn't matter how strong that belief is, you don't have any substantial evidence that your right and I'm wrong.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So there is no absolute, only perception? Whatever is real isn't really real unless we perceive it to be real? Or is that taking it to the extreme (which could be dangerous)?
Could the same be said about heroes? No one is really a hero unless we perceive him to be.
Okay... Off to try and convince myself I have something of substance to say.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that there is, in every case, a definite absolute with which we compare all else. It is in this way, that heroes and monsters are made. A man is made hero when he walks in the ways of God. Transversely, the monster is the platonian "image" of Card's Unmaker (sorry i just read chpt. 3 of crystal and cant shake the frame of mind). I was going somewhere with this, but the phone derailed me. Sorry.
posted
Heros and Monsters come from the same material.
Both are humans which can and do take action when others merely talk. Both are dedicated and relentlessly pursue their goal. Both are convinced that they have a mission greater than themselves and anyone else.
Heros are more often attackers of the status quo (not always though) and monsters often aid the status quo.
quote: I agree that world peace is impossible. Too many different conflicts of interest. Its the same with world unity. Impossible without conflicts. Thus, war. And I believe that war is bad when its unnecessary.
Adeimantus,
One thing you might want to consider about "world unity" is that the amount of unity which can be acheived depends upon several important things.
1) The existence of an outside threat which will devour all unless there is unity (13 Colonies and Switzerland are excellent examples of this). For those of you who don't know, Switzerland was formed in the 16th century as a coallition of German, French, and Italian cities all quite isolated and with unrelated histories because of the threat of the Habsuburg Austria and Germany.
2) The ability to communicate with one another and the ability to move from one place to another. From the time of the Assyrians to Napoleon, the fastest mode of transportation was the horse, and the amount of time it took to get from one place to another was fairly constant as a result. The consequence was that nations or areas of control were limited to what could be readily defended by an army on foot and on horseback. With the advent of the steam engine and the internal combustion engine, armies and police could arrive faster and control greater areas. Also distant provinces could keep in touch with other members of their nation, thus creating more unity. Also the advent of the telegraph and telecommunications have speed up communications to instantaneous, meaning that I can talk to Thailand just as easily as with my next door neighbor.
Since humans are rapidly making this world "smaller" than the only outcome will be that nations will become "bigger." If you have the ability to control more and the willingness to do so it will happen.
posted
Im sorry JLOCKE, though your analysis of the hero and the monster seems straight-foward enough, I dont agree. There is no definitive hero that I can think of. All humans in history have had vices. We hear of great men and woman all the time when we are young but when we grow up we find that not all of them were that great and also that there was also a bad side.
EDIT: oh and I haven't read crystal yet, dont know of the Unmaker.
Anyway, my point is that there are no absolutes, other than some scientific data tht we will exclude. You definitions don't follow with any general concensus because not all believe in G-d, therefore their hero will not be one who follows G-d. Also the general thought of G-d is so different that one person's G-d is not anothers though they call them the same name.
Potemkyn, I dn't really follow. Sorry, if yu could explain for what reason these things you're describing matter...no sarcasm...I'm just a little lost in your reasoning.
So here's where I am...:no absolutes in life because no general concensus, no evidece or proof of absolute.
Can't be unity because of too many dfferent wants and needs an too many conflicting opinions on what too do.
posted
FoolishTook: Good name from a better book. Ponder this:
"What we percieve to be real is not necessarily real and what is real is not necessarily what we percieve to be real." -Anonymous
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:FoolishTook: Good name from a better book. Ponder this:
"What we percieve to be real is not necessarily real and what is real is not necessarily what we percieve to be real." -Anonymous
Pondering...
Brilliant quote.
I would agree completely but probably in a different context than one would expect. What we think we know as fact, i.e. scientific "fact" and real life, all the tangible things we consider undeniable truths, I believe are really myths, passing ideas that will seem foolish a thousand years from now.
I believe there is more truth in legend, that fiction or actual myth of any kind is not a means of escaping "reality" but instead a way of showing us the possibilities.
Heroes are the same. The reality of their lives isn't as important as the legends surrounding them, the ones which inspired their followers to change the world.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you guys mean by union? Can't prevent eating, even if it's just diseases. Real people can see that stuff too. Blind people can't.
I wonder how many people really are insects. You can tell when you meet them, they've got dark(completely dark, like space) souls and think of you as god or something...
The blind posers just don't remember you. Cause they can't really see you in the first place(I think they just see your clothes and skin and nothing else, cause they can't genuinely see anything they don't understand)...
They were talking about the darkness as death and choking. Gotta fight, we can't all be lesbian trees. Although some people seem to be...
Most people HAVE to be posers or whatever. Cause there's no possible way people who go crazy around metallic stuff(fear is a form of insanity) could possibly invent TV's and stuff like that...
And that's a lot of the world....
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trees feel emotions a million times stronger than any male whatever person... They just work for themselves.....
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foolishtook, that can be a good idea or a dangerous one I think. Yes, I agree the silly pronouncements we've made as of yet will seem as silly as a gigantic turtle with a sea on its back years to come. But, I don't really understand your statement of past mythologies being capable of any signficant truths (about the objective universe). Sure, there are things to learn about ourselves, and lessons for the future. But, it sounded as if you wanted to revert to what basically amounts to old lies for ideas of what is possible. Old heroes deserve a place in history, they should be heard. But, definitely not worshipped. All heroes, like all beautiful myths, are sirens singing from the shore calling you to shipwreck. We've been there. We've done that. I say the past is a transitory lesson because it is meaningless unless we see it for the stupidity it ultimately was. And, once we've learned those little white puffy things in the back yard aren't marshmallows (sometimes the hard way) we build on that.
quote:Foolishtook, that can be a good idea or a dangerous one I think.
Definitely. It's very tricky and could be used the wrong way. And half the time I don't even know what I'm talking about, (in case you didn't notice that already).
Here's the brunt of it: human perception has more power than we usually attribute to it. Heroes are more powerful in the form of legend than as real people. Myths are more inspiring and effective than real-life accounts.
So if a present-day Locke were going to emerge, he'd need to become a legend in order to inspire change.
quote:Yes, I agree the silly pronouncements we've made as of yet will seem as silly as a gigantic turtle with a sea on its back years to come. But, I don't really understand your statement of past mythologies being capable of any significant truths (about the objective universe). Sure, there are things to learn about ourselves, and lessons for the future. But, it sounded as if you wanted to revert to what basically amounts to old lies for ideas of what is possible. Old heroes deserve a place in history, they should be heard. But, definitely not worshipped. All heroes, like all beautiful myths, are sirens singing from the shore calling you to shipwreck. We've been there. We've done that. I say the past is a transitory lesson because it is meaningless unless we see it for the stupidity it ultimately was. And, once we've learned those little white puffy things in the back yard aren't marshmallows (sometimes the hard way) we build on that.
I agree completely. I don't mean we should revert to anything from the past. What I mean is that we should also stop worshipping the present, especially in the age of reason, where mundane little scientific or common sense facts have become gods to most people.
But don't get me wrong. The past and present are certainly meaningful, science and reason are meaningful, but they aren't everything. It's the future, the possibilities, our faith, we should hold in higher regard.
By the way, I'm not trying to argue a certain perspective...just hoping to be able to put all these scatter-brained ideas into a cohesive thought.
(P.S. Where do marshmallows come from if not from those puffy things in the back yard? )
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
