It’s not an inductive argument, you only want it to be. Your set of facts is that many humans regularly employ violence under certain sets of circumstances. That same set of facts also shows that many humans never employ violence on any sort of grand scale under those same set of circumstances, and regularly employ peaceful means of achieving ends. In fact the vast majority of peoples and states are not at war at any given time. If the “inductive” argument works to say that violence is inevitable, then it also works to say that peace is inevitable. Both “inductions” have the same volume and type of evidence. However, the fact is that neither of these conclusions follow from the facts without serious assumptions being interjected in between. There is nothing inductive about the argument, infact it is missing so many assumptions and premises that it isn’t even an argument at this point. It is an intuition based off of selective observation. The fact is that humans are dynamic, and so can be the situations in which they find themselves. The fact that certain humans have violent behavior under a relatively static power structure says nothing about the generalized nature of humans, it simply says how those societies react to those conditions.
Take for example, the often cited fact that no two substantive democracies have ever went to war with each other. According to what you call “induction”, this means that it is impossible for two democracies, by nature, to go to war with each other. That clearly does not follow from the premises, although many people will argue that based on values and conceptual schemes. The point is that it is not an induction or a realist argument, it is something else altogether. Or take the the classic example of pre-modern societies that didn’t even have the concept of war…
In the rest of the post, you again misrepresent and misunderstand my argument, even after I criticized you for that same misunderstanding. You cried foul when I did, yet you did the same damn thing. Like I said before, I have no interest in arguing remarkable straw-men. And I now have no interest in arguing with you who attributes the same wrong argument to me twice in a row even after being corrected. Which means I’m done with this stupidity.
I will say one last thing, though:
Then unless you claim humans are simple it doesn’t make sense to say that peace is unattainable by nature because conditions are dynamic and you only know how humans act under one general set of conditions.
the inductive argument cannot show that world peace is inevitable, as there has never been world peace - yes individual peaceful resolutions to certain conflicts are inevitable based on induction (i never said they weren’t - strawman?)- but the topic of the thread and of your original argument is world peace, which has yet to manifest, and thus cannot be induced from the evidence
you insist that i have misrepresented your arguments but you have not said how despite my repeated attempts to coax it out of you - all i get is vague allusions to previous unspecified statements and the disavowal of your only substantive point as a strawman - if you want to disavow a argument, you should offer one in its place or simply admit that you’ve been stating the obvious all along - i can only conclude that you are making shit up as you go.
finally there is no single “general set of conditions” (or if there is, it’s so vague and abstract as to be meaningless) so it makes no sense to say that i know how humans will act under only one set of conditions - conditions are variable and, as you say, dynamic, and always have been - human violence has manifested itself throuhout an broad array of possible conditions and will continueto do so - i can say that with the same certainty that i can say it will, for the indefinate future, continue to rain on occassion in Seattle.
it means that two things are understandable in the same way - if you want that way exactly defined it will take work but it can be done - the analogy is there to be drawn.
I know what you want it to mean, however the question is what does it actually mean. The answer is nothing, the statement is nonsense.
The way humans relate to there environments is functionally equivalent to weather patterns.
For starters, one is the relation between a dynamic organism and its social/physical environment, and the other is a mechanistic process. They are on different levels to begin with.
the ecology of human behavior refers to the ways in which human behaviors on various scales influence one another, and the generated social and behavioral results of those interactions - anlogous, if not equivelent, to the way climate conditions influence one another and generate results in the weather
social conditions and weather conditions, both dynamic mechanistic processes - one is simply more complex than the other - the question is one of analogous patterns and manifest results
i know you want it to be nonsense - you might ask yourself why
Given that humans are mechanistic just like weather patterns, and given that the normal human can be peaceful for it’s whole life like so many middleclass first world examples, then there is nothing a priori or otherwise preventing them from all being peaceful. Because, well, antecedent conditions to exist in which humans are mechanistically determined to be peaceful.
While they may both be mechanistic processes, they are dissimilar because one is life and the other is inanimate. This creates different functional relationships between the two and how each one relates to the other. Weather patterns relate to environment in the sense that it is the environment. Humans on the other hand relate to things in a way that promotes it’s own continuation. They are self contained, self regulating, living things. They are functionally different, and humans relation to environment and other humans reflect this difference.
Yes, an argument from the evidence always leaves open hypothetical possibility of the opposite - but, as i’ve sad, it’s a question of likelihood: 1) what is the likelihood that the contingencies under which humans survive their entire lives peacefully will be universalized to include ALL humans within their envelope? 2) In enumerating the possibility of universal peace, how does one account for the exceptions to the rule? Middle class criminals and serial killers, teenage gangs, those who channel violent impulses by joining militaries, etc. I would argue that even under middle class conditions, some violence is still, in all likelihood, inevitable. 3) I would also argue that violence is in many ways necessary to maintain the conditions under which people currently survive and have survived their entire lives peacfully as individuals - this, after all, is how violence currently becomes institutionalized - the need to protect those who choose to live peacefully with military and police.
Well, like i said, it’s a question of complexity when you introduce life to the equation - an analogy is only an analogy. But, for example, if material disparities, population densities, emotional proclivities, ideological differences all comprise environmental conditions which can interact mechanistically to produce and perpetuate violence in, say, the region of Palestine/Israel, then what prevents that from being analogous to the way various weather conditions interact in the region of Seattle to produce and perpetuate rainfall? Either way, there would need to be a drastic change in conditions and contingencies as they currently exist in order for a change in the results of those conditions to even be acheived in the first place, much less maintained - and if those conditions and contingencies arise in one particular region then it remains fully possible, and in many cases even likely that they will shift to other regions as they evolve within those other given regions. The real unlikelihood remains that conditions under which peace is acheived can ever be fully universalized throughout the world, or that conditions under which violence arises can ever be fully eliminated (just as it remains unlikely that conditions which produce rainfall will ever be forseeably erased)
so that might mean that “world peace” is simply another expression for “freedom” - as from the song - “…freedom’s just another word for ‘nothing left to lose’”.
I suppose until we do indeed realize that there is nothing left to lose - there will be no world peace. Within life, there is always something that is lost, either to someone else, or that we have to let go of. That said, perhaps world peace shall never be attained. Do we ever really let go completely?
…and, is world peace even something worth pursuing? i wonder what the Earth would be like then if there were world peace - would it be a comfortable one indeed or a boring one, would the world begin to really fall apart then. perhaps we have no conception whatsoever what 'falling apart" would really be until there was world peace.? look at the writers of the old testament - first they create a world within which there is peace - and then they decide to abolish it. Why is that I wonder - and looky where we have been ever since.
hmmm, good question though to ponder along with the other question.
Yes. Convince a superpowered demi-god to build a reactor for you, and then use that reactor’s power to bomb the world, and then blame the demi-god. People will be so scared that they won’t fight anymore. Then feel really bad and say that you feel bad, for sympathy. Feel every death, sniff sniff.
If you live in the 80’s, however, assemble a team of artists, writers, musicians and scientists and create a giant octopus-like organism, then teleport it in the middle of New York. Then imply that it’s an alien invasion gone wrong. People will be so scared that they won’t fight anymore. Then feel really bad and say that you feel bad, for sympathy. Feel every death, sniff sniff.
perhaps if we all came to move into and continued to move into what is expressed in the last four lines of your signature we might attain world peace…beautiful words…
also perhaps if we all refused to fight - like the consciencious objectors…ha, no chance of that though is there? they would probably have to put something in the water.
You just need a dictator to police everything, you know, decapitate the trouble makers, tell everyone thing like “be nice to everyone or you get locked up for life.”
It would be easy except everyone says “its un-ethical” and “everyone is entitled to their thoughts and feelings”.
I don’t think this discussion was ever about weather it is unlikely that peace is obtainable. I have been arguing against the notion that it is apriori or by nature unobtainable. Your first posts led me to believe that you were arguing for the opposite of this. Additionally, the notion that the everyday crimes of a competitive market society are unavoidable, to my view, does not address the question that we are asking. Yes children fight on playgrounds, yes people rob other people, yes the angry husband is going to come home and kill the man he finds his wife in bed with. These things, I think, while not indicative of a necessary human behavior, are a behavior that probably cannot be done away with. But all of these behaviors are contingent on antecedent social conditions, and do not have to express the idea that man is built(or whatever) in such a way that he will always be violent.
The question is not “will world peace be obtained”, the question is ‘is world peace obtainable’. The question asks us to deal with natures and a priori’s, not contingents. Yet, we can answer neither question without a large amount of assumptions.
The fact is that man is not binary like weather patterns. Humans are dynamic and the same antecedent conditions do not result in the same behavior for all humans. I find a man in bed with my wife, I might kill him, the same happens to you, you might not. Which behavior is “human nature”, which behavior should we look to understand the nature of humans. I don’t know and you don’t know - we don’t know because the evidence is two cases of binary evidence. This then this. But we are dynamic creatures, binary evidence says nothing about what we are, it says something about that binary case. - This then this, that, or the other. - These contingent cases cannot say anything about our nature unless we universalize them which requires assumptions, and it doesn’t tell us anything contingent about our species because the same antecedent conditions result in different behaviors.
I think you misapply the evidence in order to answer 1. a question that either cannot be answered by the evidence, 2. a question that isn’t interesting in the slightest. That doesn’t mean that your position is wrong, it just means that to successfully argue it, it needs different support.
world peace is of course attainable- if it were not there would be no peace whatsoever- there would be no peace in groups nor individuals- true world peace however will only be reached when everyone reaches the same level of faith in God- it may take a long time it may not- the key is to spread faith/love until it happens on the whole but nevertheless world peace is absolutely attainable. selfless love needs to be given on the whole for it to work- where everyone cares about their neighbor as much as themselves but only in the name of our higher power. if man tries to reach world peace on his own then it will never work.
Government must take down its power over man’s life. “turn the other cheek” philosophy must be practiced on the whole- but the power of government over life stops this- only as more and more individuals allow others to be free shall world peace be learned. in this way- people that are against world peace shall have no opposition - if they want to destroy others or existence or things they will be allowed and then their numbers shall fall. the value of money will completely disappear replaced by trading and sharing. knowledge will reign supreme as well as intelligence, love and happiness. those who oppose this will only be shown love and if this has a negative affect on them then they will be shown nothing simply neutrality but never negativity. they will be allowed to be monsters until their monstrous ways turn on themselves and their negative spirit crumbles. opposition must be vanished. it is hard to do this though if you are by yourself simply because by this philosophy you may end up feeling the need to help only one person simply because they continuously ask for it. under this philosophy one would help this person as long as he/she needs it even to death. therefore until there are many many people that understand this there would need to be in fact other more important things to be done or corrected in order for this ultimate philosophy to work. this ultimate philosophy would still in fact be in use while these things are being done because it is very dynamic. first i believe the value of money would either need to be eliminated or devalued greatly and poverty would need to be eliminated COMPLETELY. once this is done knowledge must be COMPLETELY free and just as easy to be attained and taught as it is to see or hear. knowledge love and happiness would then have to be the core of society for all of mankind. sexual instinct must be understood and abnormalities must be treated with knowledge of reverse sexual instinct (the understanding of how not having sex is just as pleasurable if not more than having sex with someone that shares the same amount of attraction) women must also feel free and be allowed to walk around with no shirt just as males are allowed. mental diseases must be accounted for and treated on all levels immediately. those who are not mentally capable of accounting for themselves on the levels of love knowledge and happiness as the rest of society will either be mentally cured or will be treated for their entire life unless they are completely capable of surviving efficiently in this advanced society of knowledge love and happiness. death must be understood very very well along with the understanding of God and the gift of life so that fear of death is completely eliminated for all of mankind. the devaluing of money will greatly reduce crime. the elimination of poverty will as well. they will also both bring much much more happiness and love as well as knowledge and intelligence. more diseases will be cured - death will not be a surprise because it will be fully understood and people will acknowledge the presence of their neighbors in light of their future death daily. happiness will be on a completely higher level- a much more raw feeling of love knowledge and happiness and caring for others. those that will feel the need to acknowledge their existential instincts of sex, violence, drugs, will feel comfort only in the company of others like them. they will receive no opposition and therefore feel no satisfaction from being indifferent. sexual deficiencies will be almost impossible to develop within this society and if people do grow somehow to have deficiencies that will harm the code of knowledge love and happiness they will seek the company of others such as themselves. they may go to an island that is for those that are mentally capable of living efficiently but simply do not agree with the rest of society. when looking at society in the reverse it is clear to see that the only way this ultimate image will be created is by having more and more people continue to spread knowledge love and happiness. start a self-sustaining organization in the name of knowledge love and happiness- working on the deficiencies of man such as sexual instinct, the knowledge of God and death, the best ways to be healthy and receive the right nutrients and whatever else we may discover through our technological capabilities that will contribute strictly to knowledge love and happiness. this society must be set up correctly- it must be geared in a way that produces more knowledge love and happiness than any other society to date. this society will then grow. as it grows the group of people that do not agree with knowledge love and happiness will grow less and less. the key to reaching ultimate peace is to give no opposition to the people that do not agree. we shall give no opposition to crime other than prayer. we will only show love and for people that take offense to love we will show them neutrality. as this society grows people that are against knowledge love and happiness will seek comfort of each other and this is why i say they may want to go to an island or something where they can be with each other being that this is most likely what they would want to do. nevertheless i would hope that there are no people such as this. i believe that once this society is in its full state that people with such existential deficiencies will be extinct and that having such deficiencies would be in fact similar to being insane and this is why i say that we must help those (only if they allow us of course) that have them as i said im not too sure how it would even be possible for them to develop in this type of society though. even if none of this is possible the number one thing we need to do is devalue money and eliminate world poverty.
sloth will also not be a problem because it would also be similar to being insane. with such an understanding of death and God as well as knowledge love and happiness there would of course be people that like to relax more than others but on the whole no one would be too self indulged due to the rate of society’s functioning. in the beginning it will be much like society today (meaning we right now are simply the early stages of this society) and as the majority of people realize more and more about the importance of knowledge love and happiness they will reproduce more and more of each other until existential deficiencies on the whole are extinct. then there will be world peace. another way of looking at this is to say that world peace will only be attained when EVERYONE reaches a certain intelligence level. there are many people who have and do and will live this kind of life but until it is the majority all at one time- the society will not go into utopian state. on the whole you can judge a society’s level of intelligence based on its government. a highly advanced society specializing in knowledge love and happiness would have a government unlike any government we see today. of course many of the advantages of the government today will be present then but many of them today will also not be advantages in the future being that they will be apart of society itself. in fact i would not even call it a government when looking forward in the future because there will be no governing. it will simply be there to facilitate society but not govern society. when looking at this society it will be clear that it is not only a different idea of government but a completely different way of life. a beautiful way of life that could really never be damaged. it would work as one massive body with parts dying and then healing (people’s death and birth). the way our body is working now is horrible but it is still functioning and definitely functioning much much better than it did in the past. there will be a world government for earth instead of pieces of land on earth. it will be for the planet earth. but this can only be done through the guidance of God and God alone.
Every time someone says something like that I always skip back to the Life of Brian scene where Brian is trying to get them to give up following him mindlessly:
Brian: “You don’t have to listen to me! You don’t have to listen to anyone! You’re all individuals!”
Follower: “I’m not”
Besides if you knew my thoughts and feelings you would probably ban me from them anyway.
look at the writers of the old testament - first they create a world within which there is peace - and then they decide to abolish it. Why is that I wonder - and looky where we have been ever since.
