• Like
The overcoming the climb of violence and the wars in the world
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

The overcoming the climb of violence and the wars in the world

  • 45 views
Published

The debate about violence puts on the agenda the question of human nature whose topic was addressed by eminent thinkers like Raymond Aron (French sociologist and philosopher), Henri Bergson (French …

The debate about violence puts on the agenda the question of human nature whose topic was addressed by eminent thinkers like Raymond Aron (French sociologist and philosopher), Henri Bergson (French philosopher and diplomat), Hannah Arendt (German philosopher), Sigmund Freud (Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis), Carl Rogers (American pioneer of humanistic psychology), Thomas Hobbes (English political scientist, philosopher and mathematician), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Swiss philosopher and writer) and Karl Marx (German economist, philosopher, historian and political scientist), among others. Scientists and philosophers for millennia raise the following question: human nature is innate or is a product of the environment or both? It is genetically determined or by society where the human being lives or both?

Published in News & Politics
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
45
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1 THE OVERCOMING THE CLIMB OF VIOLENCE AND THE WARS IN THE WORLD Fernando Alcoforado * We live in a world that has as one of its main features to violence by man against his fellow man. The perception of many people is that violence is the predominance of instinct animal that we have on the values of civilization. This would explain the escalation of crime and war in all ages worldwide. The debate about violence puts on the agenda the question of human nature whose topic was addressed by eminent thinkers like Raymond Aron (French sociologist and philosopher), Henri Bergson (French philosopher and diplomat), Hannah Arendt (German philosopher), Sigmund Freud (Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis), Carl Rogers (American pioneer of humanistic psychology), Thomas Hobbes (English political scientist, philosopher and mathematician), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Swiss philosopher and writer) and Karl Marx (German economist, philosopher, historian and political scientist), among others. Scientists and philosophers for millennia raise the following question: human nature is innate or is a product of the environment or both? It is genetically determined or by society where the human being lives or both? Why the world becomes more violent every year? Not only is an increase in the number of armed conflicts around the globe, as the people themselves are more violent. A simple disagreement transit can end in death. Calm, sociable and seemingly normal people become, from one moment to another in cold and ruthless criminals. What accounts for this? It is not uncommon to claim that since the world began, there has always been violence between humans. It will be hard to find anyone today who does not believe this statement. And yet, it is false. In the early days of mankind there was violence that is manifested in the relations between individuals and between human communities and nations. No human being, no people of that distant time would have had the idea of attacking his fellow. Not even they would be able to, for example, to attach your neighbor's land against his will, by means of brute force. It's hard trying to draw a parallel between the ways of life of human beings of that time with humanity today. At that time, living in peace and harmony with his fellow humans was for something as natural as breathing, eating and sleeping. Humans have lived on Earth, without offending or mistreat each other, much less war against each other. This, however, was long ago. No record this time we got to the present and, therefore, it is assumed that this situation did not exist. According to Raymond Aron (1962), as a man's life is organized in families and in groups, the less likely they could look exactly the bellicose behavior [ARON, Raymond. Paz e Guerra entre as nações (Peace and War among nations). Editora Universidade de Brasília, 1962]. Most animals fighting, but they are rare species that practice war, understood as collective and organized. Aron says that war is the clash of organized behaviors, a trial of strength between "teams", each of which intending outsmart the other by multiplying the force of each combatant by the discipline of the set. In this sense, the war cannot be earlier than the formation of teams, social phenomenon that implies the existence of society. Let's meet in Sumer the first evidence of troops with military training. Homo sapiens appeared about 600,000 years. The Neolithic revolution, agriculture and animal husbandry dating back some 10,000 years. Civilizations or complex societies
  • 2. 2 arose about 6,000 years. This means that the period is termed historic one hundredth of the total duration of the existence of humanity on planet Earth. Aron says that no anthropologist has ever found any evidence that the men had drawn up an organization or a combat tactic before Bronze Age (3300BC to 1300-700 BC). Not surprisingly, the first indisputable evidence of armies and war date back to the Bronze Age that is a period of civilization which occurred the development of this alloy resulting from mixing copper with tin. As to the first humans would be inconceivable the idea of causing any harm to his fellow today, sounds like illusion, fantasy, the idea of a world without conflict, because we consider violence as a characteristic of human beings. One can speculate whether there would have been a good, short, intermediate phase between the many millennia during which the man lived under the threat of wild beasts and the period in which the threat to your safety has to originate in other men. It would be a time when men possessed sufficient for defense against wild beasts and no engagement in the pursuit of wealth and the class struggles, achievements and areas technical means. It is shown that small companies without metal tools, insulated, not show characteristic features of warlike societies. Raymond Aron says in his above-mentioned work that biologists call aggressiveness propensity of an animal to attack another of the same species or different species. In most species (but not all) individuals fighting among themselves. Some are not aggressive (ie, do not take the initiative to strike), but defend themselves when attacked. Among primates, man is in the bottom of the scale of aggressiveness. While animal, is relatively combative. In other words, just a bit heavy incentive to get man to trigger aggression. Aron says that among the higher vertebrates, the groups often manifest aggressiveness with respect to individuals who do not belong to their community. In humans, however, the manifestations of aggression are inseparable from collective life. Even when it comes from the reaction of one individual against another, the aggressiveness is influenced in many ways by the social context. The emergence of a specifically social existence was not the only cause of the new dimensions that took the phenomenon of aggression: the frustration and inadequacy resulting from aggressive reaction are the most important fact in human relations. Aron is defender of the thesis that frustration is a psychic experience, revealed by consciousness. All individuals feel frustration since childhood. The frustration is above all the experience of deprivation, ie a desired good and not achieved, oppression felt painfully. The chain of causation that leads to emotions or acts of aggression always originates from an external phenomenon. There is no physiological evidence that there is a spontaneous incitement to fight, originated in the body of the individual. Physical aggression and the will to destroy not the only possible reaction to frustration. The difficulty in keeping the peace is more related to humanity of man than his animality. Man is the only being capable of preferring revolt to humiliation, and the truth to life. Henry Bergson, in turn, states that the source of violence and war is the existence of property, individually or collectively, and how humanity is predestined to property, by its structure, violence and war would be natural (BERGSON, Henry. Les Deux Sources de la Morale et de la Religion. French & European Pubns, 1976). People who fear the lack of food and raw materials they need consider themselves threatened by hunger and
  • 3. 3 unemployment, are capable of anything. To survive, they are ready to attack. So authentic wars, adjusted its essence born. Hannah Arendt addressed the issue of violence in his work On Violence published by Harvest Book in 1970 in which he discusses, especially with Niezstche and Bergson, about what she calls the biological justification for violence. These thinkers attribute to a natural expansionist power dimension and an inner need to grow. The violent action in this context is explained as a strategy to give new vigor to the power and stability. Arendt disputes this position, stating that "nothing could be theoretically more dangerous than the tradition of organicist thought in political affairs, by which power and violence are interpreted in biological terms. Arendt maintains that neither violence nor power are natural phenomena, ie, a manifestation of the life process, they belong to the political sphere of human affairs whose essentially human quality is guaranteed by the faculty of man to act, the ability to start something new. Arendt dismisses the organic metaphors of violence as a disease of society. The distortion of the phenomenon of violence in Hannah Arendt's refusal to join the historical process with the struggle for survival and violent death in the animal kingdom and forgo the meaning of politics as determining human. Arendt rejects assertions as Wright Mills that all politics is a struggle for power and the basic form of power is violence, of Max Weber that the domination of man by man is based on the legitimate means of violence or Bertrand de Jouvenel that war is presented as an activity that belongs to the essence of the States. Freud stresses in his work the destructive aspects of man. The need is evident, placed by Freud, in order to control and restrain the individual, because of the danger he might pose to society, which leads him to conclude that man, for he advocated, is not, socially speaking, very trustworthy. According to Freud, civilized society is perpetually threatened by disintegration because of this primary hostility of men among themselves. The culture has to resort to every possible reinforcement in order to erect barriers against the aggressive instincts of men. Facing a hostile and be as blaster, nothing more natural than the society to use its coercive power [See the article by Sonia Maria Lima Guzman entitled A natureza humana segundo Freud e Rogers (Human nature according to Freud and Rogers) posted on the website <http:/ / www.rogeriana.com / sonia / natureza.htm>]. In the article cited above, it appears that, in Carl Rogers observed the opposite of Freud's view because he believes that it is precisely in a coercive context, where the individual cannot expand, or better, upgrade your potential, which makes it hostile or antisocial. Otherwise, we have nothing to fear, because their behavior will tend to be constructive. Rogers notes that when the man is truly free to become what he is in the depths of his being, when it is free to act according to their nature as a being able to perceive things that surround him, then he clearly, heads for whole and integration. The design of a naïve view of human nature attributed to Rogers lies far from the truth because he knew that to defend themselves and moved by intense fears, and individuals may, in fact, behave incredibly destructive, immature way regressive, antisocial and harmful. Hobbes has as its central thesis about human conduct that all human beings are selfish and are willing to use others for their own benefit. Hobbes speaks of "war of everybody against everybody", the continuing struggle that would trigger if men do not live in safety and had to rely entirely on its own resources. Hobbes seeks to show that there can
  • 4. 4 be no society without government and without the sanction of the law. There would only be antagonistic to each other individuals. Hobbes compares the human life to a race in which we have to assume that no other goal or other prize unless you manage to get the first. The competition - the desire to outdo the other - is part of the fabric of our lives: that we want to achieve something at the expense of others, or want to defend what has been achieved [See the article by Roger Trigg under the title A Natureza Humana em Hobbes (Human Nature in Hobbes) posted on the website <http://qualia- esob.blogspot.com.br/2008/03/natureza-humana-em-hobbes.html>]. The central idea in Rousseau's thought is grounded in the conviction of the natural goodness of man. According to Rousseau, the mishaps of socialization away from the man himself throwing him against his neighbor. It is this transformation process that man degenerates. Because he abandons his natural instincts going to use the justice instead of mercy. The natural feelings lead men to serve the common interest, while the reason impels selfishness. To be virtuous man just follow the natural feelings more than reason. For Rousseau, socialization is the cause denaturation of man, and the best way for their degradation. The communion with nature is the only way to preserve the true essence of man. [See the article by Dalva Fatima Fulgeri entitled Conceito de natureza em Rousseau (Concept of Nature in Rousseau) posted on the website <http://www.paradigmas.com.br/parad12/p12.6.htm>). JJ Rousseau thought that wars arise, or at least expanded with the expansion of communities and class inequality and individual ownership are linked to the wars of conquest and domination by warriors. Could not be otherwise, since the political units were forged for combat and the price of victory was always the land, slaves and precious metals. For Marx, featuring the man is not only rationality, but the fact of being the architect of their own development. Humans are able to change the world around them and in so doing, change themselves [See the article A Natureza do Homem Segundo Karl Marx (The Nature of Man According to Karl Marx) posted on the website <http://nomosofia.blogspot.com.br/2011/10/natureza-do-homem-segundo-karl- marx.html>). Marx presented a definition of the essence of human nature in Philosophical Manuscripts, featuring humans as free and conscious activity, in contrast to the nature of the beast [See the article by Nildo Viana entitled A Renovação da Psicanálise por Erich Fromm (Renewing Psychoanalysis by Erich Fromm) posted on the website <http://br.monografias.com/trabalhos914/renovacao-psicanalise- fromm/renovacao-psicanalise-fromm.shtml>). Marx argues that social conflicts result from the division of society into classes with the emergence of private property to replace the collective ownership of the means of production prevailing in primitive societies. From the foregoing, it appears that Aron defends the thesis that aggression is influenced in many ways by the social context, Bergson says that the origin of violence and war is the existence of property, individually or collectively, Arendt argues that neither violence nor power are natural phenomena, ie, a manifestation of the vital process which belong to the political realm of human affairs, Freud and Hobbes converge in their thoughts in considering the aggressive instincts of man and the need for coercion to repress them. The pessimistic view of Freud and Hobbes is contrasted with that of Carl Rogers who states that only in an enforcement context man becomes hostile or antisocial, and that no coercion he will tend to be constructive. Rousseau has as its central idea the conviction of the natural goodness of man and that society is the degenerative throwing him against his neighbor. Marx asserts that man is the architect
  • 5. 5 of their own development and that humans are capable of changing the world around them and in so doing, change themselves. In summary, it is quite clear that the existence of a society based on social justice, the antithesis inhuman capitalist system in place can make humans have constructive behavior and are able to change the world around them and in doing so, change themselves. This is the way to combat the violence that increasingly contributes to social disintegration of the world in which we live. To make humans have constructive behavior and are able to change the world around them, it´s necessary to educate them. Kant, the philosopher thus comprises education: developing in individual all the perfection of which he is susceptible. This is the goal of education. Pestalozzi, the consummate pedagogue, says that education is progressively developing the spiritual faculties of man. John Locke, great preceptor, expressed on the matter this way that is to educate straight spirits willing, at all times, not to do something that is not consistent with the dignity and excellence of a sensible creature. Lessing, authority no less illustrious, compares the work of education to the work of revelation, and says that education determines and accelerates progress and the betterment of man. Combating violence in the world will only be victorious with the education of all human beings in all corners of the earth in order that, by this means, to gain awareness of the world they live in, to be organized in each country and across the world, to carry out the political, economic and social changes necessary to eliminate social inequalities and barriers to political, economic, social and environmental development in their respective countries. In parallel with the effort of education of all human beings, it´s necessary to the humanity to fight to provide as urgently as possible tools necessary to take control of their destiny and put in place a democratic governance of the world. This is the only means of survival of the human species and to halt the decay of humanity manifested in rampant violence as that which occurs in the moment between Israelis and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. There is no other means of ensuring the interests of humanity and of all nations, of all forms of life and future generations. Democratic governance of the world does not replace the governments of each nation. Your role would be to build the governance of the economy and the global environment and the maintenance of world peace. Through it would be pursued to defend the general interests of the planet. She would ensure towards each State to respect the rights of each citizen of the world seeking to prevent the spread of global systemic risks of economic and environmental nature. She would avoid the empire of one and anarchy of all the countries as it does at the moment. A democratic governance of the world with these characteristics can only result from a consensus among all peoples and nations of the world. The preservation of peace is the first task of any new form of global governance. Tomorrow, who will rule the world? No one, probably, if nothing is done to build global governance. And this is the worst scenario. However, world economic, financial, ecological, social and political crises and the development of illegal and criminal activities today show the urgent need for global governance. Humanity must understand that it has everything to gain by joining in a democratic governance around the world representing the interests of nations, including the most powerful, controlling the world in its entirety, in time and space. The new world order must be built to organize not only the relations between men on Earth, but also their relationship with nature. It is necessary, therefore, that a planetary social contract that provides for economic and social development and the rational use
  • 6. 6 of the resources of nature for the benefit of all mankind, is produced. The building of a new world order based on these principles is urgent. This government will be a day even happens after a gigantic economic or environmental disaster. It is urgent to think about it to stop the violence and wars that proliferate around the world. * Fernando Alcoforado , member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor of Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, a university professor and consultant in strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona, http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development-The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (P&A Gráfica e Editora, Salvador, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011) and Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), among others.