NationStates Jolt Archive

Main Entry: pac•i•fism
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance


This is the first in a series of discussions around the life and work of those who opposed aggression. The goal is to discuss their particular philosophies, and the application of those philosophies. All aspects of their life and work can be discussed, and let it be said right from the beginning that no human is flawless, and we should not attempt to portray them as such.

To get us started...a quote: :p

'My pacifism is an instinctive feeling, a feeling that possesses me because the murder of men is abhorrent. My attitude is not derived from intellectual theory but is based on my deepest antipathy to every kind of cruelty and hatred.'

I find it terribly ironic that some of the theories of one of the most prominent pacifists was used to usher in the nuclear age … he would be spinnin in his grave if he knew what came of all that

I find it terribly ironic that some of the theories of one of the most prominent pacifists was used to usher in the nuclear age … he would be spinnin in his grave if he knew what came of all that
I think he had a pretty good idea of what was going to come of it:

http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm]In[/url] November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."

I think he had a pretty good idea of what was going to come of it:
I suppose he did … lol (and I was fighting over how to say the fact that he would not like the outcome … I chose the wrong expression lol)

I myself don't know that much about Einstein outside of the brief introduction to him in my high school physics course, and some quotes here and there about his political pacifism. I admire him for these things, but my hope is that through discussion, I will learn more (actively) about him, and be able to make a more informed decision about his work.

Why don't I just google him? Because I learn better THIS way:).

I find it terribly ironic that some of the theories of one of the most prominent pacifists was used to usher in the nuclear age … he would be spinnin in his grave if he knew what came of all that

...yet imagine how many more would have died without it... so he probably wouldn't be spinning in his grave.

By actually writing that letter to FDR, and encouraging the US to develop the atomic bomb BEFORE it could be developed by someone else, he's hardly a pacifist.

A real pacifist would never have subscribed to the idea of "we had better develop that hideous weapon before they do".

He probably wanted people to remember him as a pacifist, but I don't.

To get us started...a quote: :p

'My pacifism is an instinctive feeling, a feeling that possesses me because the murder of men is abhorrent. My attitude is not derived from intellectual theory but is based on my deepest antipathy to every kind of cruelty and hatred.'

Mysticism. Einstein rejects the need for reason and replaces it with 'this is right because I feel it,' which is an appeal to emotion rather than objective fact. Still, when the chips are down, just about anyone--even die hard 'pacifists' would probably fight for their life.

As a point of fact, I reject the initiation of force, rather than it's consequences. And it is derived from intellectual theory.

By actually writing that letter to FDR, and encouraging the US to develop the atomic bomb BEFORE it could be developed by someone else, he's hardly a pacifist.

A real pacifist would never have subscribed to the idea of "we had better develop that hideous weapon before they do".

He probably wanted people to remember him as a pacifist, but I don't.
In the little I've read about him lately, it seems that he truly regretted his action, and that the letter was the one thing he did that contradicted his pacifism. Are you going to judge him a pacifist by the bulk of his actions, or a non-pacifist by the singularity of this action?

...yet imagine how many more would have died without it... so he probably wouldn't be spinning in his grave.
Oh and how would more have died without nuclear ability (at all … I am not talking about if someone else got to it first)

Mysticism. Einstein rejects the need for reason and replaces it with 'this is right because I feel it,' which is an appeal to emotion rather than objective fact.
Does that make his belief system invalid?

I am sure that the worlds politicians did not think that they could or should suggest which way modern physics should go. So why did a physicist think that he knew enough about politics to suggest how that should be done?

He was entitled to his opinion, true. But why do so many people place so much faith in the political opinions of a physicist? This no more valid or justified than placing this same faith in the political opinions of a sportsman or actress.

I find it terribly ironic that some of the theories of one of the most prominent pacifists was used to usher in the nuclear age … he would be spinnin in his grave if he knew what came of all that
Actually, he wrote a letter encouraging the american government to get started on nuclear weapons. Though that was only because the germans were already working on them.

Oh and how would more have died without nuclear ability (at all … I am not talking about if someone else got to it first)

If the United States had invaded Japan to end the portion of WW 2 being fought in the Pacific, probably millions would have died.

It's hard to say, in the 60 years between then and now, how the world would have been different without nukes... but 60 years ago, they meant the difference between 6-figure casualties (rough number) and 7-figure casualties.

Actually, he wrote a letter encouraging the american government to get started on nuclear weapons. Though that was only because the germans were already working on them.
Yeah (though I was trying to imply more then one bomb … that he saw coming but the whole arms race with the US and Russia holding enough arms to completely destroy the planet many times over at the blink of an eye(specially with the advent of the ICBM delivery platform) not to mention things like backpack nukes)

I am sure that the worlds politicians did not think that they could or should suggest which way modern physics should go. So why did a physicist think that he knew enough about politics to suggest how that should be done?

He was entitled to his opinion, true. But why do so many people place so much faith in the political opinions of a physicist? This no more valid or justified than placing this same faith in the political opinions of a sportsman or actress.
He didn't involve himself terribly in politics, the only thing I know of is that he wrote the letter to FDR.

He was offered the spot of the president of Israel when it was formed, but he turned it down.

I am sure that the worlds politicians did not think that they could or should suggest which way modern physics should go. So why did a physicist think that he knew enough about politics to suggest how that should be done?

He was entitled to his opinion, true. But why do so many people place so much faith in the political opinions of a physicist? This no more valid or justified than placing this same faith in the political opinions of a sportsman or actress.
*rubs hands together*...just the poster I was hoping for! This thread was inspired by a number of your quotes about Albert Einstein, in fact, along the same lines as this current one. I'd never heard anyone talk about him the way you did, and it interested me.

So...do you think that politics is an esoteric field akin to physics? Must you be specially trained and educated to become political? (I'm not implying anything here, I'm actually intrigued by this implication...)

In the little I've read about him lately, it seems that he truly regretted his action, and that the letter was the one thing he did that contradicted his pacifism. Are you going to judge him a pacifist by the bulk of his actions, or a non-pacifist by the singularity of this action?

Sorry, he's not a pacifist. You can't turn around after urging the building of the bomb and then say, "oh, mummy, I'm sorry! oh! I'm a pacifist now!"

If the United States had invaded Japan to end the portion of WW 2 being fought in the Pacific, probably millions would have died.

It's hard to say, in the 60 years between then and now, how the world would have been different without nukes... but 60 years ago, they meant the difference between 6-figure casualties (rough number) and 7-figure casualties.
Yeah but inventing the nuke changed the whole pace of the war … we might have felt less pressure to forge ahead right then and there if we were not worried about deploying before the Germans did

Removing the nuclear option not only changes the one instance of our application but all the people … money … and psychological weight the race to develop and deploy caused

tag. good thread - yay pacifism :)

Yeah (though I was trying to imply more then one bomb … that he saw coming but the whole arms race with the US and Russia holding enough arms to completely destroy the planet many times over at the blink of an eye(specially with the advent of the ICBM delivery platform) not to mention things like backpack nukes)
Yes, but all he really did in terms of theory was figure out what made it happen. Mass to energy conversion was observed for some time in Germany before he figured out what was going on there.

His contribution was pretty much neutral.

Sorry, he's not a pacifist. You can't turn around after urging the building of the bomb and then say, "oh, mummy, I'm sorry! oh! I'm a pacifist now!"
He was a pacifist before he wrote the letter too. It took a hell of a lot of convincing for him to even do so in the first place. Afterwards he regretted it.

I have this question:

Did Einstein's pacifist philosophy have any impact on politics (at any level)?

tag. good thread - yay pacifism :)
Be prepared to defend that:) It's going to get dirty...

Does that make his belief system invalid?
Einstein's? Yes, but not on virtue of his pacifism alone; as I recall he once claimed 'a life lived for others is the only life worth living,' a concept which, as I'm sure you can guess, I am vigorously opposed to.

Sorry, he's not a pacifist. You can't turn around after urging the building of the bomb and then say, "oh, mummy, I'm sorry! oh! I'm a pacifist now!"
So, you do not allow for mistakes? Does one have to stay consistent throughout their whole life before you will allow them to be called *x* or *z*? If that is your take on it...who do you know of that has been consistently *x* or *z*?

He was a pacifist before he wrote the letter too. It took a hell of a lot of convincing for him to even do so in the first place. Afterwards he regretted it.

So, if I was a pacifist before I joined the Army, and killed people in combat while I was in the Army, and then got out and said, "oh, I'm a pacifist now, and I regret what I did" we should believe that?

I think not.

Yes, but all he really did in terms of theory was figure out what made it happen. Mass to energy conversion was observed for some time in Germany before he figured out what was going on there.

His contribution was pretty much neutral.
And sorry if this is not the case, again, I admit my ignorance, but did he not pursue this science in the hope that it would provide limitless energy, rather than create a weapon?

Dogmatic pacifism is flawed because war can avert many terrible acts.

Remember, if England and France had called Hitler's Czechoslovakia bluff in 1938 and attacked, the second World War would have been averted, many millions of Holocaust victims would have been spared, and there is a good possibility the Cold War could have been averted.

So, if I was a pacifist before I joined the Army, and killed people in combat while I was in the Army, and then got out and said, "oh, I'm a pacifist now, and I regret what I did" we should believe that?

I think not.
I would say you were being inconsistant, for sure.

However, it depends on how deeply you recanted your agression. As a pre-combat pacifist, you would have one worldview based on limited exposure to violence of that nature. After, you would likely have a more realistic understanding of the effects of violence, and were you to actively work against agression, I would probably take you much more seriously.

I don't believe in 'born again' philosophers...those that, as you say, 'believe', 'contradict' and 'recant' over and over again...but I DO believe that people can be truly changed by their experiences. I DO believe that if a person, who was once violent, chooses to become non-violent, that they should be called a pacifist. As long as they uphold their belief systems consistantly FROM THEN ON.

The same way I would call someone a liberal, even if they crossed the floor from the conservative side...as long as they were a liberal from then on.

So, if I was a pacifist before I joined the Army, and killed people in combat while I was in the Army, and then got out and said, "oh, I'm a pacifist now, and I regret what I did" we should believe that?

I think not.
All he did was write a letter saying "look, if you don't do this, the germans will" after being convicned as such by his collegues. This is in no way like your analogy.

Sorry, he's not a pacifist. You can't turn around after urging the building of the bomb and then say, "oh, mummy, I'm sorry! oh! I'm a pacifist now!"
he hardly "urged" the building of the bomb... more regrettably realised the alternative would be worse in the nuclear age he had helped create (with the Nazis attempting to build their own).

damn i gotta go revise :headbang:


So...do you think that politics is an esoteric field akin to physics? Must you be specially trained and educated to become political? (I'm not implying anything here, I'm actually intrigued by this implication...)
imho anyone can hold an opinion about poltics as it's based on normative moral judgements and personal philosophy. the stronger these inner beliefs in a person, the stronger their political convicitons will be.
to deny Einstein, one of the world's undoubted genious', don't forget, his political opinions negates the opinions of absolutley everyone else in the world apart from polticians... which is a very frightening thought :p

being trained in 'politics' teaches you HOW politics works, and to an extent enables you to analyse your own political/ethical convictions, but this is something i'm sure Einstein was most capable of doing anyway. to have a political opinion (or ethical, as in the case of pacifism) doesn't require understanding of how things political structures work - that is only required when one wants to change the way these structures work ;)

Einstein's? Yes, but not on virtue of his pacifism alone; as I recall he once claimed 'a life lived for others is the only life worth living,' a concept which, as I'm sure you can guess, I am vigorously opposed to.
Wait. Are you invalidating his belief system based solely on your disagreement with it, or are you invalidating it more objectively? You can say, "I don't agree because...", but I was under the impression you were saying, "His belief system should be considered inherently flawed by everyone because..."?

*rubs hands together*...just the poster I was hoping for! This thread was inspired by a number of your quotes about Albert Einstein, in fact, along the same lines as this current one. I'd never heard anyone talk about him the way you did, and it interested me.

So...do you think that politics is an esoteric field akin to physics? Must you be specially trained and educated to become political? (I'm not implying anything here, I'm actually intrigued by this implication...)

Politics is certainly a complex field. It is the science of governing a society of humans. Now this includes many different aspects and a consideration of a wide number of apparently unrelated factors.

Take for example, pacifism. What are the consequences and limits of such a policy? Do you know? I don't. Yes you do need to have spent a lot of your life in politics or economics or sociology to be able to make balanced and reasonable political judgements. This is one of the big failings of democracy; it presumes a political knowledge and sophistication that the electorate simply don't have in general. Oh, we do our best, but it never comes out as we expect, does it?

To be a politician, all you need is to be popular, due to this failing in democracy. To be a political scientist, however, is a different thing. To claim that this policy or that policy is best, and have some basis for your claim to be justified, you need to be a political scientist.

Now we often take a celebrity from one field, and for some reason endow this celebrity with instant political knowledge and insight. Einstein is one such celebrity. He was a physicist, he concerned himself with esoteric considerations of the nature of matter. He made some bad judgements in that as he allowed his uncritical beliefs to affect his physics. As is evidenced by his famous "God doesn't play dice" statement and his insistence on a hidden variable explanation of quantum indeterminacy. Why should his judgements in a field outside of his expert knoiwledge carry any more weight than those of any other non political scientist. Most of us are experts at something or other, be it useful or not. We have our politicial opinions too. But people insist on citing Einstein's opinion as if it were in some way superior to yours or mine.

And sorry if this is not the case, again, I admit my ignorance, but did he not pursue this science in the hope that it would provide limitless energy, rather than create a weapon?
I'm not really sure.

I know more about relativity than I do nuclear stuff.

Now we often take a celebrity from one field, and for some reason endow this celebrity with instant political knowledge and insight. Einstein is one such celebrity. He was a physicist, he concerned himself with esoteric considerations of the nature of matter. He made some bad judgements in that as he allowed his uncritical beliefs to affect his physics. As is evidenced by his famous "God doesn't play dice" statement and his insistence on a hidden variable explanation of quantum indeterminacy.
Einstein was a little past his peak when that whole bit came about. It happens to even the best of scientists, they get set in their ways as they age and are unwilling to accept new theory. How do you think people reacted when the existence of ether was disproven? Not all scientists abandoned the theory, at least not willingly.

Why should his judgements in a field outside of his expert knoiwledge carry any more weight than those of any other non political scientist. Most of us are experts at something or other, be it useful or not. We have our politicial opinions too. But people insist on citing Einstein's opinion as if it were in some way superior to yours or mine.
Einstein was a smart guy, im nore ways than one.

Be prepared to defend that:) It's going to get dirty...
heh, i've been in anti-pacifism mud slinging matches before :D
usually with Drunk Commies i think...



Dogmatic pacifism is flawed because war can avert many terrible acts.

Remember, if England and France had called Hitler's Czechoslovakia bluff in 1938 and attacked, the second World War would have been averted, many millions of Holocaust victims would have been spared, and there is a good possibility the Cold War could have been averted.
indeed - act utilitarianism and all that (sorry, i'm revising for a political thought exam for tomorrow, at the mo ;))

the thing is a pacifist would believe that talks and diplomacy MUST be tried first, and if they fail then at least the moral course of action was followed, rather than the intentional harm of others. i mean look at Gandhi (i do hope there's another thread about him). his teachings and guidance lead to the suffering and even death of tens of thousands of his followers, and ultimatley his own, but it was all justified by being the morally correct course of action, in not harming others. Gandhi often said self-sacrifice was at the heart of his ideals.


but then again, as a pacifist, i think WW2 is a very special case in terms of the sheer scale of the conflict, and the potential losses of freedom, humanity and life that would have resulted in defeat, both from the war and the potential for a Holocaust lasting to this day :eek:
so, although i may be a pacifist, i would say that the rules do have to occasionally be bent for the greater good, in extreme circumstances such as this

besides i think pacifism is really an international doctrine - ALL parties should vow never to resort to war or violence, in which case dogmatic pacifism could work very well!

Einstein was a smart guy, im nore ways than one.

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that he was. This is the point I am trying to make. He has a reputation, but it is based on nothing. He was a physicist, and coincidently not even a exceptionally good physicist (when compared to Maxwell, or Bohr, or Heisenberg). He had a good imagination, and some luck in his math. As such he becomes the oracle of all wisdom? I think not.

So, if I was a pacifist before I joined the Army, and killed people in combat while I was in the Army, and then got out and said, "oh, I'm a pacifist now, and I regret what I did" we should believe that?

I think not.
If you truly were sorry and what you did ,did not match up with who you are, yes I would say you could be a pacifist (I would have more trouble taking your word on it but if your actions were generally those of pacifism I could see it). You make it sound like some flippant choice when that is not necessarily true.

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that he was. This is the point I am trying to make. He has a reputation, but it is based on nothing. He was a physicist, and coincidently not even a exceptionally good physicist (when compared to Maxwell, or Bohr, or Heisenberg). He had a good imagination, and some luck in his math. As such he becomes the oracle of all wisdom? I think not.
Not all wisdom. He neither claimed that title, nor has it been bestowed upon him. By your definition, no one who is not a career politician has any right to make political statements, and people who might listen to them are fools. Yet some of the most influential thinkers have been those who were not career politicians...who did not focus solely on the political realm. You may not like it, but their influence is undeniable.

If you truly were sorry and what you did ,did not match up with who you are, yes I would say you could be a pacifist (I would have more trouble taking your word on it but if your actions were generally those of pacifism I could see it). You make it sound like some flippant choice when that is not necessarily true.

Well, it's hard for a physicist to be judged by later actions. And we don't know if he did any further work, say, when the H-bomb was being invented.

It's not necessarily a flippant choice (although some have made that choice for politics), but it's not necessarily NOT a flippant choice.

Difficult to tell whether someone is being sincere.

but then again, as a pacifist, i think WW2 is a very special case in terms of the sheer scale of the conflict, and the potential losses of freedom, humanity and life that would have resulted in defeat, both from the war and the potential for a Holocaust lasting to this day :eek:
so, although i may be a pacifist, i would say that the rules do have to occasionally be bent for the greater good, in extreme circumstances such as this

besides i think pacifism is really an international doctrine - ALL parties should vow never to resort to war or violence, in which case dogmatic pacifism could work very well!

Pacifism is one of the few ideologies I believe that, if imposed worldwide, would do much more good than harm. I suppose that pacifism as you describe would be best because it still allows action as a last resort. It seems that knowledge of the "enemy"'s actions is necessary to determine the need for immediate military action as opposed to negotiation.

Well, it's hard for a physicist to be judged by later actions. And we don't know if he did any further work, say, when the H-bomb was being invented.

It's not necessarily a flippant choice (although some have made that choice for politics), but it's not necessarily NOT a flippant choice.

Difficult to tell whether someone is being sincere.
Defiantly … the trick is trying to figure out what he actually felt. Most of what we know about him really is his history (personal … things that don’t really cover his pacifism belief ) and his theories and works which most of the time would not really be one way or the other … they were just … discoveries

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that he was. This is the point I am trying to make. He has a reputation, but it is based on nothing. He was a physicist, and coincidently not even a exceptionally good physicist (when compared to Maxwell, or Bohr, or Heisenberg). He had a good imagination, and some luck in his math. As such he becomes the oracle of all wisdom? I think not.
Some luck i n his math? Oh my, you have never ever tried to solve the math in most general relativity problems, have you? 'cause believe me, you wouldn't say that if you had.

And no, he's not the oracle of all wisdom. Some things he said have a great deal of truth to them though.

Not all wisdom. He neither claimed that title, nor has it been bestowed upon him. By your definition, no one who is not a career politician has any right to make political statements, and people who might listen to them are fools. Yet some of the most influential thinkers have been those who were not career politicians...who did not focus solely on the political realm. You may not like it, but their influence is undeniable.

Go back and re read what I posted.

Anyone has a right to make political statements, just the relative weight of those statements should depend upon their knowledge of political science. This generally means that the opinions of politicians count no more than that of you or I as they are not normally trained in political science.

I am not denying the influence of the celebrity, I am questioning it. I have never said that people do not pay more attention to the opinion of Albert Einstein on these matters than they do to the opinion of Thomas Crapper. What I am doinfg is asking why they do this and arguing that there is no basis to do this.

I know that the majority will continue, irrationally, to give more credence to the opinion of Einstein than they do to the opinion of say the third Earl of Salisbury, but if I can persuade just a few to think about why they do this, then I will have made some difference.

Einstein's? Yes, but not on virtue of his pacifism alone; as I recall he once claimed 'a life lived for others is the only life worth living,' a concept which, as I'm sure you can guess, I am vigorously opposed to.

are you in favor of the sociopath's life, which proclaims:

The only thing important is MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME! And the rest of you can rot in hell!

?

hehe

Some luck i n his math? Oh my, you have never ever tried to solve the math in most general relativity problems, have you? 'cause believe me, you wouldn't say that if you had.

And no, he's not the oracle of all wisdom. Some things he said have a great deal of truth to them though.

Yes I have actually and I still say that. Additionally the majority of the math in both the Special and General relativity papers was developed by Marcel Grossman, not by Einstein.

Whether the things he said have some truth to them or not is not the point, (and it also depends on whether you agree with him or not.) The point is why should he have some special status in the eyes of the world for subjects outside of his speciality?

Okay...so, we have been questioning his credibility as a pacifist, and as someone who should be listened to for his political beliefs. Let's move to the concrete for a moment...what did his pacifistic beliefs actually acheive, if anything?

Wait. Are you invalidating his belief system based solely on your disagreement with it, or are you invalidating it more objectively? You can say, "I don't agree because...", but I was under the impression you were saying, "His belief system should be considered inherently flawed by everyone because..."?
I'm invalidating his belief structure because it amounts to mysticism. He admits in the opening quotation that his propensity for pacifism has no identifiable intellectual roots, ie, it is correct to him because he feels it, not because he knows it. In this context, he is failing to apply objective knowledge to his philosophy.

This isn't an endictment of pacifism, it's merely an observation that he arrived to this conclusion on false data; ie, data not perceived by his senses, rather by data that he feels or knows 'intuitively.'

I'm invalidating his belief structure because it amounts to mysticism. He admits in the opening quotation that his propensity for pacifism has no identifiable intellectual roots, ie, it is correct to him because he feels it, not because he knows it. In this context, he is failing to apply objective knowledge to his philosophy.

This isn't an endictment of pacifism, it's merely an observation that he arrived to this conclusion on false data; ie, data not perceived by his senses, rather by data that he feels or knows 'intuitively.'
You're making that judgment based on one quote? Wow. I didn't think it possible to sum up a person's entire belief system and how they arrived at it in one quote, but I guess it's there...*slaps the sarcasm bug away*...

I would assume, based on his involvement in the Zionist movement, and so on...that he probably had more of a basis to his beliefs than "mysticism".

Hey, I thought this was interesting...

Active in Jewish causes he was offered the Precidency of the State of Israel, but declined, “being deeply touched by the offer but not suited for the position.”

So...if he'd accepted, THEN would he be justified in speaking out about his beliefs and having others listen to him?

Please try and grasp the difference between a student of political science and a politician.
On political matters the opinions of politicians only matter because we grant them power. It does not make their opinions any better based than the average Joe's.

Please try and grasp the difference between a student of political science and a politician.
On political matters the opinions of politicians only matter because we grant them power. It does not make their opinions any better based than the average Joe's.
I do grasp the difference. I just don't give a damn:). A student of political science with no world experience has no more intuitive understanding of politics than a peasant in a corn field. When it comes to asking an opinion on what political changes are needed to improve corn yields, I'll skip the student.

No, their opinions aren't any better. But I question the idea that someone who studies politics has any more of a clue than the rest of us.

So, I take their opinions on a case by case basis, which I suspect the majority of us do...discarding ones that don't jive with our own beliefs, and accepting those that do. All the things we tell ourselves to the contrary, aside.

I would certainly trust the corn farming peasant to tell me what is needed to increase corn yields in his corner of the country. I would certainly trust him to tell me more than I would trust Einstein.

However if I wanted to know what affect increasing agricultural subsidies would have on the overall political situation, I would not ask the peasant. Would you?

Who would you ask? That is the core of the matter. For general political advice, who do you go to? Not for policy advice, not to decide if welfare is a desirable goal or not. But to discover what effect instituting a high level of welfare is going to have?

I would go to a political scientist. After all they are the specialists in the field.

I would certainly trust the corn farming peasant to tell me what is needed to increase corn yields in his corner of the country. I would certainly trust him to tell me more than I would trust Einstein.

However if I wanted to know what affect increasing agricultural subsidies would have on the overall political situation, I would not ask the peasant. Would you?

Who would you ask? That is the core of the matter. For general political advice, who do you go to? Not for policy advice, not to decide if welfare is a desirable goal or not. But to discover what effect instituting a high level of welfare is going to have?

I would go to a political scientist. After all they are the specialists in the field.
Ah. But I for one do not approach these people as though they are political specialists. Nor am I going to them for political advise. With someone like Einstein, or Ghandi, or any of the other pacifists I intend to dredge up, I'm looking more for an example of personal values and political action. I wouldn't necessarily want these people running my country...but I do think their ideas are important ones that need to be discussed. They simply were in the position to air those ideas more publicly than others who may have felt the same. I look to them for concrete examples o how to implement this particular philosophy in the face of situations I've never had to deal with, and it helps me consider how I may be able to implement my own philosophy in my everyday life. Much as I admire anyone who has something to teach me about life...not in a sychophantic sort of way, but rather in an appreciative sense. Which is why I stressed at the beginning that no human is flawless.

While the ideas of these people may be important in placing the issues on the agenda, they are also dangerous as they tend to be single issue thinkers.

The degree of political confusion that exists today due to the presence of so many single issue pressure groups, each of which gives the impression that their issue can be combined with any combination of other issue positions, is a major worry. There is an absence of political thought altogether. When Green is a political movement, there is a problem. The environment is just one isssue, and it needs to be considered in association and alongside many others, not isolated by itself. The same applies for pacifism, or welfarism etc.

You're making that judgment based on one quote? Wow. I didn't think it possible to sum up a person's entire belief system and how they arrived at it in one quote, but I guess it's there...*slaps the sarcasm bug away*...

I would assume, based on his involvement in the Zionist movement, and so on...that he probably had more of a basis to his beliefs than "mysticism".
Well, I think we can agree that the main basis for 'leftist' [hee hee] philosophical thought revolves around the concept of 'compassion' on some level, whether it's readily manifest and admitted to, or concealed and never directly mentioned.

Compassion is an emotion, as I've already said. Emotions are not a valid means by which we discern the nature of reality, if only for the simple fact that we cannot formulate them without ideas and perception . Emotionalism tells us that our feelings come first, more or less ignoring the fact that our senses possess a sort of primacy over them. Emotionalism tells us that a thing is right because we [i]feel that it is right, it doesn't ask us to know something is right or to use our senses or our reason to validate these actions, since emotions are the root of thought and not ideas or perception.

Things that we feel vary from person to person, things that we know are objective and not subject to change beyond basic, minor differences in interpretation.

However, I digress. I'm a bit more familiar with Einstein's philosophy than just having read the one quote; I used it as a basis for my case here because it was conveinent and it illustrated my point nicely.

While the ideas of these people may be important in placing the issues on the agenda, they are also dangerous as they tend to be single issue thinkers.

I don't see how this is dangerous. Nor do I think that someone has to have a complete political platform on every possible issue in order to do some good. We need to focus on single issues now and again to actually get some results. Spreading yourself too thin is a perfect recipe for complete burn out. We tend to focus on the issue that seems the most pressing at the time...but that doesn't mean a deeper political agenda does not exist.

It is precisely because we do not have a system in which all of human kind is focused on the same things, working towards the same goals, that we have these 'single issues' popping up all the time. Green as a political movement is not necessarily a 'problem'. Yes, Green parties begin worrying about the environment...but most of them do end up developing a further platform with that base in mind. You can still be a single-issue politician within a framework of a wider understanding of the overlap that exists.

In any case, I'd hardly call Einstein a politician. Nor would I consider his ideas on pacifism to pose any sort of 'danger'.

Well, I think we can agree that the main basis for 'leftist' [hee hee] philosophical thought revolves around the concept of 'compassion' on some level, whether it's readily manifest and admitted to, or concealed and never directly mentioned.

Compassion is an emotion, as I've already said. Emotions are not a valid means by which we discern the nature of reality, if only for the simple fact that we cannot formulate them without ideas and perception . Emotionalism tells us that our feelings come first, more or less ignoring the fact that our senses possess a sort of primacy over them. Emotionalism tells us that a thing is right because we [i]feel that it is right, it doesn't ask us to know something is right or to use our senses or our reason to validate these actions, since emotions are the root of thought and not ideas or perception.

Things that we feel vary from person to person, things that we know are objective and not subject to change beyond basic, minor differences in interpretation.

*flies straight over Sinuhue's head today...today she happens to be completely ruled by those emotions of which you speak...*

I don't see how this is dangerous. Nor do I think that someone has to have a complete political platform on every possible issue in order to do some good. We need to focus on single issues now and again to actually get some results. Spreading yourself too thin is a perfect recipe for complete burn out. We tend to focus on the issue that seems the most pressing at the time...but that doesn't mean a deeper political agenda does not exist.

It is precisely because we do not have a system in which all of human kind is focused on the same things, working towards the same goals, that we have these 'single issues' popping up all the time. Green as a political movement is not necessarily a 'problem'. Yes, Green parties begin worrying about the environment...but most of them do end up developing a further platform with that base in mind. You can still be a single-issue politician within a framework of a wider understanding of the overlap that exists.

In any case, I'd hardly call Einstein a politician. Nor would I consider his ideas on pacifism to pose any sort of 'danger'.


Can I be clear on one thing, that does not appear to have got through.

I am not criticising Einstein for his views.

I am criticising those who justify holding that view, or argue that I should hold that view because Einstein said "----".

On to single issues. The problem is that single issue groups construct the issues in such a way that the public think of them as being independent, disconnected issues. You can be Green, Opposed to Nuclear Power, want to write of the Third World debt, require fiscal responsibility from your government, prevent forest clearance in South America and support the independance of developing nations. All at the same time.
Well, sorry you can not. Some of these are mutually exclusive, others are contradictory, but they are not presented as such.

It is not a matter of having a system where everyone is directed toward the same ends. It is a matter of understanding the consequences of what you are choosing to support from amongst the plethora of issues on offer. It is a matter of creating a coherent and non contradictory set of goals. These are called political positions. There are many possible political positions, but all too often people do not adopt a position. They mix and match policies or ideas in ways that simply can not work.

Actually, I vehemently disagree with the statement that emotion or intuition are not inherently correct. Just because something cannot be proven true does not automatically mean that it is false. After all, there's a reason why it's still called the "Theory" of Relativity. It has yet to be proven. As with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, no absolute undeniable proof there either. That's what 'theory' means, actually. Scientifically, we accept many theories as being true, even though they cannot be scientifically proven. We utilize formulae that cannot even be proven. Why? Because there's a very high chance of them being true.

Someone who states that emotionally, or intuitively, they feel something is wrong can be very very right about it. There is just no evidence to support it as yet. They cannot prove it to be right, just as we cannot prove Einstein's theories.

As such, Einstein's pacifism is not created by witnessing it to be correct or even from studying the effect of pacifism on people. It is created because he strongly, morally feels that violence is wrong.

As to whether proof that pacifism is a reasonable idea politically, do we have a single pacifist government in the entire world? No. None of them are willing to try it. Even Tibet thought about defending itself when China invaded.

However, proof that non-violent means are a welcome idea runs rampant. Ask anyone whether they want to be shot, either fatally or non-fatally. Ask anyone whether they want to be struck violently with a hammer, either fatally or non-fatally. Ask anyone whether they want to be stabbed with a knife, fatally or non-fatally. Also, ask anyone if they want to be the victim of violent crime. I think you'll find that the ENTIRE world is in agreement here with a resounding NO, save for perhaps a few suicidal people and some masochists (a very small percentage). I think that pretty well proves that non-violent means would be a welcome addition to the world. That pacifism is a sound choice.

I realized I left out something in my previous post.

The reason why people consider violence as an option is because often they are quite self centered. They don't wish violence acted upon them, but WOULD act violently upon others. This is where Einstein's commentary about a life in service to others applies. If you are trying to help others, you are trying to prevent the problems that cause situations in which violence can occur. Criminal violence is often caused because of desperation. Eliminate the desperation, and those crimes go away. For example, some people become criminals because they become desperate for money, for whatever reason, and they decide to take money from someone else. This can result in a violent encounter. Remove the desperation from my example, and it is likely that the person may never have considered the criminal act. It will not work every time, but it will still work.

Life in service to others might actually reduce crime. Think about it.

Well, I think we can agree that the main basis for 'leftist' [hee hee] philosophical thought revolves around the concept of 'compassion' on some level, whether it's readily manifest and admitted to, or concealed and never directly mentioned.

Compassion is an emotion, as I've already said. Emotions are not a valid means by which we discern the nature of reality, if only for the simple fact that we cannot formulate them without ideas and perception . Emotionalism tells us that our feelings come first, more or less ignoring the fact that our senses possess a sort of primacy over them. Emotionalism tells us that a thing is right because we [i]feel that it is right, it doesn't ask us to know something is right or to use our senses or our reason to validate these actions, since emotions are the root of thought and not ideas or perception.

Things that we feel vary from person to person, things that we know are objective and not subject to change beyond basic, minor differences in interpretation.

However, I digress. I'm a bit more familiar with Einstein's philosophy than just having read the one quote; I used it as a basis for my case here because it was conveinent and it illustrated my point nicely.
i disagree. compassion and emotion may be the founding of many leftist ideals and our way of thinking, but that isn't to say that emotion is all that makes up leftist thinking. a person with even a smidge of sense will spend time thinking about and rationalising that emotional basis into a thought-out and rational set of beliefs. just becase emotion is the basis of this can't negate the whole lot.

and i say emotions, especially compassion, revulsion, anger and fear (off the top of my head) are very useful in providing a strong link beween the person and morality. a wholly unfeeling person will have fewer problems doing immoral acts than an emotional, compassionate person. emotions are thus a good (but of course not the only) basis for the forming of moral and ethical beliefs, which, as i've described above, can then be turned into rational thoughts and ideas.

I think he had a pretty good idea of what was going to come of it:
Einstein knew that the bomb he helped to develop was wrong. But he did it because the alternative was to allow Hitler to kill many more people than Roosevelt ever would.


War is an act of murder.

I realized I left out something in my previous post.

The reason why people consider violence as an option is because often they are quite self centered. They don't wish violence acted upon them, but WOULD act violently upon others. This is where Einstein's commentary about a life in service to others applies. If you are trying to help others, you are trying to prevent the problems that cause situations in which violence can occur. Criminal violence is often caused because of desperation. Eliminate the desperation, and those crimes go away. For example, some people become criminals because they become desperate for money, for whatever reason, and they decide to take money from someone else. This can result in a violent encounter. Remove the desperation from my example, and it is likely that the person may never have considered the criminal act. It will not work every time, but it will still work.

Life in service to others might actually reduce crime. Think about it.
this i agree with. compassion and empathy for others and their emotional response form the basis of pacifism (keeping on the emotion theme here...)
does for me anyway.

in the same way that you say "selfish" people do not wish to have violence acted on them, so they act violently towards others (first), this same wish to not have violence acted upon yourself can result in not wishing that painful/unpleasant emotional result to be inflicted on others - and some, who take this to the extreme, are pacifists.

even die hard 'pacifists' would probably fight for their life.

I don't think pacifism rules out self-defense.

However, proof that non-violent means are a welcome idea runs rampant. Ask anyone whether they want to be shot, either fatally or non-fatally. Ask anyone whether they want to be struck violently with a hammer, either fatally or non-fatally. Ask anyone whether they want to be stabbed with a knife, fatally or non-fatally. Also, ask anyone if they want to be the victim of violent crime. I think you'll find that the ENTIRE world is in agreement here with a resounding NO, save for perhaps a few suicidal people and some masochists (a very small percentage). I think that pretty well proves that non-violent means would be a welcome addition to the world. That pacifism is a sound choice.

If, instead of asking them whether they wish to be shot non fatally, or hit with a hammer, or stabbed, for no reason, I ask if they are willing to accept these things as the price for being able to say what they want, think what they want, teach their children according to their own ideals etc. Then the answer is a resounding YES.

Pacifism is acceptable only if you have no beliefs about the quality fo life required for life to be worthwhile. If you can accept any imposition without problem then pacifism can work for you. For me there are values that are worth suffering to obtain.

i disagree. compassion and emotion may be the founding of many leftist ideals and our way of thinking, but that isn't to say that emotion is all that makes up leftist thinking. a person with even a smidge of sense will spend time thinking about and rationalising that emotional basis into a thought-out and rational set of beliefs. just becase emotion is the basis of this can't negate the whole lot.
I didn't exactly come out and say that emotion composes the entirety of your philosophical opinions for a reason. As with any philosophy, pretty much any leftist world view does, in fact, have some manner of legitimate reasoning to it. Just coming off the top of my head with an example here would be the more or less secular beliefs of the majority of the Left [that I have seen], and to me rejection of the supernatural is perfectly rational: at least in this sense you're acknowledging that we can't come to valid conclusions about reality based on things that exist outside nature or outside of our senses. However, this logic is inconsistently applied at best, especially considering that most leftists will turn around and tell you that it is right to provide for the welfare of others because he feels it is right, he feels society's needs and makes a point of pursuing this feeling to the best of his abilities. In the same sense, the religious Right that they love to hate think the same way. There is no sensory, logical conrcrete observable or objective fact about the universe that points directly to the existence of God, thus the subject knows he is right because he feels it. Both of these viewpoints are mysticism.

When you get right down to it, the Leftist belief of providing for others has no basis in purely rational thought; there is some accuracy to it, but logic is hardly the sole predominant factor in their conclusions about the world around them. Since purely rational thought or perception is the only means we have of perceiving reality, this concept resorts to emotionalism over reason; it amounts to using second-rate equpiment to discern morality.

Long story short, whether you worship God or worship Society, you're putting something [i]above your own senses and reason; your faith lies not within but without.

and i say emotions, especially compassion, revulsion, anger and fear (off the top of my head) are very useful in providing a strong link beween the person and morality. a wholly unfeeling person will have fewer problems doing immoral acts than an emotional, compassionate person. emotions are thus a good (but of course not the only) basis for the forming of moral and ethical beliefs, which, as i've described above, can then be turned into rational thoughts and ideas.
Two things: one, emotion should not be ignored, in many cases it helps us along to form higher concepts; it's something we develop and refine as we age. Early emotions are based solely on perceptual information, but as you move through life they have more of a basis in complex concepts and a much wider range of stimuli and understanding. I beleive I've told you this before, but one casts no aspersions on eating or breathing by denying they are methods of cognition, the same applies to feeling.

However, since emotions are unquestionably subjective and vary wildly depending on circumstances or values, they cannot and should not be applied universally to a large amount of people.

Two, when you say something like "emotions are thus a good (but of course not the only) basis for the forming of moral and ethical beliefs, which, as i've described above, can then be turned into rational thoughts and ideas" you're implying that the emotion comes first, followed by the idea. This facilitates the beleif that actions cause other actions and we respond to them intrinsically, without any need for perceptual knowledge or knowledge of the concepts or ideas that underlie that particular emotion. In saying that actions cause other actions, you're eliminiating the need for entities altogether. The idea that actions cause other actions is just as incorrect in philosophy as it is in physics.

As I've stated before in numerous other places, one cannot initiate an emotional response to something without perceiving or identifying that thing to begin with. It damns the senses in favor of intuition, and it thus delegates a role to emotions that does not exist.