Do we need WW III?

I read your answer with interest, but you omit: statistic consideration & cold war.

Thank you for your thought.
This above, plus the fact that Europe is without major war for long 66 years, .
Under statistical considerations, this is not an argument.

and considering highest economic standard of living ever, I would conclude that today we might have the best morals and ethics of all the ages. Even if some will argue that they don't like these current morals, or that today's morals are not perfect, I would counterargument that these morals must be the best we had, because of the mentioned splendid results of peace and prosperity.
The point is that peaceful and plentiful times, of last half century, can’t be the product of worsened morals and ethics.
This is possible; but you are ideed omitting the cold war, that low the "paceful times" to twenty years.
 
(...)
My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.
(...)
Oh, and one other thing; this time; to Antigone:
If I understand you;
when you wrote: <<I would say never>>, this was only about "the best morals"; but about "the bad times", for the same argument you are exposing above, this is exactly "ever".

So when I say that we are in bad times, you don't say the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Unlimited evolution ?

If you read up on the after effects of WWI and WWII on Europe (and the world) you will find that war does not take society back to past ideals. It, in fact, accelerates the very change that you so dislike. Both WWI and II catapulted the world into what we have now, the modern era and WWIII will only turn the clock further forward. Never back, there is no going back.

Excuse me for this thirst post in a short moment, but Iwould at least answer Antigone about the third part of the quotation I made ofhim, above.

I respect your opinion, consisting to mean that times are not so bad in appearance.

Especially, I learn that to have strong values or principle is « a return in the past », which – obviously – can’t be done. Maybe.

Do you think, that the « accelerations of the changes » or « the changes » are necessarily an evolution (in its positive sense) ?

So, when a species disappear – as dinosaurs – what iscoming, next ?

I don’t think in such a case, that there is a coming back, nor « acceleration » - here by the dinosaurs – as they disappear. So what could be come from the Humanity, in next decades (opened question) ?

As she change so rapidly, what I approve, could she evolute undefinitively ?
 
i beg your pardon.

Antigone,
I beg your pardon for two reasons:
I wrote: "the third part of quotation I made of him", but while you was logged and I was seeing your profile, I just remembered that Antigone was a woman; so excuse me for this error.
The second reason, is that I made a "copy-paste" from a text editor for pc, and this made some concatenations of words, so there are some falses of orthograph; this is the second reason to demand you to excuse me.

Particularly, your argument telling that "there is no going back", made me just have a real and brief reflexion, really for the first time I am on this forum.
And I was so surprised to destroy so easily the arguments of a philopher (althought I have already done such a thing), but indeed mistaked myself by taking you for a professional philopher; I ought to see that Antigone was really a character of theater, but this doesn't matter I think.
If you have an answer to my questions when you will to post it, I would appreciate this.

Write you later.
 
Last edited:
You wrote so many, that you made other "omittings".

People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.
Could you tell me, what is an "historical era" ?

Is this not something, which have precisely a begining and a end ?

So in such a end, are there not even undesired "going back". I think to know that there were some regression in a part of Middle-Age, after what there was a new re-begining ?

Couldn't this sort of thing come more times ?
 
I think you are reading far too much into my comments, and my chosen name here, ACourvoisier.

Firstly Antigone is ineed a female name. In Greek mythology Antigone was the daughter of Oedipus and Jacosta and it is also the name of a play by Sophocles but it wasn't for these reasons that I chose the name. It was chosen (after many rejections) simply because it was the only name I could think of that hadn't already been taken when I joined this forum, for no other reason.

Secondly, sorry but I'm not an idealist and I don't like or do philosophy, what if's or speculations. I much prefer to talk about facts, historical or otherwise. It is fact that through all historical eras men have been complaining about society's morals, even through the times you have idealised as "better" than today. Death, disease, poverty, abuse, exploitation, slave labour, discrimination, hunger, and church dominance were all part of the daily existance in the times you would wish us to go back to. People didn't work fields because they had higher morals but simply because they had no other choice if they were to survive.

Much of what we use today was developed during and because of WWII. Computer technology, space programs, rockets and weaponry, plastics, communications and medical advancements, just to name a few. Becuase it was necessary it also became acceptable that women could work outside the home, because of shortages in the availability of fabric it also became acceptable for men and women to wear less clothing etc, the rigid class barriers that held the majority from achieving their true potential began to crumble as a result of WWI and were finally broken for good during WWII. The very fabric of society, including it's morals changed also, not back to some romantic ideal of past glories but forward and in accordance with the technological advances that developed because of war.
 
I think you are reading far too much into my comments, and my chosen name here, ACourvoisier.

Firstly Antigone is ineed a female name. In Greek mythology Antigone was the daughter of Oedipus and Jacosta and it is also the name of a play by Sophocles but it wasn't for these reasons that I chose the name. It was chosen (after many rejections) simply because it was the only name I could think of that hadn't already been taken when I joined this forum, for no other reason.

Secondly, sorry but I'm not an idealist and I don't like or do philosophy, what if's or speculations. I much prefer to talk about facts, historical or otherwise. It is fact that through all historical eras men have been complaining about society's morals, even through the times you have idealised as "better" than today. Death, disease, poverty, abuse, exploitation, slave labour, discrimination, hunger, and church dominance were all part of the daily existance in the times you would wish us to go back to. People didn't work fields because they had higher morals but simply because they had no other choice if they were to survive.

Much of what we use today was developed during and because of WWII. Computer technology, space programs, rockets and weaponry, plastics, communications and medical advancements, just to name a few. Becuase it was necessary it also became acceptable that women could work outside the home, because of shortages in the availability of fabric it also became acceptable for men and women to wear less clothing etc, the rigid class barriers that held the majority from achieving their true potential began to crumble as a result of WWI and were finally broken for good during WWII. The very fabric of society, including it's morals changed also, not back to some romantic ideal of past glories but forward and in accordance with the technological advances that developed because of war.

Thank you for the compliment that I am reading "too" far in your posts; but for a real discussion is it necessary.

Of course have you the right to chose your pseudonym; I was just meaning, that I didn't see sooner this part of your personality, of which I thank you to have instructed me a little.

Philosophy is only the base of a living reflexion, but this is a base:
what are the facts, without being well interpreted ?

Endly, all what you say about the past technological developments is very right, and I know this (I quote Robert J. Oppenheimer in my "signature", who was the leader of the Manathan Project.)

But you did not answer to my questions.
 
Ethics, morals and respect are civilized terms to explain, or justify aggression or any kind of judgemental actions. A third WW is likely in the coming decade, but not for obvious reasons. IMO, the reason has been on this week's headlines but has not been interpreted the right way. The planet's population is reaching a critical point, it's becoming overcrowded and food distribution ( and above all water) will become a major geopolitical problem in the coming years. The danger is that since 1914, we have greatly improved the weaponry available, and its access to the poorest countries.
As for what period of European history is the most "moral", I think it's one yet to come...
 
Ok, this time do I think to understand:
weapons avaiable,

and: "what period of European history is the most moral ? -One great morality should come if we don't want a war."



But (knowing this) what does it bring to the discussion ?
 
Trying to gauge war through a morality prism is futile. Wars have their root in the deepest, most primitive part of human psyche, and are therefore on a completely different level of consciousness in our thinking process. Wars, conflicts and violence in general are triggered by our instinctive need to protect ourselves. Morality and ethics mean the thinker can afford time and has no exposure to retaliation to analyse the threat and rationalise it. The weapons evolution since 1918 have shifted the balance of power. Deterence is no longer a powerful suggestive threat capable of keeping an enemy under control. The biggest armies have been defeated by a small number of opponents using terrorist or guerilla techniques. The proliferation of non-conventional weapons have rendered the most ethic war technique (diplomacy) obsolete.
 
So I would like to answer you about some precise points.

Trying to gauge war through a morality prism is futile.

I think we obviously cannot measure the interests in doing war with morality, as the war surely is not moral, in itself.
However, a war could arrive, without any morality considerations.

Wars have their root in the deepest, most primitive part of human psyche, and are therefore on a completely different level of consciousness in our thinking process.
(...)
Here, the war has certainly not its roots in primitive parts of human, and has even fewer its roots in the human psyche. We are not at the caverns era.
Were you thinking about such a thing, as the conditions (in its imperative sense) of economy ?
 
Last edited:
So I would like to answer you about some precise points.



I think we obviously cannot measure the interests in doing war with morality, as the war surely is not moral, in itself.
However, a war could arrive, without any morality considerations.


Here, the war has certainly not its roots in primitive parts of human, and has even fewer its roots in the human psyche. We are not at the caverns era.
Were you thinking about such a thing, as the conditions (in its imperative sense) of economy ?

As for the first part of your post, where were you during the first Gulf War? I remember clearly the big western coalition kicking the shit of Saddam on moral grounds.
As for the second part, I'll cite W : "you are with us or against us". That is geopolitics reduced to its simplest expression and is a reflection of the primitive aspect of warfare: if you are not an ally, you are an enemy, and I therefore have to destroy you. Like it or not, when it comes to the gap between savagery and civilisation, war is the quickest bridge... When triggered by situations in which our survival is jeopardized, we are cavemen in suits and ties...
 
I think times were much more desperate during the Great Depression; I read on Shmoop that the financial situation looked so bleak that in 1930, over a 100,000 American citizens attempted to migrate to the Soviet Union in search of a better life. At least we’re not trying to move to other nations.
 
Thank you for your thought.

Under statistical considerations, this is not an argument.


This is possible; but you are ideed omitting the cold war, that low the "paceful times" to twenty years.

I guess you came up with your own war definition, that you forgot to share with us. Or maybe you take word to literally. Cold War wasn't a war by any standards. I don't remember shots being fired or people dying from bombs in Europe during Cold War, do you?
If anything this actually helps my case about long peace. Even though the situation was tense and there was lot of hate on both superpowers sides, all involved had enough smarts to calculate consequences, and stay at peace.

If today's peace is not about morality, it must be something else keeping it peaceful. Maybe it is about good life and ability to calculate consequences. Take ordinary citizen in Europe or N America. He/she has family, home, car, many possessions, long life, vacations, tasty food all you can eat and look to retirement. Ordinary citizen can see it and is smart enough to calculate odds how much is to lose in case of defeat in war, because gaining is unknown and uncertain. Plus through today's open borders, traveling and free mass-media one can see that in neighboring country people are normal and want exactly same as you: the home, car, family, vacation, fun. The last thing on their mind is to come to your country and kill you. So, considering all of this, why would you want to start war with you neighbour, and possibly die losing a lot that you already have? Under so strong and logical reasons male, hard wired, fighting instinct is overruled in favour of life pleasures. (These days fighting instinct can be safely satisfied by computer games or watching boxing and UFC.)
So peace be it. This is the consequence of good economic system, education, science, freedoms and democracy. Not sure how morality fits in it? Could have the catalytic and promoter effect making the mentioned systems work or work well.
 
Waow LeBrok, I'd love to live in your world. What about massive overendebtment, scarcity of work, suicide and depression, high divorce rates, alcoolism, rempant violence, ghettoisation and insecurity that characterize all big European cities. Have you heard anything about London riots this year, France riots in 2005, people getting stabbed and killed over a MP3 player or a mobile phone? Fighting instinct? just going for a walk in the evening is enough to quench it.
As for the cold war, it was a real war, with troops stationed all over Europe (2 things called NATO and Warsaw Pact you should learn about). Historians have written an awful lot about proxy wars in Africa, South America and in Afghanistan, just to name a few. The cold war had ideological roots but made real victims, among whom more than a 100 people who tried to flee from the DDR through the Berlin Wall. Morality has been thrown away the day we embraced capitalism and liberalism. Economics, (lack of) education, freedom (?) and democracy (I still need to come around with a definition for that word) actually ****** up our society more than they cemented it. True, science is now the God we all kneel to.
 
Forgive me for skimming, I promise I will return to some other outstanding posts in this topic.
I must say this though, how come that WW2 ended the Great Depression? And wasn't the macabre 24th October of 1929 that actually pointed out that common people do not know where/how to invest their monetary values? If we read history through an analytical perspective, clearly the Great Depression led to WW2; If anything had impact on decreasing the effects of Depression those were Keynesian policies. A similar depression was incited in the '70's during the Israeli-Arab war and, once again we can notice the patterns of war and its effects. Therefore justifying war for any sort of boom, being it technological or economical, expresses a primordial texture of thinking.
 
Waow LeBrok, I'd love to live in your world. What about massive overendebtment, scarcity of work, suicide and depression, high divorce rates, alcoolism, rempant violence, ghettoisation and insecurity that characterize all big European cities. Have you heard anything about London riots this year, France riots in 2005, people getting stabbed and killed over a MP3 player or a mobile phone? Fighting instinct? just going for a walk in the evening is enough to quench it.
Dude, I'm starting to worry about you. Surly my glass is half full, yours is almost empty and very small.
I'm sure it is just your "sight" impediment. Well, I have full realisation that the Europe is not perfect, and I don't have any illusions that never will be. It doesn't blind me to the fact that when we start compering epochs of different times in human history, our times come on the top by far. This was the bottom line of my posts, maybe stressed to much, but I felt need doing this in face of strong human nature of romanticizing old times or things they never seen and experienced, like morality of medieval christian knights, or purity of Victorian England.


As for the cold war, it was a real war, with troops stationed all over Europe (2 things called NATO and Warsaw Pact you should learn about).
By your definition there is still war in Europe, because as you put it "troops stationed all over Europe".

Historians have written an awful lot about proxy wars in Africa, South America and in Afghanistan, just to name a few.
I was talking about Europe

The cold war had ideological roots but made real victims, among whom more than a 100 people who tried to flee from the DDR through the Berlin Wall.
These were attack on own citizens and don't constitute war aggression. In this regard DDR did great compared with Soviets treating their own citizens.

Morality has been thrown away the day we embraced capitalism and liberalism. Economics, (lack of) education, freedom (?) and democracy (I still need to come around with a definition for that word) actually ****** up our society more than they cemented it. True, science is now the God we all kneel to.
No, morality always exist. It might change but never vanishes, as it only describes values of social interaction, is it right or wrong. If anything you can say that you don't like today's morality, but can't say that it doesn't exist.
Actually I don't care what ethics teach people, I just want good results for the people. So far I like today's Europe much more than in any time in history, though it's imperfect and sucks in many departments.
 
George Osbourne the British Chancellor is talking about offering state loans to businesses to help stimulate economic growth.
Again similarities can be draw back to the Great Depression in the States with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation RFC/New Deal:

"The New Deal represented a significant shift in political and domestic policy in the USA, its more lasting changes being increased federal government regulation of the economy. It also marked the beginning of complex social programs and growing power of labor unions." source

350px-US_GDP_10-60.jpg
US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif
 
So Cameron has finally realised that cut-backs alone will not work, that there has also to be some sort of incentive to produce growth if an economy is to recover.

I wish our idiots in the government would realise it also. All they are doing right now is slash and burn, therebye strangling the very people needed to produce to get the country back on track.
 
There were probably few choices how to fix economies and in much better timing. The decision making, in this regard, was so prolonged till now that damage to economies, of many countries and europe in general, might be irreversible, well in short time frame of 5 years at least. If it collapses even farther then we are talking about a decade or two.

Politicians are still behaving like they still have a luxury of time. Domani, piano, piano...
 

This thread has been viewed 30471 times.

Back
Top