Thread: The murder of innocence

Originally Posted by Vampyre

And with regards to the soldiers laughing about it... that's just what they do. If you can't be comfortable with killing people, then you don't belong in a war.

If you are comfortable with killing people, something is seriously wrong with you.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

No one should ever be comfortable with killing people. When one has gotten comfortable with taking lives, a certain threshold has been crossed. A part of the person has been lost forever.

It's not that one should have panic attacks or give in to fear, not at all. The step from being comfortable with taking lives, to having little or no respect for life (ruthlessness) and thus being immoral is short. The pilot/gunner is a sad example of this ruthlessness.

You have probably had no emotional problems with it, because the mind is actively employing various defence mechanism, these are active while you are in the war situation. When you are out of the war situation, the defence mechanism will be lowered or removed, and thus expose you to what is left of emotional baggage. In short, you cannot afford the emotional baggage now, so it is postponed to a safe condition (when home again).

I hope you don't get PTSD. Here's a study of the deciding factors, both protecting and causing. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/informati...retelicJTS.pdf
The knowledge may help, if the protecting factors can be strengthened.

This seems very reasonable. And probably will be the case with me later in life.

No, SpecialInterests, not a typo. The last thing anyone in a warzone needs is to be surrounded by a group of people who all curl up into a ball whenever shit goes down. I can think of one direct incident where another soldier saved my life by shooting. I would most definately be dead if he was too scared to shoot, if thats what you would prefer.

The fury felt in the first few minutes of combat is THE MOST raw and pure emotion. Sex? Drugs? Love? Hate? NOTHING can even come close to it. You should give it a try.

Another check off the list of incredible experiences this world has to offer. I will die with pride knowing i experienced this, and that most people have not.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

This seems very reasonable. And probably will be the case with me later in life.

No, SpecialInterests, not a typo. The last thing anyone in a warzone needs is to be surrounded by a group of people who all curl up into a ball whenever shit goes down. I can think of one direct incident where another soldier saved my life by shooting. I would most definately be dead if he was too scared to shoot, if thats what you would prefer.

Well if everyone was uncomfortable with killing other people the world would be a much better place.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

The fury felt in the first few minutes of combat is THE MOST raw and pure emotion. Sex? Drugs? Love? Hate? NOTHING can even come close to it. You should give it a try.

Nah I'm good. I'd rather take a stroll through the woods. Or maybe smoke some DMT I'm sure that would be an equivalent rush and at least I'm not killing anyone which is a big plus.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Well if everyone was uncomfortable with killing other people the world would be a much better place.

That's wishful thinking at it's best. Not gonna happen.

Haha, sounds like I gotta try DMT. I've been putting that off for far too long. If its anything like fighting for your very survival under heavy machine gun fire or surviving a blast, then it must be the bomb heezy!!! Or whatever phrase kids these days use to describe awesome things...

Seriously though, i've heard good things

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

That's wishful thinking at it's best. Not gonna happen.

Actually people have to be trained to be comfortable killing people. It's a natural instinct to not want to kill other people so I think it's you doing the wishful thinking.

On top of that, I never said it was going to happen. I merely said it would be a better place if no one wanted to kill each other. You don't agree?

The world would definitely be a great place if no one wanted to kill someone else, but that's not how the world is. Terrorists want to kill people. In reaction, we want to kill them.

There's nothing "wrong" with being comfortable killing someone in certain scenarios. Everyone in the military knows why they're doing it and why it's necessary. They need to be comfortable with pulling the trigger, because if they're hesitant it can cost them their life.

If you want to get the feeling of a soldier, watch Hurt Locker. They do a good job of projecting the high tension and adrenaline of combat.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

Terrorists want to kill people. In reaction, we want to kill them.

I wonder why...

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

No one should ever be comfortable with killing people. When one has gotten comfortable with taking lives, a certain threshold has been crossed. A part of the person has been lost forever.

It's not that one should have panic attacks or give in to fear, not at all. The step from being comfortable with taking lives, to having little or no respect for life (ruthlessness) and thus being immoral is short. The pilot/gunner is a sad example of this ruthlessness.

You have probably had no emotional problems with it, because the mind is actively employing various defence mechanism, these are active while you are in the war situation. When you are out of the war situation, the defence mechanism will be lowered or removed, and thus expose you to what is left of emotional baggage. In short, you cannot afford the emotional baggage now, so it is postponed to a safe condition (when home again).

I hope you don't get PTSD. Here's a study of the deciding factors, both protecting and causing. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/informati...retelicJTS.pdf
The knowledge may help, if the protecting factors can be strengthened.

There should be a distinction between people who are comfortable killing and people who enjoy killing. Just because you can keep a clear head and remain relatively unaffected by killing, doesn't mean you enjoy it or you have no regard for human life. Half/Dreaming already explained why that is an important trait to cultivate in certain people.

I feel a little ridiculous for quoting this movie right now but in the movie "The Last Samurai" with Tom Cruise, there is a scene where Tom's character is talking to the head samurai, Katsumoto, in a garden. Katsumoto says something like "I hear you have been having nightmares." Then Tom Cruise says "All soldiers have nightmares," then Katusmoto responds, "Only ones who are ashamed of what they have done." Clearly the samurai had a pretty enlightened view of war and death. If you have come to terms with your responsibility to kill and you reframe it in your mind, it could have a far weaker psychological toll. Most humans probably can't help but be strongly affected by killing, but a person who has trained themselves to view death differently shouldn't automatically be cast out as a sub-human psychopath.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Well if everyone was uncomfortable with killing other people the world would be a much better place.

Only if that uncomfort is enough to stop them.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

On top of that, I never said it was going to happen. I merely said it would be a better place if no one wanted to kill each other. You don't agree?

No shit.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Actually people have to be trained to be comfortable killing people. It's a natural instinct to not want to kill other people so I think it's you doing the wishful thinking.

Where do you get that? It's the other way around. A conscience has to be developed. Kids who are not taught to be good... aren't.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Well if everyone was uncomfortable with killing other people the world would be a much better place.

If animals in the jungle would stop killing each other, the jungle would be a much more peaceful place.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Where do you get that? It's the other way around. A conscience has to be developed. Kids who are not taught to be good... aren't.

If it were a natural instinct to kill other members of your species, your species wouldn't be around too long.

Also, I haven't been trained to be comfortable with killing people, and as far as I know you haven't either. So why would you and I be uncomfortable killing someone else?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If animals in the jungle would stop killing each other, the jungle would be a much more peaceful place.

This is irrelevant. Animals need food. What were talking about isn't about getting food to stay alive.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

It's not that one should have panic attacks or give in to fear, not at all. The step from being comfortable with taking lives, to having little or no respect for life (ruthlessness) and thus being immoral is short.

There's nothing immoral about killing someone. For you maybe, for someone else maybe not. Moral's are subjective. The only way it could be immoral is if someone thinks it is immoral and they kill someone. They would think of it as immoral. But it doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Where do you get that? It's the other way around. A conscience has to be developed. Kids who are not taught to be good... aren't.

Ummmm. I disagree. Of course no one can prove which is first. But I think we are born with some sort of "conscience".
Not killing other people rewards us because we get protection from groups.
Whether that's being "good" or not, I don't know. I don't think so though.

This is probably confusing now. I'm agreeing with you in a way, that we aren't born good but for a different reason. And I don't believe we can be taught to be good.

We can be taught to pretend to be good. So that we don't get punished, or so that we get a group of people who will protect us.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

If it were a natural instinct to kill other members of your species, your species wouldn't be around too long.

Also, I haven't been trained to be comfortable with killing people, and as far as I know you haven't either. So why would you and I be uncomfortable killing someone else?

I assume we were both brought up to be pretty much good to the innocent. I had it drilled into my head big time. The look on my dad's face when he found out I had lied to him or done something shitty to somebody else did a great deal to shape what kind of person I ended up being.

Conscience is not the only thing that stops people from killing. Even sociopaths usually need a reason to do it, and it invites backlash from associates of the victim and his community.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

This is irrelevant. Animals need food. What were talking about isn't about getting food to stay alive.

That is beside the point. I was illustrating that you were talking about something completely unrealistic, not for exactly the same reasons.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I assume we were both brought up to be pretty much good to the innocent. I had it drilled into my head big time. The look on my dad's face when he found out I had lied to him or done something shitty to somebody else did a great deal to shape what kind of person I ended up being.

Conscience is not the only thing that stops people from killing. Even sociopaths usually need a reason to do it, and it invites backlash from associates of the victim and his community.

You don't think being good to the innocent is inherent?

Don't you wonder why soldiers get PTSD? Why veteran's have a high suicide rate? Why something like 400 GI's last year commit suicide?

Let it be know that chimpanzee clans kill each other ALL THE TIME in the jungle. It's war, essentially. They fight over resources just like we do. Instinct anyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/13/sc...l?pagewanted=1 Ahh, the similarities. Sounds like another species you know?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Let it be know that chimpanzee clans kill each other ALL THE TIME in the jungle. It's war, essentially. They fight over resources just like we do. Instinct anyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/13/sc...l?pagewanted=1 Ahh, the similarities. Sounds like another species you know?

There may be biological reasons why people fight wars, I would think that this is so. People fight over land and resources because scarcity makes it hard to survive. But we are not chimps, we are humans. We do not live in the jungle, we live in society. Technology has brought our society to such a level that there is no need to fight wars and act ruthlessly toward each other. We can easily coexist, and it makes much more sense to build rather than steal. We can benefit 100x more from technological advances than we can from stealing oil or fighting terrorism(which is exactly the same as fighting a war on drugs; fighting anything other than specific people is impossible).

The current war is being fought because of patriotism and the manipulation of emotional/territorial drives. It is not necessary.

This idea of necessity has been used over and over again throughout history to get a bunch of poor saps to engage themselves in some kind of power struggle that they hardly benefit from(if at all).

Political necessity is an illusion.

Originally Posted by stonedape

There may be biological reasons why people fight wars, I would think that this is so. People fight over land and resources because scarcity makes it hard to survive. But we are not chimps, we are humans. We do not live in the jungle, we live in society. Technology has brought our society to such a level that there is no need to fight wars and act ruthlessly toward each other. We can easily coexist, and it makes much more sense to build rather than steal. We can benefit 100x more from technological advances than we can from stealing oil or fighting terrorism(which is exactly the same as fighting a war on drugs; fighting anything other than specific people is impossible).

The current war is being fought because of patriotism and the manipulation of emotional/territorial drives. It is not necessary.

This idea of necessity has been used over and over again throughout history to get a bunch of poor saps to engage themselves in some kind of power struggle that they hardly benefit from(if at all).

Political necessity is an illusion.

Are you ready for round three stonedape?

Society changes nothing, we are still the primal beasts that once roamed the jungle just as the chimps do today, civilization is just a recent development. We still have all of those instincts and survival mechanisms built into us. People who use the "we are humans, we are better than the rest" argument are using the same logic as Christians when they deny evolution. Look at the big picture stonedape. How do you end war without turning everyone into midless robots who have no freedom and no free will? It is the same predicament Plato had when writing The Republic, it sounds great on paper but it has no base in reality. Plato's ideal society relies on everyone playing their specific role, dutifully and honestly filling their niche in society while denying themselves any aspirations of assuming a higher status, and acting generally as productive, law-abiding citizens. It assumes that everyone is a rational individual. So the obvious problem is not everyone is rational.

Whatever title you slap on it, whether its politics, religion, or human rights, there is always a deeper psychological driver behind all of these movements. You can't say these wars are unecessary because they are for the sole political gain of other nations, because even those endeavors are natural and can't be stopped by any amount of "civilizing." War is a natural manifestation of human psychology. Large scale war is the result of this psychology being placed into large scale civilizations.

It was very lucky that I am reading a book about Jungian psychology right now. I ran across these quotes the other day and they suprised me, even though they validate my previous beliefs.

"We think ourselves more rational to-day, and more tolerant, or rather we did so until those modern versions of religious persecution arose, which were disguised as political necessities. There was scarcely any hiding the fact that, for instance, in Germany 'a religious spirit' expressed almost openly as the worship of Wotan, with all its pagan accompaniments, supplied some of the dynamic energy that permeated the Nazi movement, just as a 'religious spirit' also opposed this movement, but there is a persistent tendency in us to dissociate ourselves from such things. We are sure they could not happen to us. Jung reminds us, however, that these movements are manifestations of the collective unconscious which is common to all mankind......................This dynamism was expressed in the past in the great preselytizing movements, in crusades, religious wars, and persecutions, in heresy hunts, and with hunts, and in the creative efforts which cause men to build vast tombs and places of worship filled with every kind of treasure. Today much of this energy finds its expression in the various 'isms'- Communism, Nazism, Facism, &c.- and rouses men to dangerous ardour, or expends itself in cults which have borrowed indiscriminately from the East.-- Freida Fordham from An Introduction to Jung's Psychology.

This isn't a critique of human culture, or a call to all humans to wake up and stop killing eachother. It is simply Carl Jung revealing to us the reality of our own psychology, something we can't change.

Does the idea that we cannot overcome the urge to kill and live in a civilized manner not completely contradict idea of morality? If we can do this on a personal level, why can we not do this with regards to relations between governments? The only reason I see is that the vast majority, if not all, of governments are extremely corrupt and have to fight to preserve their power. They have to repeat their ceremonial mass murders so that they can appease their God, Power.

Wars take place because of power struggles. They take place when human beings follow leaders rather than act autonomously.

We have come to a point where technology makes it so that gains made in war are practically meaningless. Let's say that hypothetically we are in the war in Iraq just for the oil. However much material gain we have will be meaningless in 100 years because by then, we will have either switched to a more efficient energy source or killed ourselves.

I agree with you that because of our psychology(the emotional/territorial circuit in particular) we are easily manipulated into engaging in war. This does not mean war is moral or inevitable, it only means that war is possible (and likely) with the current power structures being what they are.

What needs to take place in order for war to end is a changing of the power structures and a changing of the way we interact with each other. These changes are inevitable. The current power structures are corrupt. I think this is fairly obvious(they are racist, sexist and perpetuate poverty and crime). Because of the internet the flow of information has increased at least 1 million fold. Because of this more and more people will become aware of this corruption, more and more people will want this to change*, and eventually it will happen. Now there's no certainty in this alone ending war, but I think that if have a structure that supports liberty and autonomy people will have no reason to go to war.

I'm not really up for round 3 right now, but will probably find myself pulled back here. I have a lot of school work to do right now and shouldn't be wasting my time on the internet. You also never address my main points other than with sarcastic remarks of how they are impossible. The post above a great example. I've brought up technology several times and the topic is always avoided. If your going to quote me, attack my position, don't just say that's impossible and then appeal to some authority about how you are right. You basically keep saying the same thing over and over, the things you say never really prove that war is inevitable. I don't even disagree with most of your facts, just your interpretation of them.

*not:this signifies drastic change, not obama style bullshit

I'd also like to ask why you think that ending war in any way involves turning people into mindless robots? It involves giving people the opportunity to be autonomous.

Originally Posted by stonedape

"I'm not really up for round 3 right now, but will probably find myself pulled back here. I have a lot of school work to do right now and shouldn't be wasting my time on the internet. You also never address my main points other than with sarcastic remarks of how they are impossible. The post above a great example. I've brought up technology several times and the topic is always avoided. If your going to quote me, attack my position, don't just say that's impossible and then appeal to some authority about how you are right. You basically keep saying the same thing over and over, the things you say never really prove that war is inevitable. I don't even disagree with most of your facts, just your interpretation of them."

What does technology have to do with anything? It doesn't change human nature. I addressed all of your points, you don't seem to be listening because you keep repeating yourself even though I have pretty thoroughly proven why your view is impossible, and Im about to make it worse. My remarks are not sarcastic, they are logical. And what is wrong with appealing to authorities as long as they are the right authority? When arguing about human psychology, they don't get much more credible than Freida Fordham and Carl Jung. Is proving your point invalid and appealing to a proper authority to back myself up not "attacking your position?" At least Im bringing some real substance and some legitimate facts to the discussion.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Does the idea that we cannot overcome the urge to kill and live in a civilized manner not completely contradict idea of morality? If we can do this on a personal level, why can we not do this with regards to relations between governments? The only reason I see is that the vast majority, if not all, of governments are extremely corrupt and have to fight to preserve their power. They have to repeat their ceremonial mass murders so that they can appease their God, Power.

I'm about to blow your mind with some more quotes (this book is a gold mine.) I know you don't like it when I use a real authority figure to prove my point, but this evidence is pretty damning to your viewpoint.

-"Some knowledge and experience of the collective unconscious is also absolutely necessary, if we are to understand those forces which have in our time moved vast numbers of men and women to throw over their civilized standards and act in a brutal and terrifying way. Nations are made up of separate men and women and the study of the individual show, 'as in a test tube', the forces which move them; 'psychopathology of the masses is rooted in the psychology of the individual.' But in any large gathering of people it is not the unique qualitites of individuals that count-- these only serve to differentiate, not to unite them - it is rather what is common to all - namely, the archetypes. When the same archetype is active in a number of people it draws them together, as if by magnetic force, and drives them to act in an irrational way. In addition, a group to preserve its life must strees the adaptation of each of its members, so that differences become a disadvantage and average qualities are cultivated. Hence the larger the group the more stupid it is likely to become; even a collection of highly intelligent people will act at a much lower level of intelligence than its individual members, and Jung once said bitingly that a hundred intelligent heads added up to one hydrocephalus."-- Freida Fordham An Introduction to Jung's Psychology.

Almost verbatim what I have been saying. Lets analyze this since you say you agree with the facts but interpret it differently. Carl Jung says that there are unconscious powers working to bring us together, this is natural and it happens in all facets of life. It is unsconscious, meaning we don't even know it is happening and it usually takes an observing third party to enlighten us. A collection of people, no matter what credentials, will act irrationally. How do you stop these groups from forming? How do you get inside someones head and change a heart-felt opinion without employing some kind of totalitarian force, kind of like an Orwellian nightmare? So far you have only said that power structures are corrupt, but when have they not been corrupt? How will you use technology to end war?

Originally Posted by stonedape

Wars take place because of power struggles. They take place when human beings follow leaders rather than act autonomously.

I take this to mean anarchy in some form is your answer. Or maybe you mean people should think critically. If it is the latter, I already explained why you can't control everyone. Remember Plato's problem, "not every person is rational." If your answer is the former, I have another nugget of gold for you.

-"When life is orderly and disciplined the compensatory unconscious will manifest itself in a chaotic manner, but when disorder rules, as it does to some extent after war, and to a much greater extent during revolutionary periods, the unconscious attemtps to compensate by producing symbols of order, and man begins to long for a settled and orderly state of affairs. Instead, however, of realizing that his unconscious wish should first be made manifest in his own life, he projects it on to governments and leaders that promise a new order, regardless of how that order is to be obtained, and so he swings from one extreme to the other, motivated and possessed by the archetypes of the unconscious....

[True democracy (says Jung) is a highly psychological institution which takes account of human nature as it is and makes allowances for the necessity of conflict within its national boundaries.]

...In other words, neither complete anarchy nor complete order are possible while human nature remains much as it is, and the only healthy sate of affairs in one which allows for some conflict and disorder, as well as for some order and discipline." -- Freida Fordham, An Introduction to Jung's Psychology.

If this doesn't change your view, then cleary I have misinterpreted you. So why don't you go ahead and spell it out for me.

Originally Posted by stonedape

What needs to take place in order for war to end is a changing of the power structures and a changing of the way we interact with each other. These changes are inevitable. The current power structures are corrupt. I think this is fairly obvious(they are racist, sexist and perpetuate poverty and crime). Because of the internet the flow of information has increased at least 1 million fold. Because of this more and more people will become aware of this corruption, more and more people will want this to change*, and eventually it will happen. Now there's no certainty in this alone ending war, but I think that if have a structure that supports liberty and autonomy people will have no reason to go to war.

Information is not the answer. People can go onto the internet and they can interpret things anyway they want, it won't change the inerhent and unconscious strutures in their psychology that make them prone to the "group think" mentality. The internet is as great a source for misinformation as it is for real information. You could argue that the internet is responsible for the recent influx of conspiracy theories in the West, which would be a case of technology having the opposite effect you intended. Corruption is no secret, we have been reading about it in our history books for years, bringing corruption to light won't do anything except bring more people together for a common cause and we know what happens when large groups of angry people form. Changing the power structures doesn't address the problem at its root, it is a temporary fix and human nature will inevitably rear its ugly head again.

There are a lot of people in this world and it is certainly not inevitable that all of these people will be reached and "enlightened." It can't even be known if they want to be enlightened, just as a steadfast Christian will hold onto his beliefs until his death, he may even be willing to die for them. Jung says that humans have a "religious construct." This manifests itself in many different ways as I have already explained, but it isn't a bad thing, it is natural and an integral part of a healthy mind. Jung isn't offering some kind of solution to this problem of mass hysteria, his is studying it like a zoologist studies animals. He offers solutions to the individual for developing a wider and more complete conscious mind, but that is a life long endeavor, one that the majority of people are not willing to take. He doesn't for one second believe the entire world can become enlightened, that is just a fact of life.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

You don't think being good to the innocent is inherent?

I don't think so. Neglected kids have much greater chances of turning out to be sociopaths than kids who grow up in homes where they are raised well. When a mother has her hands full with 7 or more kids to raise without the father around, how do the kids usually turn out? People have to be taught to be good.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Don't you wonder why soldiers get PTSD? Why veteran's have a high suicide rate? Why something like 400 GI's last year commit suicide?

That stuff generally comes from intense dealings with the fear of death. A lot of soldiers do wig out over having killed, but it's because they have consciences, possibly overly sensitive consiences. I don't think I would feel bad about killing an enemy soldier fighting for the wrong side (Maybe I would.), but having killed an innocent person would eat me up.

I seriously can't help myself.

--"This powerful archetype in its infantile form has gripped them (the East and Communism,) but it will never disappear from the world at the mere sight of our superior points of view. We even support it by our own childishness, for our Western civilization is in the grip of the same myhology. Unconsciously, we cherish the same prejudices, hopes, and expectations. We too believe in the welfare of the state, in universal peace, in the equality of man, in his eternal human rights, in justice, truth, and (do not say it too loudly) in the Kingdom of God on Earth.
The sad truth is that man's real life consists of a complex of inexorable opposites--day and night, birth and death, happiness and misery, good and evil. We are not even sure that one will prevail against the other, that good will overcome evil, or joy defeat pain. Life is a battleground. It always has been, and always will be; and if it were not so, existence would come to an end." -- from Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung.

You can quote Jung all day, all it does is show what his opinion was. Can you show me where you have proven that war is inevitable?

You say that changing the power structures does not address the root cause of the problem. If power structures are not the root then what is? I'm guessing that you're going to say it's tendencies of our unconscious. Would you mind explaining how these tendencies make war inevitable? I see how they make war possible, but that doesn't mean that war is inevitable. You make a major jump when you say that people unconsciously form groups and these groups inevitably act irrationally therefore we can't avoid war.

I have a few more questions.

Is the current war a rational effort?
Are there any situations where it is necessary to invade a country with which there are no prior conflicts?
Are there any needs that can only be filled by the state(is political necessity real)?

I still want to address what you've said in earlier posts. I know it's going to take me at least an hour, which I don't have right now.

Originally Posted by stonedape

You can quote Jung all day, all it does is show what his opinion was. Can you show me where you have proven that war is inevitable?

Believe me when I say there are hundreds more where those came from, and not just Jung. When you chalk it down to "just his opinion," you are talking about one of the foremost authorities on this subject. Discrediting these theories as just Jung's opinion is like lowering relativity to just Einstein's opinion. You'll say that it isn't Einstein's opinion because he has evidence and equations to back himself up. Well, so does Jung. He is a scientist through and through. Psychology may be a little unorthodox compared to the rest of the sciences, but it is science nonetheless. I have read several of Jung's books in the past month, which is why I keep quoting them, and he always makes a point to describe the process he goes through to make sure his theories are as objective as possible, devoid of personal bias and drawn only from the evidence he gathers. He is sure not to fill in any blanks. His theories are based off more than a half centuries work on his part and the study of thousands of other cases from psychologists and anthropologists of equal credentials. He estimated that he studied over 80,000 cases. So no, it isn't "just his opinion," especially since most of the psychological community agrees with him.

This isn't the first time you have to tried to play my argument down like that. I have quoted other notable sources including renowned psychologists and a retired four star general. These are the people who give text-books their substance, clearly they know better than you and I. Instead of refuting their logic or their facts, you just keep repeating that I haven't "proven how it is inevitable." I have probably two pages worth of writing in olds threads that say otherwise. These are posts that either you didn't read or you just chose to ignore.

I am hesitant to write any more long posts in response to your arguments because every time I do, you mysteriously disappear. Then you reappear later and continue with your old argument like nothing happen. Look above to see where that has already happened at least once in this thread.

Originally Posted by stonedape

You say that changing the power structures does not address the root cause of the problem. If power structures are not the root then what is? I'm guessing that you're going to say it's tendencies of our unconscious. Would you mind explaining how these tendencies make war inevitable? I see how they make war possible, but that doesn't mean that war is inevitable. You make a major jump when you say that people unconsciously form groups and these groups inevitably act irrationally therefore we can't avoid war.

There are no jumps being made here, they are the words of Carl Jung himself. These unconscious factors are what drive all political movements, all religious movements, cults, nationalistic or patriotic movements, any type of movement that can lead a nation into war. It is the obvious conclusion to draw. This is the trend of the entire history of human civilization and beyond into the stone age. There is something very real and physical that is causing us to act this way. You speak of some kind of technological revolution that will somehow change the way civilizations interact with eachother, but you have no evidence or even a logical argument to back yourself up. Carl Jung is trying to prove that nothing short of physical evolution can change the ways societies interact. That's why he uses phrases such as "____ is impossible while humans remain much as they are" or "as long as humans are in their current state." He is talking about a physical change in the chemistry of our brains that needs to take place if humans want to end war on Earth, and we know that there is no way for us to control evolution. Therefore, it is impossible for technology to end war without seriously tampering with human DNA or suppressing, through force, natural human tendencies. Neither option sounds healthy and both options change what it means to be human.

Now you are the one who is suggesting a major shift will take place that contradicts 5,000 years of history and overpowers human psychology in general. Explain yourself.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I have a few more questions.

Is the current war a rational effort?
Are there any situations where it is necessary to invade a country with which there are no prior conflicts?
Are there any needs that can only be filled by the state(is political necessity real)?

I still want to address what you've said in earlier posts. I know it's going to take me at least an hour, which I don't have right now.

1.) You know the current wars are far too complicated to answer definitely one way or the other, but that is beside the point. The rationality of certain conflicts has nothing to do with my argument. Certainly some wars are more rational than others. Some are necessary conflicts to meet an important political outcome, some are personal wars based on vanity. Either way, they are all wars driven by the same instincts of primitive human psychology.

2.) I don't know, that could be a subjective question.

3.) What kind of needs? Humans obviously survived before the state, so the answer is no. This is still not addressing the real argument.




This is a biggie, and I apologize for that, but it's also the most profound yet.

{"You see nobody wants war, but everybody goes to war, because they all assume they don't want it. That is the truth. But at the same time, we play with the idea of war, because it is a wonderful sensation. Yet we do not recognise this; therefore we are convinced that we don't want a war, and we project it. That was true, in the world war, nobody wanted it, but nobody could stop it, nobody could get in control of the situation. And the terrible part is that human beings did it. Now if a terrible god were influencing mankind, or a dangerous devil, we would ask ourselves what we could do to propitiate him and prevent such a catastrophe. But we think there is no such thing, no devil, no god, no ruling power. If anybody wants war it is the Germans or the French, the English or the Italians. If you can find the slightest trace of a tendency to war in them, you are sure it is they who want it. We don't assume responsibility, we simply say they want it. While all the time nobody really wants it consciously. Probably nobody in this room wants a war consciously, and just as little do the people outside in the world want it. Who then makes a war?
Just as we don't want a war, we are also capable of wanting it only we don't know it. That we could wish for a war is a terrible thought, but let us assume there are too many people in the world too great an increase in the population, so that we are too close to one another, too crowded upon each other, and finally we hate each other. Then the thoughts begin to develop: What can we do about it? Could we not cause a conflagration? Could we not kill that whole crowd in order to get a little space? Or suppose that life is too hard, that you don't get a job, or the job doesn't pay, or other people take it away from you. If there were fewer people life would be much easier to live that it is now. Don't you think that slowly the idea would dawn upon you that you want to kill that other fellow? Now we must admit that in no other time have there been so many people crowded together in Europe. It is a brand new experience. Not only are we crowded in our cities, we are crowded in other ways; we know practically everything that happens in the world, it is shouted on the radio, we get it in the newspapers. If someone falls off his bicycle in Siam we get it in the post next day; we are impressed with an unheard misery when we hear of so many people having been drowned in China, so many starved in Siberia, so many killed in Spain, and perhaps a railway accident in Norway, and always a revolution in South America. You see we are impressed with all the misery of the world, because the whole world is now shouting in our ears every day. We enjoy it and we don't know what it is doing to us until finally we get the feeling that it is too much. How can one stop it? We must kill them all.
When I was in India I talked with certain people of Swaraj party who want Home Rule. I said: "But do you assume that you can run India with your party? - Do you not realize that in no time you would have a terrible quarrel between the Mohammedans and the Hindus? - they would cut each other's throats, they would kill each other by the hundreds of thousands." "Yes, naturally," he said, "they would." "But don't you think that is awful? - they are your own people." "Oh well, for those worthless chaps to cut each other's throats is just right, we have an increase in population of 34 millions these last ten years." Now India has always been threatened by famine, even by increasing the irrigated area the greater parts of the Indian population would be underfed, the cattle are underfed already. You see if you wipe out all epidemics, too few people will die; therefore that awful political idea. No politician would dare admit such ideas here. But that is the East, there they are not hampered with such sentimentalism, such honest lies as we cultivate; they just admit it and that is right... All well meaning people are terribly concerned with the fast increasing population; ask what they are going to do about it, and there is no answer.
But nature will answer. We think we are good and we are, yes, we have the best of intentions sure enough, but so you think that somewhere we are not nature, that we are different from nature? No, we are in nature and we think exactly like nature... So we should say - and I would like to say - that there is a terrible demon in man that blindfolds him that prepare awful destruction, and it would be much better if we had a temple for the god of war, where now, for instance with all this trouble in Europe, we could say: the god of war is restless, we must propitiate him, let us sacrifice to the god of war. And then every country would be going to the temples of the war god to sacrifice, perhaps it would be a human sacrifice, I don't know, something precious, they might burn up a lot of ammunition or destroy cannons for the god of war. That would help. To say that it is not we who want it would help because man could then believe in his goodness. For if you have to admit that you are doing just what you say you are not doing, you are not only a liar, you are a devil, and then where is the self esteem of man? How can he hope for a better future? We can never become anything else because we are caught in that contradiction, on the one side we want to do good and on the other we are doing the worst. How can man develop? He is forever caught in that dilemma. So you had better acknowledge the evil, what you call it doesn't matter. If there were priests who said that the god of war must be propitiated that would be a way of protecting yourself. But of course there are no such things, so we must admit that we prepare the war, that we are just thirsty for blood, everybody. "} --Carl Jung speaking to a group at a seminar

http://www.gla.ac.uk/~dc4w/laibach/jungwar.html

It is refreshing to hear somebody to tell it like it really is.

I'm sorry if it seemed like I ran away from the discussion. It's the end of the semester and I have an assload of work to do right now. I'll respond to your posts in depth next week, maybe Thursday or Friday when I am done with school.

When I said that it just shows what Jung's opinion was, I wasn't trying to say it's just his opinion, what I was trying to say is that neither he nor you have conclusively proven that war is inevitable. I know you've written a lot about why you think that war is inevitable, but I don't see the proof. Honestly, I don't think it's possible to prove that an end to war is impossible. It may be, but we cannot know what changes will occur in society in the next 500 or even 50 years. I think that technological changes will change the political structure in this country, and later on in the rest of the world once the technology spreads. If the political structures change there is at least a possibility for an end to war. I will elaborate more on this when I return to respond to your posts.

Fine. I don't care if you can't get to it right away, it's when you come back into the same discussion without paying attention to any of the arguments that were already directed towards you that bothers me. Just know that when you challenge Carl Jung's theories, it is akin to challenging Albert Einsteins theories. So that means your reasoning better be damn good and you'd better have some form of evidence to back yourself up.

(Don't you think you are being a little too strict with the word "proven?" There are many well accepted things in science that technically aren't laws. Jung's theories are up there with the most solid of scientific theories. You'll need something pretty revolutionary to change that.)