A Solution For World Peace

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

In the Wikipedia article for jihad it says, “Within classical Islamic jurisprudence—the development of which is to be dated into the first few centuries after the prophets death—jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may consist in wars against unbelievers, apostates, rebels, highway robbers and dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam.”

It is the system that is at fault, not the agents.

I believe what you are saying is that the OP isn’t subjective. Isn’t that the purpose of philosophy, to not be subjective?
Politicians, on the other hand, are inherently subjective. Do you agree?

22
  1. you are still blindly guessing and making up things.
    Within islamic religion it is that christians and jews has partially recived god’s revelation, because of that they were entitled to respect and protection of the islamic state.

Ham and cheese is very tastey?

23

Not sure what you mean.

That’s true. Muslims have more respect for Christians and Jews than they do for atheists. However, most of the Christians that have been living in Iraq for centuries have fled out of terror. I can provide sources for that if you like.

In an attempt to stay on topic for this thread, why do you believe Subjects and Relations Theory should have a “clever diversion of the populus?” I don’t think that makes any sense.

24

It means that it seems that you have a nack for writing whatever you like, just as long as it are “inspired” by history, but are without any actual historical facts.

You don’t have to provide sources, that is true that they may have fled, wars aways put pressure on religions view on eachother.
This “clever diversion of the populus?” i specificly wrote it was to divert attention away from the american presidents incompetence, and boost his popularity for a while. Why did i have to repeat myself?

25

What do you mean by “free market?”

26

I see. I believe we have a misunderstanding here. Your response that the OP lacks a “clever diversion of the populous” is, I believe, an answer to the question of why we are at war. However, my intention of the OP was a solution for world peace, a different philosophy, not the explanation of why we are at war.

I believe we are at war because the worldviews Islam, Christianity, Judaism and atheism are incompatible. These worldviews may be compatible on a local scale but not on a global scale. They all claim to be legitimate but the problem is that theism is imaginary and atheism is nothing.

27

You understand excatly nothing of what you have read of my post, and doesn’t understand the nature of motivation of the “presidential wars”.

28

Society is a reflection of our minds. We see conflict without, because there is conflict within.

Tinkering with political and economic systems may be the best we can do at the moment, but that’s never going to bring world peace. I live in the U.S, the world’s oldest democracy and a relatively free economic system. Do we have peace? Hardly.

Rationality will cure conflict? C’mon, give us a break. Have you ever been to a philosophy forum?

29

This thread has so many things going on, it’s hard to keep up.

At the outset, I’d say that ancient wars were fought for territorial expansion–lebensraum, if you will. That segued into tribute and taking of slaves. In Medieval Europe, they were religious, ethnic, and territorial. In recent times–the last 2 centuries, for example, economies were added to the grist–as in the War Between the States–and ideological.

The Taliban is an off-shoot, or sect, of the earlier Mujahideen in Afghanistan, who were supported by both the US and Saudi Arabia to the tune of millions of dollars in both military direct aid and covert aid in order to expel the USSR. Once the USSR left Afghanistan, the US stopped its aid and the Mujahideen formed the Northern Alliance. This alliance, in turn, broke into a civil war in which the Taliban rose to dominance and began ruling Afghanistan under strict an repressive Sharia Islamic law. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001, when the US led NATO coalition ousted them–supposedly while searching for bin Laden. Why did the US attack both Iraq and Afghanistan? Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the ME/CE region. It harbors a great deal of mineral wealth, but lacks the infrastructure and education to develop its wealth. Iran has oil reserves, but not enough to carry out a war for, imo.

Should another reason for war be considered–strategic positioning? I believe Iraq was attacked not because of Saddam, but because it borders both Iran and Saudi Arabia; Afghanistan borders Iran and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia holds the greatest oil reserves and threatened to accept the Euro as its petrodollar–the US couldn’t let that happen, nor could any of the countries who had US $ in reserve and not Euro $. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been fighting each other for decades, at least, if not before the two countries were separated by the arbitrary border drawn between them by the British.

Pakistan is nuclear, thanks to both the US and the USSR. It borders India, also nuclear, and has traditionally claimed the Kashmir region as its own. India borders China–also nuclear. With Pakistan and Afghanistan to the South and Iraq to the North, Iran is more or less surrounded. Victories in those countries would have given NATO a very strong strategic position against both Iran and Saudi Arabia. That it would also give allied countries a stronghold against Islamism–not the religion, which is Islam, but against the extremist Islamist sects.

All of this, imm, is the result of political and military strategy. So far, it hasn’t worked out as planned, and it may never achieve anything more than the Arab Spring–and who knows what the results of that will be.

If you take that all into account, is there a solution for world peace other than to forget borders and create regions inhabited by like-minded people? Or would that only result in more territorial, ideological, ethnic warfare? Idk.

30

First, your claim that we are at war because presidents want a clever diversion of the populous is irrelevant to the OP. Second, it is a very shallow reason why we are at war.

31

As I replied before, 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. People that have the same ideological system don’t have war.

32

Indiana isn’t at war with Illinois.

To say that relations are composed of subjects is a rationally true statement. If one can’t disprove it then one must accept it. If one accepts it then one must reject theism and also atheism. If one rejects theism then there is no reason to cause terror in the name of God (or Allah). It’s that simple. I use philosophy forums to promote subjects and relations theory. I’ve been doing it for many years. Military and diplomacy won’t solve this problem.

33

Isn’t that what I’m saying, JH?

People would be able to travel within the regions. They would be able to go to school, if school were offered, visit and marry like minded people. The result may be a reduction of the gene pool, but what is it you’re really talking about here?

Please see: A young woman strives to understand the power of a decades-old vendetta amidst the closed Kurdish culture of Turkey.
aje.me/KlnYAa

It seems to me, that’s the basic question.

34

Yes, but what do mean by forget borders and create regions? Doesn’t creating regions create borders? Maybe I am misinterpreting you here.

I agree that what we need is the same ideological system. If we all had the same ideological system we wouldn’t have war. Subjects and relations is a system common to us all. Like all systems it has a diagram and I included it in the OP. Even though everyone has relatives and everyone gets into relationships in some way or another, for some reason it’s never been published and I have an awfully hard time trying to get people to buy into it. Some people say it is a radical idea, that I don’t understand. To me, the ancient traditions of the closed Kurdish culture of Turkey is a radical idea. I think that not only is the world wrong, it has always been wrong. I’m not saying that lightly either, if you read the OP carefully you’ll see that includes right and wrong. I think the medieval philosophers failed us and the world has been suffering for all of this time.

35

Borders have been created; regions create themselves. This is especially true in the ME. Imm, at least, there will be continued ‘warfare’ in the ME amongst tribes, families, etc. This doesn’t mean it has to involve anyone else. It’s only when outsiders step in that war results on a large scale.

I don’t think I said everyone should embrace the same ideology. As a matter of fact, I believe the Western World, in trying to impose its ideology on people raised within a totally different, unknown, and not understood by the western world, culture is the totally wrong way to achieve peace. Learning about other cultures and respecting those cultures would make much more sense to me.

Why was an orphan, whose mother had been the victim of an ‘honor’ killing, taken in by a Kurdish village, to be suckled by various mothers and allowed to grow into a tall, strong, and beautiful woman? Why was she ‘given’ to a man in marriage, because he was able to meet her ‘bride price?’ How was she able to walk from village to village as a childless widow? Was her death an ‘honor killing,’ or was it simple murder by a spurned potential husband?

We really can’t know if we don’t understand the culture.

I wasn’t able to read your links. They’ve apparently been taken off Google. If you read my posts, you’ll know that I’m most interested in practical solutions to philosophical questions rather than the more expected philosophical discussions that, to me, don’t give solutions.

36

In theory what you propose, a diplomatic solution, would be wonderful. In practice though, diplomacy has been tried, and is still being tried, but as you know it hasn’t been successful. Also, everyone knows each other’s cultures quite well. Israel and Iran are experts about each other. They will never be able to leave each other alone, their ideologies are incompatible. In fact there is a wall in between Israel and Palestine. If you say, “It’s only when outsiders step in that war results on a large scale,” who is to say what that means? Is Israel an outsider? Do you think the Israelites should move? If so, to where? You see, diplomacy is not going to work. We need to change ideologies.

To us it was a simple murder. To them it was the right thing to do. So who is right, us or them? If you respect that they should honor their beliefs then you should praise them for what they did. Can you do that? It’s the same the other way around. They can’t do that for us either.

I should have checked that, my apologies. Thanks for pointing that out. Here is one of the links, unfortunately the other one is gone:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval/

It is very difficult to read and I don’t expect you to read it. You can see for yourself though, they were trying to figure out subjects and relations theory. What they call non-reductive relations is what I call primary combination. Their reductive relation is my secondary combination. They just didn’t draw the diagram and they didn’t realize what they were doing was the basis for emotion theory.

37

The solution fo world peace is when we, as philosophers, are the rulers…

38

That sounds like Plato to me. Of course back in ancient Greece the meaning of philosophy was a blanket term for all of science. Still though, modern philosophy does make one wiser.

Not sure if you read the original post of this thread or not but what I don’t understand is why subjects and relations are so unpopular? What in all of philosophy could ever be more important?

39

I’ve decided to change the definition of subject in this theory (see the OP) and also to include entity and concept. The first four lines shall now be:

Subject - an abstraction for or in a relation

Relation - more than one subject combined together

Entity - tangible subject

Concept - intangible subject