The Warrior Philosophe

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Eudaimonist, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for your thoughts!

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

Peace is not static.

What do you envisage as "peace?" Then I can see if there is truly dynamic flux and "non-war" at work.

Peace is simply not violent.

I can grant you this. War, in the sense of opposition, need not be violent either.

Peacetime can be a vigorously active, productive, dynamic time.

Historically I can think of no peacetime that compared in vigor, activity, productivity and dynamism for the participants in even the most modest war.

There is nothing intrinsic to peace that is static.

Sure there is. Everything about peace points to status quo, contentment with how things are and the desire for it to ever continue just as it is. Puppies and kittens and teddybears and butterflies and meadows full of flowers. How can that be any more static?

How comforting.

For our bellies, it is quite comforting.

If we have peace, how is this not a "natural state" as well? Both war and peace exist for human beings, and one cannot say that one is "natural" and the other is "unnatural".

OK, good point, it coincides with Ciel's point about balance. So then, if war is the natural balance to peace, then both are required, ergo both are "good."

This is an abuse of the concept "war". It is ripping it out of context.

To a blinded eye perhaps. It is not out of context, it is actually putting the matter into a greater focus. BIG picture, if you will, rather than narrow focus.

I don't like it any more than the rest of you. The difference being trying see it for what it really is, rather than manufacturing a reality and passing it off to others as "real" and "true."

And here is the reductio ad absurdum.

From the point of view of the eater, I can see you saying this. How about from the point of view of the eaten? Of course, that is not likely a concern, at least until one becomes worm food.

War also encourages cruelty, rape, dehumanization of the "enemy", and creates misery and the destruction of human values.

Have you seen me deny this? Of course, war is not necessary *at all* for any and all of these. There are vast examples of cruelty in peacetime. There is rape in peacetime. There is dehumanization in the form of prejudice and discrimination (sometimes even systemic legally) in peacetime. There continues to be untold misery and suffering in peacetime. There is gross destruction of human values in peacetime. So, the point is???

Peace, on the other hand, can inspire greatness from within that is in harmony with human well-being and our full potentials as rational beings. It can inspire all the traits you mentioned, except in the context of a productive and happy life.

Not with the urgency that war brings upon a person. There is no real comparison. Peace is for cattle, those that prefer to be led about by the nose.

*Footnote to Ciel:
I forgot to mention, another reason for beginning this thread is that I figured it would provoke conversation. So far it seems to be working.

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

What do you envisage as "peace?" Then I can see if there is truly dynamic flux and "non-war" at work.

Sending men to the Moon might be a specific example of a peacetime activity. Doing something productive with one's time. Solving problems. Meeting new people. Having new experiences. Life is an adventure, and there is much one can do without shooting at people.

War, in the sense of opposition, need not be violent either.

War, in the sense of opposition, is no longer war, but merely opposition. We don't kill each other in the mere sense of "opposition".

When I speak of war, I'm talking about the organized killing of human beings.

I oppose the disorganized killing or hurting of people (as in crime) as well.

Historically I can think of no peacetime that compared in vigor, activity, productivity and dynamism for the participants in even the most modest war.

The computer industry and technologies developed enormously quickly without the need for war. I doubt that war would have helped.

Sure there is. Everything about peace points to status quo, contentment with how things are and the desire for it to ever continue just as it is. Puppies and kittens and teddybears and butterflies and meadows full of flowers. How can that be any more static?

Peace does not imply contentment. People are rarely contented even in peacetime. There is more to do with one's life without threats to one's life than run through the meadows.

For our bellies, it is quite comforting.

Unless there are food shortages, which are not uncommon in wartime.

OK, good point, it coincides with Ciel's point about balance. So then, if war is the natural balance to peace, then both are required, ergo both are "good."

I'm not saying that war "is the natural balance to peace". I'm saying that war is no more or less "natural" than peace. I think that war is something the world would be much better without. Perhaps there would still be "opposition" of one sort or another in peacetime (as we oppose each other philosophically), but if violence is removed from the equation, that's okay.

From the point of view of the eater, I can see you saying this. How about from the point of view of the eaten? Of course, that is not likely a concern, at least until one becomes worm food.

Yes, and in war (that is, the organized killing of people) that's what will happen to many.

Have you seen me deny this? Of course, war is not necessary *at all* for any and all of these. There are vast examples of cruelty in peacetime. There is rape in peacetime. There is dehumanization in the form of prejudice and discrimination (sometimes even systemic legally) in peacetime. There continues to be untold misery and suffering in peacetime. There is gross destruction of human values in peacetime. So, the point is???

The point is that war only adds more destruction. War only makes things worse.

Not with the urgency that war brings upon a person. There is no real comparison. Peace is for cattle, those that prefer to be led about by the nose.

Peace is for people who have productive things they'd like to do with their lives that they wouldn't be able to do if they are being shot at or bombed.

War is for followers who wish to be led by the nose by leaders -- to obey, to kill, to suffer, to die.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[wil]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

...is the path of apathy and inaction always the *best* path?...

surely it is the harder path, not apathy and inaction, but deciding not to fight, not to resist, to attain stillness.

Seems to me tis always easier to simply swing back than negotiate or discuss. There are many other paths to brotherhood, passion, ingenuity than war...might be the easier way...but not the only way.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Eudaimonist!

Thank you for your response!

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

Sending men to the Moon might be a specific example of a peacetime activity.

The "space race" was a direct response to the Russians re: the Cold WAR. The whole industry was tied together with spy satellites and ICBM's by the MILITARY. Notice that by far the preponderance of all astronauts/cosmonauts are military? Coincidental? (*Not!*)

Doing something productive with one's time. Solving problems. Meeting new people. Having new experiences.

One can only have these experiences in peacetime?

Life is an adventure,

Yes, it is, especially if one is not too busy lulling about in a flower covered meadow holding a teddy bear.

War, in the sense of opposition, is no longer war, but merely opposition. We don't kill each other in the mere sense of "opposition".

War holds a greater contextual meaning than what is provided for here. This places an inordinate narrow focus on the issue in an effort to change the context and meaning. This is a narrow definition, I have presented a much broader (open minded) definition.

When I speak of war, I'm talking about the organized killing of human beings.

I appreciate this. However, the essay is mine. One cannot impose their definition when one is pretty explicitly laid out. Emotions are beginning to cloud the issue, just as I predicted.

I oppose the disorganized killing or hurting of people (as in crime) as well.

I do not approve of such things, yet we lie to ourselves if we teach others that they do not happen. Haven't run the numbers, but it would not surprise me in the least if far more people died of crime during peacetime than ever died in war. Certainly, more people die in the US of traffic accidents and tobacco every month than died in the whole of the Viet Nam war.

The computer industry and technologies developed enormously quickly without the need for war. I doubt that war would have helped.

Ummm, source please? Having been in the military, I can state unequivicably that computers were developed specifically because of the military and military use. Vacuum tubes, radios, radar, integrated circuits, all brought about courtesy of "the military industrial complex." Look it up, I ain't leg pullin'.

Peace does not imply contentment. People are rarely contented even in peacetime. There is more to do with one's life without threats to one's life than run through the meadows.

Peace not to do with contentment? OK, this is the first I have heard this. What is peace then?

Unless there are food shortages, which are not uncommon in wartime.

True. Yet we cannot superimpose a narrowed definition for the sake of overturning my presentation. This had to do with filling one's belly when one is hungry. The question becomes, does one have the intestinal fortitude to look one's meal in the eye before it dies? Or does one let someone else slaughter it for one, so one can maintain a clean conscience? That ever-so-preferable state wherein one can be guilty, and not suffer guilt?

I'm saying that war is no more or less "natural" than peace. I think that war is something the world would be much better without. Perhaps there would still be "opposition" of one sort or another in peacetime (as we oppose each other philosophically), but if violence is removed from the equation, that's okay.

This is a wonderful sentiment, one I can agree with at a surface level. It still ignores and evades my underlying premise. How does one go about removing violence from the slaughter of tonight's supper?

Yes, and in war (that is, the organized killing of people) that's what will happen to many.

What about the organized killing of the cows that become Micky D's hamburgers? What about the organized killing of pigs? What about the organized killing of fish, rabbits, dogs, cats, chickens, turkeys, geese, quail, pheasant, and every other creature slaughtered for consumption around the globe. Let us not end there, what of every form of plant life that is slaughtered? That happens *every day* without cease. No, to narrow the focus of war to simply humans killing humans is far too narrow focused. Not when humans war upon nature DAILY.

The point is that war only adds more destruction. War only makes things worse.

Yes. Now, are we discussing the human war against nature, or are we still focused on human to human interaction? If we are still narrowly focused, then we will be at cross purposes and talking past each other.

Peace is for people who have productive things they'd like to do with their lives that they wouldn't be able to do if they are being shot at or bombed.

It would be interesting to hear one tell that to one's supper tonight.

War is for followers who wish to be led by the nose by leaders -- to obey, to kill, to suffer, to die.

Here I will entertain the narrow vision of the definition of war, and say "Thank G-d for them!"

Thank you. Thank you, men and women in uniform, for the selfless service you render to this nation, and render to all of us unworthy people. I cannot thank you enough for your selfless sacrifice! I applaude our brave warriors!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

surely it is the harder path, not apathy and inaction, but deciding not to fight, not to resist, to attain stillness.

Seems to me tis always easier to simply swing back than negotiate or discuss. There are many other paths to brotherhood, passion, ingenuity than war...might be the easier way...but not the only way.

Actually, I do not disagree with you. This is a very astute and salient point. There are moments for inaction, stillness, quiet and reservation. Yes, I agree.

I have trouble with the always part. There are moments, there are times, when action is necessary, stillness must motivate, quiet must be set aside, and reservations are no longer possible. It is in these moments one must do. Whether that is being responsible, mentally and / or physically for providing supper, or being proactive to insure one's family's survival, or "hunting" down a threat to society, those moments come, and we must be ready to act in them and on them. And especially not give grief to those who do so on our behalf.

[juantoo3]

Quick note to Eudaimonist:

I think I recognize your avatar, it seems so familiar. Is that from Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead?"

[flowperson]

123:
I do not plan to respond to your retort, other than to say that I became involved in many circular arguments at a university where I was employed some time ago. I learned to walk away from them because engaging in recursive dialog when the other party fails to see your viewpoint, whether out of intention or accidental misinterpretation, is a waste of my efforts and energies. When one reaches a certain level of age and maturity, one learns to do that in the interests of conservation of energy, if nothing else.

If you wish to attack people who do not agree with you that directed warfare is good, then you have one less person to concern yourself with. The world was made through peaceful intent and love, not conflict and death or, quite simply, none of us would even be here to enter into circular discussions with you. And, IMO, cloaking your responses with kind greetings and salutations does not cloak the mean-spiritedness of your intent

However, I do wish you well in your quest to understand..

flow....

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Flow!

I am sorry you feel this way. I have not attacked anybody, so I am perplexed by your statement. Nevertheless, as you wish. It is telling that focus is so narrow among those who consider themselves "enlightened."

[Ciel]

Juan,

The first step of enlightenment is to know one's self.

It is from this source we move on to understand the source of others.

peace - c -

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Ciel!

Originally Posted by Ciel

The first step of enlightenment is to know one's self.

It is from this source we move on to understand the source of others.

peace - c -

Thank you. I believe this ranks among the wisest things I have heard for some time.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Luna!

I am not cheerleading, I am opening eyes to harsh reality. Besides, there is an opposed "cheerleading" thread, that incidentally in my view seems for the most part (*with the glaring exception of Ciel's posts*) to express vociferously the warrior ethic! Gotta love them people who use forceful tactics to promote peace... ! They only prove my point.


Luna, I love you as as sister, you know that. Have you so quickly forgotten the old threads? I just posted the references, and I bumped the threads.


Would you deny combat wounded veteran's their own personal experiences? Or their valor in battle? Would you deny the freedoms you are comfortable enjoying at their expense? Would you deny the lines and rows of grave markers in Arlington or Normandy? War IS Hell, and ALL of us carry a little piece of that. Denial does not change that fact.


It is a rare and psychologically sick individual, who DOES feel happy about fighting for anything. The question is, do you rise to the occasion when it is necessary? Would you kill to fill your belly? Would you kill to fill your child's belly? I posit that you would, and do, EVERYDAY. So would, and do, I, and everyone else.

Rhetorical questions imply their own answers. But they are your questions and answers Juan, not mine.

lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Oh my! I guess today is a day for hornet's nests...

Yes, Ciel,

I am learning a great deal about others today, and myself as well.

[wil]

The mirror is a pain for all of us. We must learn that anyone when backed into a corner often comes out swinging, it is the way we have been raised. And when anyone feels their rug being pulled out from under them it is natural to not only attempt to regain balance but also to try to regain their foundation and respond in kind.

The mirror says that what we see in others that offends is a trait of ours whose expression does not please us. And our response is typically to deny that is us, but it is them that is the problem.

War and domination have been the way of humans for eternity it seems, very few tribes have found a way around it. Like those who fight disease need to spend more time looking at those that stay healthy...I think we need to spend more time exploring those that stay peaceful.

[juantoo3]

Good points, wil!

[China Cat Sunflower]

Behind the writhing of evil is a competition between organizational devices, each trying to harness the universe to its own particular pattern, each attempting to hoist the cosmos one step higher on a ladder of increasing complexity.

... the partial spread of peace is a product of past battles between superbeasts, the colossal atrocities that accompanied the building of the empires of Alexander, Caesar, and the ancient Chinese, the gore that oozed from the consolidation of the modern European, American, and Russian states.

The movement of human social groups, the tendancy of one social organism to swallow another, the rise of the meme, the increase in cooperation--all are ways in which nature has ratcheted upward in degrees of order. But under the natural urge toward more intricate structures, higher planes of wonder, and startlingly new and effective forms of complexity, there is no moral sense. There is no motherly Nature who loves her offspring and protects them from harm. Harm, in fact, is a fundamental tool Nature uses to refine her creations.

The Lucifer Principle, Howard Bloom

Chris