Special Feature The Radical Academy Main Menu Online Newsletter Academy Updates The M.J. Adler Archive The Dolhenty Archive Adventures in Philosophy Classic Philosophers Philosophical Critiques Philosophy Glossary Philosophy Quotations Philosophy Mini-Courses Thomas Aquinas Introductory Essays Philosophy Resources Politics Resources Religion Resources Education Resources Science Resources The Media Center Better Living Resource Center Business & Finance Resources Search Central Academy Bookstore Academy NewsStand Academy Emporium About the Academy Academy FAQs Ask the Academy Guestbook Academy Forum Calendar of Events Subscribe to Ezine Give Us Feedback Tell A Friend About Us Votecaster Cartoons & Comics Academy Chatroom
ASK THE ACADEMY Better Living Resource Center Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs Ask the Academy Main Index
Click Here for New & Used College Textbooks at Discount Prices Click Here for College Education Information & Study Resources Shop Amazon Stores in the Radical Academy Bookstore Magazine Outlet Music Store Classical Music Store Video Store DVD Store Computer Store Camera & Photo Store Computer/Video Games Software Store Musical Instruments Outlet Store Cellular Phones Toys & Games Tools & Hardware Automotive Store Outdoor Living Consumer Electronics Home & Garden Kitchen & Housewares Baby Superstore Apparel & Accessories Gourmet Food Grocery Store Sporting Goods Jewelry & Watches Health & Personal Care Beauty Store		Posted April 10, 2006 The following question was submitted by John of West Australia: "Is Peace possible?" Dr. Dolhenty replies. Dear John, I am going to assume that by your question -- and with the term "Peace" capitalized -- that you mean "Is Universal (or World) Peace Possible?" Otherwise, your question would be rather simplistic -- limited only to individual events or domestic situations -- and not worthy of a lengthy discussion. So, with that in mind, let me reply to your question from my point of view, with, of course, the understanding that I am not the Oracle of Delphi and do not claim to be able to predict the future. Is Peace possible? Well, of course it is "possible." Is it likely or probable? I would have to say, on the basis of the historical record of humankind to date, that the answer is probably "No." (See the note at the end of this reply.) And this response is grounded on a few important facts as I accept them. First: Human beings are, in my considered opinion, essentially, as Aristotle says, "rational" animals. But the term "rational" as used in this context simply means that human beings have the "capability" to be rational, that is, to "reason" and be involved in "intellectual" and "abstract" activity in practical affairs. It does not mean they will always (or even mostly) be "reasonable" or "rational" or act "intelligently." It means we have the "potentiality" to act thusly. We do not, in fact, always (some might say mostly) act in this manner. Second: Human beings possess "free will." Although some philosophers (and "scientific" psychologists) maintain that we are not "free" and are "determined" regarding our behavior, this particular position is not supported by any scientific evidence nor is it affirmed by any "introspective" analysis. Third: Human beings do have "appetites." This simply means we are subject to various "feelings" and "emotions" and so forth, which may "influence" the choices or decisions we make. There is nothing mysterious about this and we all, I think, recognize this. Our "free will," in other words, may be influenced by, even "determined" by in some cases, the various "forces" of feelings and emotions we experience at the point we are making a choice or determination. So, in dealing with the present problem, I will take for granted three things: (1) Human beings have the "capacity" to be "rational," but may not always act that way. (2) Human beings do possess something called a "free-will" and/or express what might be called "intentionality." (3) Human beings, in their operations, may be influenced by internal or external forces which may have an affect the choices they make, but we still can make "free" choices nevertheless. I think, from a commonsense viewpoint, few people would deny any or all of the above statements. (With exception, of course, those few isolated philosophers and scientists who are bound and "determined" to promote their agenda of metaphysical materialism and philosophical determinism.) Now, with all this in mind, let's get back to the question you asked: "Is Peace possible?" We have somewhere between five to six thousand years of historical records to draw on regarding human beings and their activities. Looking at this record in its totality, it appears there have been few, if any, periods of "peace" (in the ordinary and universal sense) on the face of this earth. Human beings have warred on other human beings from time out of memory, or at least it appears. Read the Old Testament scriptures. Read early Greek literature and histories. Read the early Roman writers. Study the Medieval documents regarding the Crusades and the wars of religion. Look at the period of the so-called European "Enlightenment." Peruse the history of the 19th century. And, above all, consider the 20th century, which exhibits humankind at its worst. For Americans, one war in the 19th century is a case at point: The War between the States (otherwise known as the "Civil War" which some argue it was not). More Americans killed on the battlefield than in any war before or since. All in the name of "politics," I may add. Not a religious war at all, but a war about politics. Actually a war over differing ideologies (I wonder if that made a real difference to the dead soldiers at Gettysburg). In the 20th century, a few specific cases at point: World War I: The "Great War"; "The war to make the world "safe for democracy" according to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Tens of millions killed, both military and civilian, and the cities and the countryside of Europe devastated. The treaty signed at the end of this end directly resulted in (just over 20 years later)... World War II: The "Fascist Scourge"; Again, tens of millions killed, both military and civilian, and billions of dollars of property damage, and the "Holocaust" and millions of "displaced persons." Then, of course, came the various "conflicts": Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc. These were not "wars" per se because they had not been "declared" such (funny, how words can be manipulated!). Still the same, thousands of dead soldiers and civilians, all in the name of a "military solution" to bring about "world peace." The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. Aside from the wars and "conflicts" mentioned above, we had: Joseph Stalin: One of the most horrible tyrants in world history. His "communism" (lauded by so many Americans in the 1930s and 40s, particularly those in the media, as the "perfect" society) was responsible for the death of tens of millions of innocent individuals. Of course, communism as a social polity failed and imploded in 1989-90 but the current crop of pro-Marxist apologists are blind to that fact! Adolf Hitler: Next to Stalin, the third worst. I say this, because in spite of the fact that Nazism is considered by many to be so terrible (and it was!), Hitler was still not responsible for as many military and civilian deaths as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong on the behalf of "Communism." Eventually the news media, academics, and revisionist historians will catch up to this fact (but considering the state of the American media today, maybe not). Mao Zedong: Next to Stalin, the second worst. I say this, because in spite of the propaganda you hear to the contrary, Mao's communist regime was responsible for more civilian deaths than even Hitler (which is why Mao is number two). Mao admitted, for instance, that 800,000 people were "liquidated" in just the first five years of the "People's" Republic of China (even Hitler didn't match this claim!). Pol Pot: Creator of the "killing fields" in Cambodia. An estimated two million (out of a total population of seven million) died as a result of the "socialist" Khmer Rouge's policies, through killing, hunger, and abuse. Recently, new evidence has prompted higher estimates. So much for the beneficence of "socialism." Rwanda, Africa: Dateline 1994 -- In the course of 100 days, 800,000 people were slaughtered, while the international community failed to intervene to prevent this genocide. Saddam Hussein's Iraq: Ask the Kurds about this! I could, of course, go on to other areas of the world, such as the Balkans and North Korea. But I think the above examples make my point. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of the world. And none -- emphasize none -- of this activity was the result of "religious" conflict, but of "politics" and government ("democide" -- that is, murder by government -- see Power Kills, the website run by Dr. Rudy Rummel who keeps upping the figures of death by government as his research progresses). [Note: I make a point about "religion" here, because so many of the misinformed have thought most of the wars in history and most of the civilian deaths were due to religious conflicts. This is not true. Compared to murder by politics and government, religious murders pale in comparison.] So, is "Peace" possible? Let's briefly consider another dimension: International organizations, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations whose purpose was to bring about "peace." To wit: The League of Nations grew out of World War I and was the brainchild, more or less, of President Woodrow Wilson (a former political science professor who had absolutely no understanding of political science). The first thing one needs to know is that the United States never became a member of this organization and the second thing one needs to know is that it was an abysmal failure. Of course, it disappeared from the world stage, never to be seen again. The United Nations grew out of World War II and was the brainchild, again, of the president of the United States. It still exists. The United States did become a member and its headquarters are on American soil. It is also an illusion in so far as it has not brought about its intended purpose -- "World Peace" -- after more than 60 years to do so, and it cannot even implement policies to stop genocide, democide, or any other 'cide. In fact (although some may argue this point), it has been a disaster. When it can occur (or even be contemplated) that the worst human-rights violators on the face of the earth can be voted on to the "Human Rights" Commission of the U.N., then one can only conclude the whole thing is some sort of cosmic joke. So, is "Peace" possible? As I said before, anything (with obvious qualifications) is "possible." But world peace, that is, a state of peace or nonaggression between or among international political entities is highly unlikely and improbable. Human beings are subject to all sorts of "flaws," including: Nationalism (my country right or wrong); Cultural absolutism (my society has the only true moral precepts); Imperialism (my nation has to dominate you to set you straight); Racism (you are inferior to us); Envy & Jealousy (you have what we want); And a multitude of other "feelings" and "emotions" too numerous to state here (oh, well, think about the so-called "seven deadly sins" and I think you'll get the idea). Now consider this: The 17th & 18th Enlightenment European thinkers promoted a doctrine of "Progress" and the "Perfectibility of Man." This, so far, has been shown to be a failed program (except, of course, for the development of empirical science and the technology which permits us to develop weapons of mass destruction!). The Communists in the 20th century tried to bring about the realization of the "Soviet Man," the "perfect" individual who would replace "competition" with "cooperation" and accept the concept that "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs." This, so far, has been shown to be a failed program. The Nazis in the 20th century were dedicated to the creation of the "Perfect" Aryan, the "Perfect" race, and the thousand-year Reich. Blue-eyes, blond-hair, and all that jazz, and horrific experiments on human beings by Dr. Mengele, et. al. And what happened to that utopian dream. Dateline: Berlin 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide and the Third Reich goes down the drain. I could go on and on. I don't think I need to. I hope the point has been made. As long as human beings are human beings, they will always be subject to the feelings and emotions which impel them to act in ways which we consider "inhuman." Unfortunately, being "inhuman" is being all too "human." John, I wish I could reply to your question in a more positive manner. But I cannot. I try not to be pessimistic about this sort of situation but, in my considered opinion, human beings (or human societies) are not becoming "better" in the sense of becoming more peaceful, or nonagressive, or tolerant. In fact, in light of what is going on right now in the world, I think the opposite. I hope I am wrong, but international events speak for themselves. Is "Peace" possible? Of course, it is possible. Is it likely or probable? I think not. The historical record speaks for itself, both in antiquity and in so-called "modern" times. Note: One of our great historians wrote this in his essay "History and War," which appears in his book The Lessons of History: War is one of the constants of history, and has not diminished with civilization or democracy. In the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war. This historian was Will Durant who, along with his wife Ariel, wrote a famous series of histories of civilization and Will, himself, is the author of the very famous Story of Philosophy (which has never been out of print). The Lessons of History, by the way, is only available new in an audio edition at the time of this writing. It is worth having in your personal library. Best regards, Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. President, Center for Applied Philosophy Postscript: John follows up with another e-mail to me... Thank you for your reply to my question "Is Peace Possible"? You have focused on the question of peace between humans. Probably more important is living at peace and harmony with our environment. The damage humans (and their domestic animals) have caused to the environment is very extensive. In spite of Stalin and co. the numbers of humans has increased rapidly to about 6.5 billion. This increase has caused a huge reduction in the area of forest, the range of biodiversity, the area of arable land and the number of rivers and underground water suppies which contain drinkable water. The supply of many minerals and of fossil fuel is being rapidly depleted. If we do not rapidly learn to live at peace with the environment then peace between humans may well become irrelivant. In the past civilisations have disappeared due to the fact that they did not live in an environmentally sustainable way. In the past the environmental destruction has not occurred on a global scale and it has often been possible for people to move to a new area which will sustain them for a while. With the widespread increase in the spread of deserts and the rapid depletion of fresh water supplies this is no longer the case. My reply to John: John, you have raised very good points and, in general, I agree with you. This is truly an area which needs to be explored and discussed. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine... Academy Showcase Specials Ask the Academy Main Index
-- Top of Page -- [Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer] Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.