End of Wars

[deusexpirata]

It seems to me that governments and politicians never learn. I mean, all through history humans have killed humans in the name of religion, politics, and exploration. People settle disagreements by fighting, people try to prove that their religion is better than another because they can beat the shit out of people better. Wars are fought and won by

Comments

Re: Darwin?

[anonymous]

You call those Philosophy books? Those are no more philosophy books than Crowley a philosopher. You appear to like George Orwell. Congratulations. Read some fucking Richard Dawkins or Edward O. Wilson. And despite what you say, you are dick-measuring here. Thomas Moore and Orwell are out-dated.

"ou're saying that nihilism is true AND everything in the universe has a purpose"
Firstly, this is really misdirected. Too bad you missed the tone change in the post. Now that I'm continuing my critique on your continuing logical contradictions, however, it's nice that you know some big words, but in the incompatibilist sense (that is, the view that free will and determinism are NOT compatible and our decisions are, in some way, contingent upon physical law--in case you've slept through some phil clases) you've totally overlooked what I was saying. Seeing as to how I was referring to Darwin, evolution, and evolutionary sociobiology, saying that I stipulated everything has a purpose sounds utterly ridiculous, now doesn't it? Secondly, another indicator you know as much philosophy as an automotive engineer, bridging the is/ought gap does not REQUIRE a free will setting. That we are pre-determined be it by physical law, genetic coding, linguistic parameters set by our environment, or the limits or our very brains, that is how it IS. How we OUGHT to act is an entirely different query. Humans are naturally naked, should we run about in our birthday suits. Pain is a response to stimulation of a receptor cell in the skin--should we ignore it? If so, go naked and lop off your arm in public and see how much notoriety you get.

Your next misunderstanding is your largest. You throw the writings of Moore when you have neglected those of Aristotle. I was using his four causes as the examples leading to the being of warness. Yes, I just said that. Darwin's theory applies to survival in whatever way is best, not by whichever person is strongest. Maybe you overlooked that point in your reading. That is, what reading you might have done.

Let us redefine "material" as effectual social habituation. In this instance, an organism, through genetic fluctuation will respond to certain stimuli in ways through which it may better procure survival. Fights break out in this scenario. News flash, philosophy-child, Darwinian theory is by no means perfect. Way to fail. It, in fact, thrives on it's imperfections. In this case, we have evolved to enter a continuous social loop which one might call "luxury" where survival is no longer the main causation to said social habituation.

Hopefully, reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins and some other form of contemporary thought might put you in the same boat as the rest of us. Until then, have fun living in your pre-1984 mindset.

Unoriginal Bullshit

[anonymous]

Websites, whether they are Live Journals or some random guy writing shit are meant for original thoughts. I bet everything you just mentioned you learned in a class most colleges call Philosophy 101! Ok first of all Darwin NEVER talked about WAR. Second of all you are bashing sloth for using big words. At least all of his are real, "incompatibilist" its not even a word. Also if you are going to post something check your spelling and grammar [looks like someone slept through 6th grade english and never bothered to catch up]. My cousin in sixth grade could write something more intelligible than this crap. This post was barely better than the first. Also, Orwell and Moore are not outdated, both of them were political/historical satirists. Aristotles theories on the other hand have been time and again disproved [that makes him outdated if you didn't catch that hint]. Also sloth never said that nilhilism was true he was only refering to it because you talked about it in the first place. Another thing why are you stuck on the whole Darwin approach to thing sure survival of the fittest does have something to do with basic human urges [ie: sexual intercourse - continuation of the species, war - protection of your race] in exception to those two previously stated facts Darwin and his theories have no relativity here. So comeback after you have your own thought and ideas, not those given to you from a laptop and projector in some classroom, but some that you have thought up all by your self. Maybe then you will have some credibility.

Now what have we learned CHILD?

-Indy

P.S.

[anonymous]

Also next time leave a fucking name coward!

-Indy