A Solution For World Peace

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Unlike theism which is imaginary and atheism which is nothing this worldview actually exists. It is based on subjects and relations which have the highest conceptual scope of all words. It conforms with evolution theory, includes the definitions for right, wrong, happiness and love, and it has a moral code.

This is an issue that goes back to the middle ages:

plato.stanfor…ations-medieval
humanitie…kham/z3609.html

The failure of the medieval philosophers to solve this problem is the reason why I believe we are at war.

Relations can be composed of units, objects or subjects. Objects have no emotional ramifications, subjects can. The relations of units is mathematics. The relations of objects is engineering. The relations of subjects is a worldview.

Some of these items are not in the diagram, not everything can be drawn.

Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
True - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject but the extrinsic subject is beyond the scope of language
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
Horror - excessive Bad
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Value - direction of a relation
Like - to share Values

Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter ‘C’.

1stC (primary combination) - occurs when subjects combine and a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created. The terms ‘more’ and ‘less’ do not apply with 1stC. It is very important to clarify that with 1stC one does not say, “Happiness is the combination of subjects,” but, “Happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation.”

2ndC (secondary combination) - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here the extrinsic subject already exists. The terms ‘more’ and ‘less’ apply with 2ndC. Leverage and contentment exist because of 2ndC.

3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.

Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are “happy”. Another term that applies here is “fashion”. Fashion is the active form of contentment. This type of happiness is personal and can be stronger than 1stC. Some sub-emotions of contentment are:

Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment) *
Grief - not having what you want *
Frustration - not getting what you want
Anger - extreme Frustration (with an urge to destroy)
Distress - having what you don’t want*
Relief - not having what you don’t want*

Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination.

Sorry - empathetic Unhappiness
Regret - the action toward Sorry
Gratitude - the action toward antipathetic Happiness
Forgive - declaring Unhappiness to be irrelevant
Blame - declaring Unhappiness to be relevant
Nervous - anticipation of a combination
Shy - extreme Nervousness
Worry - anticipation of a separation
Concern - mild Worry
Fear - extreme Worry
Terror - extreme Fear
Anxiety - general term for Nervous, Shy, Worry, Concern, Fear or Terror

Pride - above Contentment
Shame - below Contentment
Dignity - empathetic Pride
Arrogance, Conceit - extreme Dignity
Honor - the action toward Dignity
Jealousy - antipathetic Pride
Envy - the action toward Jealousy
Respect - antipathetic Pride related to Fashion
Admiration - the action toward Respect
Modesty - empathetic Shame
Humility - the action toward Modesty
Pity - antipathetic Shame
Contempt - extreme Pity
Disgust - the action toward Pity

Expectation - future Contentment
Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)
Standard - past Contentment
Surprise - empathetically or antipathetically above Standard or Expectation
Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
Disappointment - antipathetically below Standard or Expectation
Ecstatic - extreme Surprise
Sadness - extreme Disappointment or Embarrassment
Hate - extreme antipathy
Love - extreme empathy (with a desire to support)
Miss - absent empathy

[size=50]*The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from I. Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured theory. In P. Shaver (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5: Emotions, relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.[/size]

Axiom: Extrinsic subjects can never be related intrinsic subjects. Such an event would instantly cause a new extrinsic subject to exist. This is called “The League Rule” or “The Authority Rule.”

Axiom: Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate. This is called “The Base Rule”. It is a significant factor in physical morality.

There is no objective solution to morality in academic philosophy. However, as subjects and relations theory is an objective view, morality is easily understood. Morality, in common understanding, is refraining from doing what one wants because of cognitive reasons. It differs from ethics in that ethics is determined from one’s position (or job) in life, morality is not. There are three types of morality:

  1. Integrity - Lying, cheating and stealing. Our morals refrain us from doing these to protect our integrity.

  2. Soft Morality - Triage, making a decision for better or worse. An example is abortion. Soft morality refrains us from making an immediate good in favor of a greater good.

  3. Hard Morality - The Base Rule. The Base Rule is an axiom of subjects and relation theory. It states that related subjects can not combine for the same reason unrelated subjects can not separate. In life there are only three extrinsic subjects that are hard and immutable, they are permanent. One is our species, another is our family and the third is our gender. Of the three our gender is the weakest as it can be changed with surgery or hormones but for practical purposes it is immutable also. From hard morality comes the morals of cannibalism, incest and homosexuality. In academic philosophy, these morals are called culturally relativistic. In subjects and relations theory they are consequences.

There is also of course the issue of infidelity. Infidelity in one sense is an act of lying or cheating which falls under the first type - integrity. It is also a direct application of wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject. (The extrinsic subject is the surname of the marriage.)

One last type of morality that is worth mentioning applies to the first axiom of subjects and relations theory. This axiom, the league rule, states that, “An intrinsic subject can not combine with an extrinsic subject because if it did a new extrinsic subject would instantly be created.” An example of this is if a person gets married to their boss. Employers are extrinsic to employees; it is therefore immoral to be in a position to be able to fire one’s spouse. If a new extrinsic subject were pertinent of this relation however, this rule would not apply.

This system is common to us all. It can easily be proved in the same way that a whole is composed of parts or the many is composed of ones. Also, everyone in the world refers to their family members as relatives. People make relationships, it is what we do; what we do should be what we believe in. All that needs to be done is to include it in academic philosophy. Read any general philosophy textbook and a discussion about subjects and relations is not there. As the Romans didn’t invent steam power, no philosopher has thought of putting subjects and relations into the same subject before. We are at war because of incompatible worldviews. Suicide bomber vests aren’t supposed to exist. This is the only solution for world peace. Our enemies are in this system too.

subjectsandrelations.com

2

:wink:

3

Solution for world peace? As in no armed conflicts?

Increased rationality/better education plus free market.

4

OP lacks 1 fundemental thing, “clever diversion of populus”. Cunning politicians in USA has always diverted focus from their incompetence with a good war, has also been so for some british prime ministers.

5

Most wars throughout history are over natural resources. Subjects and relations theory won’t prevent them. However, most other wars, such as the war against terrorism, are over religion. These wars have been going on since the middle ages. Although religions are meant to be peaceful they typically are not compatible with each other. For example, as you probably know it is illegal to have a Bible in Saudia Arabia. Religions cannot be proven to be true because they are based on imaginary concepts. However, religions do offer morality whereas atheism does not. Subjects and relations theory is not based on an imaginary concept and it has a moral code. War is quite horrible and quite expensive. We all suffer from it somehow either directly or indirectly. If we all believed in the same system, one that we already are in anyway, there wouldn’t be a reason to have these religious wars.

6

No! That is comeplete nonsens! Maybe from Al-Queda, not from USA, maybe you base it upon Bush’s idiotic mishap of a comment “crusade”, which it later was corrected to war against terror, it was later disproven that Iraq had absoloutely nothing to do with “War on Terror” and only an oilconsession war, it was labled as an “liberation” which too many naive people bought.

7

Atheists have morals.

My solution would be to forget borders, particularly where those borders were artificially drawn by people from outside those borders–especially in the middle east. Open the borders and have all people of one sect move into one area and all people of another sect move into the areas left by the first sect. Let the Kurds have their own space. Let the Shiites have theirs; the Sunni’s theirs. Give Buddhists their place to live; let Hindis live where their religion is predominant. Base ‘ethnicity’ on language group, rather than supposed or claimed former conquering–see China, Tibet, and Nepal.

Let everyone settle where they can live with like-minded people–no borders, just regions.

And good luck with that! :unamused:

8

You Really buy into that Penn and Teller act don’t you?

9

Penn and Teller ? I’m pretty sure they didn’t invent the concept of Free Market.

10

Yes, but even before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Iraqis (and the Iranians) had great animosity against the West. They are fundamentalists. They are fundamentally Islamic. The West is not. This tension has been going on since the middle ages. They refer to us as infidels. The meaning of infidel is to be outside of one’s religion. That is why I believe the war against terrorism is blatantly about religion. Of course, our government, the media or our educational system won’t tell you that because they want to stay independent of that issue. Besides, what other reason is there why Iran thinks that Israel is illegal and should be attacked with a nuclear weapon?

11

Yes, I believe everyone has morals. One can’t get beyond the first grade without them. However, the definition of atheism is to not believe in a deity. This definition has nothing to do with morality. Therefore, a person that is moral and another person that is immoral could both be equally atheist.

That would be nice but people still would have to get around. They need to work in other regions, go to school in them, visit them, marry others from them, etc. Your solution is fine for the short term, and it is pretty much what the world has been doing anyway, but in the long term all it does is create tension. As time goes on people become experts and the tension increases. Better I think would be to believe in subjects and relations theory so we can all go on vacations and not have to be searched at the airport.

12

Emmm… No.

13

No I meant on their show “BullShit” they pretty much said what you said.

I for one don’t see it as possible, I don’t even see it as benficial.

War shouldn’t (and probably won’t) be rid of it, I think it should be refined as a counter to General Shermans famous quote, some may say thats not possible either, but the way I see it that’s far more possible than being rid of it altogether.

14

Atheism designates the absence of a positive belief; it says nothing at all about the realm of morality, which requires for its possibility its own network of autonomous conceptual presuppositions. The belief in God often carries with it the affirmation of natural law, but it need not. The absence of such a belief means just that—that one is not bound to a morality underpinned by the existence of a transcendent deity. Atheistic utilitarianism is an ethical theory, is it not? Relativism, deontology, particularism, retibrutivism—the list, does, of course, go on. And one needn’t invoke a belief in God to justify any of these theories. Theism is but a belief among others; you shouldn’t privilege it so extravagantly.

Not to take away from the direction of the thread. I’m sure you’ll have articulated your solution and solved the problem of peace in no time at all.

15

Emmm… Ignorance.

16

Basing a statement on facts would be so much better than anything else.

If you actually notice in recent 2 Gulf Wars, the insurgens has US weaponry and old camo clothing, why? Because CIA donated all these things in the '70-'80 to fight the ruskies, and promised military support, just that CIA never deliverd the military support which angerd them, why they always refer USA as the great “Satan”, but not other western countries as great “Satans”.

17

Although you made an interesting point, I find it hard to accept that the 2 Gulf Wars were the result of the US not providing military support for the Taliban in their war against the USSR. Also, this doesn’t explain why Iran wants to light up Israel.

Although the reasons for the war against terrorism are complicated, this conflict has been going on for over 1000 years. This is much longer than the US has even existed. If there were a military solution to this problem it would have occurred centuries ago. If there were a diplomatic solution to this problem, again, it would have occurred centuries ago. Military and diplomacy hasn’t solved this problem and we must at some point come to the conclusion that there is no reason why they will in the future. We can either stay the same and keep fighting this war but the problem with that is the weaponry keeps getting more intense. Alternatively, we can change worldviews which costs absolutely nothing and harms nobody.

18

9/11 was revenge from USA/CIA screwing insurgens back in the days as I talked about. USA engaged in the 2nd Gulf War for oil conssessions, and to avenge 9/11 to save their national prestige in Afghanistan.

Midde east didn’t get on so good terms with the western after the 3 crusades. It sorta ended up with formign of Isreal and only escelated when the Isrealits kicked the Palestenians butt in the 3 days war, due to excellent spying.

19

Ok, but the Crusades were also known as the Holy Wars. Al-Quaeda is commonly believed to be an extremist sect of Islam whose mission is jihad. The meaning if jihad is the authorization of violence against threats to Islam. Obviously all of this has to do with the incompatibility of religions around the world.

Not sure if you read the original post of this thread or not, but it contains subjects and relations theory. If the question ultimately comes down to which worldview is legitimate, how would you rate subjects and relations in comparison with other worldviews? Or, do you believe everyone is right?

20

They only wanted jihad against USA, not Europe untill they also enter the Afghan war.

Yes, i’m afraid it lacks essential key points to make it valid. My first post in this thread should point out some key points.