I Believe in War

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • I believe that in truth war is the only discernable fact of existence.


    From the chaotic nature of the universe, to animal relationships we have been born into an existence of chao’s.


    I suggest therefore that war is and always has been the natural result of human relationships, not matter how small the conflict, friction between people results in conflict.


    War gives birth to culture, it makes us constantly aware of the movement of existence, constantly aware of the changing world we live in, if we weren’t aware of this then we would become stagnant, we would have nothing to strive for, if peace was the permanent human condition then we would become stagnant, we would have nothing to worry about, we would become placid, we would be unable to function.


    I refer not exclusively to full blown military conflict, but rather to the fact that without conflict between beings we would be unable to push ourselves forward. The urge of defence and protection from our destruction has always been a way for us to see our horizon and move ourselves towards it.
    I would argue that without this friction, we would be unable to be human, we would no longer be animals, we would simply die, because we would be defying our very primal nature.


    Therefore conflict and war is the father of all things. It defines us, and pushes us forward.


    Also, im not pro-war, i see it as an option, im pro-social-friction in a sense, which sometimes has to result in war

  • Fine words but I'm not really interested in idea of war in the abstract. I agree that conflict is part of life, a natural result of different ideas, but the idea that conflict = war is just plain wrong. War is one of many possible outcomes of conflict, we can also agree to disagree, reach a consensus, argue and debate there are many other outcomes.

    We started this in the Iran thread and you still haven't answered my question. How much blood would you be willing to see spilled to reshape the world to match your ideal? How many Iranians is it worth killing to remove a state based on Sharia law? What happens if the population immediately vote to put something similar back in place?

    I suppose the big question is how many lifes is an idea worth?

    The question I keep asking my MP is how many Iraqis have to die before he will admit that the war was misconceived. Politcians and maybe philosophers:) like talking about ideas like freedom, they don't like relating the fight for freedom to a cost in human lifes.

    BTW I'm not a pacificist, I'm not that good, just someone who sees violence as the very last resort. I am willing to accept that just because I start a fight with good intentions it doesn't naturally follow that the outcome will be as I intended.

  • Quote from dode

    Fine words but I'm not really interested in idea of war in the abstract. I agree that conflict is part of life, a natural result of different ideas, but the idea that conflict = war is just plain wrong. War is one of many possible outcomes of conflict, we can also agree to disagree, reach a consensus, argue and debate there are many other outcomes.


    War is the extreme result of conflict, i agree that conflict doesnt always equal war, however conflict is where war begins and it is fueled by human relasionships which are unavoidable.

    Quote from dode


    We started this in the Iran thread and you still haven't answered my question. How much blood would you be willing to see spilled to reshape the world to match your ideal? How many Iranians is it worth killing to remove a state based on Sharia law? What happens if the population immediately vote to put something similar back in place?


    I suggested that peace was an ideal, and not war. i believe that conflict is natural to all relasionships animal and human. Histoically and genealogically speaking you cannot deny that as far as we can trace our existence back there has always been conflict, which are the result of human relasionships. I dont want to say that we are defined by conflict, but rather that conflict is an unescapable concequence of beings interacting with each other. Therefore this isnt a question of 'spilling blood' it is merely a question of war and its relasionship to the human and animal condition, as to whether conflict and strife have a primacy within us, be that a defensive or offensive primacy to whatever natural goal. This also isnt a question of what do do with Iran, that topic was left back in the other post, however, i will still say that death is a natural process and consequence which happens every day and is unescapable and will continue to occur, Peace i think you'll find is a more abstract ideal than conflict is.

    Quote from dode


    I suppose the big question is how many lifes is an idea worth?


    Dont be silly...surely i can suppose a question and discussion without suggesting that i want people dead...

    Quote from dode


    The question I keep asking my MP is how many Iraqis have to die before he will admit that the war was misconceived. Politcians and maybe philosophers:) like talking about ideas like freedom, they don't like relating the fight for freedom to a cost in human lifes.

    BTW I'm not a pacificist, I'm not that good, just someone who sees violence as the very last resort. I am willing to accept that just because I start a fight with good intentions it doesn't naturally follow that the outcome will be as I intended.


    Thats because sometimes its difficult to discuss each and every case, and sometimes ideas are generalised and made abstract in order to get a general idea to a perticular subject...This isnt a debate as to the rights and wrongs of war, death or particular pragmatic problems, i dont want this to turn into a debate of the ethics of war, but rather a discussion of war and its relasionship to our innate nature as conflict causing beings. You cant not discuss an idea purely because in the real world people die...that is just inintellegable.

  • without conflicts and things that force us to think and consider ourselves as sentient beings, and debate morality etc, we would never get anywhere....

    inner conflict, and conflict between individuals will always exist....

    however, i dont think that war will always exist....i think all these wonderful 'conflicts' and struggles that we go through as people teaches us things that may one day lead to the development of a world where mass conflicts cease to occur....

    we'll learn stuff!! n be like....smarter or something....or nicer....or maybe not either of these things....but perhaps we'll just have got over the notion that exploding a country and everyone in it/mass supression of a people/locking up people for existing in the wrong place/etc is the solution to disagreements....

    meh....:)

  • Part of life is conflict, but war is conflict+hubris

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • The idea of war can be interesting to play with in a philosophical sense, although when you do that you are simply ignoring the reality of the situation and de-humanising yourself through acclimatisation. War is disgusting, immoral and indefensible, regardless of the pseudo-philosophy people who are unaffected by it may believe.

  • Quote from magicmonkey

    The idea of war can be interesting to play with in a philosophical sense, although when you do that you are simply ignoring the reality of the situation and de-humanising yourself through acclimatisation. War is disgusting, immoral and indefensible, regardless of the pseudo-philosophy people who are unaffected by it may believe.


    why is it immoral and indefensible?


    without a universal and eternal conception of 'good' i cant believe that war is always these things...


    Explain:D

  • Quote from Joel

    why is it immoral and indefensible?

    without a universal and eternal conception of 'good' i cant believe that war is always these things...

    Explain:D



    it's your de-humanised point of view that allows you hold your beliefs, if you were living in Uganda during the civil war of Iraq right now or any of the other war torn countries out there you'd soon come to grips with just how disgusting war really is.

    There doesn't have to be a universal and enternal concept of good to recognise suffering and have the desire to end it, just the mildest sense of empathy

  • Quote from Joel


    War gives birth to culture, it makes us constantly aware of the movement of existence, constantly aware of the changing world we live in, if we weren’t aware of this then we would become stagnant, we would have nothing to strive for, if peace was the permanent human condition then we would become stagnant, we would have nothing to worry about, we would become placid, we would be unable to function.


    :eek:


    Quote

    I refer not exclusively to full blown military conflict, but rather to the fact that without conflict between beings we would be unable to push ourselves forward. The urge of defence and protection from our destruction has always been a way for us to see our horizon and move ourselves towards it.


    Ah. I think you are perhaps being a bit confusing with your choice of the word "war" - which refers specifically to a conflict between States.


    Conflict does not of necessity have to be linked to a linear path of "push[ing] ourselves forward" but can be a cyclic phenomenon of living in the moment.


    Quote

    I would argue that without this friction, we would be unable to be human, we would no longer be animals, we would simply die, because we would be defying our very primal nature.


    If you are refering to conflict then yes I would agree; it is integral to life and I find the notion of global peace more frightening than having a small ammount of conflict in our lives!


    Quote

    Therefore conflict and war is the father of all things. It defines us, and pushes us forward.


    Conflict is a catalyst but its overstating the fact to call it the father of all things.


    Quote


    without a universal and eternal conception of 'good' i cant believe that war is always [immoral and indefensible]...

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Been reading Brave New World? ;)


    I'd say that conflict is inevitable. However, I don't believe that war is nor do I believe that it is necessary. Anyway, look where our constant drive forwards has got us - we've practically destroyed this planet and we're so far from nature that some of us aren't even aware of the origins of our food. Hardly a good situation.

  • Quote from Darkflame

    we've practically destroyed this planet



    A common misconception ;) this lump of rock will outlast us... millions of years after we are gone it will still be here
    it is an arrogant belief to assume we are capable of truly destroying the world...


    As to Joel... war in natural insofar as animals fight for food/land/mates. perhaps that is necessary and something we have to 'believe in'. it is unnatural when they kill people for ideas (yes inc. religion) and nothing can be gained from it apart from MISERY for who can possibly win a war
    'we all lose we're all damned sinners'

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    A common misconception ;) this lump of rock will outlast us... millions of years after we are gone it will still be here
    it is an arrogant belief to assume we are capable of truly destroying the world...

    Actually, all those nukes that we have are quite capable of turning this planet into a load of lifeless floating rock fragments. Good, eh? :rolleyes:

  • Quote from Darkflame

    Actually, all those nukes that we have are quite capable of turning this planet into a load of lifeless floating rock fragments. Good, eh? :rolleyes:

    Actually, that's incredibly unlikely. They'd probably cause mass extinctions, but a complete annihilation of all life is pretty much off the cards.

  • Quote from Atomik

    Actually, that's incredibly unlikely. They'd probably cause mass extinctions, but a complete annihilation of all life is pretty much off the cards.


    This is getting OT so maybe you could split it? but on my geology course we were told that some of our more powerful nuclear weapons, if used in combination, could shatter the crust of the earth in such a way that either the insides of the planet would spew out everywhere lowering the gravity to the point where we all float away or blsating the planet too far from the sun/towards the sun - both of which would be exceptionally deadly.

  • Quote from Darkflame

    This is getting OT so maybe you could split it? but on my geology course we were told that some of our more powerful nuclear weapons, if used in combination, could shatter the crust of the earth in such a way that either the insides of the planet would spew out everywhere lowering the gravity to the point where we all float away or blsating the planet too far from the sun/towards the sun - both of which would be exceptionally deadly.

    I think they'd been watching too much sci-fi. :D

  • Quote from Joel

    and what if i dont agree that war is dehumanising? will my original premise stand?



    To murder someone and consider yourself to be 'in the right' is to remove yourself from any human level of interaction, you might decide to not agree but you'd be wrong :harhar:

  • Quote from magicmonkey

    To murder someone and consider yourself to be 'in the right' is to remove yourself from any human level of interaction, you might decide to not agree but you'd be wrong :harhar:


    not really, when you'll remember that "no not kill" is a premise that has only really become 'morality' recently, 2000 years really isnt that long a time in our total history, and its introduction has mainly been a result of christian morality, which proclaims that all moral laws are universal and uneffected by change...which if you agree with that then fine...but i dont;)


    also i'd say that if i murdered someone and considered myself in the right, then i wouldnt be removing myself from a human level of interaction. If i killed hitler before he started on his path would that be 'unhuman'? i'd be saving millions of lives. I dont for one second think that if i kill someone else then i become less than human, i'd say i became more human, because i would have accepted my innate violent tendoncies, that have been a part of me ever since my primal urges ruled my rationality.:D

  • Quote from Joel

    I dont for one second think that if i kill someone else then i become less than human, i'd say i became more human, because i would have accepted my innate violent tendoncies, that have been a part of me ever since my primal urges ruled my rationality.:D

    Or alternatively, you're becoming less human simply because an even more fundamental part of our nature appears to be our ability to adpat, evolve, change, and to develop concepts of conscience and morality. We live in country of about 65 million people. How many of them have ever killed anyone? How many of them practice some form of personal ethic in their lives? I think you'll find the latter group far exceeds the former, which would suggest to me that it's far more human to act with compassion than it is to kill. We don't have "innate violent tendencies" any more than we have "innate rapist tendencies". Biology urges us in a particular direction from time to time, but our evolutionary development makes that a small and quiet voice for most of us... a voice that's easily drowned out by our compassion, which is ultimately what defines us more than any urge to kill.

  • Quote from Joel

    If i killed Hitler blah blah blah



    Blah added ;)

    This is exactly my point, you're putting yourself in a hypothetical situation based entirely on logic, that's completely de-humanised. Were you to actually stand in front of a human being, be it Hitler or anyone else, do you really think that you'd be able to hack them up and then smile proclaiming yourself to be 'in the right'? If your answer to that is yes than you've ignored the whole spectrum of human emotion and therefore de-humanised yourself for the sake of a logical act.

  • Quote from magicmonkey

    Blah added ;)

    This is exactly my point, you're putting yourself in a hypothetical situation based entirely on logic, that's completely de-humanised. Were you to actually stand in front of a human being, be it Hitler or anyone else, do you really think that you'd be able to hack them up and then smile proclaiming yourself to be 'in the right'? If your answer to that is yes than you've ignored the whole spectrum of human emotion and therefore de-humanised yourself for the sake of a logical act.

    Quite right. The very nature of dehumanisation is that it causes people to commit atrocities whilst remaining emotionally disconnected from the act, and usually whilst justifying them with some form of cold, calculated logic. Hitler, after all, believed that the extermination of the Jews made perfect sense.

  • What ever made you join a forum of hippies if you really believe any of this dog's doodoo?

    Edited to say:- comment aimed at Joel, not Atomik or the monkey!

  • Quote from Joel

    I dont for one second think that if i kill someone else then i become less than human, i'd say i became more human, because i would have accepted my innate violent tendoncies, that have been a part of me ever since my primal urges ruled my rationality.:D


    I'm guessing that you have little experience of being violent or violence?. I think its fair to say that many people that have been given "licence" to embrace thier "innate violent tendancies" end up suffering from some kind of post traumatic shock. While conflict is often a driving force behind many human activities so is co-operation.

  • Quote from shibari.surfer

    I'm guessing that you have little experience of being violent or violence?. I think its fair to say that many people that have been given "licence" to embrace thier "innate violent tendancies" end up suffering from some kind of post traumatic shock. While conflict is often a driving force behind many human activities so is co-operation.


    this is a discussion of war, i have taken an opposing point of view, by which people can comment, so that we may grow and understand why conflict is wrong, im amazed that people are jumping on me in such a manner. I have had plenty of experience of violence, but that isnt the issue, im merely stating that violence is a 'natural' element of humanistic nature. how i choose to express that isnt up for debate.


    Quote from HappyHippy

    What ever made you join a forum of hippies if you really believe any of this dog's doodoo?

    Edited to say:- comment aimed at Joel, not Atomik or the monkey!


    my membership of both the hipforums and this form has been both long and interesting, and that is entirely offtopic



    my key point is that conflict is a primal force behind mankinds development, that rises out of the friction between our social relasionships.


    War is the EXTREME form of that, im not permitting it or denying it, however what i will say is that war no matter how violent, is responsible for our development, and is an important part of who we are, afterall we are defined by our history, and amoungst other things, humanities history is defined by violence.


    As far as hyperthetical situations go, its still relevent as a thought pump and by means of discussing further issues, i would say that killing is sometimes justified and not unhuman. If you wish to define 'human' as peaceful, that which does not harm others, etc etc etc then im afraid we will have to agree to disagree, because i will deem human nature as amoungst otherthings violent.


    :D

  • My thought on this is that war is a projection of the conflict that occurs in the human mind. Another thought is that people go to war on belief and not on knowing. War is a reflection of our human inability or lack of desire to reflect and our obsession with action.

  • Quote from the gardener

    My thought on this is that war is a projection of the conflict that occurs in the human mind. Another thought is that people go to war on belief and not on knowing. War is a reflection of our human inability or lack of desire to reflect and our obsession with action.


    see now thats interesting rather than all this war is wrong...because it is talk

  • Quote from Joel

    If you wish to define 'human' as peaceful, that which does not harm others, etc etc etc then im afraid we will have to agree to disagree, because i will deem human nature as amoungst otherthings violent.

    Given that the vast majority of people seem able to live entirely happy and contented lives without the need to kill or even hit other people, I would suggest that violence is about as 'human' as living up trees and picking fleas off each other. It may be in our nature, but its no more integral to who we are than any number of other redundant evolutionary tendencies.

  • Quote from Joel


    my key point is that conflict is a primal force behind mankinds development, that rises out of the friction between our social relasionships.

    War is the EXTREME form of that, im not permitting it or denying it, however what i will say is that war no matter how violent, is responsible for our development, and is an important part of who we are, afterall we are defined by our history, and amoungst other things, humanities history is defined by violence.


    So what you're saying is that human development needs conflict, and that because war is a form of conflict it is neccessary to our development?

    Isn't that logic a bit flawed? I would agree that humanity needs conflict to progress, but why does it need conflict in the specific form of war? There are many other forms of conflict that help us progress.

  • Quote from Joel

    War is the EXTREME form of that, im not permitting it or denying it, however what i will say is that war no matter how violent, is responsible for our development, and is an important part of who we are, afterall we are defined by our history, and amoungst other things, humanities history is defined by violence.

    As far as hyperthetical situations go, its still relevent as a thought pump and by means of discussing further issues, i would say that killing is sometimes justified and not unhuman. If you wish to define 'human' as peaceful, that which does not harm others, etc etc etc then im afraid we will have to agree to disagree, because i will deem human nature as amoungst otherthings violent.

    :D



    I think you have a good point about war being a major part of our development, that's certainly true from a scientific point of view, take the jet engine for example, and the entire Roman empire! The question we have to ask is 'should violence be the driving force and therefore the focus of our development?'

    There are a plethora of valid answers to that, mainly negative. Good things have come from war I suppose, we don't all speak German for one, but predominantly war is a negative thing (understatement) and the ends have never justified the means (I challenge you to disagree with this and find plausible material to back it up).

    The hypothetical situation with Hitler is a valid thought pump in the same way as communism is a good form of government, it works really well until you start involving humans and their emotions :eek:

    As we covered in the point about 'universal good' earlier you don't have to define 'good' or 'peaceful' etc. to be able to see suffering, there is a whole spectrum of emotions to be dealt with which means that dealing with one extreme or the other is irrelevant to real life, to see another person suffering starts the human reaction of kindness which is a far stronger trait that violence (these days, I have no idea how I might have reacted millenia ago)

    PS. I'm not trying to 'jump on you' I'm actually quite enjoying the conversation :D