Tits

[Anonymous No.2498290]

"These are the same motherfucking idiots who think peace is the natural state of things. No, war is the natural state of things. Peace and stability are anomalies... War, conflict, and struggle is the reality." I was reading and I came across this quote that puzzled me. Do you believe it's true? Do you believe that anomalies like these are possible to perpetuate through persistence as John Lennon said "War is over if you want it." or is it against human nature?

[Anonymous No.2498298]

Conflict in some form is necessary to necessitate progress. Without conflict, there is no need for progression, and we stagnate.

Classic dialectic.

[Anonymous No.2498306]

>>2498298
I understand that but isn't it possible that the conflict is diplomatic, peaceful disscussion? I mean war just seems like a way to kill poor people so rich can get richer - at least lately.

[Anonymous No.2498318]

>>2498306

Sadly, actions speak louder than words. Might makes right, and the sword, in spite of all you've learned, is mightier than the pen.

In a perfect world, we could solve everything over drinks and without losing a single life, but nothing grants leverage like the ability to decimate an entire nation if demands aren't met.

[Anonymous No.2498322]

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5).

[Anonymous No.2498328]

>>2498290

No. War takes a lot of energy and involves a lot of uncertainty, the world tends towards peace since peace is an equilibrium / homeostasis.

War is also a human invention and human's haven't been doing it for too long.

[Anonymous No.2498331]

>>2498306
the problem with this point of view. first, it assumes that all conflicts can be resolved, in a way amenable to all parties, through calm, reasoned discussion. this is in no way an assumption that we can consider valid, whether the conflict is based on principle or on resources... second, it only works if everyone is educated, competent, reasonable, and open to compromise... in other words peace is only possible in the ideal world in which the citizenry is entirely made up of educated and reasonable people... obviously this is not the case in the real world and for this reason practically speaking in the world as we know it conflict is more or less inevitable.

[Anonymous No.2498332]

>>2498328

Um, the current hypothesis for the extinction of homo sapiens neanderthalis was that he was genocided by homo sapiens (not so) sapiens

[Anonymous No.2498333]

Yes it's absolutely true. War is 100% natural and normal for human beings and I wouldn't have it any other way. Fuck people. Let 'em die in droves for all I care. It's necessary. I hope I get to fly something when I fining the Air Force ROTC. I want to be apart of conflict.

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.2498335]

Every war in human history can be traced to a single root cause: governments playing on basic human altruism in order to goad the public into support of a violent conflict.

[Anonymous No.2498337]

>>2498328
>No. War takes a lot of energy and involves a lot of uncertainty, the world tends towards peace since peace is an equilibrium / homeostasis.

right but one could make the argument that uncertainty also precedes and causes war - and that this is a significant factor leading out of the equilibrium state of peace... peace is always uncertain

>War is also a human invention and human's haven't been doing it for too long.

i'm deeply curious about the claim - are you going on geologic time? or are you defining war as a prerogative of states? because armed conflict between groups seems to be more or less constant with civilization

[Anonymous No.2498338]

>>2498333

aw shit

i hope dis nyukka trolin

[Anonymous No.2498342]

>>2498333
just because war is natural doesn't mean that it has to be embraced. i think any reasonable person would agree that war is a threat, something we should use our reason and efforts to avoid.

>>2498335
that's... a pretty ridiculous claim to make. unless you define lit. all nationalism and radicalism as the result of a state "playing on basic human altruism" which seems pretty incredible

[Anonymous No.2498343]

>>2498290
this is wrong of course, war has never been the "natural state of things" because if societies were at constant war, they wouldn't be able to feed themselves and to live at all. Yes war was much more common in the past, but even then, military campaigns were short, usually ending in after a few field battles and pausing during the winter, and/or harvest time.

also this >>2498298 is bullshit, there have been many advances in science and technology that did no come from war.

[Anonymous No.2498346]

>>2498328

Ants made war on each other long before humans did.

Anyway, we don't actually want war. War is means to an end, a way to get what you want. Peace is when you got what you wanted and no one is trying to take it from you.

Also, even when we're at war, we do everything we can to keep it from reaching places we actually care about.

[Anonymous No.2498348]

>>2498343
>this is wrong of course, war has never been the "natural state of things" because if societies were at constant war, they wouldn't be able to feed themselves and to live at all. Yes war was much more common in the past, but even then, military campaigns were short, usually ending in after a few field battles and pausing during the winter, and/or harvest time.

i don't think anyone claiming that war is the natural state of things means that states are lit. always at war

rather, that war has always been a potential threat & one which frequently became a reality. something which existed seasonally / recurrently. it is "natural" in the same sense that the harvest is natural, we could say, although not quite actually because war is distinctly political and not of nature in the way that the harvest is... but i hope that you see my point.

[Anonymous No.2498354]

>>2498328
As much as I'd love to agree with you I can't even our primate cousins do it - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/science/22chimp.html?_r=1

No.2498333
I believe that admiting it's natural and thinking it constantly (like levitating o'brien in 1984) might make it true along with the vice versa. I mean aren't humans anamolies themselves by being thinking things above physical things? That's what I believe at least. So as Lennon said isn't it true?

[Anonymous No.2498353]

>>2498337

>i'm deeply curious about the claim - are you going on geologic time? or are you defining war as a prerogative of states? because armed conflict between groups seems to be more or less constant with civilization

geological time yes, since the quote makes the claim:
>No, war is the natural state of things.

Which is absurd and incorrect, or at the very least unverifiable at all.

In terms of human history it isn't even true. Take a country look at its recorded history; the majority will be peace time, and war will be sprinkled here and there.

If you look at the world as a whole sure there might "always" be a war somewhere, but that doesn't mean it is the norm...because there is also always "peace" somewhere, and in greater quantity.

Anyway you slice it, peace is the natural state of things, co-operation is much more beneficial

[Anonymous No.2498361]

>>2498353
>geological time yes, since the quote makes the claim:

natural for humans. it is reasonable to say that the person meant that it was "natural for humans", part of human condition, part of political part of human nature.

>In terms of human history it isn't even true. Take a country look at its recorded history; the majority will be peace time, and war will be sprinkled here and there.

again, i think you're addressing claims that haven't been made. question comes down to the meaning of "natural".

>Anyway you slice it, peace is the natural state of things, co-operation is much more beneficial

certainly it is more beneficial. but it is fragile. relies on trust which is not always available. subject to contingency and emergencies. etc etc.

maybe i don't know if war is "natural", but the idea that peace is natural and war a bizarre irruption which can easily be avoided seems clearly wrong to me

[Anonymous No.2498374]

>>2498333
What are you doing on /lit? Never expected people like you here.
>>2498290
If you look at the noteworthy wars in the last 100ish years, you see there were quite the reasons for war.
-First WWI, or the Great War, countries in Europe had massive armies and countries were somewhat alone, which results in nationalism. Thinking you're the biggest and having less contact with others, the Serbian people were not that happy with another country having controll over them. So a smaller conflict happened which escalated because of the big armies and alliances and colonies all over the world. Everyone was actually just being defensive.
-WWII, Germany was being oppressed by the victors of WWI. Hate sprouts in Germany and with the right organisation things get out of hand, but the world learned that letting a whole country pay tons isn't the right way to prevent a war.
-The war in Vietnam was merely a way America thought to prevent the Cold War to boil. The Cold War was again was similar to the state of countries before WWI, but people could foresee the massiveness of the weapons.

Sorry for my English and my quick typing.

[Anonymous No.2498375]

>>2498346
hah who is this "we" that we care about? western society? We're going to have to become globalized village before we blow eachother to bits with super weapons, your zenuphobia is archaic

[Anonymous No.2498378]

>>2498361

>maybe i don't know if war is "natural", but the idea that peace is natural and war a bizarre irruption which can easily be avoided seems clearly wrong to me

'Bizarre' is a subjective value statement.

War is statistically more rare than peace. Look at any state's history, peace-time always trumps war-time.

OP's argument is null and void. This thread can now be deleted it has no value

[Anonymous No.2498384]

>>2498374
>countries were somewhat alone, which results in nationalism.

that's actually rather the opposite of the truth, it turns out. nationalism develops out of cosmopolitanism, in the same way that racism is basically a result of imperialism.

>>2498378
>War is statistically more rare than peace. Look at any state's history, peace-time always trumps war-time.

and this still has nothing to do with my point. war is natural in that it can always break out. the conditions for it are incipient in human political existence. whether or not it is constantly happening.

>OP's argument is null and void. This thread can now be deleted it has no value

lol fuck you

[Anonymous No.2498390]

>>2498375

That would be "we" as in the human race. I think not wanting war in your front yard is a pretty universal desire. I can't think of a single time in history when someone said "Oh look, the enemy soldiers are occupying my homeland and interfering with my ability to live my life normally. Surely this is a desirable turn of events"

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.2498392]

>>2498342
Name one war that was started with an appeal to selfish nature. It's always, "Think of God, Think of your Family, Think of your Country" with governments. They never say, "Think of Yourself." Governments could never start a war by appealing to humanity's selfish nature, so they rely on an appeal to altruism. That way, people feel good about what they're doing.

[Anonymous No.2498395]

It's something human. It's something inevitable. I can imagine it's something we'd like to avoid.

I think the entire reason war happens is because people value other people on different levels usually. It usually goes along the lines of this:
-I value my family more than my friends.
-I value my friends more than strangers.
-I value strangers that are from my country/a member of my religion/etc. more than strangers that are from another country/members of another religion/etc.

I'm not saying EVERYONE thinks like this, but people do value certain groups of humans more than other groups of humans. I'm not saying this isn't necessairly bad either. What I am saying is that this inevitably leads to conflict when a group of people you value less threatens a group you value more. This goes anywhere from conflict between friends and family to full-scale global wars. Sure, many of these conflicts could have been avoided, but I think we're all naturally protective, maybe overprotective, of our family, friends, and countrymen.

I'm not educated at all, really, in psychology or sociology or anthropology. This claim really just comes from my observations and thoughts as applied to the question OP posed.

[Anonymous No.2498397]

>>2498392
>Name one war that was started with an appeal to selfish nature. It's always, "Think of God, Think of your Family, Think of your Country" with governments. They never say, "Think of Yourself." Governments could never start a war by appealing to humanity's selfish nature, so they rely on an appeal to altruism. That way, people feel good about what they're doing.

Right, of course, this is true. But you're assuming that the government's desire for war always precedes the people's desire for war. And I don't think that's something that you can take for granted.

[Anonymous No.2498399]

You guys seem to be confusing the issue.

The quote in the OP isn't just saying that war is natural. It's saying
>war is the natural state of things. Peace and stability are anomalies

War happens, but that doesn't mean that we're always at war, or that we want to be at war, or that war is somehow desirable. If we're at peace more than we're at war, by a significant margin, then it's safe to say that war isn't the natural state.

[Anonymous No.2498400]

>>2498384
>. war is natural in that it can always break out. the conditions for it are incipient in human political existence.

so anything that can happen is natural? Ok that's a non-statement.

If you are OP you are also contradicting yourself since you argued that--
>motherfucking idiots who think peace is the natural state of things. No, war is the natural state of things

Which denies peace as a natural state and affirms war as the natural state.

clearly this doesn't gel with your definition of "natural" since peace can happen anytime as well, and happens more often than war...

so stop posting, think more, and seriously consider deleting this shit thread

[Anonymous No.2498406]

>>2498333

MERICA!

>>2498290
I do not think war itself is something that humans truly desire. there are exceptions to this, but i believe what humanity thirsts for is what does not belong to it. The preferred method just has been war to get it.

[Anonymous No.2498409]

>>2498392
Holy wars were pretty selfish. Not mentioning the fact that any act is aimed at yourself, no matter the person's calculations because that's worthy of a different thread.
On the christian side, participating in a crusade would absolve your sins right? (might have written that incorectly, not English)
On the muslim side, dieing when fighting for your religion there would send you straight to heaven.
Both have their holy books say that you shouldn't seek out martyrdom though.

[Anonymous No.2498410]

>>2498400
I'm not OP so that's right out

you seem to be arguing that peace is natural and war is something that happens. if war is not natural, why do you think wars happen, i am curious about this.

maybe we should just drop the naturalism terminology, because it might be misleading. what i am trying to say, put in other terms, is that war is something that exists as a potential state - as a threat - throughout human political experience. the possibility of war between states exists as long as there are multiple states that can fight, it's always something in the background. war rises from causes that are part and parcel of politics for human beings. that's what i'm trying to get across here - war is a political phenomenon which results from political factors, but those political factors are not bizarre or exceptional.

[Anonymous No.2498416]

>>2498400
OP here, that was not me. I'm trying to address why war happens so easily, really. Was there really merit to go to war in the middle east? Why has America been basically constantly at war since vietnam? There is too often an imperial state ready to rattle the sabre and act on their threats. Is it truly possible to facilitate peace in the same way? Like a complete end to war. Like I said before I think if you think war is natural and I think war is natural then it is. But the opposite then must also be true and I optimistically believe that this is possible.

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.2498414]

>>2498397
A people's desire for war, which starts out among a few deluded souls, is almost always fanned by government or media outlet. Look at what happened with the Spanish-American War: "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!" Only a few people wanted war at first, but with William Randolph Hearst riling up the public with false stories and the government feeding into it, it was only a short time until the US started a war with Spain. The sinking of the Maine (which has never been conclusively linked to the Spanish) pushed the nation into war.

Much the same thing happened in World War 2. Sure, the people wanted to go to war, but mounting evidence suggests that the US government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen in order to have an excuse to enter into the war.

The people may be partially responsible, but the drums of war keep beating only with the assistance of the government.

[Anonymous No.2498415]

>>2498409
Right, but both made at least a claim to be morally right - the basic claimed motivation for the Crusades on the European side was "we are going to expel the infidels from the Holy Land, and it is righteous and just that we do this." That's a moral argument, not a selfish one.

[Anonymous No.2498422]

>Anything involving humanity
>Natural
Idiots. The only thing thats natural is death.

[Anonymous No.2498423]

>>2498416
>Why has America been basically constantly at war since vietnam?

cuz of the jews, and because they are able to print money and endlessly finance them.

[Anonymous No.2498424]

>>2498406
OP again, I love this. It's almost as if humanity is in it's enfantile stage and is still fighting for the tonka truck in the playground. We just need to grow the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.2498427]

>>2498395
All of this makes sense, but it doesn't really provide an explanation. Wars still happen even when countries are incredibly well-off.

[Anonymous No.2498429]

>>2498416
>Why has America been basically constantly at war since vietnam?

dominant social mode of consumer capitalism requires cheap energy -> foreign policy adventurism to ensure that energy-producing countries are friendly to us and secure

[Anonymous No.2498435]

>>2498416
America always takes a break between wars. A reason why they're doing nothing in Syria, now after Lybia.
Vietnam was a bit bad for their reputation too, might have made some people there think it was necessary to show the American might.
The last war in Iraq had all false motives, yet a reason for Bush was of course to finish his father's work. America has a tendency to think up reasons or manipulate facts to start a war. Over and over again since Vietnam.

[Anonymous No.2498439]

>>2498424

Agreed. its just human nature to want what others have. A endless cycle of taking, or maybe its a death spiral.

[Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo No.2498440]

>>2498409
The definition of altruism is "the belief or practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others." Selfless, being the key word. While the Crusaders and their enemies may have been fighting to go to heaven, you neglect the reason for this belief; that is, there must first be a God to fight for in order to gain entrance to his heaven.

[Anonymous No.2498444]

This thread is operating on an embarrassingly low level.

The initial quote is incorrect if its author intended to describe that which we literally label war; that is, what is depicted in OP's post. However, the quote takes an utterly ambiguous turn when it equivocates between the concepts of war, conflict and struggle; it suggests that the author may not have meant what the OP and the rest of this thread appear to be thinking. That is, it may have been aimed at the societal tension present throughout the world, which is indeed a much more interesting idea.

Going by this interpretation, it is easy to distinguish this 'struggle' from the likes of war. To think that war is by its own a necessity is naive; war is conducted in accordance with a much greater scheme, and this is the true struggle. Following this, it is simple to recognize that a war, at any rate, is not a necessity. If such a society were to be stimulated in such a way that nothing were to be gained from that which we call war, then there would be no wars.

A thought-experiment to wrap up: consider some possible world wherein which the Third World no longer is a lawless land where superior foreign powers are able to extract freely the benefits of a pure war. Instead, imagine it as being a part of the world where development and growth is the obviously best way to profit from it. It is clear that , as long as there are no resource-related problems, such a world would see no apparent wars. Never underestimate the greedy nature of man.

[Anonymous No.2498458]

>>2498427
I guess that would fall under overprotectiveness. I guess I never addressed where oneself fits into the whole tier system of human value. I'd say that determines a lot, but varies from person to person.

[Anonymous No.2498461]

>>2498444
"If there's any hope, it's with the proles."

[Anonymous No.2498462]

>>2498444
>This thread is operating on an embarrassingly low level.

yeah but at least the rest of us aren't writing like freshmen in college trying to write a thesis statement

i basically agree with some of your points - war is a result of deeper societal conflicts. i think that's basically true, it's something i was trying (and probably failing) to point out earlier in the threads. however:

>Following this, it is simple to recognize that a war, at any rate, is not a necessity. If such a society were to be stimulated in such a way that nothing were to be gained from that which we call war, then there would be no wars.

this is precisely the opposite of what i'm trying to argue. i think this is in fact the central issue of the argument, and well done for bringing it out. i would argue that such a society is essentially impossible. even if it's not impossible, this kind of just/ideal political society is so far divorced from reality that it has little relevance to political discussion. so, it may be that in the ideal society war does not exist, and war is certainly not just, but it does exist and always will in our imperfect world.

[Anonymous No.2498497]

It's true that war is the natural state of things. Humans have been warring for thousands of years. While the advancement of human civilization has made wars less frequent and brutal, the intent and actions are more or less the same: conflict of interest. It corroborates with one of the laws of thermodynamics too: the universe is becoming increasingly chaotic (entrophy).

[Anonymous No.2498519]

>>2498462

I think you want to criticize me, but you really do not. You conclude that my writing is bad without revealing your premises; please, I am willing to improve my writing despite having excellent excuses to explain my poor English, but it is in no way possible to do if I am prevented from understanding exactly what is wrong with it. It is further difficult to take you seriously when you yourself do not even bother with proper punctuation; I may be writing like a freshman college student, but you write as if you never went to college at all.

Further to the contents of your post, you fail to elaborate further on the central point:

> this kind of just/ideal political society is so far divorced from reality that it has little relevance to political discussion.

This is what I believe Hume called an 'induction fallacy'. Never mind that it is not a proper argument due to it being an entirely unelaborated premise; insofar as it is may be impossible for a world without war to exist, what you have described thus does not support your desired conclusion that war is a necessity. If anything it entails that we are presently in an inconvenient societal position, but it does not entail the impossibility of worldwide peace.

In fact, nothing entails the impossibility of anything.

[Anonymous No.2498520]

>>2498519
>you're writing like english is your 2nd language... wouldn't call it poor writing though.

[Anonymous No.2498526]

>>2498520

I'm a native Swede.

[Anonymous No.2498533]

>>2498519
>"I think you want to criticize me, but you really do not."

Pretty sure this would constitute as poor writing

[Anonymous No.2498537]

>>2498533

Why?

[Anonymous No.2498538]

I recommend reading Pinker's 'The Blank Slate', where amongst other things, he argues against the notion of the Noble Savage (the idea that humans are intrinsically peaceful beings, and that civilization/society is the real cause of conflict). In fact, he argues that opposite is true - that as civilization evolves, conflict tends to decrease (he highlights the rapidly descending rate of homicide over time).
In a somewhat similar vein is Singer's book 'The Expanding Circle'. Viewing the matter from a more evolutionary perspective, he argues that as humans have evolved, our system of morality has expanded correspondingly - from including, initially, only blood relatives to the contemporary inclusion of community members and even strangers. And of course, he makes the case that animals should/will be included in the near future.

That's my two cents, hope it helps.

[Anonymous No.2498563]

>>2498519
>You conclude that my writing is bad

mostly just coming at you because you were shitting on the rest of the thread, if you're really english second language your writing is fine. just a little over-technical and over-academic

>If anything it entails that we are presently in an inconvenient societal position, but it does not entail the impossibility of worldwide peace.

Accepted. I don't think that a just society is logically impossible, and I wouldn't try to argue that it is. It's logically coherent to think about such a society, and I agree that in such a society war would no longer exist. My point is more about relevance and realism, I guess. We clearly are not living in a just society. We are living in one that is deeply unjust, and I think (for reasons) that it would be immensely difficult to make a just society a reality. You have to ask what such a society would require (I would argue that it would require that all members of society are reasonable, well-educated, and agree on certain fundamental principles) and how far such a society is from our own. It's not just an inconvenient social position - it seems to be pretty typical, in fact.

And if we do live in an unjust world and if a just society is unlikely to be established, then we can't just say what is true in an ideal world. We also have to ask what the situation is in the world that we actually live in. And in such a world, war is pretty much endemic at least as a possibility because of deep-lying social tension, injustice, human imperception, etc.

So: I agree that in an ideal society, war would be eliminated, and I agree that such a society is at least in theory possible. But I also think that we are very far from such a world, that we have to address what's going on in the world as it is, and in such a world conflict and ultimately war is at least a constant possibility.

[Anonymous No.2498586]

Peace itself is an illusion.

There is always conflict: between states, between the oppressed peoples and their rulers, between people groups, between individuals.

In the modern day, advanced countries have moved their warfare from large mobilizations and invasions to intelligence gathering and manipulation. Entire wars can be prevented or won without deploying armies.

[Anonymous No.2498589]

The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you.

-Orson Scott Card


/thread?
We all know mother nature wouldn't allow a creature to exist that wouldn't fight for its own existence.

[Anonymous No.2498614]

>>2498589
>We all know mother nature wouldn't allow a creature to exist that wouldn't fight for its own existence.
Maybe. If she would, then those creatures would have died already.

[Anonymous No.2498629]

>>2498563

I think it would be good to clarify that something is logically impossible only when it is contradictory; try imagining a triangle with four sides. What you speak of is rather a case of practical impossibility, which is not even nearly as strong a claim as one of logical impossibility. Naturally, my previous examples were written with the specific intent of emphasizing this point. Because if something is not logically possible, but rather SEEMINGLY practically impossible, because there can be no evidence of practical impossibility in any other case but when there is logical impossibility, that is with respect to other kinds of ideology a perfectly reasonable goal to strive towards.

You further speak of justice and how this is required. I could defy your definition for hours, but I think it will suffice to say that you are presupposing the necessity of a human predicate to satisfy the conclusion that you deem to be 'logically impossible'. There are seemingly endless problems with this as well, but I primarily do not understand why you would think that one of them would entail the other if you have not yet defined even the antecedent of the conditional consequent in this case.

My approach, then, is rather less strange an uncomplicated in comparison. I affirm my position on the basis of human greed, and that the human mind, especially from a macro-perspective, seemingly will do anything to maximize profits. So disregarding ethical aspects of justice and whatnot, I say to appeal to that which is ever disappointing but for the same reason never really fails to disappoint, and use this as our basis for assuming that if we can make something that is ethically good more profitable than something that is bad, even these amoral forces will work in our favor.

[Anonymous No.2498681]

>>2498629
Wait, wait, wait, bro. I didn't say that a just society was logically impossible. In fact, I said that I didn't think it was logically impossible. I absolutely do think that such a society is possible, and that's what I said - or meant to say, and if I misspoke or caused confusion then I give apology.

And I think we basically agree that such a society whle theoretically possible is practically extraordinarily difficult.

>So disregarding ethical aspects of justice and whatnot, I say to appeal to that which is ever disappointing but for the same reason never really fails to disappoint, and use this as our basis for assuming that if we can make something that is ethically good more profitable than something that is bad, even these amoral forces will work in our favor.

If I understand you correctly, you're advocating more or less the classic liberal tack - acknowledge human imperfection and use it for beneficial ends. And I think that's an immensely good thing to do, an immensely practical thing to do in our imperfect political world. But I strongly doubt that it can really lead to a peace that is universal and perpetual on its own - it's awesome but it really only ameliorates the situation. As long as people are still unreasonable, and as long as injustice exists in the world, war will always exist in potentia.

[Anonymous No.2498713]

>>2498681

I did misread your given account of logical impossibility. It appears that I am tired, so this will be my final post for tonight.

The thread was never about achieving a state in which war is impossible and peace is inevitable, but rather a situation where war, in any case, is not a necessity. You may disregard this kind of manipulation by saying that it fails to deal with the core of the issue, but I think you have bigger problems with justifying the existence of a core in this case. What is there to suggest that what is unjust exists independently of our independent conceptions of justice? And if this is the framework of the idea, then what is there to suggest that there at all is something fundamentally just, or unjust, in this world?

With respect to the circumstances, your criticism in this case is nice but is in many ways more lacking than my own proposal seem to be.

[Anonymous No.2498748]

>>2498589
Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.
Adolf Hitler

speaking of this
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/adolfhitle408758.html
Author Profession: Criminal

DA FUQ

[Anonymous No.2498761]

Think of nature. Animal eat animals, plants strangle plants, nature in perpetually violent and so are people. We aren't separate from nature, although we'd like to think it. In the natural state of things there is balance, but that still means people will die and wars will be fought and morals will be violated and taboos will be established. Knowledge is the most horrible thing humanity has, because it makes us think we know even when we don't.

[Anonymous No.2498772]

>>2498761
War is things getting back into balance.

[Anonymous No.2498886]

>>2498713
I don't think war is a necessity, I think it's an inevitability.

>What is there to suggest that what is unjust exists independently of our independent conceptions of justice? And if this is the framework of the idea, then what is there to suggest that there at all is something fundamentally just, or unjust, in this world?

This basically goes to questions at the basics of ethics and moral philosophy that are somewhat beyond the purview of the thread. And while it does amuse me to note that questions like OP's question inevitably lead to these fundamental questions about political and ethical things, it's not really germane to provide my answers here.

[Frigid Northlander !!MUgE+GiXSgQ No.2498903]

War is a form of conflict
There are other forms of conflict available
Humanity seeks and attains both peace and conflict

Anybody who thinks the natural mode for humanity is ONLY conflict, and further, ONLY war, or ONLY peace is kidding themselves. It's just a matter of whether you see peace between times of war, or war between times of peace.

[Anonymous No.2498940]

As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion
which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on and off like a
tap, are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis. In the
intelligentsia I should say they result rather from money and mere
physical safety. At a given moment they may be 'pro-war' or 'anti-war',
but in either case they have no realistic picture of war in their minds.
When they enthused over the Spanish war they knew, of course, that people
were being killed and that to be killed is unpleasant, but they did feel
that for a soldier in the Spanish Republican army the experience of war
was somehow not degrading. Somehow the latrines stank less, discipline
was less irksome. You have only to glance at the NEW STATESMAN to see
that they believed that; exactly similar blah is being written about the
Red Army at this moment. We have become too civilized to grasp the
obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to
fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is
often the lesser evil.
-Orwell, 1943, a man who had seen war, unlike you petty people.