Questions NOV 10

 K ch2; FL 43-44; The Moral Equivalent of War

1. "Anhedonia" is what?

2. What was Renouvier's definition of free will?

3. Renouvier said an individual's will could break what?

4. What must one frequently do, according to James, to establish reciprocity in a relationship?

5. "Looking on the bright side," though often not objectively warranted, is nonetheless what?

6. Why did James think most of his contemporaries would not have preferred to "expunge" the Civil War?

7. Readiness for war is the essence of what, according to General Lea?

8. James says he devoutly believes in what, and in a future that has outlawed what?

9. Non-military conscription of our "gilded youth" would do what for them, according to James?

==

Discussion Questions

• Is suffering the rule, not the exception, in the human condition? 43
• Can facing death provide an impetus to live? 46
• Why do you think so many who attempt and fail suicide say they experienced immediate regret for the attempt? 47
• What has believing in free will enabled you to do, that you couldn't or wouldn't have done otherwise? 
• Are you ever unsettled by a "psychological upturn"? 51
• Do you consider yourself fully "embodied"? 54
• Do you find anything about war "ideal, sacred, spiritual" etc.?
• Can sports function as a moral equivalent of war, at least to the extent of channeling our martial imupulses into benign forms of expression on playing fields, in harmless competition? Or do sports intensify and exacerbate the aggressive side of human nature?
• Are most politicians "pliant" like McKinley, easily "swept away" by war fever?
• Do we glorify war and millitarism excessively, in this culture? 
• "Patriotism no one thinks discreditable" (1284). True? Should we sharply distinguish patriotism from nationalism?
• What do you think of James's references to our "feminism" as a mark of weakness or lack of hardihood? 1285-6
• Instead of an army enlisted "against Nature," do you think we can muster an army in defense of nature and against anthropogenic environmental destruction?

==

FL

1. What gives Andersen "the heebie-jeebies"?

2.  What does Disneyfication denote?

3.  A third of people at theme parks are what?

4. Andersen thinks we've become more like what?

5. Andersen argues that Americans are not just exceptionally religious, but that what?

DQ

• Should we be worried or excited (both, neither?) about the future impact of "augmented reality" technologies? 395
• Does the prevalence of adults infatuated with the world of Disney indicate an increasingly infantilized public (in Susan Neiman's sense of the tern)?
• What do you think of Rhonda Byrne's Secret advice? 408

LISTEN (11.9.21). "The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party," begins James's "Moral Equivalent of War." This is no idle metaphysical dispute about squirrels and trees, it's ultimately about our collective decision as to what sort of species we intend to become. It's predicated on the very possibility of  deciding anything, of choosing and enacting one identity and way of being in the world over another. Can we be more pacifistic and mutually supportive, less belligerent and violent? Can we pull together and work cooperatively in some grand common cause that dwarfs our differences? Go to Mars and beyond with Elon, maybe? 

It's Carl Sagan's birthday today, he'd remind us that while Mars is a nice place to visit we wouldn't probably want to live there. Here, on this "mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam," is where we must make our stand. Here, on the PBD. The only home we've ever known.

In light of our long human history of mutual- and self-destruction, the substitution for war of constructive and non-rapacious energies directed to the public good ought to be an easier sell. Those who love the Peace Corps and its cousin public service organizations are legion, and I'm always happy to welcome their representatives to my classroom. Did that just last year... (continues)

==

The Moral Equivalent of War

by William James

This essay, based on a speech delivered at Stanford University in 1906, is the origin of the idea of organized national service. The line of descent runs directly from this address to the depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps to the Peace Corps, VISTA, and AmeriCorps. Though some phrases grate upon modern ears, particularly the assumption that only males can perform such service, several racially-biased comments, and the notion that the main form of service should be viewed as a "warfare against nature," it still sounds a rallying cry for service in the interests of the individual and the nation.

The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party. The military feelings are too deeply grounded to abdicate their place among our ideals until better substitutes are offered than the glory and shame that come to nations as well as to individuals from the ups and downs of politics and the vicissitudes of trade. There is something highly paradoxical in the modern man's relation to war. Ask all our millions, north and south, whether they would vote now (were such a thing possible) to have our war for the Union expunged from history, and the record of a peaceful transition to the present time substituted for that of its marches and battles, and probably hardly a handful of eccentrics would say yes. Those ancestors, those efforts, those memories and legends, are the most ideal part of what we now own together, a sacred spiritual possession worth more than all the blood poured out. Yet ask those same people whether they would be willing, in cold blood, to start another civil war now to gain another similar possession, and not one man or woman would vote for the proposition. In modern eyes, precious though wars may be they must not be waged solely for the sake of the ideal harvest. Only when forced upon one, is a war now thought permissible... (continues)

==

War

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

Some reject the very idea of the “morality of war”.[1] Of those, some deny that morality applies at all once the guns strike up; for others, no plausible moral theory could license the exceptional horrors of war. The first group are sometimes called realists. The second group are pacifists. The task of just war theory is to seek a middle path between them: to justify at least some wars, but also to limit them (Ramsey 1961). Although realism undoubtedly has its adherents, few philosophers find it compelling.[2] The real challenge to just war theory comes from pacifism. And we should remember, from the outset, that this challenge is real. The justified war might well be a chimera.

However, this entry explores the middle path between realism and pacifism. It begins by outlining the central substantive divide in contemporary just war theory, before introducing the methodological schisms underpinning that debate. It then discusses the moral evaluation of wars as a whole, and of individual acts within war (traditionally, though somewhat misleadingly, called jus ad bellum and jus in bello respectively)... (continues)

==

==

...war poetry... Top 10 War Poems... Poems Against War... Teddy Roosevelt on "The Strenuous Life"...