Valkeer totally copied my poll motif. Though I did food, not plants.
I'm afraid I'm going to answer with a response similar to the other poll - many things are responsible. I just think there's a lot more power in a multiplicity than a singularity. Take self-interest, for example. Surely that's the reason for the eternal human civil war! Old men make wars for the young to fight, on archaic grounds and for selfish gain.
On the other hand - strategic cooperation was ingrained in us as a survival mechanism, but it always required an enemy - inclusion necessitates exclusion. So as we surpassed the danger of other competing species, we had nowhere to turn but inwards. So now every war is a civil war.
And ignorance? That must be the war-starter, soldiers blindly goosestepping into a war they don't understand, and a battle they don't want to fight. Terrorists so mindlessly obsessed with a limited worldview that they'll kill anything in its name. But all that ignorance needs a light to follow - someone intelligent enough to take advantage of it. Wars have been started by geniuses before.
As for hatred, well, men have murdered for love too.
I know it's not really a proper response to say "well everything duh!", but it's an appropriately vague answer to a pretty vague question. But that's just my view. Any thoughts?
Yep, I used your threads as inspiration. Even the Roman short sword wasn't originally Roman. ;)
Self-interest being the cause of man's strife? It has it's part to play but blaming "selfishness" on man's division is like blaming the ground for a man's death when it was the assailant above who pushed him off.
It's the most obvious connection but also a wrong one in my view.
It does have a hand in strife/conflict but it's also the root of charity, love, and human kindness. Like a gun or a knife, it has no internal value beyond what it's used for.
"...on archaic grounds and for selfish gains"
I'm fairly sure I read that once in a book.
"We had no where to turn but inward"
The Romans, when all their enemies had been destroyed or turned into Romans, never once turned inward to tear themselves apart.
The Roman brotherhood was never made inclusive for the sake of the excluded nor was the US founded for the sake of England, but for the sake of the US.
My broader point was that (like the last poll) it cannot be said that there is an absolute singular cause. I wasn't saying self-interest is the cause of strife; I was saying that exclusion (selfishness) plays just as much of a role as inclusion (cooperation) because each necessitates the other. In fact, they're almost synonyms.
I'm not sure what book you've read that in, but I'm not surprised - I can't be the first to have thought of that before. I didn't get it from a book, however.
The Roman Empire collapsed into the Eastern Byzantine and original Italian borders, did it not? And wasn't the creation of the Declaration of Independence specifically in spite of George III? Regardless, the creation and maintenance of both the Roman and American Empires necessarily entails exclusion - that's what an empire is. If you are within the bounds as a citizen, you are part of the empire. If not, you are not. Both empires fought many wars on those grounds, and both quarreled internally as well.
Who's to say the exclusion took place due to selfishness? Sure self-interest was the root but not all self-interest is "selfish" in the way society uses the word.
What caused the Cold War, the Revolutionary War, the Peninsular War? What breaks apart a family or causes a boyfriend to argue with his girlfriend?
Ideas. Ideas and man's dedication to them. The Americans fought England over the idea of "no taxation without representation". Europe struggled against itself over the idea that Jews were unfit for life and whether or not power existed for the sake of the powerful.
And of course the Cold War unfolded because the Communists envisioned the world a certain way, the Americans another.
Even our division right now, between the users taciturn and Valkeer, is because we disagree ideologically.
But again, I'm not saying the collapse of the Roman Empire or the birth of the American was due to self-interest (which, you're right, is a better term than selfishness) - I'm saying that all or some of these things come in to play for any particular event.
To use your example, the Cold War unfolded not solely due to ideology. It took cooperation to unite the branches, and self-interest to give them hubris. It was love of the idea and hatred of the other. In a sense, it isn't the idea itself but the passion of man that is his folly. Like a gun or a knife, it has no internal value beyond what it's used for.
I'm aware of the irony in saying this, but I don't think we're disagreeing ideologically. I'm saying inclusion, exclusion, self-interest, cooperation, hatred, love, ethos, pathos, fate, choice, and myriad other things cause strife - you choose to call them all ideas.
You do realize you just divided yourself from myself by virtue of your own idea on this right?
And even if you claimed I was wrong, again you would be divided against me by virtue of thought (or ideas).
Self-interest has a part but it's not the incriminating element, as I've said. It's like looking at a murder and saying that John Boot didn't kill Abe; the theatre, the bullet, and man's intellect to build weapons did.
Those are elements but in and of themselves they have no internal value; no quality by which man would be propelled to divide one against the other
You're looking at the perfectly natural and neutral qualities of self-interest, hate, "inclusion" as causes of divisions rather than the symptoms and by-products of it.
The Division of Mankind
← View full post
Valkeer totally copied my poll motif. Though I did food, not plants.
I'm afraid I'm going to answer with a response similar to the other poll - many things are responsible. I just think there's a lot more power in a multiplicity than a singularity. Take self-interest, for example. Surely that's the reason for the eternal human civil war! Old men make wars for the young to fight, on archaic grounds and for selfish gain.
On the other hand - strategic cooperation was ingrained in us as a survival mechanism, but it always required an enemy - inclusion necessitates exclusion. So as we surpassed the danger of other competing species, we had nowhere to turn but inwards. So now every war is a civil war.
And ignorance? That must be the war-starter, soldiers blindly goosestepping into a war they don't understand, and a battle they don't want to fight. Terrorists so mindlessly obsessed with a limited worldview that they'll kill anything in its name. But all that ignorance needs a light to follow - someone intelligent enough to take advantage of it. Wars have been started by geniuses before.
As for hatred, well, men have murdered for love too.
I know it's not really a proper response to say "well everything duh!", but it's an appropriately vague answer to a pretty vague question. But that's just my view. Any thoughts?
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yep, I used your threads as inspiration. Even the Roman short sword wasn't originally Roman. ;)
Self-interest being the cause of man's strife? It has it's part to play but blaming "selfishness" on man's division is like blaming the ground for a man's death when it was the assailant above who pushed him off.
It's the most obvious connection but also a wrong one in my view.
It does have a hand in strife/conflict but it's also the root of charity, love, and human kindness. Like a gun or a knife, it has no internal value beyond what it's used for.
"...on archaic grounds and for selfish gains"
I'm fairly sure I read that once in a book.
"We had no where to turn but inward"
The Romans, when all their enemies had been destroyed or turned into Romans, never once turned inward to tear themselves apart.
The Roman brotherhood was never made inclusive for the sake of the excluded nor was the US founded for the sake of England, but for the sake of the US.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My broader point was that (like the last poll) it cannot be said that there is an absolute singular cause. I wasn't saying self-interest is the cause of strife; I was saying that exclusion (selfishness) plays just as much of a role as inclusion (cooperation) because each necessitates the other. In fact, they're almost synonyms.
I'm not sure what book you've read that in, but I'm not surprised - I can't be the first to have thought of that before. I didn't get it from a book, however.
The Roman Empire collapsed into the Eastern Byzantine and original Italian borders, did it not? And wasn't the creation of the Declaration of Independence specifically in spite of George III? Regardless, the creation and maintenance of both the Roman and American Empires necessarily entails exclusion - that's what an empire is. If you are within the bounds as a citizen, you are part of the empire. If not, you are not. Both empires fought many wars on those grounds, and both quarreled internally as well.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Who's to say the exclusion took place due to selfishness? Sure self-interest was the root but not all self-interest is "selfish" in the way society uses the word.
What caused the Cold War, the Revolutionary War, the Peninsular War? What breaks apart a family or causes a boyfriend to argue with his girlfriend?
Ideas. Ideas and man's dedication to them. The Americans fought England over the idea of "no taxation without representation". Europe struggled against itself over the idea that Jews were unfit for life and whether or not power existed for the sake of the powerful.
And of course the Cold War unfolded because the Communists envisioned the world a certain way, the Americans another.
Even our division right now, between the users taciturn and Valkeer, is because we disagree ideologically.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But again, I'm not saying the collapse of the Roman Empire or the birth of the American was due to self-interest (which, you're right, is a better term than selfishness) - I'm saying that all or some of these things come in to play for any particular event.
To use your example, the Cold War unfolded not solely due to ideology. It took cooperation to unite the branches, and self-interest to give them hubris. It was love of the idea and hatred of the other. In a sense, it isn't the idea itself but the passion of man that is his folly. Like a gun or a knife, it has no internal value beyond what it's used for.
I'm aware of the irony in saying this, but I don't think we're disagreeing ideologically. I'm saying inclusion, exclusion, self-interest, cooperation, hatred, love, ethos, pathos, fate, choice, and myriad other things cause strife - you choose to call them all ideas.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I don't think we're disagreeing ideologically"
You do realize you just divided yourself from myself by virtue of your own idea on this right?
And even if you claimed I was wrong, again you would be divided against me by virtue of thought (or ideas).
Self-interest has a part but it's not the incriminating element, as I've said. It's like looking at a murder and saying that John Boot didn't kill Abe; the theatre, the bullet, and man's intellect to build weapons did.
Those are elements but in and of themselves they have no internal value; no quality by which man would be propelled to divide one against the other
You're looking at the perfectly natural and neutral qualities of self-interest, hate, "inclusion" as causes of divisions rather than the symptoms and by-products of it.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
"I'm aware of the irony in saying this"