“You are a vain fellow. You want to be a hero. That is why you do such silly things. A hero! ... I don't quite know what that is: but, you see, I imagine that a hero is a man who does what he can. The others do not do it.”
Question #2:
Hero; n. 1. A fool, properly motivated.
a. Said fool, fortunate.
b. Said fool, deceased.
c. Said fool, both fortunate and deceased.
2. A thin layer, once scratched, revealing a villain.
3. A villain, properly backlit.
4. A broad category covering villains past, revised and updated.
5. A broad category covering noble ancestors, ignored and minimized.
6. A convenient category one places those that do what one cannot or will not.
7. A citizen, correctly informed. ~ Hero's Dictionary
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost." ~ Arthur Ashe
Quote 1. As an Army war veteran, I also find it frustrating and detestable when someone who has never been in war still praises it. Once someone has actually been to war, there perspective generally changes and do not want anything else to do with it.
Q1 “Is war an inevitable aspect of human nature, or is it a result of specific social, economic, and political conditions?”
Back in 1990 I recall Victor Serebriakoff wrote an editorial for Mensa Magazine confidently stating that an emphasis on competitive physical games for boys would work off any warlike trends. I thought then that this was wrong. How do we account for the extremely rapid evolution of humans (notably brains) in the Pleistocene, the swift disappearance of Neanderthals, the amazing variety of humans (described by Darlington, I think, as being sufficient “to make a hundred good species of any other animal)? Obviously drastic selective forces. I wrote an article in reply: “Rape and Murder as Darwinian Imperatives”, which was not accepted for publication. Within months the Balkan War broke out, with its outrageous ethnic cleansing. The most dangerous animal on the planet is the male human being, as we still see, and the most dangerous answer is the complacent belief in our intrinsic goodness. Morality is largely the struggle against our genetic heritage.
I would not say inevitable, it is, but it is part of human nature, although it is only a minority, our current situation shows that the majority does not fight against oppression. It is not always linked, I suppose, to specific social, economic and political conditions, tribal wars...exist ex. for simple thefts etc.
Q 2
I would say that everyone is free from this point of view, it depends on his commitment or not in one or more causes close to his heart.
The only thing that matters, in my opinion, is that as soon as you accept responsibility, you must do well, because you are working for yourself.
Q 3
I think the two go together, at least initially,
It may be that then, but I do not know, it can exist beyond the realm of rational thought. See from the beginning for some beings with problems of cerebral order, how to know.
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Q1: "Is war an inevitable aspect of human nature, or is it a result of specific social, economic, and political conditions?"
Have just started reading "On Humanity" by David Livingstone Smith (OUP, 2020). Will give a better answer to the question when I've finished reading it. Meanwhile I'm guessing that humans have a propensity to fighting but our overlords know how to exploit that propensity in the masses at large and get them to fight wars. If it wasn't exploited for the war-industry, there would be fewer, and smaller-scale 'disputes'.
“You are a vain fellow. You want to be a hero. That is why you do such silly things. A hero! ... I don't quite know what that is: but, you see, I imagine that a hero is a man who does what he can. The others do not do it.”
Question #2:
Hero; n. 1. A fool, properly motivated.
a. Said fool, fortunate.
b. Said fool, deceased.
c. Said fool, both fortunate and deceased.
2. A thin layer, once scratched, revealing a villain.
3. A villain, properly backlit.
4. A broad category covering villains past, revised and updated.
5. A broad category covering noble ancestors, ignored and minimized.
6. A convenient category one places those that do what one cannot or will not.
7. A citizen, correctly informed. ~ Hero's Dictionary
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost." ~ Arthur Ashe
Quote 1. As an Army war veteran, I also find it frustrating and detestable when someone who has never been in war still praises it. Once someone has actually been to war, there perspective generally changes and do not want anything else to do with it.
Q1 “Is war an inevitable aspect of human nature, or is it a result of specific social, economic, and political conditions?”
Back in 1990 I recall Victor Serebriakoff wrote an editorial for Mensa Magazine confidently stating that an emphasis on competitive physical games for boys would work off any warlike trends. I thought then that this was wrong. How do we account for the extremely rapid evolution of humans (notably brains) in the Pleistocene, the swift disappearance of Neanderthals, the amazing variety of humans (described by Darlington, I think, as being sufficient “to make a hundred good species of any other animal)? Obviously drastic selective forces. I wrote an article in reply: “Rape and Murder as Darwinian Imperatives”, which was not accepted for publication. Within months the Balkan War broke out, with its outrageous ethnic cleansing. The most dangerous animal on the planet is the male human being, as we still see, and the most dangerous answer is the complacent belief in our intrinsic goodness. Morality is largely the struggle against our genetic heritage.
Q 1
I would not say inevitable, it is, but it is part of human nature, although it is only a minority, our current situation shows that the majority does not fight against oppression. It is not always linked, I suppose, to specific social, economic and political conditions, tribal wars...exist ex. for simple thefts etc.
Q 2
I would say that everyone is free from this point of view, it depends on his commitment or not in one or more causes close to his heart.
The only thing that matters, in my opinion, is that as soon as you accept responsibility, you must do well, because you are working for yourself.
Q 3
I think the two go together, at least initially,
It may be that then, but I do not know, it can exist beyond the realm of rational thought. See from the beginning for some beings with problems of cerebral order, how to know.
Answering Question 2:
How can an artist's responsibility be other than most personal?
From this, how can the aesthetics not spring from the personal, to address society and its politics?
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Test
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Q1 - War is inevitable according to realist theory in the discipline of international relations. I think history has proven that too. Mostly it is the result of social, economic and political conditions though. This is usually directed by powerful actors in those circles.
Q2 - To create. I think both of these are valid approaches.
Q3 - I think it does exist beyond the realm of rational thought yes. That being said, it isn't incomprehensible. Love is a driving force and it's more than just a chemical reaction, as some would have us think.
Q1: "Is war an inevitable aspect of human nature, or is it a result of specific social, economic, and political conditions?"
Have just started reading "On Humanity" by David Livingstone Smith (OUP, 2020). Will give a better answer to the question when I've finished reading it. Meanwhile I'm guessing that humans have a propensity to fighting but our overlords know how to exploit that propensity in the masses at large and get them to fight wars. If it wasn't exploited for the war-industry, there would be fewer, and smaller-scale 'disputes'.
Brilliant