Re: [pf] Challenging philosophy

At 07:27 23/5/2001 EDT, Priscilla wrote:
>Thanks for the article, Peter.
>What keeps me in this work is the foundational belief that humans are and
have the potential to be instruments of great good as well as of great evil. 
>And the great task of life is to pursue the former and minimize the latter.
>
>Blessings, Priscilla
 . . . . . . . . . . . responding to a Sean Gonçalves article in the Cape
Cod Times, sent-on by Peter Saint James {at:
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2001II/msg01260.html }


· These are the bits I too appreciated:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 ...
The noted historian Howard Zinn [about] the claim for an aggressive
instinct, continues: "This logic is widespread in modern thought... and
yet, it is almost certainly wrong. And furthermore, it's dangerous.
   Wrong, because there is no real evidence for it. Not in genetics, not in
zoology, not in psychology, not in anthropology, not in history, not even
in the ordinary experiences of soldiers in war. (Zinn flew bombing missions
in World War II).
   Dangerous because it deflects attention from the nonbiological causes of
violence and war."
 ...
The distinguished biologist P.W. Medawar agrees: "By far the most important
characteristic of human beings is that we have and exercise moral judgment
and are not at the mercy of our hormones and genes."

In 1986, an international conference of scientists gathered in Seville
Spain issued a statement on the matter: "It is scientifically incorrect to
say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation... . Modern
war involves institutional use of personal characteristics, such as
obedience, suggestibility and idealism... . We conclude that biology does
not condemn humanity to war."

The far more interesting question is not whether we have innate instincts
for war and violence but why we put ourselves in the obedient service of
"their" ambitions?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

· And even the "cursory glance at history" doesn't show what they say it
does. The two points I see, (not having studied history):

1. Pick any small region, say a valley with a few villages or a town. Look
at it over the last 2000 to 5000 years (however long it's history is
available).
 What fraction of that time is it involved in battles, wars? Infinitesimal
if you take the vast majority of such places.
  If aggression-leading-to-battle was innate, you'd see it far more often.

2. Look at written history; I remember deciding not to study it in
secondary school (for several reasons including) because it was mostly
about kings and warlords taking crowds of serfs to battle other kings and
warlords.
   Sure, many of the serfs were willing, often for the money the commander
paid, and maybe for the excitement, and the renown when (if) they got back,
e.g. among women. And quite often because it was one of the very few ways
to get rich, from booty if they crushed the "enemy".
   But they didn't fight because of their individual aggression towards the
"enemy".


· And even with more recent wars, where the instigator wasn't out there
close to the thick of battle: even nations (e.g. USA in WW-II) were
reluctant to join the fight, and most individual men didn't want to fight -
what's conscription about, if not forcing men to fight when they'd rather not!

· Battles and wars are _obviously_ not caused by innate aggression!

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
************************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVx3Cb
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: archive+pfvs@csf.colorado.edu

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================