Tad aggressive for an intellectual are you not? 
@OP:
Metaphorically bending over and speading ones cheeks is not an intellectual course to take …
Yes Kris, I’ve already admitted that I was wrong, and I am aggressive as well.
Apao, I don’t think I’ve implied that intellectuals should be subordinate to others. It’s simply a matter of the general attitude of a group of educated people and their uneducated counterparts.
Intellectuals tend to subscribe to a moral ideology that condemns violence. The outcome is they bottle all their emotions up which is why they’re so prone to depression.
what observations are you referring to that are limiting factors on my ideas?
i do not claim that pacifism or passivism do not exist. they exist within entities that retain a sufficiently large amount of free choice in that these entities may choose to act in nonaggressive ways to one degree or another. basically, as far as we know it is only humans that have this ability; my point however is that it is anti-life, anti-nature and results only in death of that organism, as it should. it cannot be sustained outside of an artificial system predicated upon aggression itself, and so even if a true pacifist did exist somewhere on earth, he would only survive by the external efforts of others/of the system itself, which are and indeed must be fundamentally aggressive in nature.
try to imagine a life form that has no will to fight, kill, destroy, dominate, subdue, expand its power. that life form wouldnt last more than the single generation of its initial creation. how could it survive?
and what are these patterns of nature? i dont see any “pacifist” “patterns” anywhere in nature, in fact all i see are the opposite.
it is not possible to imagine a “pacifist universe”. first, pacifism applies only to living entities, because only living entities have intention to aggress or nonaggress. a meteor crashing into a planet and wiping out its atmosphere (or even its lifeforms) is not “aggressive”, no more than a photon which passes harmlessly through water or a fish is “pacifist”… ONLY LIFE can be passive or aggressive. therefore, imagining a pacifist universe would require us to imagine NOT a universe without life, but a universe with PASSIVE LIFE only. second, there is no conceivable concept of a passive lifeform. aggression (which you have adequately placed in opposition to pacifist) is the single common factor of all things which live: they act aggressively within their environment, they attack other life, they devour resources, they kill for food, they exert power and push back their limits thereby pushing into other adjecent life and space, carving out their niche where they can survive.
NOTHING IS GIVEN FOR FREE IN NATURE. you must understand this fact first and foremost. nothing. NOTHING. everything which an organism is, has, will become, needs, is TAKEN. taken from others, from its environment. the air you breathe right now is being TAKEN from the available O2 in the atmosphere and used by you, the oxygen extracted and sent to your cells and organs. that oxygen cannot be used by any other life. you aggressively took it for yourself, AT THEIR EXPENSE. the fact that presently oxygen is plentiful for this not to be noticed does not change the fact of the acts fundamental aggressiveness, the taking to yourself, stealing, consuming, devouring, denying to all others.
so try to imagine a lifeform which doesnt act in this way. that instinctively or consciously chooses all the time to NEVER AGGRESS against another, in any way. that life could not exist, because it COULD NEVER HAVE EVOLVED (evolution is a process of aggression, necessarily). now, you may make a case for a “necessary minimum of aggression” in that you may believe that pacifism is the intrinsic motive which is always present to a degree, but out of necessity is pushed partially back so that the organism can survive via its aggressive impulses… however, this is also false. passive instincts exist only in opposition to aggressive ones, and ONLY AT THE UTILITY OF THE ORGANISM within a framework of overall aggression. i cant really imagine any “passive instincts” or actions in nature, but assuming there are some, they would evolve or be selected for only because they further the life of the organism itself (perhaps cohabitation/symbiosis could qualify here); yet these behaviors are still aggressive, its just that the aggression is willingly directed AWAY from a certain target (the host or the parasite) and placed onto other non-host targets.
to eat is to aggress, to kill, to end life and end possibility. even the “passive” little fish that lives at the mercy of the big shark because it cleans the shark of microorganisms is still aggressing and killing those microorganisms; even the shark which “passively” allows the little fish to accompany it without killing it does so in order to further its aggressive purposes of survival and growth of its power and influence and ability to aggress/kill OTHER life. mutual cooperation SEEMS passive, true, but its a false passivity that entails only within the limited CONDITIONAL relation itself, i.e. conditional on the fact that both parties gain survival advantage and FURTHER OPPORTUNITY to aggress in other directions than they otherwise would (i.e. if mutual advantage of symbiosis did not result in a net gain of survival ability for both parties, it would not continue. either the dominant party would devour the weaker, or the weaker would flee).
“pacifism” serves the interests of survival, where it occurs in nature (symbiosis is not really passive, as ive shown, im just using it as an example because i cannot think of any others). all life grows, tries to survive, eats and kills and aggresses necessarily, or it does not survive– that is why aggression itself is the fundamental principle of all life. (aggression is just a word denoting a process; substitute the set of all “dominating/subduing/devouring/killing/limiting/overpowering”-like activity if you like, its the same thing. i just choose the word “aggression” to signify this entire aggressive-life-process itself, which is the basis of ALL life: struggle to survive).
I was just admitting to my own aggression
There is?
Very few people on planet earth partake in violence just for the sake of violence alone.
95% of the time violence is followed by and with a motive.
Violence can be rational.
What’s logical?
I like that observation.
But not everybody can go to college and graduate being that we live in a very much inequal world.
So long as we live in a world of inequality violence will always exist in that people are motivated to live their lives the way they want to not in the way they are told by others.
I think your comparison is poor.
It’s not that intellect motivates college graduates to more pacifist existences in their lives as it has more to do with success.
I guarantee that if there was no such thing as guaranteed success upon graduating from college with a degree in some field that we would have violent so called intellectuals everywhere.
It has nothing to do with intellect has it has everything to do with success and dominance.
The only reason people are motivated into going in college is for their ambition and desire of social power or mobility.
College educations versus all other forms of non-college educated ways of living means success in this world of educational social prejudice for with education one is allowed judgement over others in creating social barriers and what not.
Infact most violence and suffering that happens in the lower classes can all be attributed to the so called higher educated class.
Inequality, disenfranchisement, and indentured servitude is handed down by the educated class from their very high ivory towers which they look down from.
Chances are if you have all the success you need in this world you are less likely to be violently motivated.
But since we live in a world where not everyone can be college educated you are going to have individuals who become desperate that will turn to violence especially since it is the college educated who make indentured servants out of non college educated people in the first place. ( Indentured servitude being existences of pure drudgery and absent of success.)
Infact we can blame all class conflict on the educated class considering that they belittle anybody lower than themselves into indentured servant jobs with the invented tautology that uneducated masses are less worthy of this and that when it comes to living within society.
( And considering that all authority is handed down by the educated class.)
Hello, Joker?
Several years ago in Iran, I remember being driven by a taxi driver. We started talking and soon before we got to my destination, he pulled out his university card,and he had a PhD. This is no isolated incident. Although unemployment is high and higher education doesn’t in any way guarantee a job, people still go. It’s a symbol of having achieved something. Of wanting to contribute to society. It’s not about economics, it’s a way of life, and it runs counter to violence because violence destabilizes society and therefore the cohesion required for academics to interact and progress.
Education is by no means a way to success, and dominance is a pretty vague word. The high school dropout can start a gang and intimidate the poor but educated man who has to live in a crappy neighborhood. I don’t see what it has to do with dominance.
And rational? You’ve posted a plethora of rhetoric stemming from pure emotion (i.e. “looking down from their high ivory towers”). How does any of it constitute rational.
I like your statistic on when violence is followed by a motive. I’d like to see the study that derived it.
Your responses (and your signature, what kind of fool champions the man who burned the scientific centers of the middle east, and built mountains of skulls with the heads of the people of cities that resisted him, the effects of which are still seen in the ruin that is Afghanistan) imply that you have an ideological obsession with anarchy and societal entropy so I’ll leave it at that.
It’s not about economics?
A way of life around what?
Centered around money, status, power and social mobility.
Noone contributes to anything without having gaining somthing in return.
Society exists solely out of violence and suffering. Society benefits from violence and suffering everyday.
There is no such thing as just power. In order for any power or authority to exist a group has to be disenfranchised as a part of the process that makes up power.
Violence protects society just look at all the wars funded by many different societies.
Yes it is. Just ask the exploited non-educated masses who are subjugated and financially exploited by the educated class.
Emotions are based upon reasons. Emotions are based upon self expirience.
And as for this mystical single narrow definition of reason which you have also described as being logic it sounds pretty baseless to me.
You are just another PC progressivist who believes that there is only one right way to think, act, and behave.
You are apart of this new global movement that seeks to create one sinlge globalized form of thought by destroying all other forms of thought because you somehow view that your single worldview is superior to all others naively describing yourselves as the new enlightened renaissance. If that is what constitutes rationality for you I personally find it to be a joke.
Two thousand years ago the first progressivists showed up in history talking about progress and two thousand years later they still talk about it but in the end what has changed beyond the change of technology when it comes to human beings themselves?
Nothing.
Show me where most forms of violence are accompanied without motives. You can’t.
Violence can be rational. We kill animals using reason and rationality to feed ourselves knowing that if we don’t murder other animal species for our personal consumption that we will starve to death. ( Example.)
Not a fan of Genghis Kahn? I don’t really care.
It was your great intellectual civilization full of scientific centers who have extincted millions of indigenous tribes around the world with your attitude of intellectual and cultural superiority.
Maybe I do have a obssession with entropic anarchy but all you folks who have ideological obssessions with government, societal control, and progress with your twisted reasoning of creating a pefect society or a future perfect master human race I feel are no better in your twisted deeply seated hypocrisies.
I’ll leave it at that.
Emotions are real. Emotions are tied to thought. Change the thought and emotions will change.
Depression is an emotion.
A vacuous and errant mind is emotional.
The Kahn’s actions were to prevent killing more than neccessary. Knowledge of such savage brute force intimidated most to surrender. The destruction of works that divided the empire were from his view a neccessary tactic. Education creates divisive societies not inclusive societies. Was it a good thing? From his and his follower’s views it was. His aproach to conquering is by today’s standards horrific but, it did work for a time. Today it is economy that does the brutal works. Education creates division of classes and creates hatred, bigotry and enslavement in certain ways. Aggression takes many forms not just violent ones.
I rather admire what the Kahn intended and achieved. It was quite a feat for that time.
Yes, the policy of mass slaughter was the rational result of contemplation of military strategy by a rational overlord of nomadic east asian tribes who concluded that deliberate slaughter of entire cities would result in a lower body count over the long term 
And America wages war to spread democracy
How does education create divisive societies? Do you realize that astronomy, algebra, algorithms, greek literature (including the transmission of important ideas like the Archimedes principle), and the foundations of modern medicine wouldn’t exist if not for the works of islamic scholars in the islamic golden age? Nevermind the importance of literature in bringing people together by transmitting complex experiences and feelings; these works only being created and readable by individuals who have at least a minimal amount of education.
Genghis’ approach to conquest has left a middle east that has never fully recovered economically, financially, and has areas like Afghanistan that are deprived of any sense of extra-religious culture because of the utter destruction sanctioned by this man. How is the burning of vast libraries, books, the large scale murder of scientists and all kinds of hapless civilians a wonderful feat? How is Afghanistan, having remained relatively static since that time, a historical relic? A historical feat is theater, city piping, a sewage system, roads, relative guarantee of safety for citizens, encouragement of trade, an efficient tax system, a monopoly on arms, etc etc.
Are you really comparing education to mass devastation, slaughter, rape, and a general stagnation that has lasted since?
Education creates enslavement? Were the pre islamic arabs who practiced slavery educated? They didn’t even have a written set of grammar (I hope you didn’t mean that an educated person is “enslaved”, because that would be silly beyond debate). The Romans considered everyone else barbarian. Was it because of their high educational standards? Class division? There’s only two classes in a pre industrial society. I’m really speechless, what kind of education are you even referring to?
If that is speechless I would love to see it when you are feeling chatty.
Would you not say that an education in a poor inner city school is far different than an education in a wealthy upper class school?
yeah haha, i’m so silly. This is me being silly: 
Look I’m a banana. You’ve got me being wrong again, argh. This is me being wrong: 
Damnit. This is me thinking ‘damnit’: ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
These emoticons have really enriched our discussion with expression, improving my ability to communicate my feelings with you while your funny comments continue to add substance to an otherwise baseless and empty discussion.
You’ve already identified the cause of the difference as economics.
I’m still failing to see the connection between education and rape/slaughter/pillage, and how a skilled society creates a worse class gap than an agricultural based economy of farmers and landowners.
In an agrarian society every one works to survive, there is little chance of civil unrest you work , you don’t have time to be disenfranchised or think about how bad you have it. You work side by side with people you know. Now in a “skilled society” education and jobs are more competitive. competition and lack of jobs or property and too much time to be miserable creates unrest. usually stupid unrest. Riots are a good example of stupid unrest. Riots usually destroy the rioters proerety and not the property of the peoples that are the “cause”. This is generally due to lack of a competent leader. The Rodney King race riots are a perfect example of this. Anger towards a group led to a riot that ruined the rioters homes. Stupid. But riots are dangerous to a skilled society in that it if not controlled will cause a civil war. Riots are part of a civil war beginning. You look back at agrarian societies through history you don’t see a whole lot of riots. Everyone generally has the same things.
When we educate and gain varied skills and levels of classes we create the potential for rebellion, some one always wants what others have. When you are raised a slave and know nothing else you do not realize that there is something else unless you become educated and learn about freedom.
Have you never met a child that has never seen your color of skin before? Its an interesting experience. They suddenly realize there is something different. Something they are not and can not ever be or have.
Wars historically do not start on farms, they start in the cities.
Now Socialism tries to do exaclty what the Kahn tried. Except they tend to be less bloody, sometimes. But Socialism cannot ever truly work. Its impossible because it requires education of different levels. The human factor screws it up, or I should say the human social factor screws it up. We can’t all make shoes, or pick up garbage or defend or decide or make food. Someone has to do the dirty work and someone gets to do the easy work.
I think in every historical society there is competition and unrest however saying that society overtime as it advances creates even more competition then there was previously where there comes to be even more forms of civil unrest I believe isn’t too much of a long shot to say.
Nice post.
Nice.
Rural areas are subjugated and controlled by urban centers.
Now the socialist political system is comparable to Genghis’ destruction campaign as well?! Only in America would anyone ever be able to assert such baseless fantastical comparisons.
You’ve made several posts so far towards your original claim that education is divisive, that socialism and a skilled society are all forms of aggression and violence, and that they are comparable with the savagery of the Mongol horde. I can’t see any coherent argument set, you just seem to be making random references. War exists with or without education. Riots exist with or without education. Revolutions exist without education. In fact, the revolutions that come to my mind, the French/Russian/Iranian in 1979, were all successful because they had ground level support from the poor and uneducated. The global financial system nearly collapsed, yet you don’t see any political breakdowns. Education isn’t the cause for greed, which is what you’re implying, and I don’t even know why I should need to state that. I don’t see you taking this anywhere so this’ll be my last post regarding.
No, I never said they are forms of aggression I implied they breed aggression. Competition is aggressive is it not?
The kahn if you study his path and what he did was a form of socialism. Sure he destroyed some towns but, over all most were left in tact. The object was not to just conquer but to bring together under one equal rule. To stop competition. If you surrendered you were left alive and on you own land. You tithed or paid tax to the Kahn. The tithing or taxes were used to further the empire under one rule. Generally arrogant leaders of towns were put to death and a peasant or peasants were put in charge. Barring any reliable peasants a member of his army would be left in charge.
Socialism is supposed to remove competion it is supposed to promote one equal rule… hardly, it can’t once humans use it. Humans are competitive in certain environments. A city or large town promotes competition and breeds aggression through the education and classes of its people. If you don’t get that, I am not sure how to make it any simpler.
I have studied anthropology , sociology and history for too many years maybe. Perhaps I can’t quite grasp how to communicate how pieces of the human social beast falls together. The Kahn’s biggest mistake was not removing competition from his own people. Had he no emotions or ego he would have done that. Humans are fallible.
Not my words. You and Kriswest are the only person bringing him up in the conversation.
( As much as I admire Genghis Kahn I think he has very little to do with the current topic, don’t you think?)
I’m just trying to focus on your comment that intellect or education brings pacifism to society and that somehow the educated class is the more noble of the social classes.
Education is divisive especially in the face of the masses that are considered uneducated since it is usually the wealthy educated class that divides the uneducated class.
Education in post modern society is approval where uneducated people are met with disapproval.
Educated people tend to make more capital versus those that are considered uneducated who make bare minimums when it comes to capital.
I’m saying that any society that exists whether it’s in the past, present, or even the unknown future for that matter cannot exist without aggression and violence.
A society existing without aggression or violence is unheard of.
Wherever there is a power or authority in place there is someone being disenfranchised.
Power and authority cannot exist on it’s own without the disenfranchised.
That’s because your not listening.
I know that. I don’t believe I have said otherwise. It was you who said that education or intellect leads to pacifism.
My entire point is that the intellectual or educated class is no different from the other classes where infact they are the prime instigators of division not the virtuous pacifiers you would make them out to be.
Yes.
Yes.
In today’s post-modern world education goes hand in hand with ambition which ends up in competition.
I’m afraid my opinion differs with yours quite a bit.
Last post? That’s too bad in that I was just starting to enjoy this wonderful conversation.