[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:21:42 -0700
Eric wrote:
World peace would by definition mean the end of war, but something
essential to the human spirit would also die. That seems to be our
ongoing human tragedy, but still a fate less tragic that world
government.
I see absolutely no reason why at some specific point in history there
should be
no wars or rumors of wars anywhere on the planet. That there will (and
must be)
wars either always and everywhere or sometimes and somewhere isn't an a priori
truth. There's no logical necessity that there must be war nor that there
cannot be a state of 'unwar.' So, Eric's claim would seem to be a contingent
one, an empirical generalization, which could well turn out to be false.
'Something essential to the human spirit' has a nice Homeric ring to
it, but one
might hope for at least one example of what this essential something is.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
