Just was curious about others opinions. Is war a necissary part of human exsistance? Also, how's my spelling?

thats a tricky question. Humans (aside from me ;) ) are naturally competitive. when there are weapons, people are naturally competitive with weapons. we all struggle to be on top. or better then out neighbors. On the other hand, i would love to think that humans are capable of a better way to figure things out then war. isn't everybody tired of the fighting?

The sad thing is that all it takes is one person or group to begin perpetuating the violence.

It all scales, IMO. Smaller cases are kids bullying eachother in school. Larger cases are the invasion of countries.
In all options, the aggressor chooses to attack, and the other party is forced to be bullied, defeated, or destroyed. Fighting back is the only logical option to end the suffering.

I think human competition plays a big part of it. Sports, video games, etc all provide a good way to look at ourselves and realize it.

It also tends to shock me that people working at nuclear weapons facilities and such don't just wake up one morning and say "oh my god. what am I doing?", and decide to work for the better of mankind instead of destruction. Possible obstacles to this I see are:

a) peoples' ability to be brainwashed
b) no conscience
c) feeling that creating these weapons of destruction is a logical step in mankind, and "since others will build them, we may as well too, to defend ourselves"

It's all so easy to see your country as justified for whatever actions it takes.

Reminds me of a funny line from Dr. Strangelove
"I sure wish WE had one of them Doomsday Devices!"

okay, is the competetive nature of human ingrained or is it a learned trait?

Ingrained, IMO. Here's why I think so:

Happiness is the only absolute.
Lack of happiness is suffering.

Man tries to strive for happiness his entire life. If he can't find it, he invents games and competitions to feel superior because this feeling brings him some happiness.

When two men enter a competition, they know the outcome. The victor will be happy, and the loser will be unhappy. Both parties strive to be the victor and avoid the unhappiness of loss.

I don't think it has so much to do with "i'm better than you", but rather "I'm good at something", "good" being subjective to those around you.

The old saying of "there's always someone better" holds very true, but we try not to think of that when being victorious at a sport or event or game. It would only make us realize how trivial our victory really is.


I particularly envy the stoics and monks who live outside of this cycle, because IMO they know TRUE happiness, but does that mean that they are denying the very things that make them human? (ie. - their emotions)

NOTE: Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most philosophers and psychologists would use the term "pleasure" instead of "happiness" in the above. Pleasure is fleeting, and true happiness is something that most people rarely achieve.

war has helped devolope many technologies that might not have been invented if war wouldnt have happened.

War is not good. It's a rather sad affair. It would be nice if all the resources devoted to war were instead devoted to research and such.

However, we don't yet have absolute proof that we will never again need to fight to survive, so we must maintain and improve that ability always.

So, KungFuKenobi, the U.S. dropped napalm on people in Vietnam to perpetuate its pleasure?

Sorry, I'm not a very big history buff and I don't know many details about that war.

I'll just assume that the U.S. was doing what any country would, which is whatever is the best for its' people.

Mistakes can be made, of course.

As far as the pleasure/pain thing, I was talking more about peoples' inclination for conflict in general, not specific to a large-scale war which has many factors to consider.

Originally posted by Adam
However, we don't yet have absolute proof that we will never again need to fight to survive, so we must maintain and improve that ability always.

We will never have proof that there will never be another war this, however, does not mean that we must constantly be ready for war.

Originally posted by goofy headed punk
We will never have proof that there will never be another war this, however, does not mean that we must constantly be ready for war.
If you are not ready for the unexpected war, you will be destoyed. As recent events in New York demonstrate, not all enemies make appointments ahead of time for their attacks.

Philosophy disscussions are not my specialty but does not being constantly on the lookout, as it were, make one a bigger target. In other words, countries with armies go out lookin for a fight.

If you are unprepared for war, then the moment someone decides to make war on you, your state is dead. Boom, gone.

It would be negligent for a government to be unprepared for war, as it would be allowing its people to be conquered by anyone who felt like doing so.

Originally posted by Adam
If you are not ready for the unexpected war, you will be destoyed. As recent events in New York demonstrate, not all enemies make appointments ahead of time for their attacks.

i am a peacenik....
elect me as ruler and i will arm myself to the teeth. i have a duty to protect the people i represent. this doesnt mean i wont take steps to make sure i dont adopt policies that give others a reason
to attack me. but like adam said.........

Its about tribalism. When humans were living as tribes, conflict with the tribe on the other side of the hill involved a day trip into the other tribes territory, shouting some insults, throwing rocks, hitting with sticks and a hike back home. Chances are that no one even died in the conflict, it was just a way of reinforcing territory boundaries.

After the rise of agriculture standing armies were necessary to protect land and annex more. Every successful harvest meant more people, a bigger army, and the annexation of more land. Same instinct for tribal conflict but now you can do some real damage.

When you add technology to the equation you get distasters like nazi germany. Just one of the more recent catastrophes of tribalism.
The only alternatives I can think of are making people think that all humans belong to the same tribe, an external non-human enemy (not likely), or a displacing of tribalism with rationalism (even less likely).

War...HUH!... what is it good for!?
Just was curious about others opinions. Is war a necissary part of human exsistance?

War is good for a few things. I think it's just a natural cultural evolution, since you can encounter nature behaving similarly on a lot of scopes. War decides which culture is more efficient and successful in its own way. Funny statistic is, wars since WW2 has caused only 1% of unnatural deaths. Of course, the news would make a big deal about it, since it is important to educate a country to make war.

But then, if you are Christian or just another brainwashed American, you will by now start to moan about value of human life.
I am not sure where I read this quote (I think in UNIX fortune cookies), it goes kind of like this (not very exact): Human life is the cheapest product, since it requires the least skilled workforce and the least technology.

But then, if you are Christian or just another brainwashed American, you will by now start to moan about value of human life.

How do you feel about your life?
What i mean is do you feel that it has an intrinsic value?
Why?

Of course, value of my life has a high intrisic value. But if I would be the ruler of the world, and would judge by this value, I would be called a tyran. But, when people have too many rights, slave morality starts to surface.Need to get somewhere in between, whereas Western world seems to be going to slave morality way.
I have to admit, that my life currently in global terms means nothing though. And that is what matters to a country/culture.
It's only animal nature to defend your own survival.

ndrs

very interesting. do elaborate! (slave morality.....)

;)

Shit.. Seems my expression powers after 4h of sleep are very limited.. ;)
Yes.. What I was meaning to say:
There is the social(ist) government similar to the Soviet Union system, where individuality doesn't mean anything. Everybody and everything just belong to mother Russia (or China, or whatever)...

There is the opposite: capitalism where individuality is valued, everybody have a lot of freedom and rights.. At the same time, we are burdened by the useless unemployed, just disabled, incapable old... While the future intelligencia of the nation: students have to work, there are people who just live off everybody else (caused by slave morality, and infinite value of life).

As far as I remember from my father, students in Soviet Union used to get an national average wage of 100 rubles p/m.
So I believe there is a reason why American students perform very poorly internationally.

At the minute I am thinking, if there could exist a government, who would offer equal rights to everyone (say basic education), would value individuality and would look at human life from whole countries point of view.

If I look at the world globally, we have achieved so much in technology during the past 50 years, that should have freed people from work more or less..
The amount of hours everyone works remained the same though. Where did all the improvement go?

But then, if you are Christian or just another brainwashed American, you will by now start to moan about value of human life.

Now, to be fair to Christians and brainwashed Americans, the concept that "human life has value" is a rather old one and serves to keep the slaves in line.

There is the opposite: capitalism where individuality is valued, everybody have a lot of freedom and rights.. At the same time, we are burdened by the useless unemployed, just disabled, incapable old... While the future intelligencia of the nation: students have to work, there are people who just live off everybody else (caused by slave morality, and infinite value of life).

I'm rather confused and intreagued. Most people would say that communism/socialism is the system that supports the useless unemployed more than capitalism does.

Capitalism is the system with a "fend for yourself or die" reputation. When capitalistic nations (such as the US) support the surplus humans, they are attacked for being "communistic".

I'm thinking especially of the criticisms of Hilary Clinton for being a "commie" when she was supporting universal healthcare.

Okay, that out of the way, I'm curious as to how you tie slave morality into this.

At the minute I am thinking, if there could exist a government, who would offer equal rights to everyone (say basic education), would value individuality and would look at human life from whole countries point of view.

I disagree on human life. I don't support a system where I would be sacrificed for the "good of the many".

The many are not worth the one. Nor is the one worth the many.

I suspect that the whole "good of the one vs. good of the many" issue is a false dichotomy, resting on the (tenuous) conclusion that such a thing as human brotherhood exists.

That said, I don't believe in human "rights" either.

*Edit*

And welcome back, ndrs. Haven't seen you in some time.

"the useless unemployed"

perhaps their role in a market economy is to keep labor costs down.

dont the euros work a 35 hr week (germany)?

perhaps their role in a market economy is to keep labor costs down.

No.


TARGET PRACTICE!

Power. Mankind has an intrinsic nature to assert one's power over others. Looking back at our origins, it is easy to see where this has come from. War is one of the modern day means in which power is won and lost.

'm rather confused and intreagued. Most people would say that communism/socialism is the system that supports the useless unemployed more
than capitalism does.

Capitalism is the system with a "fend for yourself or die" reputation. When capitalistic nations (such as the US) support the surplus humans,
they are attacked for being "communistic".

I'm thinking especially of the criticisms of Hilary Clinton for being a "commie" when she was supporting universal healthcare.
I think I wrongly insinuated that Communism doesn't have slave morality.. Sorry about that.
The original point I was trying to make is that Capitalism has too much slave morality in it. And war is a waste of life, but as Nietsche implied (I believe), advancement is the most important thing.
War is the price of the advancement. Look at the space program: Without the cold war, it's slowed down well enough.. Guess, we will have to wait for China to reach Mars.
Communism was a really bad opposite example, but human life wasn't valued as highly there.. :rolleyes:
I was trying to show, how unright the decision is: In UK, unemployed people get money, while students don't?
I know, I confused you, by going in too deep, too quickly.
Okay, that out of the way, I'm curious as to how you tie slave morality into this.
I hope I don't need to explain that Communism is based on slave morality.
In Democracy:
I think, the extreme high value of life is based on slave morality. Especially, the individual equality principle is based on it. Although, it's obvious that some people contribute much more to society that others do, people are assumed to be equal?
I disagree on human life. I don't support a system where I would be sacrificed for the "good of the many".

I wouldn't either.. But I would support a system where other people would be sacrificed. :)
Anyway, we are acting with slave-morality here ourselves, which is natural for a human being.

The many are not worth the one. Nor is the one worth the many.

I suspect that the whole "good of the one vs. good of the many" issue is a false dichotomy, resting on the (tenuous) conclusion that such a thing
as human brotherhood exists.
Please explain.


And welcome back, ndrs. Haven't seen you in some time.
Thanks! My poor messy life.. And I don't seem to find so more topics, where I could get people confused and angry. :)

ndrs:
The original point I was trying to make is that Capitalism has too much slave morality in it. And war is a waste of life, but as Nietsche implied (I believe), advancement is the most important thing.

Advancement? Of whom? I am skeptical.

In Democracy:
I think, the extreme high value of life is based on slave morality. Especially, the individual equality principle is based on it. Although, it's obvious that some people contribute much more to society that others do, people are assumed to be equal?

Hmm, I wonder if N would have even used the "some contribute more than others". As his predecesser de Sade notes, it's not really whether you can contribute or live a good life, it's whether you can impose your depradations on others.

Strange though, can we categorize this high value of life as slave morality? I admit, I was never much on the concept.....I more tend to think of "herd/individual" dichotomy introduced in Zarathrusra.

I wouldn't either.. But I would support a system where other people would be sacrificed.

I wouldn't and I don't think N would either.
I don't think that the individual should be offered onto the herd. (Nor do I agree with a Sadean "the herd should be offered onto the depradations of the individual" value, but this is OT.)

Please explain.

With gibberish, bear with me:

As humans, we have certain nepotistic urges towards our family and those we can impregnate/those who will support our children.

Then we have bonds with the people we love and who love us.

But the former is only a innate urge, like rape, murder and theft. Such urges can be tamed.

The second is a matter of choice.

Thus we see that to obey either urge remains a choice. We are not bound to mankind if we lose the idea that we must propegate our genes. Even keeping the idea, we still have only a reason to be "brothers" with our close family.

(de Sade's criticism of the idea, less well formulated than mine, is worth a read.)

I have to say..
I wrote a reply 3 times, losing the text all the time.. Fuck internet explorer.

Ok, Try #5:
I also found a quote from N about war:
On a thousand bridges and piers shall they throng to the future, and
always shall there be more war and inequality among them: thus doth my
great love make me speak!
Inventors of figures and phantoms shall they be in their
hostilities; and with those figures and phantoms shall they yet
fight with each other the supreme fight!
Good and evil, and rich and poor, and high and low, and all names of
values: weapons shall they be, and sounding signs, that life must
again and again surpass itself!


Advancement? Of whom? I am skeptical.
Advancement of humanity. I believe N advocated that. Since he advocated first perfecting yourself, then teaching others..
Anyways, look at the quote above..


Hmm, I wonder if N would have even used the "some contribute more than others". As his predecesser de Sade notes, it's not really whether you can contribute or live a good life, it's whether you can impose your depradations on others.

Maybe you have a website for deSade?

---

Anyways, I will write about other things some other time.. I am a bit too pissed off with rewriting for the 5th time..

ndrs:
Advancement of humanity. I believe N advocated that. Since he advocated first perfecting yourself, then teaching others..
Anyways, look at the quote above..

Hmmm. I suppose I don't think that N advocated the advancement of humanity in the conventional sense (scientific progress, higher standard of living).

"I teach you the overman. The overman shall be the meaning of the earth"

I believe that N advocated the advance of humanity towards the overman. I don't believe he had much use for advancing the many. Rather, he advocated the advance of the few towards the overman.

As for the Marquis, good luck. I'd advocate reading his books, but I am not a sadist. *Laughs* He can be very repetitive, and the sex either makes one cringe or bores one to sleep.

(Seriously, "Justine" is not half bad a'tall)

He is not taken seriously as a philosopher, thus anything you'll find is likely dedicated to salacious and often false bullshit.

To quote him:
"From start to finish, vice triumphs and virtue is humiliated, and only at the end is virtue raised to its rightful pinnacle; there will be no one who, on finishing this tale, will not detest the false triumph of crime and cherish the humiliations and misfortunes which virtue undergoes."

The problem with reading de Sade is that he had the most delightful sense of humor, which basically consisted in making one argument and then turning around and claiming the exact opposite five pages later - likely to simply fuck with the reader's head.

Then there is my suspician that much of his philosophy is designed to simply piss people off. He adopts extreme positions that don't bear up under scrutiny....I don't think he was an idiot, simply that he was hideously bored and miserable in prison and decided to torment the society that rejected him.

Anyways, "Juliette" contains arguments and themes that (I think) presage N's master and slave morality. And of course, Sade then attacks said arguments and plays the democrat right after making them.

He's basically a pre-Nietzschean nihlist who fluctuates between extremes of claiming that the virtuous and good (like Justine) will and should be fucked over, or that the virtuous and good will be fucked over but that virtue still is a laudable thing.

Thus, he's a challenge to find exactly what the fuck he is claiming...if anything.

More later if you're interested, I've become somewhat obsessed with the bastard and need to rant.

http://dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/Authors/S/Sade,_Marquis_de/
http://neilschaeffer.com/sade/index.htm

Hmm, I wonder if N would have even used the "some contribute more than others". As his predecesser de Sade notes, it's not really whether you can contribute or live a good life, it's whether you can impose your depradations on others.


Yes, but how else would you compare the value of two people from your point of view?
Besides the use that that person can bring you... So some person who you personally wouldn't know, would be more valued by you, if he contributed more to your well-being..



Strange though, can we categorize this high value of life as slave morality? I admit, I was never much on the concept.....I more tend to think of "herd/individual" dichotomy introduced in Zarathrusra.
High value of life does help supporting individualism though..
But at the same time, the high value of life keeps every socially useless being alive. The reason I categorize it as slave morality: It supports everyone Unconditionally. It is based on human feelings (pity). I also think this law makes so many contradictions (like 'kill 1 to save 10'. What would you do?).


I wouldn't and I don't think N would either.
I don't think that the individual should be offered onto the herd. (Nor do I agree with a Sadean "the herd should be offered onto the depradations of the individual" value, but this is OT.)
Yes.. The problem with today is that you are forced to be within society. I could agree that if you belong to a society, you should be judged by your value to it.. I think real individuals are always very valued in a society.
But the main point is, how many individuals do you know?


With gibberish, bear with me:

As humans, we have certain nepotistic urges towards our family and those we can impregnate/those who will support our children.

Then we have bonds with the people we love and who love us.

But the former is only a innate urge, like rape, murder and theft. Such urges can be tamed.

The second is a matter of choice.

Thus we see that to obey either urge remains a choice. We are not bound to mankind if we lose the idea that we must propegate our genes. Even keeping the idea, we still have only a reason to be "brothers" with our close family.
Like I said above, the problem is you have to belong to a society in a western world (you have to work, or have land to cultivate, or just money).
So detachment is impossible now here.
But then what would you do without other people? Would you like to live on a deserted island?
Hmmm. I suppose I don't think that N advocated the advancement of humanity in the conventional sense (scientific progress, higher standard of living).

"I teach you the overman. The overman shall be the meaning of the earth"

I believe that N advocated the advance of humanity towards the overman. I don't believe he had much use for advancing the many. Rather, he advocated the advance of the few towards the overman.
I agree. Nietsche was not concerned with scientific progress. (He wrote something about it though in Zarathusra). His overman is a much more general goal (A truly philosphical, creating person). Overman could create whatever he feels like, as long as he creates.
Do you agree?


As for the Marquis, I just started reading Justine.. Seems to be a good and fun read.
Anyways, Rant On! :)

ndrs:
Yes, but how else would you compare the value of two people from your point of view?

Flip a coin. No.....
You're right.

However, do we need to attatch value to other humans?

High value of life does help supporting individualism though..
But at the same time, the high value of life keeps every socially useless being alive. The reason I categorize it as slave morality: It supports everyone Unconditionally. It is based on human feelings (pity). I also think this law makes so many contradictions (like 'kill 1 to save 10'. What would you do?).

It really depends on the one, for me. I value the man I love over ten strangers. Especially if they're republicans.

But I agree on the high value of life. However.....I'd rather it was this way than the other way.

Yes.. The problem with today is that you are forced to be within society. I could agree that if you belong to a society, you should be judged by your value to it.. I think real individuals are always very valued in a society.
But the main point is, how many individuals do you know?

Three, not counting myself.

Yes, you do have to be within a society. And unless you accumulate power in that society, you have to abide by its values or be destroyed.

And yet the more you despise the values of that society, the less you want to accumulate power in it, and the more vulnerable you become.

I agree. Nietsche was not concerned with scientific progress. (He wrote something about it though in Zarathusra). His overman is a much more general goal (A truly philosphical, creating person). Overman could create whatever he feels like, as long as he creates.
Do you agree?

I don't know. Somehow, that seems like it doesn't quite capture the concept of the overman....but perhaps that is because the ideal means sooo much to me and I can't see it in simple terms.

As for the Marquis, I just started reading Justine.. Seems to be a good and fun read.
Anyways, Rant On!

Goody goody. I had my own ideas about Justine that I'd like to share whenever you get it finished.

Justine is an interesting girl. She's strong enough to maintain the values that she's been fed and yet not wise or - how to put it? - "developed" enough to destroy those values.

You could (knowing de Sade's work with m/s morality) call her the archetypical slave moralist....but it's not that simple. She's strong enough to abide by "her" values in spite of all that happens.

Even though she is handicapped by the fact that her values are, ummm, slave and herd morality, she is still great in her own way.

*Smiles* Or maybe there is no point and "Justine" is just de Sade's excuse for writing violent erotica and philosophical gibberish.

Like I said, tell me when you finish. I want to know what you think of something.

Whoo! But it's a secret!

War is good for killing people. I am leaving university to join the army. I want to kill some people before i die and i want to do it for my country because i love this country.

That, to me, pete is a little frightening.