Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Imo this is why the successive wars has been very limited with free press.

In war, the first casualty is truth.
Aeschylus. Another Greek.

Yet I would change 'truth' to 'understanding.'

[SpheresOfBalance]

You don't really have any idea of what I'm talking about.

We have that in common, Mr Hammer.

Yet I understand you both!

[SpheresOfBalance]

You don't really have any idea of what I'm talking about.

We have that in common, Mr Hammer.

No, truly you speak out of your ass.
Here, let me translate, "I don't understand."


To lie isn't the same to limit the reporters and journalists ability to roam freely, and freely seend any information found.

[HexHammer]

I think many commentators would argue that reports of Saddam Hussain's military capabilities were, at best, exaggerated, for instance. Putting restraints on what reporters can tell the enemy is only sensible.

Who gets to decide who the 'enemy' is then? So you are against free speech then.

I think uwot is against intelligent speech, he always talks out of his retarded ass.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I live in the US, and I take uwot's point, he meant 'rarely.'

I would have thought that one's life would be quite a lot to lose.

[uwot]

For a contrary point of view, here is a quote from Dostoevsky:

What you add is very disturbing and I wouldn't challenge it, and yes there is bleak evidence from, as Mr Hammer points out research such as the Milgram experiment. But I was seconding Lev Muishkin's view that humans are complex beings; if Dostoevsky is right and every one of us is corruptible by power, then we are a very predictable and dismal species.

[uwot]

Who gets to decide who the 'enemy' is then?

You can usually tell from the way the guns are pointing, but I think it would be useful to distinguish between the people who start wars and those who get caught up in them. Very few people are involved in choosing the enemy.

So you are against free speech then.

I think people should be able to say what they like about wars or anything else and while I don't condone war generally, I think people have a right to self defence. In such circumstances I would hope the press would refrain from giving away my position, strength or morale, and if I felt their doing so increased the risk of injury or death to people I was responsible for, I would stop them.

I think uwot is against intelligent speech, he always talks out of his retarded ass.

My retarded ass I reserve for talking to you, Mr Hammer. It speaks your language.

[Wyman]

For a contrary point of view, here is a quote from Dostoevsky:

What you add is very disturbing and I wouldn't challenge it, and yes there is bleak evidence from, as Mr Hammer points out research such as the Milgram experiment. But I was seconding Lev Muishkin's view that humans are complex beings; if Dostoevsky is right and every one of us is corruptible by power, then we are a very predictable and dismal species.

Well, while we're at it then, here is another quote I had stowed away from The Brother's Karamazov:

In most cases people, even the most vicious, are much more naive and simple-minded than we assume them to be. And this is true of ourselves too.

Not that Dostoevsky is right, but it is interesting to see different points of view. Perhaps this point of view is what comes of being seconds away from execution before being sent to Siberia to hang out with 19th century Russia's most violent criminals for ten years in Siberia, followed by a life of gambling (with accompanying poverty), personal loss and depression.

I think he might say that not everyone is simple and not everyone is corruptible by power, but there are general types of humans, at least. There are some good people, like his Prince Myshkin or Alexei Karamazov - Christlike figures (or maybe Kantian 'good souls') who are very rare and stand out in society like sore thumbs.

There are the slightly less rare, truly corrupt and ignominious creatures like Fyodor Karamazov. Then intellectual, tortured souls like Ivan Karamazov or Raskolnikov, etc..

It is interesting to note that Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are often compared, held similar views of humanity, both were brilliant thinkers and especially writers, and Nietzsche very much admired Dostoevsky. And yet while Nietzsche is among the most rabid anti-Christian writers you can find in literature, Dostoevsky came to the very opposite conclusion and, despite being the author of 'The Grand Inquisitor,' was devoutly Christian, believing that the tremendous suffering in this world was the only true way to salvation.

This dovetails with our conversation on another thread, with Immanuel Cant. Although I am not Christian, I can't dismiss religion as wholly simplistic and stupid. That is because people like Dostoevsky, Einstein or Lincoln (for instance) were quite the opposite of stupid, simplistic people. They believed that although much of religion may be regarded as simplistic and stupid, there is something 'higher' than humans. Lincoln was fond of quoting Shakespeare's Hamlet: There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will. Similarly, Einstein, although he did not believe in a personal God, believed in something that 'shaped' the physical laws of the universe - i.e. they are not random.

[HexHammer]

It is interesting to note that Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are often compared, held similar views of humanity, both were brilliant thinkers and especially writers

Excatly how is Nietzsche brilliant? I'd say he was a compulsive writer, but in no way brilliant.

[Wyman]

It is interesting to note that Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are often compared, held similar views of humanity, both were brilliant thinkers and especially writers

Excatly how is Nietzsche brilliant? I'd say he was a compulsive writer, but in no way brilliant.

Short answer is: he saw things, and subsequently described them, from an angle that was not available or apparent to others.

[HexHammer]

Short answer is: he saw things, and subsequently described them, from an angle that was not available or apparent to others.

LOL? So you can't really defend your own view of him, but with complete nonsense.

..that's awesome!

I pray each night that just a few intelligent people would come to this forum, and bring salvation to all these stupid people!

[Wyman]

Short answer is: he saw things, and subsequently described them, from an angle that was not available or apparent to others.

LOL? So you can't really defend your own view of him, but with complete nonsense.

..that's awesome!

I pray each night that just a few intelligent people would come to this forum, and bring salvation to all these stupid people!

Do you want to have a long discussion with me regarding Nietzsche Hex, is that what your are trying to say?

[HexHammer]

Do you want to have a long discussion with me regarding Nietzsche Hex, is that what your are trying to say?

If you can't argue if he's relevant or not, then you lack something basic.

Try show that you are intelligent, instead of a helpless retard.

[Lev Muishkin]

If being anti-war is so rare it is a wonder that we are not fighting all the time.
I agree about what you say about politicians spouting patriotism, and people like to follow like sheep.
But for the most part people just want to get on with their lives.

True, but people need to start demanding that warmongering politicians be the first to line up for front line combat. See how many wars there would be then. No extra protection for them either. A moron like Bush would have been the first to have his head hacked off, or blown up.

That's exactly how it used to be in the world of the barbarians.
Sadly we all got civilised and warfare got commodified.
Most wars (at least these days) are promoted so much with interests of the arms dealers and manufacturers that they are waged beyond reason.
I don't really think that this reflects upon the spirit of the man in the street.
You've only to look at the Middle East from the end of WW2, and what is happening their today. The US and UK benefit from the continual de-stabilisation.

[Lev Muishkin]

For a contrary point of view, here is a quote from Dostoevsky:

What you add is very disturbing and I wouldn't challenge it, and yes there is bleak evidence from, as Mr Hammer points out research such as the Milgram experiment. But I was seconding Lev Muishkin's view that humans are complex beings; if Dostoevsky is right and every one of us is corruptible by power, then we are a very predictable and dismal species.

The Idiot Prince was not corruptible, that was the point of his characterisation. So not everyone.
Most people can be manipulated to act in the "interests of" or the apparent interests of the tribe.
This says as much about co-operation as it does being warlike; about being defensive and offensive.
It is possible to unpack the assumptions of group-think and to accept a universal consciousness; make humanity your tribe, not your religion or your nation.