quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant Excellent thread! Just had to say that right now..my contribution will folllow later, though

any thoughts? new or otherwise?

im afraid i sidetracked. feel free to bitchslap me back down the peace path. or dont, its not very peaceful! |

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by biznology hmm...this global education though would be entirely relative as well. you would have to either teach everyone the same thing - which could be seen as brainwashing and *not* education, or adapt your education culturally. it would be difficult- but in regards to Hobbes, the modern(not-post) view of history was of progression - that things got better. therefore Hobbes theory was criticized and adapted by social contract theorists, etc. are they less appropriate? (our) post-modern views in regard to theory and history have changed how we look at our world, but does that mean that history or the world has changed? who is to assume things will get 'better' with time? who is to say the opposite? |

Well by global education I was kind of implying an unbiased account of the world. Maybe a better term would be global awareness and understanding. I think that things have gotten better in time for theh human race (birth rates, death rates, poverty levels, etc.) but I think that what Hobbes said back then can still apply today. I think it's all relative. Are things better now than they were in 1700s? Yes. Are the lives of men still nasty, brutish, short, etc.? Yes. It's just happening on a different level and to perhaps a smaller segment of the population than it was previously. Haven't had my two cups of coffee in me yet so I'm not sure if I'm making any sense ...

PEACE

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ShellSh0ck PEACE

by what means?


you really shouldnt bother wasting everyones time here.

go to another thread and type that- if you dont have anything to say, try to explain why or how. just saying the word 'PEACE' doesnt accomplish anything. which is maybe one of the problems i had laid out...

maybe not|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by biznology by what means? you really shouldnt bother wasting everyones time here. go to another thread and type that- if you dont have anything to say, try to explain why or how. just saying the word 'PEACE' doesnt accomplish anything. which is maybe one of the problems i had laid out... maybe not|

ok here we go
that means...
“Peace” is a word that is uttered almost as frequently as “truth,” “beauty,” and “love.” It may be just as elusive to define as these other virtues. Common synonyms for “peace” include ”amity,” “friendship,” “harmony,” “concord,” “tranquility,” “repose,” “quiescence,” “truce,” “pacification,” and “neutrality.” Likewise, the peacemaker is the pacifier, mediator, intermediary, and intercessor. While some of these descriptions are appropriate, they are still quite limited in describing both the nature of peace and the role of the peacemaker. Any attempt to articulate the nature of peace and peacemaking, therefore, must address those conditions which are favorable to their emergence. Freedom, human rights, and justice are among such prerequisites. Also included are proactive strategies such as conflict resolution, nonviolent action, community building, and democratization of authority.

...this is the way i understand peace!

___________________

“Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice, of law, of order--in short, of government.” -Albert Einstein
a g00d definition...

___________________

Returning to Hobbes, while he sees this perpetual conflict between men seeking their own self-preservation as necessary, you have to view it in the context of his broader philosophy.

Firstly he was an unabashed egoist, believing not only that man wishes at all times to do what is in his best interests, but that he should act in this manner and has every right to do so. Given this stance, he precludes any possibility of advocating peace on "moral" or altrusitic grounds. For instance, if there is no morality beyond my own egoistic impulses and - to use "the" example - a war in Iraq will benefit me by, say, the lowering of oil prices, then Hobbes would undeniably advocate this course of action regardless of the hardship it may cause the Iraqi people. In this sense, from a purely egoistic stance, morality - or, rather, inter-personal morality (the way we should alter our behaviour in accordance with the wishes and desires of "mit sein", the others) - is done away with, and there is no real justification for committing to any action that may detract from our own "Endeavours" (Hobbes' phrase) or in anyway make our life less "perfect" than we would otherwise have it. Perhaps I'm idealistic, but I believe that moral actions (to refute what Hobbes believed) can have an altruistic benevolence to them at base and that we do not all purely act out of our own egoistic desires.

Secondly, we need only view Hobbes conception of the ideal government to see where these ideals leave us. The "Covenant" he talks of makes it sound like (and I could be wrong here - my knowledge of much of Hobbes' philosophy is quite sketchy) humanity in harmony with itself can only exist if it is subserviant to a "higher power", namely God or government. He suggests that we each do and should sacrifice our liberties and freedoms to government so that they may enforce this "Covenant" by use of force ("Covenants, without the sword, are but words"). Thus we are left in a situation where social peace is maintained domestically be a despotic, unelected regime who's only task is, really, to preserve the life of its citizens. They are also unaccountable as they are excluded from the Covenant made between the people to exist under this regime.

Thus, while Hobbes may say that "life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", I fail to see how this situation can be rectified by his short-sighted justification of egoism. If we assume that there is an unegoistic, inter-personal morailty that does existed and is acted out daily, surely - even if it involves sacrifices in the short term - this is preferential, in the long run, to the perpetual war Hobbes as good as says that there is no way of escaping (that is, that we cannot transcend our will towards immediate "Endeavours")? Hobbes may paint an accurate picture of life in the sense that, yes, "untamed" humans will tend towards egoistic pursuits in the same manner as all other animals, but he neglects any possibility of this primitive side of human nature being transcended by our ability to rationalise and to forward-plan. He denies the existence of free-will so he, obviously, sees no way out of the cycle, but - like you Occrider - I believe that the "brutish" nature of humanity can be overcome through education and a unified respect for human life. We cannot thus, simultaneously, justify the perpetual war Hobbes speaks of - based on his moral justification of psychological egoism - and, with the corresponding contempt for human life this stance almost necessitates, expect not to create turmoil beyond our societal "Covenant" through an ephemeral, short-sighted tendancy towards uncompromising egoistic self-preservation and thus perpetuate and prolong the very war we say we cannot end.

War is a choice, not a necessary condition of human life. I cannot think of any war that cannot be explained in terms of one or more sides of the conflict refusing to compromise with the other(s) and thus, in their egoistic pursuit of immediately gratifying self-preservation, threatening the very way of life they were going to war to protect in the firts place.

Er, does that make any sense to anyone?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by biznology what does 'living in harmony' entail? what does that even truly mean? harmony with nature? with other people, plants, music, what? and what happens when the ganj runs out?! those are some of the most angry, violent moments ive ever experienced around your average, ardent dope smoker|

No shit dude. I have a friend who's a hardcore pothead, and offered to give him my change that I had in my piggy bank one day. It was an antique coin bank thingie given to me by my late grandfather. Anyways, he tried to smash it open but I stopped him.
Whoever says pot isn't addictive is BSing themselves.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Returning to Hobbes, while he sees this perpetual conflict between men seeking their own self-preservation as necessary, you have to view it in the context of his broader philosophy. Firstly he was an unabashed egoist, believing not only that man wishes at all times to do what is in his best interests, but that he should act in this manner and has every right to do so. Given this stance, he precludes any possibility of advocating peace on "moral" or altrusitic grounds. For instance, if there is no morality beyond my own egoistic impulses and - to use "the" example - a war in Iraq will benefit me by, say, the lowering of oil prices, then Hobbes would undeniably advocate this course of action regardless of the hardship it may cause the Iraqi people. In this sense, from a purely egoistic stance, morality - or, rather, inter-personal morality (the way we should alter our behaviour in accordance with the wishes and desires of "mit sein", the others) - is done away with, and there is no real justification for committing to any action that may detract from our own "Endeavours" (Hobbes' phrase) or in anyway make our life less "perfect" than we would otherwise have it. Perhaps I'm idealistic, but I believe that moral actions (to refute what Hobbes believed) can have an altruistic benevolence to them at base and that we do not all purely act out of our own egoistic desires.

I'm not completely familiar with Hobbes either ... I never made it all the way through leviathon . At any rate the perspective that I was getting was that Hobbes wasn't so much praising or justifying the moral ethics of man in fulfilling everything that is in his best interests. The mood that I was getting was that Hobbes was describing the basic human nature of man. That essentially, in the end, human nature is reduced to fulfilling and satisfying our impulses such that regardless of how ethical/moral we may be, we are reduced to a state of war (and by war I don't think he's talking about battles but rather conflict with other humans) whether we choose to enter that state or we are dragged into it by the actions of others. Essentially, he's saying that what you described as an altruistic benevolence as a method of man to avoid being reduced to a state of nature is as you described it, an ideal. If he's not saying that than let me ask that. Even if a person is a moral/ethical angel, wouldn't human nature in general drag that person into conflict because humans are driven to fulfill their desires?

quote:

Secondly, we need only view Hobbes conception of the ideal government to see where these ideals leave us. The "Covenant" he talks of makes it sound like (and I could be wrong here - my knowledge of much of Hobbes' philosophy is quite sketchy) humanity in harmony with itself can only exist if it is subserviant to a "higher power", namely God or government. He suggests that we each do and should sacrifice our liberties and freedoms to government so that they may enforce this "Covenant" by use of force ("Covenants, without the sword, are but words"). Thus we are left in a situation where social peace is maintained domestically be a despotic, unelected regime who's only task is, really, to preserve the life of its citizens. They are also unaccountable as they are excluded from the Covenant made between the people to exist under this regime.

I really don't know what to think of Hobbes philosophy with regards to this. In a sense I agree with him and in the other sense I disagree. I mean part of his argument is proven by the fact that humans DO need a higher power that has authority over them. Can you think of any kind of anarchist society where everyone is in a state of peace with fellow man? Essentially human desires and nature will reduce such a society to chaos. Humans need some kind of authority such as God or government to maintain order. It's a fine line, if we want absolute harmony in society we may well need to sacrifice our liberties and freedoms such that this higher power has the capabilty to enforce harmony. However, if we want liberties and freedoms we detract from the control needed to enforce peace.

quote:

Hobbes may paint an accurate picture of life in the sense that, yes, "untamed" humans will tend towards egoistic pursuits in the same manner as all other animals, but he neglects any possibility of this primitive side of human nature being transcended by our ability to rationalise and to forward-plan. He denies the existence of free-will so he, obviously, sees no way out of the cycle, but - like you Occrider - I believe that the "brutish" nature of humanity can be overcome through education and a unified respect for human life. We cannot thus, simultaneously, justify the perpetual war Hobbes speaks of - based on his moral justification of psychological egoism - and, with the corresponding contempt for human life this stance almost necessitates, expect not to create turmoil beyond our societal "Covenant" through an ephemeral, short-sighted tendancy towards uncompromising egoistic self-preservation and thus perpetuate and prolong the very war we say we cannot end.

But even if we are the most "tamed" humans ever to exist, can we gauruntee that rationality will always transcend primitive human nature? And thus when others allow their human nature take control of their actions are we not forced to do the same thing if we are ever confronted in such a situation? I think that education is the answer to improve human nature but I believe that at certain points in time, humans will always be reduced to a state of nature and as such we are perpetually in a state of war. One example is man's desire for money ... we act on impulses to earn more money and in a certain sense, our wealth is reducing others to poverty. I don't think you can remove the spirit of competition from human nature and as such we will always strive to be better than somebody else. Dunno if what I said makes sense to you ... it barely does to me.

i sorta follow whats been going on here...


i think one issue with Hobbes is his insistence that people *must* be subservient to a higher position or power. in that, there can simply be no peace.

i am not well versed on his entire philosophy or work- hell i only understand basic philosophy and have limited concept of Hoobes in regard to sociology. but i also think that culture, time and place have relevance when talking about these things.

Hobbes was a philosopher like so many more- and others based their work on critiquing each other, Hobbes or vice versa. were they critiquing a different *time* in the human scope, or are people always the same?

____________________


oh- and pot is addictive, psychologically. it is still less addictive than caffeine - but for some people it gets a little crazy!

____________________

if we must discuss philosophy whether political or otherwise- what says Hobbes is the only answer? all philosophers like Rousseau, Montesquieu, among many others. unlike Hobbes, they viewed humanity in differing lights. Rousseau believed that unlike the brutish many of Hobbes eye, men were inherently good(unless im very confused, mistaken). a 'good' man used social contracts and bonds to tie communities and understandings together- not subservience to a master or lord. is this more in line with what we have today? are either appropriate? do i have any idea what im talking about?

'answer unclear, try again in 5 mins'



oh and shellshock- wasnt it the US govt that has been causing so much anxiety of late?

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

on the flipside...do we have anyone that has studied conflict theory here? i started a class today with a wee bit of discussion into that regarding the former soviet bloc, seems interesting!

bueller?...bueller?

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'