English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you identify with being,
first,
then as being human.
With who are you in conflict?
If we left it there and added nothing where might we be?

2006-10-05 09:12:10 · 15 answers · asked by sotu 3 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

15 answers

Your first Q. is about nationalism, of course this is the glorified tribalism. Identification with the highest, knowledge, family, group, organizations, community, race, country etc.is divisive mentality Our mind set up the limitations and thereby create our enemies thereby conflict and chaos is in our environment. Our mind is afraid to give up this illusion of being exclusive we are afraid and ignorant about the wholeness of life. This insight should be discovered by each one of us, we don't have to wait for others to start we have to do it now unless you are enjoying destruction.

2006-10-05 12:20:15 · answer #1 · answered by ol's one 3 · 0 1

Tribalism is more of an us versus them extended family thing.

Nationalism is more of a "I want to be at the big boy's table and get more input" kind of thing.

You seem to have a problem with the concept of duty which only becomes confusing when you live in a society so large that your duties are to people you never meet and places you never visit, but; that you benefit from.

In a world of one, you can do as you please and there are no conflicts except with yourself and nature.

In a family, there are conflicts of a personal nature as well as those you had as an individual.

In a society, conflicts come from everyone and everywhere. The courts sit there and try and judge matters based on the law and on equity. The governments do the same, trying to mediate differences and create benefits for all concerned.

If you left everything at the point you established, you have no mediator and what you end up with is Darwin's survival of the fittest. In other word, a world preoccupied with petty conflicts, getting little done, because; nobody trusts one another, and nobody has to.

2006-10-05 17:03:35 · answer #2 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 0 0

Yes, nationalism is a form of glorified tribalism. And tribalism as a development of territorialism, and most species are territorial in order to preserve their access to sustenance. Racism is much the same, as is xenophobia. They all have the same roots in human evolution where resources were scare and people were in competition for resources. Your family were the only people you could trust not to steal your food and to co-operate with you in finding it. Tribes developed from familes, nations from tribes, etc. If you are not in competition for food because it is plentiful, then you can start to ask "With whom are you in conflict?", until then, "business is war".

2006-10-05 16:24:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

seems to me we would be wandering in a sad state if we left it there as our own needs would be first and foremost for each individual with no sense of belonging anywhere in particular. (Unless I have misunderstood your question). I think that nationalism is in a way a type of glorified tribalism and although I think it will sound unpopular, I think thats ok and better than the state you describe under the question where I think everyone could end up in confilct with everyone else as individuals rather than groups or societies.

2006-10-05 16:17:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Nothing glorfied about it. Nationalism is tribalism. And yes, a world without conflict is a wonderful idea.

2006-10-05 16:21:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't know about 'glorified', but it's a similar thing, identification with a wider group. Unbiquitous, goes with being human, I suppose.

2006-10-05 16:17:46 · answer #6 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 0 0

Sure. Its just pride in a larger entity. You aren't in conflict with anything though, as it is YOUR identity and you are free to identify and with whatever you choose.

2006-10-05 16:14:34 · answer #7 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0 0

It certainly is, and as long as there is History I'm afraid it is with us to stay. Appeals to a "common humanity" are fated to fall upon extremely stony ground. We Homo Sapiens are much more primitive than we care to admit.

2006-10-06 05:31:53 · answer #8 · answered by los 7 · 0 0

It certainly is, and I want peace and love and all that too but I also can't wait for my Vancouver Canucks to beat up on the Detroit Dead Wings tonight.

2006-10-05 16:24:13 · answer #9 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 0 0

If it were actually possible, then we would be in good shape. However, different races and cultures struggle to get on, and the evil use religion to stir up trouble. We're doomed.

2006-10-05 16:21:48 · answer #10 · answered by ALAN Q 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers