Philosophy Now Forum

David P. Barash says, not necessarily.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/Ar ... nd_Warlike

Prof David P. Barash 2014

This Prof David P. Barash is cluess about modern understading of human behavior, only schooled in outdated books, tho he admittedly have a vast knowledge that still have a vague merit.

He lacks the "modern" psychology aspect, that even stretches back 45+ years. The Milgram Experiment and such are totally lacking here!

This article along any other, is an ever tragic evidence of why this magazine is irrelevant and never will be.

We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

Many early Christians would refuse to take up the sword, only at later time they would realize that it was futile to be pacifistic and then adopt warrior monks, like Poor Knights of Christ aka Templars and the Teuton Hospitalers would have warriors too ..IIRC ..not too sharp on my history.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

That is not true.
Most people are anti-war and always have been.
Most often wars are only fought by those that think they can win.
Saying that humans are naturally warlike, although completely true, does not give you warrant to say that being anti-war is rare. Humans are complex beings, and as well have being naturally violent, humans are naturally caring, loving and co-operative too.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

That is not true.
Most people are anti-war and always have been.
Most often wars are only fought by those that think they can win.
Saying that humans are naturally warlike, although completely true, does not give you warrant to say that being anti-war is rare. Humans are complex beings, and as well have being naturally violent, humans are naturally caring, loving and co-operative too.

I guess if you say it then it must be true. It doesn't appear to be very difficult to stir people up to war. According to Goering all you have to do is throw the word 'patriotism' at them. And yes, I do realise humanity is very complex but history would appear to back him up. When politicians start talking about patriotism we need to worry, and reach for our sceptic hats.

Lev Muishkin wrote:Humans are complex beings, and as well have being naturally violent, humans are naturally caring, loving and co-operative too.

If you ask me, and since you didn't, I'll tell you anyway, if you look at nature, there are many strategies that are used to gain power, property and the attention of potential sexual partners. Many animals will fight, some will build, some will show off their artistic talent, some will display their beauty, some will dance, some will sing, some will do things that only makes sense to them. Human beings do all of these things; the tragedy is, when those that use violence get some power, they want more and everyone else gets dragged in. The vast majority of people who die in wars are not violent, they have very little to gain and rarely much to lose.

uwot wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:Humans are complex beings, and as well have being naturally violent, humans are naturally caring, loving and co-operative too.

If you ask me, and since you didn't, I'll tell you anyway, if you look at nature, there are many strategies that are used to gain power, property and the attention of potential sexual partners. Many animals will fight, some will build, some will show off their artistic talent, some will display their beauty, some will dance, some will sing, some will do things that only makes sense to them. Human beings do all of these things; the tragedy is, when those that use violence get some power, they want more and everyone else gets dragged in. The vast majority of people who die in wars are not violent, they have very little to gain and rarely much to lose.

Surely you mean 'really', much to lose, not 'rarely'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Surely you mean 'really', much to lose, not 'rarely'.

I'm not an expert on war, but except in the cases where the aggressors are psychopathic idealogues, I'm not sure that the ordinary people are much affected by who taxes them.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

Uhmm, I remember USA lost the 'Nam war due to a lot of hippies at home, protested against it.

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

Uhmm, I remember USA lost the 'Nam war due to a lot of hippies at home, protested against it.

It had no right there in the first place. Perhaps if yanks protested more instead of sitting on their fat arses watching TV or computers 24/7, then the world would be a safer place for the rest of the planet. I don't see any photos of fat hippies from that era. Americans even look completely different from the way they did then.
It was a 'movement' that caught on. It had the music, the drugs, the atmosphere...Sometimes it's pro-war fervour, but at that time anti-war was 'flavour of the month.' It was still a mob movement, even if it had some positive things going for it. Some of those hippies could very well be war-mongering, right-wing conservatives now.

HexHammer wrote:Prof David P. Barash 2014

This Prof David P. Barash is cluess about modern understading of human behavior, only schooled in outdated books, tho he admittedly have a vast knowledge that still have a vague merit.

He lacks the "modern" psychology aspect, that even stretches back 45+ years. The Milgram Experiment and such are totally lacking here!

This article along any other, is an ever tragic evidence of why this magazine is irrelevant and never will be.

Since David P. Barash is a professor of psychology at the University of Washington I'm guessing that he has heard of the Milgram Experiment but simply didn't see it as being sufficiently relevant to his article.

(I'm not saying it has no relevance at all - if there was no obedience to authority, then wars would be hard to organise!)

RickLewis wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Prof David P. Barash 2014

This Prof David P. Barash is cluess about modern understading of human behavior, only schooled in outdated books, tho he admittedly have a vast knowledge that still have a vague merit.

He lacks the "modern" psychology aspect, that even stretches back 45+ years. The Milgram Experiment and such are totally lacking here!

This article along any other, is an ever tragic evidence of why this magazine is irrelevant and never will be.

Since David P. Barash is a professor of psychology at the University of Washington I'm guessing that he has heard of the Milgram Experiment but simply didn't see it as being sufficiently relevant to his article.

(I'm not saying it has no relevance at all - if there was no obedience to authority, then wars would be hard to organise!)

I've met some PhD and Lectors, not all are very Sharp, not all understands how to incorporate their vast knowledge into a coherent tale. The admission to a professor title often only lies in the amount a person has of knowledge, not the ability to make 10/10 conclusions.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

That is not true.
Most people are anti-war and always have been.
Most often wars are only fought by those that think they can win.
Saying that humans are naturally warlike, although completely true, does not give you warrant to say that being anti-war is rare. Humans are complex beings, and as well have being naturally violent, humans are naturally caring, loving and co-operative too.

I guess if you say it then it must be true. It doesn't appear to be very difficult to stir people up to war. According to Goering all you have to do is throw the word 'patriotism' at them. And yes, I do realise humanity is very complex but history would appear to back him up. When politicians start talking about patriotism we need to worry, and reach for our sceptic hats.

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.

Lev Muishkin wrote:But for the most part people just want to get on with their lives.

Is that so? I remember the Dixie Chicks being forced to apologize for trying to talk sense to people, and how USA got all hysterical about France trying to speak sense to these mad gunslingers that demanded revenge for 9/11.