Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:19:20 +1000
From: David Quinn <davidquinn-AT-ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: the sick of love


John Foster wrote:

>DQ:
>>To my mind, it is love itself which is the driving force behind all war, not
>>the belief in truth.  People become violent and go to war because they are
>>in love with various things which give them happiness and pleasure - e.g.
>>nation, land, family, religion, etc.   Being in love with these things, they
>>invariably feel a deep-seated emotional need to protect and preserve them
>>from outside threats.
>>
>>Intelligent people, on the other hand, who believe in truth and dwell in a
>>realm which is beyond love, have very little reason to ever become violent
>>or participate in war. 
>
>There are different types of love. The Swedes have not been to war for over
>350 years. Does this mean that they are above love and they do not love
>their land and their homes and whatever? No not at all. They were a neutral
>during WW2. 

To my mind, there are two possible reasons for this: either nothing has
sufficiently threatened the things they love to motivate them to want to go
to war, or else the tactics they have used so far, such as the tactic of
neutrality, have succeeded well enough in protecting their attachments.
However, because the Swedes are filled with love, as are most people, it's
clear that all this could change in an instant.   The love they possess is
like a powder keg waiting to explode.    

A thief is powerless to steal from someone who owns no possession to begin
with. 
Similarly, if a person loves nothing at all, then nothing can possibly upset
him and cause him to be violent.   Remove love and war vanishes.  


>I think you might what to contrast hate with love. War is not
>motivated by individual feelings but by nations. The Vietnam war for
>instance was fought with men who were drafted into the war. It was a bloody
>shock for most of these young men to be there...as we all know. And what
>were they there for? They had to be unless they evaded the draft and came to
>Canada, or went to university. 

They could have freely gone to prison as conscientious objectors.   But that
would have meant being mocked and abused by society for being a "coward" and
losing the respect of one's friends and one's status within the community.
So the men who decided to go to war did so in order to protect those kinds
of attachments. 


>Any nation which initiates a war against another nation  is motivated by
>hate, not love. 

A nation which initiates war is motivated in *exactly* the same way as any
nation which tries to defend itself.   Like all nations, they both want
land, wealth, and the "good life" for their citizens.   It is their love for
these things which drives nations to want to seize them from the arms of
another.  

I think what you're trying to say is that aggressor nations don't really
care for the feelings and the well-being of the people whose country they
are at war with, which is probably the case.   In other words, your point is
not that aggressor nations are motivated by hate, but rather that their love
doesn't extend wide enough to include the feelings of others. 


>In the
>face of death the only thing that saves is pure eros [lust for life], which
>is  to survive at all costs, even at the expense of someone else. That is
>not hate, it is passion for preserving life most dearest: our own. 

Adolf Hitler believed he would rather die than fail in his attempt to
conquer the world.   Such was his lust for life.    The thought of not
conquering the world was, for him, the equivalent of death.  


David Quinn