Why difficult? — Brett

Well, it doesn't make sense to say that we train people to go to war. Instead of preventing it by battle-readiness.

A peace keeping force? That’s pure politics. — Brett

Good, and it's the job of generals to keep the generals of your adversary occupied with not going to war. Otherwise, I don't see any stable equilibria that could be maintained???

Though I can’t claim to be an expert. But I can’t go along with your thoughts. You haven’t really given me enough to think any differently. — Brett

I'm sorry; but, are you being intentionally difficult?

Like, do we build hydrogen bombs to ensure that we are all dead because of (conspiratorially) generals and not politicians deciding when the time is right as to when to engage in conflict?

Are you suggesting the police and military perform the same purposes? — Brett

I am. It's the delicate balance of the military (and even police) to maintain peace through adherence to some policy or line of reasoning, at least in the majority of the West.

What can I say? I guess I was lied to. But that’s not my impression, nor is it from the reading I've done. — Brett

I mean sure, it's not like we walk dogs without a leash, and the dogs of war need to have enough stress hormones and neurotransmitters circulating in their blood to even be able to send them out to wars. But, the point I mean to be getting at here, is that there's no need for saber-rattling nowadays or escalation of tentions to prevent war. It's nasty enough as it is.

(Please keep in mind, that this is different from small skirmishes or wars born out of need for defense from a threat that might grow out of proportions to control via diplomacy or even covert conflicts)

When was the last time you saw that happen? — Brett

Read military manuals or ask some officers in uniform if they seem too trigger happy, which I don't honestly think they would nod their head in approval.

If that was the theory then Britain would have waited battle ready for Hitler’s invasion? — Brett

No... the premise of WWII was that if Hitler invaded Poland, then England and France would retaliate. Nobody really thought Hitler would actually invade Poland; but, nevertheless, it happened.

How do you know that? I think they’re trained to win. — Brett

I know (a little) because I've been in the military, and if anyone in it wants to go to war for any... reason, then that's a sign of the derangement of the mind or some sort of illness.

It's the job of the military to not engage in conflict, but, to be so battle-ready that any adversary would think twice before bombing one of your home cities.

That’s not the same at all. — Brett

Are you sure?

The few soldiers I’ve spoken to, and these are special forces, want to go to a war. That’s what they trained for, not sitting around doing exercises. They want to know how they’ll do. Officers want to move up the ranks, make their mark and prove themselves. They want to be the ones to make the big move in Afghanistan, change the paradigm. — Brett

Sorry, I don't think this is accurate.

Officers are trained to prevent and limit the liability of warfare to themselves (a nation) and there subordinates, as are or moreso, generals.

So these people are always there. They want leaders to engage in a war. They’re warriors. We are not. I’m guessing by the time they reach the level of advising the President or Prime Minister they’re going to be pushing for the opportunity.

This doesn’t have to make sense. — Brett

Sorry brett, but, not much of it makes sense insofar as to say that a police officer is there to shoot and kill bad civilians.

Because the relationship to who has the power is always specific to a particular situation.
Is there to be a unified theory where being an employee is the same thing as being a nation state? — Valentinus

Sorry, I don't really understand much of this. You'll have to explain a little more to me.

Thanks.

I agree that kicking off a war that ends the planet is stupid and hopefully will not happen.

The right thing to do about that situation may not apply to all conflicts. — Valentinus

Why not?

All of our choices stick to us like glue.
How can it not be both? — Valentinus

But, war shouldn't be a choice if we both agree about its very insaneness and irrationality, should it?

That would be like, the US, and the USSR, both agreeing that the first strike is not off the table with regards to mutually assured destruction in the cold war.

My decision tree cannot wait for everything to be understood. — Valentinus

True, and why we have the Pentagon in the US or the Ministry of Defense in the UK. (Though, I don't think they need to worry much about being invaded.)

No set of Ethics will relieve one of that responsibility. — Valentinus

OK, so you state that conflict is a personal choice, yet, assume that there's some responsibility to be had in regards to it. I don't think you can have both.

If you decide to fight, you will do that.

So has it always been. — Valentinus

Sorry that I'm so quizzical; but, aren't you advocating some just-war theory assuming, that the decision is personal or made due to factors out of one's control or such?

War is a personal choice. — Valentinus

Only in a dictatorship, yes. Hence, why the world seems to like democracies?

I agree with your opinion about it as an option in an ideal sense.
But it is your choice before it is anything else. — Valentinus

Sorry, I don't understand this...

I don't have a theory to embrace that makes sense of this broad expanse of what is happening and how the participants make it real for themselves. — Valentinus

Yeah, and isn't that because war is always the worst option, although self-satisfying to some or many?

Some people I have met try stuff that may not work at all. — Valentinus

What do you mean by that?

Assuming that war is irrational and death unavoidable, I can see some merit to the idea of proposing something less than ideal, than a solution to both or more parties, yes?

Well, I did say that I cannot make a "rational" argument for war.
The Aquinas argument for a "just" war is not helpful. — Valentinus

Agreed.

But everybody decides when to fight when they fight. — Valentinus

OK, so that's interesting. How does this "decision" arise in two or more parties? When all alternatives have been exhausted? Then one has to create new alternatives, no?

Well, the US is able to wage long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so I wouldn't call war "too expensive." Ideally everyone would cooperate but in real-world circumstances this just hasn't been the case or it hasn't been possible. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, but, pretty much due to complex reasons. One was under a false premise, and the other, was due to an already prior conflict that enveloped the region and created the situation as to render a new type of warfare as relevant, being "terrorism".

War may not be rational but the end of negotiation is not necessarily irrational. — Valentinus

Really? I might be overburdening you here; but, what about the start of war can be deemed rational at all?

I guessing that half the wars have been about defence. — Brett

Yes, cold-wars, spur economic activity, yet every economist knows that a bridge will provide better returns than an a-bomb.

I don't hold such a libertarian view on the matter. It seems to me, that life happens, and we get along with it?

Very often the stated goal is national security, but there's been so many wars in history that it's impossible to account for all of the leaders motivations. Often stated motivations can't be totally trusted or they're not the whole truth. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I agree. But, the point hereabouts seems to me to be about when is war justified? Economically, it would only make sense if one were to assume some kind of absolute victory.

So, then, it's not about economics, since, everyone is preparing for war, apart from the Carribean Islands, or Ibizia.

Furthermore, the evolution of human history has deemed war too expensive, as of the recent past, to ever engage in conflict. Nuclear bombs, weapons of mass destruction utilized, bio-chemical warfare and so on...

So, what's left is cooperation, yes or what is (at least nowadays) most rational?

(Personally, I think the USA, has been dealt a hand of wonderful cards to make it so long without the need for total enveloping conflict.)

Now, one can doubt the economic sense of warfare nowadays, when the mind of the market, invisible hand or whatnot, can account for everyone? Yet, it is near certain, that humankind hasn't reached some apogee where war has been deemed irrelevant.

What I'm saying here is that you need to make a more expansive definition of rationality if you want to make your point stronger. — BitconnectCarlos

But, in what other terms can I express it in the rationale of war? The only "reason" that one can provide for war, would be economic. Yet, it isn't rational. How do you constrain rationality to account for the multitude of militaristic expansions in human history?

It’s not my place to say what I should get. Beggars can’t be choosers. I should know my place and be grateful for what I’ve got. — Noah Te Stroete

:halo:

Interestingly, the "philosophy" behind etiquette (e.x. Emily Post) has some similarities to Confucius' philosophy, such as etiquette being related to holding civilization together, though some might say it's overly "conformist" and not always applicable to real life situations (though the philosophy is that etiquette is fluid and adaptable in form, and does change with the time, though the underlying principles are universal, rather than pure "formalism" as is often stereotypically portrayed). — IvoryBlackBishop

Requires interaction though.

Personally, I liked Rawls a lot. I like Confucianism because it leads to stable outcomes, as a premise of the very philosophy.

I haven't read Jung much; but, hence what he defined as what he called as the "collective consciousness"?

Dude! There are benefits to being an American!

https://www.disabilitybenefitscenter.org/faq/disability-benefits-living-overseas

Can I Receive Disability Benefits if I am Living Overseas?

Any U.S. citizen that’s otherwise eligible for Social Security Disability (SSD) can receive benefits, even if living overseas. There are however, certain countries the Social Security Administration (SSA) cannot mail benefit checks to, and payments cannot be processed and sent to someone other than you.

I have been considering that. I'll have to see how and what to the matter.

respect your leeway, thought is a great gift. — Qwex

Freedom? I don't entirely understand the significance of this concept for those disabled. Not much I entertain my "freedom", apart from the Friday meal at McDonald's or sumthin simple like that.

How did you do that? — alcontali

Just living around here for 10 years, and putting what little energy I had to ultimately futile efforts, such as the military (USAF) and then college. None of them worked out, so I worked for a couple of years, and the last couple of years (2-3) have been on disability.

Life?

Poland seems to have a thriving economy. I wouldn't worry too much about that part. — alcontali

Yes, thinking about teaching English a little, or working in some forestry.

Pretty much no since Reagan. Not unless you are criminally insane. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, since that's true, I'm pretty much moving out of the country soon, I think and hope.

Don’t fool yourself. After six months or less you would be begging for freedom. — Noah Te Stroete

Not sure, I tend to find freedom from myself in such places. I hope I can get on something similar in Poland.

Seriously, the simplest solution is to abandon ship. It's not worth it anyway. Furthermore, why lead a shitty life if you could also lead a happy one? — alcontali

Funny that you mention that. I'm quite adamant about moving back to my hometown in Poland. I spent a good time over there, and exhausted my options in the US, and since my mental health is deteriorating, I think I might make it a permanent stay or early retirement. :halo:

On second thought, I think, quite honestly, I would have to work there too, ehh. xD

Sorry, can you explain this further?

I just read the very intro, and sorry if this has been covered;

but, has a philosophy of psychology been established or is that like some ongoing goal?

That dichotomy is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of that which is both — creativesoul

Why is that?

That's an enlightenment notion, probably due to Kant. Too much of what is human is irrational for rationality to be considered intrinsic to humanity. But that's not to say that rationality is a virtue, perhaps to be striven towards.

One might be reifying it if one were to talk of it's being extracted, divided, given away.

But attempting to define what it is to be rational does not seem to me to be reification. Being rational as, among other things, following an argument to it's logical conclusion. No reification there. — Banno

Yes, well, in isolation the reification doesn't take place wheheras if one assumes that rationalist attitude, then yes?

Not seeing it. — Banno

OK, so isn't rationality an intrinsic/abstract feature of human nature? Therefore, trying to objectify it gives rise to reification, no?

You ought take the word logical out of the OP, too. — Banno

Done.

I'm not seeing the reification. — Banno

Well, the reification arises in a self-referential manner. Does that make better sense?

Only in the title. — Banno

Fixed,

So what are your thoughts about these thoughts? More why isn't bicycle isn't fruit or something else?