Now that is a wall of expectation ... Of course I am as lost as all the rest of humanity. I try to practice a form of presentation that does not use this disorientation as a cover.a deeper sense of how the world operates.
I give a different analysis of the genesis of the concept of peace. I do not advocate the quote above, which does not include the crucial "In this sense ...".I stand my ground on war & men, to which your reply was contradictory. You first state that "Men invented both war and peace."
It's the same difference as in the statement "All rapists are men, but not all men are rapists." IOW, although it has fallen to men to make war, the existence of men is not the cause of war.Then you say "Of course that doesn't mean that men make war, but only that it is on the record that the majority of humans that have waged war were men."
This statement basically says that men invented war, wage war, but do not make war. All sorts of contradictions there.
There's this thing called "methodological individualism" which says that e.g. "the state" is not an entity isolated from the persons performing its offices.My stance on war remains that men struggle and fight the good fight, whereas states exploit men and rage war due to greed.
Yes, the powers that be exploit the majority of its subjects. Still, there are powers that be, that do the exploiting.
Yes, but with few exceptions the state had little command structure as late as the 17. century.And yes, government structures might have been primitive long ago, but since we're social creatures, we've always had some form of social hierarchy even in tribes in which people were primitive.
One way to put it. But now I fear you are extracting your premises from your conclusions, which makes them no conclusions at all.The rise and advancement of nations later on lead to an imbalanced transfer of power from majority to the exploiting, greedy minority and thus, more orchestrated wars by the state.
A band of hunter-gatherers bashing each other over the head with sticks is the same phenomenon as WWII?
That's making you definitions to suit your propositions; that way, you can prove anything.
I do not accept "That's just the way it is" as an argument with any kind of traction.Plus, one first needs to understand the nature of war and peace in order to categorize them correctly, as two naturally-created phenomenons through which we can survive as creatures. The human world is comprised of phenomena that are unique, opposite to one another, and that can guarantee our sustenance as beings. We cannot live without war, neither can we live without peace, and the same goes for an infinite number of antagonisms that are complimentary to one another, such as illness & health, conflict & resolution, work & rest, night & day. These things were created by God, if you're a believer, or nature if you're not. We did not create these phenomena as human beings, they simply exist as we do; and we only interact with them according to our perception & circumstance.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.As for the stance on "what men and women want from one another", I think it was more your personal opinion than one that can be generalized, especially since "fear" was dragged into the equation whereas love wasn't mentioned.