4 Answers

  1. War, as well as other large-scale social cataclysms, is caused by the unsatisfied collective Ego of one of the parties to the future conflict or of all mankind. If this Ego does not realize its creative potential and does not release positive energy, which in this case gradually turns into destructive, then in the future it requires complete or almost complete rebirth through unconscious self-denial. Whatever success this side might have had at the beginning of the cataclysm, it is bound to fail by definition.

    Usually, war is embodied through leaders who mistakenly think of themselves as an” elite ” above the rules of the game, but in reality they are a complete product of the implicative level of the collective Ego, its tool, and often share its fate in the most severe form.

    Conclusion: war is an omission of elites unable to stay above the rules of the game.

  2. War is a way to satisfy the ambitions of a very specific group of people. The ambition to get more power, more money, more fame – it doesn't matter. Although, first of all, money, of course.
    There are exactly the same mechanisms as the gopota, only on a large scale.

    The top of the government gets nishtyaki, the bottom of the country dies to prove that their government is right.

    That's why I love Switzerland. Never participates in wars in any role, but has a very strong army. But it also focuses on developing the economy in other ways.

  3. “If the word is powerless, then the stick will not help.” Let's draw an analogy with the belt in parenting. It is necessary to have a small potential of intellectual activity in order not to have other ideas about the methods of educational influence, but to limit yourself only to the transition to the individual and to the use of physical influence.

    So in politics, war is the ultimate loss of sanity. repression of dissidents should also be considered a war. “A free society is one in which it is not dangerous to say unpopular things.”

  4. If you look at war from the point of view of psychology and biology, then the same Freud saw in it a manifestation of the so-called death instinct, which arises, as Wikipedia tells us:

    “Due to the dissatisfaction of basic biological needs (the need for reproduction, in programs of social and property self-affirmation, increasing hierarchical status), which leads to inhibition of metabolism, hormonal emission and immune activity, leading to a permanent depressive mental status due to an endorphin-enkephalin imbalance of brain neurochemistry).”

    At the same time, he considered the reasons for the war only”packaging”. But he did not rule out that with the cultural development of society, wars should come to naught, because he believed that instincts can change under the influence of exogenous (external) factors. Nevertheless, the development of science has shown that instincts are unchangeable and are passed on unchanged from generation to generation, therefore no development of culture will make them disappear.

    But this is psychology. As for biology, Konrad Lorenz, studying aggression and its mechanisms, deduced that it tends to arise inside an individual and gradually accumulate, and then go either directly to the stimulus, or to inanimate objects and weaker individuals in the absence of the stimulus.

    Most often, aggression is associated with fear, and the stronger the fear, the higher the aggressiveness.This is why animals have so-called intent demonstration programs, where one individual clearly threatens another by demonstrating “weapons”. In very many cases, showing a threat is enough to avoid a fight, so developing aggressive behavior that includes a lot of threats and frightening actions is useful for the species.

    And here we smoothly come to the fact that man belongs to species with a high degree of aggressiveness, and then there is a problem, because of which we will have to make a retreat again.

    Different species have different “weapons”, for some it allows you to fight back elementary, and for some it is deadly. Just remember the poisonous insects and snakes.

    But there is one THING (!), because in most of these species, natural selection has developed a ban on using “weapons” in intraspecific skirmishes, which zoologists call “natural morality”.

    Animals with serious “weapons” stop fighting if one of the opponents is tired. A tired individual, as a rule, changes its position, hides its “weapons” and is exposed to the enemy under attack. In another individual, a “moral ban” is triggered, anger disappears, and the “last blow” is replaced by a demonstration of superiority over the defeated individual.

    The aforementioned Konrad Lorenz , in turn, deduced the regularity of moral prohibitions and the power of weapons. Thus: heavily armed species have strong morale, while weakly armed species have weak morale. Since the latter can not cause serious damage to their opponents, even if they fight seriously.

    And then we come back to the man. Man was originally a rather poorly armed animal. Therefore, his instinctive inhibitions and natural morals are initially weak.

    But a different BUT is connected with man (!), because over time he began to create and improve artificial weapons, gradually becoming the most armed species. But because it was an artificial process, the natural morality of the species didn't change at all.

    Here we come to another biological mechanism, namely the capacity of the biological medium. Often, even within species, there are ” friends “(elementary parents, the closest individuals) and “strangers”. With an increase in the population size and a decrease in the capacity of the environment, all individuals experience discomfort, as a result of which “their” individuals begin to fight with “strangers”, driving them out of the territory. Knowing this, we must keep in mind the above-mentioned natural morality, since in a significant part of animals this struggle does not end in mass murder due to the operation of natural prohibitions.

    Based on all of the above and the quotes you provided.
    War is by no means a great delusion of political thinking, since the social stratifications in it, most often, are a shell for lower desires, such as the struggle for territory, food, etc.
    But war is also not a biological necessity and fulfillment of the law of struggle for existence, since mass murder is rather a biological deviation due to the fact that scientific thought is much faster than natural selection, which regulates the presence of natural prohibitions in individuals.

Leave a Reply