Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike?

[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.

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.

Which is what I said, here:

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.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

I know, and if arshole politicians want to wage war then they should do the same as the so-called 'barbarians', instead of sending young people off to do their dirty work for them. You are right, it is just about money today, and arms and oil. Arms manufacturers must be the biggest shit-heads who ever lived.

[uwot]

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.

I prefer Bertrand Russell's take:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

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.

It really depends on what you mean by religion. I take your point about Dostoevsky, Lincoln and Einstein, but believing that there is order, and perhaps a being responsible for it, is different to believing in the virgin birth, walking on water, the resurrection and so on. As I said in the thread you refer to, if a christian has no distinguishing beliefs, what makes them a christian?

That is because people like Dostoevsky, Einstein or Lincoln (for instance) were quite the opposite of stupid, simplistic people.

Quite. But to be clear, the proposition of Immanuel Can I was responding to was his contention that atheism is sterile. The point I was making is that any mythology that includes a story about the evils of eating from the tree of knowledge is not only sterile, it is self neutering.

[Wyman]

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.

I prefer Bertrand Russell's take:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

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.

It really depends on what you mean by religion. I take your point about Dostoevsky, Lincoln and Einstein, but believing that there is order, and perhaps a being responsible for it, is different to believing in the virgin birth, walking on water, the resurrection and so on. As I said in the thread you refer to, if a christian has no distinguishing beliefs, what makes them a christian?

That is because people like Dostoevsky, Einstein or Lincoln (for instance) were quite the opposite of stupid, simplistic people.

Quite. But to be clear, the proposition of Immanuel Can I was responding to was his contention that atheism is sterile. The point I was making is that any mythology that includes a story about the evils of eating from the tree of knowledge is not only sterile, it is self neutering.

Yes, on second thought, maybe the discussion did not 'dovetail' into the other so well. I liked Immanuel Cant's quote as a description of the process of understanding a philosopher or philosophical system, rather than appeals to Wikipedia or Stanford - which is not directed at you. Besides that, I do often find 'card carrying' atheists (again, not aimed at you) to be very arrogant and short on a deep enough understanding of religion to carry on interesting conversations.

- And no doubt Einstein would agree with you on religion, as he ridiculed the idea of a personal God and all His accoutrements. I'm sure Lincoln would have too, if he were not a politician and was able to speak honestly.

[henry quirk]

"Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike?"

Of course not.
KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL!

[Lev Muishkin]

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.

Which is what I said, here:

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.

Well not exactly, but then I was not commenting to disagree but to bolster the argument.
You did not pick up on the tribal side of things for which most wars seem to be justified.
I note you mention Einstein.
I just read Jacob Epstein's autobiography. When Einstein (at the moment he was fleeing Germany to come to England), was sitting for him he said that he had never thought of himself as a Jew until Hitler came to power. This sentiment was echoed by Epstein who, after a lifetime experiencing anti-semitism, despite his not particularly being "jewish", Epstein thought it idiotic to be called the world's foremost "Jewish Sculptor" as if that was at all a meaningful category.

This is the cutting edge of warfare: tribalism. Any war implies co-operation in the same measure as violence. The choice we all have is co-operating with humanity rather than some idiotic parochial category such as "American", "European", or "Islamic".

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Yes, you and I would tend to agree, from that perspective. But Uwot, I believe, is referring to one that was shared with me via a documentary, on the fact that usually those that easily enlist, come from poorer households, and that they believe that they have no other choice, but to enlist. That relatively, they have nothing to lose. Sure there are a few of those gun-ho warmonger types, but most are the "believe they are trapped," types, that it's indeed a viable solution.

From my perspective, it's indeed a sad case, to see things that way. They, unfortunately, are a product of their environment.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
Gawd you seem a dipshit!! He was speaking of "that time." In essence that N was ahead of his time, that he saw things, in such a way, that most of that time were incapable of seeing. That was his thoughts on N, not necessarily anyone else's, though if it were, it surely wouldn't necessarily diminish his thoughts on the subject.
..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!
You should know, about stupid people that is, son! Project your 'self' much?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

I prefer Bertrand Russell's take:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
I love that bit man, and so true!! The fact of that matter indeed illuminates the problem. A truly wise man only ever has questions and fools can only ever believe they know the answers.

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.

It really depends on what you mean by religion. I take your point about Dostoevsky, Lincoln and Einstein, but believing that there is order, and perhaps a being responsible for it, is different to believing in the virgin birth, walking on water, the resurrection and so on. As I said in the thread you refer to, if a christian has no distinguishing beliefs, what makes them a christian?

That is because people like Dostoevsky, Einstein or Lincoln (for instance) were quite the opposite of stupid, simplistic people.

Quite. But to be clear, the proposition of Immanuel Can I was responding to was his contention that atheism is sterile. The point I was making is that any mythology that includes a story about the evils of eating from the tree of knowledge is not only sterile, it is self neutering.