Two races of people?

It seems to me that there are two races of people.

I'll call one war makers and the other peace makers or WM and PM for short.

PMs tend to be more peaceful and they also want to live in harmony with the Earth. PMs think of the circle of life and the balance of nature and do not think of life in terms of problems that need elimination but as things that need understanding and being embraced.

Whereas WMs tend to be more war like and want everything to summit to them and if the earth doesn't suit them they change the Earth. WMs think in terms of war and the elimination of enemies and problems that are only in the way.

There seems to be an eternal struggle between the two and it seems that the WMs are winning but at the same time the Earth is being destroyed, thus everyone is losing.

I was thinking about this today and was wondering what you guys think.

 

For there to be any sort of struggle the PMs would need to be somewhat warlike.

 

This seems to be to major of an oversimplification for me to accept.
Maybe I am just warlike though

Really, neodude's already nailed this one;

But, I want to go into your hypothetical scenario a bit:
If the warring ones are winning - why is war so much less common for most of the world?
If the warring ones are winning - how come the US never uses it's stockpiles of nukes - and just blow the shit out of the middle east?
Wouldn't you say Bush or at least, much of the former administration are the warring ones?
Why didn't they blow the shit out of the middle east?
How come, so many fights are fought in the name of spreading peace?
Really, isn't that what America's overseas battles of the last two centuries been all about?
How come Abbie Hoffman could get so rowdy in the name of peace?
Where does he fit in?

 

Seems similar to the type a/b personality theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_a_personality . I like your version, it's "sexier", so to speak. Of course human personality is infinitely more complex than that, but warlike or peaceful is a great place to start. There's an extremely evident divide between the two extremes. The two extremes can't stand each other. My main problem with type theories is that they seem people as one or the other, not on a continuous spectrum.

I wonder which factors from Cattell's big 16 influence that disposition.

Warmth, emotional stability, dominance, sensitivity, and tension most importantly, in my opinion.

 

Thanks guys for your posts, like I said I was just thinking about how people view the world and how things are affected by that thinking. It wasn't a fully formed philosophy, I just thought I'd run it by you guys and see what you thought. See how many holes we could come up with and whether they could fixed or that it's just a interesting concept.

I was rereading Martian Chronicles and there were those who wanted to live in harmony with the way they found Mars to be and there were those who wanted to destroy everything Martian and make just Mars another Earth. I guess instead of PM an WM we could use changers and adapters.

The American Indians were warlike but did not feel a need to war against the earth but the Europeans felt the need to even war against the land not just the natives that they found. The Europeans were willing to make the Buffalo extinct just to defeat the the Indians, something that to the Indians was unthinkable. Not that all Europeans are like that but just an example.

PS I hate categorization of individuals because as was mentioned each individual is unique and changes from day to day but was thinking more of generalizations of how groups of mankind treat the Earth.

 

When your talking about drastic differences in ideologies you must way the cold hard facts against each other.

Way is it that they are fighting or at ends in discussion, what is the thing that they disagree on?

It's possible that both sides of the argument are wrong yes, but it is also possible that only one is factual and rationally correct.

When debating topics similar to this examples are almost a must to find the most beneficial solution to the problem at discussion, so basically I'm asking for an example of opposing ideologies that you were hinting at so that maybe the core disagrees can be found and discussed?

Anyone have any examples?

perhaps we can actually get a civil discussion going.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

I'm not entirely sure either, heh.

I assumed that your original post wasn't an attempt at a theory, just an idea. It's another good way of looking at the divide.

Sometimes I've seen people using a similar but different classification, stimulation-oriented vs thought-oriented. Stimulation oriented people need to do things in the external world to be happy and derive a lot of their pleasure from doing concrete things like, say, building something. Idea-oriented people derive more of their pleasure from their internal emotions and their thoughts.

I've also seen classical vs romantic thinking. Classical thinkers are more interested in the technical details and specifics of an idea and romantic thinkers are more interested in the idea as a whole and the emotions attached to it. Then there's extroverts and introverts and many others.

Your warlike vs. peaceful idea is another great spectrum to try and place people on. It's similar to type a/b personality theory but I think yours is effective when looking at how people go about solving challenges and problems that they have. Also, the phenomenon of looking at problems as "enemies" is very fascinating.

 

You had hinted at that there are just two idiologys at there core, people of peace and people of war.

I disagree and believe it is what they believe in that is the casue of the disagreement, there is only one race.

If Hitler had his way the world would be at peace and everyone would be a Nazi, peace is not always the answer understanding is.

 

Question for OWB - I go to a traditional Christian church though if you've read any of my post you know that I am far from a traditional Christian.

In my congregation if find it very strange that being a PM is discussed and taught and yet when outside the Sunday Sermon the people are very much WM in attitude. They jump on the war wagon and condemn anyone who objects. Bomb them out of existance is not an unusual attitude. Do you also find this?

 

Thanks for your input, like you say, it was just a half formed idea I wanted to toss around.

Although, I was somewhat familiar with the "dichotomies" you mention I wasn't thinking of them at the time and they bring "new" light to bear on the idea.

I also was thinking that looking at problems as "enemies" was an interesting line of reasoning.

 

As I was saying in this thread I was not hinting at anything, it was just an idea that had come to mind and just wanted to discuss it.

I'm not in this thread looking for any answers, just a discussion of a topic I thought was interesting and might be worth mining for ideas.

I'm sorry if you took it as some thing else.

 

Ooer, dichotomies! That's the word. I was trying to remember. Thanks you

 

Although I was hoping just to discuss the topic at hand and not bring religion into it, I will briefly say that yes many people give lip service to being Peacemakers, which is actively working to make Peace but actively work to make war instead.

 

Noooo thank you!

 

I realize that it was just an idea, I'm just saying that I don't believe it holds water because seperating people into two groups (peace and war) in my opinion would not work and doesen't hold water.

As you were just expressing an idea so was I, I didn't take it as anything you did not present it to be.

 

Thanks.

Also peace and war was not the exact separation, just a temporary label trying to get the discussion going. Feel free to use changers and adapters if you wish.

Oh, what's up with that "civil discussion" comment?

 

Seems to me you are leaving out one other race of people ... those who are neither WM nor PM.

How do they fit in this scheme?

HTML:

 

Thanx for commenting DK.

I don't know where they fit.

Do you experience that are ones that are neither WM or PM, neither changers or adapters.

If so where do you think they fit and what would call them or do you think the whole idea collapses under the weight of their existence?

Maybe "existers" but it's hard for me to see how they wouldn't have to either change things or adapt to things to exist.

But it would be easier to see that a person is neither WM or PM but still it seems they would be forced to one side or the other by the WM.

 

Why?

Why is it necessary to THINK that one who reacts to neither [war or peace] should be FORCED to one side or the other? One is defined by their actions and [ALL] actions have consequences ... WM=Bad Kamma; PM=Good Kamma; ??=Neutral Kamma.

It appears in the statement in the OP it is forgotten that even "PMs tend to ... want everything to summit to them and if the earth doesn't suit them they change the Earth". So that even PM's exhibit WM tendencies.

Which brings my question.

Why should one who does not act with war-maker (by the OP definition) tendencies nor peace-maker (by the OP definition) tendencies have to adapt any tendency at all? Seems to me the ?? is perfectly happy right where they are not interferring. Probably more happier than the peace-maker.

HTML: