|
Originally Posted by Eclogite
It all sounds very nice, but there are issues.Insularity also allows you to ignore injustices on your own doorstep. Is this a good thing? Also, is an injustice on someone else doorstep any less of a good thing?
Not the way I read it (point one). No but how do you stop it and how do you know the cause of the situation (who started it and why)? If you listen to the arguments on both sides, all you hear is justification for actions but no conscience about the results or its effects on anybody, including the doer of the action (It felt good to kill him and I don't care if I get killed in response, reaction).
The quote implies that insularity is the only option to warmongering. This is not the case.
Firstly, pressure may appear to be external, but is always internal. We choose to acknowledge or disregard the external environment: to act, react, or be inert.
Of course the pressure is internal and it's down to what you want versus what you don't want
Secondly, and quite separately, the use of resources is likely to be the same in each instance. In some instances a rapid expenditure of energy may be more appropriate. The tactics for a sprint differ from those for a marathon.
Again, you imply that the only alternative to patience and tolerance is rash and violent action, and that rapidly applied action is by its nature rash and violent. (I concede you do not say this, but it is strongly implicit in the both the words and the sentence structure.)
Cold, calculated action would put a barrier between warring opponents (The UN) but would require implied threat of something worse to stop two sides fighting as with all policing methods. This doesn't mean I'm against it, quite the opposite. In martial arts in the Far East, the higher your skill, the less you have to do. A competition is like the kids game of first to blink or react to something your opponent does. This goes back to a thread I either initiated or contributed to about dominance behaviour in animals. The dominant male does nothing and needs not to, until his abilities start to fade. Young males fight with each other, vying for dominance because they don't know who is top dog amongst them but they all know who is the chief of the tribe for as long as he rules. This also applies to countries and I suggest you see Kagemusha, by Kurosawa as it displays brilliantly what happens when dominance is lost and order collapses (The heir to the title wants to prove himself and in his folly, wastes the resources built up over the years, destroying the peace and power his father had built - think of George Bush and his warmongering to make a name for himself or the present crisis in the Middle East (Palestine not necessarily Lebanon) brought about by new Israeli ministers wanting to make a name for themselves by proving they are tough rather than sensible.
And sometimes it is simply disgust.Do you think Western Philosophy does not advocate patience? Do you think it promotes precipitate behaviour? Do you feel Western Philosophy is a hotbed of fearful and ignorant reaction?
|
