I do not believe in countries: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » I do not believe in countries » I do not believe in countries

I do not believe in countries
Break out the ancestral hammer

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

I do not believe in countries

VichyInsurrection
Unique Individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 49

Posted 07/19/08 - 09:36 PM:	#11
A 'country', whenever spoken of as having an 'interest' or whatever is a nonsensical collective noun. A 'country' is a fiction created to support the state.
“The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss.” - Max Stirner

James.Aaron.R.A
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/21/08 - 04:39 AM:	#12
Timex wrote: James.Aaron.R.A wrote: Lets put it this way... kill culture, kill religion, kill countries and let humans live. A truly unified humanism, anthropocentric in every aspect. chuckles So you basically want to remove humanity from the humans, so they can be more human. What exactly would you be preserving about humans at that point? You're talking about doing away with major aspects of humanity's existence. Indeed, you're talking about removing aspects of our existence that even other animals demonstrate to lesser degrees. No, I don't think I would.. because such is the goal of a tyrant. That's the kind of goal that the Nazis perpetuated. I am a strong believer in personal freedom, and the fundamental core of personal freedom is the right to disagree with others, and go your own way. Who said that humans needed more then one culture to survive, or multiple religions and countries? Our commensurate property is that we are capable of reason, in being human we are all equal, we are all leveled by that single property which makes us different from all other known things in existence, and that which unites us. But you would have me take that which makes us different from other living things and use it to differentiate ourselves into seperate groups? And by god shove that chuckle back down your throat... culture, religion and country are NOT humanity. Reason is humanity. And why should your reason come in the way of mine, or mine in yours. A collective human reason, of and for humanity as a whole, what could stand in the way of that? How could humans lose in that? The point is that by dividing up our thought, dividing our values, we get in the way of one another to the point that we kill one another, and if we kill one another, humanity loses out. Would you preserve 'humanity' (as you say, culture, religion, countries) so that it can turn its teeth on itself? Damn straight I would take the view of the tyrant, if I must be the one that brings everyone together, then I would, you may all call me evil, but humans would be united in their 'all and all' view of me. In all honesty, if we take this back to the first point 'C.' But you would disagree because you believe that to be 'freedom', and for the sake of 'freedom' you will disagree and go your seperate way, why is that? Is the value of equality insufficient for you? Assuming there is a set of values that all humans cling to unequivocally and in equality, then there is no need for you to seek anything further. To do so would be tyrannical, to commit volition where there is harmony for the simple sake of being able to is not freedom. You're telling me... in all honesty for example: Person A likes chocolate Person B doesn't like chocolate Person A is going to kill Person B unless he professes that he likes chocolate or Person B will kill Person A unless he professes that he does not like chocolate You would not rather have them both like chocolate, or have them both not like chocolate? What is at stake here? Someones preference for liking chocolate or someones life. Take it further: U.S believes that they should invade Iraq because they don't share the same religion Iraq believes that they should invade the U.S because they don't share the same religion Simultaneously: Global warming threatens the whole world, and all the people therein quite equally Tell me then, what is more important? That we can all have our own little seperate religions that idolize leperchauns and mystical teapots and water walkers and seers etc.? Or that humans can survive? Ofcourse I'll take 'humanity' (culture, religion, country) away from humans if it is killing humans. What good is freedom if we are not alive to enjoy it? (whatever the hell freedom is...) There are simply more important things... like Life.

willallen
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 07/25/08 - 06:56 PM:	#13
thats a great theory and all, but good luck getting it to work in practice. people are too deeply set in their ways, and when they refuse and you force them to change, then that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the argument. Edited by willallen on 07/25/08 - 07:02 PM

Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 228

Posted 07/26/08 - 12:53 AM:	#14
VichyInsurrection wrote: A 'country', whenever spoken of as having an 'interest' or whatever is a nonsensical collective noun. A 'country' is a fiction created to support the state. It certainly is nonsense, as are most beliefs, but the masses are unthinking and need to belong. They have this power to suspend rational thought that individuals cannot, and this allows them to be controlled. A bizarre system that otherwise couldn't work at all. Human beings are group animals that can be easily induced through conditioning to give loyalty to a multitude of groupings such as their school, college, football club, religion, political party, country, and even 'mankind'. Groups are pitted against groups ( bellum omnium contra omnia) and do not grow weaker as one writer previously said here, but stronger, as it is out of conflict that human scientific development is achieved. If you doubt this, just look at the inventions that proliferated out of wars in the last century.

VichyInsurrection
Unique Individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 49

Posted 07/27/08 - 05:33 PM:	#15
I think there are problems of economic coherency to believe that war is actually progressive of technology. The statement suffers from the broken-window fallacy as well as ignoring the capital-based nature of technology. Also, practically every 'invention' attributed to war was already existing technology and science from the private sector.
“The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss.” - Max Stirner

Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 228

Posted 07/27/08 - 10:04 PM:	#16
How about the first electronic digital computer invented in England at Bletchley Hall by Tommy Franks to crack the Enigma code? What about the tank invented in the First World war? How about the atomic bomb? What about Werner Von Braun's missiles in the Second World War?

James.Aaron.R.A
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/28/08 - 04:47 AM:	#17
Lord Drivel wrote: It certainly is nonsense, as are most beliefs, but the masses are unthinking and need to belong. They have this power to suspend rational thought that individuals cannot, and this allows them to be controlled. A bizarre system that otherwise couldn't work at all. Human beings are group animals that can be easily induced through conditioning to give loyalty to a multitude of groupings such as their school, college, football club, religion, political party, country, and even 'mankind'. Groups are pitted against groups ( bellum omnium contra omnia) and do not grow weaker as one writer previously said here, but stronger, as it is out of conflict that human scientific development is achieved. If you doubt this, just look at the inventions that proliferated out of wars in the last century. Now, to deal with those who say "Impossible, we cannot out do human nature (relative to Hobbesian view of the state of nature, and our need to conform under, blah blah blah)" Put it this way, we either overcome human nature or it will overcome us. Adam Smith said: The greatest gain comes from every individual doing his best to his own benefit. John Nash said: The greatest gain comes from every individual doing what is best for him AND the group. I say: The greatest gain will come from every individual doing what is best for himself AND the group, but not only the group in a fragmented sense, but as a whole. On Adam Smith The problem with Adam Smith is that through capitalism which if at best will lead to a few people still living when all is said and done at the top. Which might have some sway because of the fact that, the masses are beginning to lose their power. The mass is only important now in so far as it is a market with which those at the top are able to maintain their position and grow capital. But when their is no need of money, there will be no need for the masses. There is still time however for the mass to take hold of themselves. On John Nash The whole "AND the group" is where we start to take things the wrong way. Our view of the "Group" is one called in the end, a country. The realization I am trying to deliever here is that one country will not overcome human nature on its own. Despite its strength, if there is more then one "Group" there is bound to be conflict. What then to address: "Even if there was no countries, there would still be conflict amongst humans." The state of nature we think of when we actually think of the term "State of Nature" is archaic, nomadic, brutish, the one that Hobbes would of seen. The state of nature was simple really: There was dogs, and birds, and fish, and humans. NOT dogs, and birds, and fish, and Canadians, Austrailians, French, etc. Human nature is to fight and exploit (according to Nietzche), and in reality if you take off your rose colored glasses its true to the heart. Up untill this point humans had no one else to fight and exploit but themselves, and nature. Lets face it, Nature is going to put her foot down one day. It almost makes me wish that the aliens from Independance Day were real and they came to kick the nothingness out of all of us. That way, all of us would unite, and in the words of one John Lennon, "COME TOGETHER"

James.Aaron.R.A
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/28/08 - 04:55 AM:	#18
Lord Drivel wrote: How about the first electronic digital computer invented in England at Bletchley Hall by Tommy Franks to crack the Enigma code? What about the tank invented in the First World war? How about the atomic bomb? What about Werner Von Braun's missiles in the Second World War? Assuming these are all things that humans need to survive? How condusive is anything in war to the furthering of humanity that could not of risen out of a non-violent private sector for a much different purpose. Its the purpose behind the invention which is either geared towards the destruction of other humans, or towards their betterment. How about we use the computer as... a computer, the atomic bomb as a nuclear reactor, the missile as a rocket ship? This is assuming all this technology is geared towards anything, which - though many of you pessimistic anarchist would have many believe - is quite certainly not war, atleast not war with one another. The only entity we wage any sort of war against is nature, and nature will fight back sooner or later.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1235

Posted 07/28/08 - 12:26 PM:	#19
Lord Drivel wrote: How about the first electronic digital computer invented in England at Bletchley Hall by Tommy Franks to crack the Enigma code? What about the tank invented in the First World war? How about the atomic bomb? What about Werner Von Braun's missiles in the Second World War? Not only do you confuse science and technology (which really is applied science), but your facts are not even right: Colossus was designed by Tommy Flowers not Tommy Franks (who is a contemporean US general, retired in 2003, who has nothing to do with that, he was not even born at this time), and it was not even the first electronic digital computer, which is the ABC and had been developped in Iowa State University in a time of peace. I agree with VichyInsurrection, for once: War is not helping much science, it simply provides an incentive to adapt existing science to wartime goals, that's all, it may provide with some very punctual and limited new knowledge (rockets, nuclear bomb), but really not much in comparison with what goes on in peace time, there's a very serious logical problem in thinking the opposite in that it contradicts the whole history of mankind, and especially the history of scientific progress; and it leads you to a completely absurd over-valuation of violent conflicts. One point I shall disagree with VichyInsurrection however, is his assertion that science can come from the private sector, I agree it does for technology, but pure science is seldom, if ever, coming from the private sector, it most often comes from publicly financed researches. Edited by enkidu on 07/28/08 - 02:00 PM
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Zarathustra19
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2008
Location: Shippensburg, PA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/31/08 - 08:27 PM:	#20
James.Aaron.R.A wrote: Now, to deal with those who say "Impossible, we cannot out do human nature (relative to Hobbesian view of the state of nature, and our need to conform under, blah blah blah)" Put it this way, we either overcome human nature or it will overcome us. So, we just overcome hundreds of thousands of years of human nature, like that? Okay, cool. I only have one problem with not having distinctions between human beings: we lose anything that would be unique between us. We will become a "grey race", devoid of all difference. See, thats the thing about uniqueness. Where most people see a great thing, something special, there will always be those who think their uniqueness is more unique and will want to fight about it. Whether it is geological location, race, or religion, we can't simply overcome the human desire to be better than other human beings. Maybe some of us can...hell, even most of us. But there will always be those who want to compete because of our differences unless we eliminate all difference and live in a boring grey world. Edited by Zarathustra19 on 07/31/08 - 10:06 PM
It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them! -Nietzsche

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.