What makes a nation 'great'?

Was ancient Greece great because of its philosophers?
Was ancient Rome great because of its legions?

And which are the great nations of today, and of our recent past, and why are/were they deemed to be 'great' ?

Modern China is today a nation which it seems, will emerge as a 'great' nation, among the nations of the world.
But why do we deem a nation like China as becoming great?
What 'circumstances' assure the success, and advancement of a particular nation, when viewed among others?

Is it the character of the people of a nation, which makes a nation great?
Is it the just laws of a nation which enables greatness to fall upon a particular nation?
Or is it the material accomplishments of the people of a particular nation, which make a nation great?

What do we, mankind, 'value' as meritorious in a national structure?
Why do people flee from certain nations?
Why do people seek to enter particular other nations?

Is it the wealth of a nation?
Its political stability?
Its military strength [i.e. 'get with the strength' because 'might is right' ]?




+++

Personally, i believe that it is the character of a people, which makes a truly great nation, great.
And, that it is the laws of a [any] nation which [over time] will largely influence the character of a nation of people.

IMO, without good and just laws [and a functioning justice system], a nation will never attain real, or long lived, greatness, no matter the amount of wealth which the people of a nation may fleetingly attain.

I think your first sentence may have nailed it. Greece is remembered, mostly, because of its philosophers. Its "greatness" lies in its many great thinkers. Similarly with India, it was "great" because Buddhism and Hindusim originated around that area.
We don't see the philosophy of the Germanic tribes being taught.

Using this judging criteria for today, maybe the nations who pioneered in medical science and space flight could be considered "great"?

Insofar as the world functions at all, it’s due to the Britannic inheritance. Three-sevenths of the G7 economies are nations of British descent. Two-fifths of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are—and, by the way, it should be three-fifths: The rap against the Security Council is that it’s the Second World War victory parade preserved in aspic, but, if it were, Canada would have a greater claim to be there than either France or China. The reason Canada isn’t is because a third Anglosphere nation and a second realm of King George VI would have made too obvious a truth usually left unstated—that the Anglosphere was the all but lone defender of civilization and of liberty. In broader geopolitical terms, the key regional powers in almost every corner of the globe are British-derived—from Australia to South Africa to India—and, even among the lesser players, as a general rule you’re better off for having been exposed to British rule than not: Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados?
And of course the pre-eminent power of the age derives its political character from eighteenth-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go. In his
sequel to Churchill’s great work, The History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Andrew Roberts writes:
Just as we do not today differentiate between the Roman Republic and the imperial period of the Julio-Claudians when we think of the Roman Empire, so in the future no-one will bother to make a distinction between the British Empire–led and the American Republic–led periods of English-speaking dominance between the late-eighteenth and the twenty-first centuries. It will be recognized that in the majestic sweep of history they had so much in common—and enough that separated them from everyone else—that they ought to be regarded as a single historical entity, which only scholars and pedants will try to describe separately.
If you step back for a moment, this seems obvious. There is a distinction between the “English-speaking peoples” and the rest of “the West,” and at key moments in human history that distinction has proved critical.
Continental Europe has given us plenty of nice paintings and agreeable symphonies, French wine and Italian actresses and whatnot, but, for all our fetishization of multiculturalism, you can’t help noticing that when it comes to the notion of a political West—one with a sustained commitment to liberty and democracy—the historical record looks a lot more unicultural and, indeed (given that most of these liberal democracies other than America share the same head of state), uniregal. The entire political class of Portugal, Spain, and Greece spent their childhoods living under dictatorships. So did Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel. We forget how rare on this earth is peaceful constitutional evolution, and rarer still outside the Anglosphere.

Mark Steyn, Dependence Day (there are multiple posts of it on the net)

What makes a nation 'great'?

As it so happens .. the Holy Bible has an answer to this very question .. in Proverbs chapter 14 and verse 34.

"Godliness makes a nation great, but sin is a disgrace to any people".

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2011 at 12:06pm:

What makes a nation 'great'? As it so happens .. the Holy Bible has an answer to this very question .. in Proverbs chapter 14 and verse 34. "Godliness makes a nation great, but sin is a disgrace to any people".

Doesn't sound great to me. Sounds like one needs to be intellectually stunted.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 3:48pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 2nd, 2011 at 12:06pm: What makes a nation 'great'? As it so happens .. the Holy Bible has an answer to this very question .. in Proverbs chapter 14 and verse 34. "Godliness makes a nation great, but sin is a disgrace to any people". Doesn't sound great to me. Sounds like one needs to be intellectually stunted.

You believe that to seek God's righteousness, for our own life, is a proof of intellectual retardation ?

LOL




+++

1 Corinthians 3:18
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20  And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Psalms 1:1
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Proverbs 15:9
The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
10  Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
11  Hell and destruction are before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?

Isaiah 48:17
Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.



I quote scripture, not because i am intellectually retarded, but because today my worldview tends to align, with what scripture expresses.






1 Corinthians 2:13
...we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 1:5
...the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


'Time',
Go your own way.
Have a nice life.

Quote:

Yadda wrote I quote scripture, not because i am intellectually retarded, but because today my worldview tends to align, with what scripture expresses

So how did you come to those conclusions then?

I was going to say that what makes a nation great is the mark it leaves on history. On reflection however,  that definition includes nations like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and the Ottoman Empire.  The same may apply to China one day.  

Are those nations 'great'? If we consider purely technological breakthroughs these nations are well up there with the best, however if we look at the contribution they have made to the advancement of the human condition they are miserable failures.

Sorens Mark Steyn quote probably sums up national greatness best.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 5:03pm:

Quote: Yadda wrote I quote scripture, not because i am intellectually retarded, but because today my worldview tends to align, with what scripture expresses So how did you come to those conclusions then?

Just like you, and everyone else, my 'senses' experience this world.
I look at the 'leaders' of men, in this present world.
I look at our [mankind's] 'typical' behaviour, in this world.
And i come to certain conclusions.


Quote:

. "There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer of whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense."

Elizabeth Bennet
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE - Jane Austen


From my observation of my own behaviour, and the behaviour of many of my fellow human beings, i have to agree completely with the assessment of mankind, made by the Elizabeth Bennet character in P&P.
And there is no escape, i believe that we are all corrupted [spiritually] by our interaction with this world [and i include myself within that 'consequence' of experience].

We appear to come 'here' without a memory, and with little or no knowledge of what we will experience 'here'.
And as a consequence, imo, it is a given, that in our experience of this physical world, we will all make 'mistakes'.
IMO, that is due, to how we initially [all] come to learn, to react to our 'experiences', of this physical world - before we have full knowledge.
Before we have had the opportunity to meditate upon the deeper consequences of our choices.

And that is why i say that, imo, [in this 'life'] we appear to be playing in a 'fixed' game.
IMO, the 'deck of cards' we are playing with, in this 'life', have been [intentionally] stacked against us.
But for a very specific purpose.

To me, we appear to be spirits [spirit beings, like God, our creator], and to have been locked within this flesh, this physical body, for a 'season'.
Our bodies are made of earth [in Hebrew, the word Adamah = = earth, muck. ...the name of Adam, the first man, is an allegory].
As spirit beings, we have been [i believe], literally 'imprisoned', within this 'earth'.

IMO, their is a knowledge contained within 'the Bible', which reveals to us, both,
#1, our nature [our 'natural' tendencies], and,
#2, our purpose in being 'here'.

In our experience of this world, the world reveals 'something' to us, AND, the Bible can reveal to us, the righteousness of God.
But, will we choose to embrace the righteousness of God, OR, will we choose to join ourselves to the corruption of this world?

+++

To me, it appears that mankind's burden in his/her life, is to suffer the 'demands' made upon him/her, by this world.
And in fulfilling the 'worldly' demands made upon us, we are *forced* to make moral choices.
And, within our 'lifetime', [as children of our spiritual 'father'/creator] we are expected to be wise enough, to learn from our mistakes and from our 'mis-taken' choices.

To me, though i must presently live in this world, my choice is that i reject this world.
I reject its wickedness [the wickedness which many men choose, in their journey 'here'].
And i choose that i do not want to live here.
When we 'believe' in, and seek the righteousness of God, the spirit of God joins itself to us, to comfort us in this world.



John 8:23
And he [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Yadda wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 3rd, 2011 at 5:03pm: Quote: Yadda wrote I quote scripture, not because i am intellectually retarded, but because today my worldview tends to align, with what scripture expresses So how did you come to those conclusions then? Just like you, and everyone else, my 'senses' experience this world. I look at the 'leaders' of men, in this present world. I look at our [mankind's] 'typical' behaviour, in this world. And i come to certain conclusions. [quote] . "There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer of whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense."

Elizabeth Bennet
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE - Jane Austen


From my observation of my own behaviour, and the behaviour of many of my fellow human beings, i have to agree completely with the assessment of mankind, made by the Elizabeth Bennet character in P&P.
And there is no escape, i believe that we are all corrupted [spiritually] by our interaction with this world [and i include myself within that 'consequence' of experience].

We appear to come 'here' without a memory, and with little or no knowledge of what we will experience 'here'.
And as a consequence, imo, it is a given, that in our experience of this physical world, we will all make 'mistakes'.
IMO, that is due, to how we initially [all] come to learn, to react to our 'experiences', of this physical world - before we have full knowledge.
Before we have had the opportunity to meditate upon the deeper consequences of our choices.

And that is why i say that, imo, [in this 'life'] we appear to be playing in a 'fixed' game.
IMO, the 'deck of cards' we are playing with, in this 'life', have been [intentionally] stacked against us.
But for a very specific purpose.

To me, we appear to be spirits [spirit beings, like God, our creator], and to have been locked within this flesh, this physical body, for a 'season'.
Our bodies are made of earth [in Hebrew, the word Adamah = = earth, muck. ...the name of Adam, the first man, is an allegory].
As spirit beings, we have been [i believe], literally 'imprisoned', within this 'earth'.

IMO, their is a knowledge contained within 'the Bible', which reveals to us, both,
#1, our nature [our 'natural' tendencies], and,
#2, our purpose in being 'here'.

In our experience of this world, the world reveals 'something' to us, AND, the Bible can reveal to us, the righteousness of God.
But, will we choose to embrace the righteousness of God, OR, will we choose to join ourselves to the corruption of this world?

+++

To me, it appears that mankind's burden in his/her life, is to suffer the 'demands' made upon him/her, by this world.
And in fulfilling the 'worldly' demands made upon us, we are *forced* to make moral choices.
And, within our 'lifetime', [as children of our spiritual 'father'/creator] we are expected to be wise enough, to learn from our mistakes and from our 'mis-taken' choices.

To me, though i must presently live in this world, my choice is that i reject this world.
I reject its wickedness [the wickedness which many men choose, in their journey 'here'].
And i choose that i do not want to live here.
When we 'believe' in, and seek the righteousness of God, the spirit of God joins itself to us, to comfort us in this world.



John 8:23
And he [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.


[/quote]


A few points: Your position is predicated on a particular type of morality. You can only believe human beings are corrupt, nasty etc. if you first posit a moral position claiming what acts are right and wrong. The world will always look like a ghastly place if you view it purely through the lens of some moral code because you will always be seeing "evil" in men.
So you were disheartened that people didn't act the way you wanted them to and this attracted you to the bible and god? I don't think that really proves the righteousness (or existence) of god. It seems to merely reflect the personal morality you hold.

Belgarion wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:13pm:

Sorens Mark Steyn quote probably sums up national greatness best.

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Dependence-Day-6753

Or as Churchill put it: "Law, language, literature"

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

. A few points: Your position is predicated on a particular type of morality. You can only believe human beings are corrupt, nasty etc. if you first posit a moral position claiming what acts are right and wrong. The world will always look like a ghastly place if you view it purely through the lens of some moral code because you will always be seeing "evil" in men. So you were disheartened that people didn't act the way you wanted them to and this attracted you to the bible and god? I don't think that really proves the righteousness (or existence) of god. It seems to merely reflect the personal morality you hold.

Yes, morality is such a tricky subject.
Yes, it is so, so, difficult for us to know the difference between, what is right, and, what is wrong.
/sarc off



Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.



IMO, this generation of mankind has lost the ability to discern between good and evil.

The Judeao-Christian standards and morality, that guided our present culture in its formative period, has been almost entirely abandoned.

Why is that?

Today, our children are taught that it is wrong to try to 'discriminate' between good and evil, and thereby to reject what is evil.
Today, they and we, are taught that essentially, good and evil do not exist.

And we are taught that all people are equally like us.

Today, those who abandon standards, and moral discernment are said to be 'tolerant'.

And instead, we are taught that to differentiate the merits of different cultures, is wrong, and even 'racist'.

IMO, those who take such a position are a part of the problem, a part of the wickedness.

Wickedness rejects responsibility for the consequences of it choices.
i.e.
Wickedness says;
"I can do, whatever i can do. And nobody has the right to criticise my 'morality'."

i.e.
Such people imagine that 'rules' don't apply to them.
They displace God, they displace his laws, his rules, his morality [Matthew 7:12, above].



Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god.]
I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it.
i.e.
"If there are no consequences for my actions, what's the prob!!?"

IMO, 'freedom', **to this generation of mankind**, means being able to do whatever they like,
...so long as there are no adverse consequences for themselves.

Like our [community] leaders, they want authority and freedom, but then reject responsibility, when things go wrong.

No?


+++

To me, freedom means, i should try to separate myself from those influences, which, if i allow them act upon me, and my life, they will *cause* my bondage [through their consequences].
i.e.
If i separate myself from wickedness, in my life, i will, remain free and happy.

'Cause and effect'.

It is not rocket science.

Some time ago, in a shopping centre i saw an approximation of our society's 'morality' emblazoned on a man's T-shirt;

"Its only illegal if they catch you."

Many people today seem to believe in such a 'moral' position.

And why?

Because today, children are taught essentially, that good, and, evil do not exist, but if anything is evil, it is 'intolerance'.




"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann


Isaiah 1:21
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
22  Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
23  Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

A few points: Your position is predicated on a particular type of morality.

Not yours, though, eh? Yours is supra-moral. Yours is the point of view from nowhere in particular?

Zif.

Soren wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2011 at 3:02pm: A few points: Your position is predicated on a particular type of morality. Not yours, though, eh? Yours is supra-moral. Yours is the point of view from nowhere in particular? Zif.

How did you come to that conclusion?

From your remark that shows that you think that your pov is above the 'actions are right or wrong' morality. This is a great load of bullsh!t, of course, to pretend to be 'beyond good and evil'.

Yadda wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 1:48am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2011 at 3:02pm: . A few points: Your position is predicated on a particular type of morality. You can only believe human beings are corrupt, nasty etc. if you first posit a moral position claiming what acts are right and wrong. The world will always look like a ghastly place if you view it purely through the lens of some moral code because you will always be seeing "evil" in men. So you were disheartened that people didn't act the way you wanted them to and this attracted you to the bible and god? I don't think that really proves the righteousness (or existence) of god. It seems to merely reflect the personal morality you hold. Yes, morality is such a tricky subject. Yes, it is so, so, difficult for us to know the difference between, what is right, and, what is wrong. /sarc off Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. IMO, this generation of mankind has lost the ability to discern between good and evil. The Judeao-Christian standards and morality, that guided our present culture in its formative period, has been almost entirely abandoned. Why is that? Today, our children are taught that it is wrong to try to 'discriminate' between good and evil, and thereby to reject what is evil. Today, they and we, are taught that essentially, good and evil do not exist. And we are taught that all people are equally like us. Today, those who abandon standards, and moral discernment are said to be 'tolerant'. And instead, we are taught that to differentiate the merits of different cultures, is wrong, and even 'racist'. IMO, those who take such a position are a part of the problem, a part of the wickedness. Wickedness rejects responsibility for the consequences of it choices. i.e. Wickedness says; "I can do, whatever i can do. And nobody has the right to criticise my 'morality'." i.e. Such people imagine that 'rules' don't apply to them. They displace God, they displace his laws, his rules, his morality [Matthew 7:12, above]. Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god.] I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it. i.e. "If there are no consequences for my actions, what's the prob!!?" IMO, 'freedom', **to this generation of mankind**, means being able to do whatever they like, ...so long as there are no adverse consequences for themselves. Like our [community] leaders, they want authority and freedom, but then reject responsibility, when things go wrong. No? +++ To me, freedom means, i should try to separate myself from those influences, which, if i allow them act upon me, and my life, they will *cause* my bondage [through their consequences]. i.e. If i separate myself from wickedness, in my life, i will, remain free and happy. 'Cause and effect'. It is not rocket science. Some time ago, in a shopping centre i saw an approximation of our society's 'morality' emblazoned on a man's T-shirt; "Its only illegal if they catch you." Many people today seem to believe in such a 'moral' position. And why? Because today, children are taught essentially, that good, and, evil do not exist, but if anything is evil, it is 'intolerance'. "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." Thomas Mann Isaiah 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. 22  Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: 23  Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

The problem with Christian morality is that it is grounded on a debunked metaphysics. To claim good and evil come from god is to completely ignore the legislation process. Whatever rules or regulations that are put in place are done so by whoever has the power to. Morality is mostly power games; that of one group imposing their will on another. The group imposing their morality do so because it's either in their interests or the interests they serve. It's always been like this. Christian morality is no different. The morality Christians, and other religious people, want to impose is done in order to benefit their "way of life".

Soren wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 8:31pm:

From your remark that shows that you think that your pov is above the 'actions are right or wrong' morality. This is a great load of bullsh!t, of course, to pretend to be 'beyond good and evil'.

Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not.
Perhaps you should have asked me first instead of projecting?

Very well - what is your perspective?

And what do you consider to be right, wrong, good, or evil etc .. Time?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not.

So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right?

Soren wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

Very well - what is your perspective?

This comes close, although it is subject to slight modifications:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1292918320/0#0

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

And what do you consider to be right, wrong, good, or evil etc .. Time?

As above.

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right?

Pretty much. How does that expression go, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

You shoud know this. You and your cronies from D&R have sprouted and defended some of the most vile and disgusting acts to ever have graced the net. But let me guess, your violence and hate is objective, right?

I am not asking what you've made of Kant or Nietzsche. You are knocking the judgements made by Yadda as if that knocking itself was not a judgement.

I am asking you about the perspective or grounding from which you are making judgements.

Soren wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

I am not asking what you've made of Kant or Nietzsche. You are knocking the judgements made by Yadda as if that knocking itself was not a judgement. I am asking you about the perspective or grounding from which you are making judgements.

Personal preference. All morality is. I've never hidden this fact. And, as stated before, I have a personal preference for Nietzsche and Kant.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? Pretty much. How does that expression go, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You shoud know this. You and your cronies from D&R have sprouted and defended some of the most vile and disgusting acts to ever have graced the net. But let me guess, your violence and hate is objective, right?

So you actually approve of the views of those on D&R you profess to despise.?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 1:13pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 11:44am: Very well - what is your perspective? This comes close, although it is subject to slight modifications: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1292918320/0#0

Hypothesis: Actions that display an internal sense of courage, strength, determination, and independence rank higher than those that display cowardice, laziness, and weakness.

Notice, this is about intentions, not consequences. This aligns it with Kant's deontological approach, however, not with his categorical imperative, but with the ethics of Nietzsche.

High ranking ethical behaviour is solely aligned with motivations and symptoms of courage, strength, determination, and independence. The consequences of such behaviour is irrelevant, only the intent matters.

In an age that has no solid point of departure for ethics or morals, but cries out for some foundation or criteria on which to judge behaviour, I deem this an experiment worthy of consideration.

- Time



Is this what you're referring to Time???

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 2:04pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Soren wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 11:44am: Very well - what is your perspective? This comes close, although it is subject to slight modifications: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1292918320/0#0 Hypothesis: Actions that display an internal sense of courage, strength, determination, and independence rank higher than those that display cowardice, laziness, and weakness. Notice, this is about intentions, not consequences. This aligns it with Kant's deontological approach, however, not with his categorical imperative, but with the ethics of Nietzsche. High ranking ethical behaviour is solely aligned with motivations and symptoms of courage, strength, determination, and independence. The consequences of such behaviour is irrelevant, only the intent matters. In an age that has no solid point of departure for ethics or morals, but cries out for some foundation or criteria on which to judge behaviour, I deem this an experiment worthy of consideration. - Time Is this what you're referring to Time???

Yes.

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 1:56pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:19pm: Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? Pretty much. How does that expression go, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You shoud know this. You and your cronies from D&R have sprouted and defended some of the most vile and disgusting acts to ever have graced the net. But let me guess, your violence and hate is objective, right? So you actually approve of the views of those on D&R you profess to despise.?

Nice dodge.
Is your morality based on personal preferences or does it come from a god or some mystical timeless, selfless, eternal mode of behaviour?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:56pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:19pm: Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? Pretty much. How does that expression go, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You shoud know this. You and your cronies from D&R have sprouted and defended some of the most vile and disgusting acts to ever have graced the net. But let me guess, your violence and hate is objective, right? So you actually approve of the views of those on D&R you profess to despise.? Nice dodge. Is your morality based on personal preferences or does it come from a god or some mystical timeless, selfless, eternal mode of behaviour?

My morality is based on personal preference, and no doubt influenced by upbringing and life experience, as is yours.

But to answer your question re. morality and intent, as referenced by Lisa, I can only repeat what I said when you raised this subject on D&R, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.l

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:19pm: I am not asking what you've made of Kant or Nietzsche. You are knocking the judgements made by Yadda as if that knocking itself was not a judgement. I am asking you about the perspective or grounding from which you are making judgements. Personal preference. All morality is. I've never hidden this fact. And, as stated before, I have a personal preference for Nietzsche and Kant.

Interesting. Kant and Nietzsche have diametrically opposite views on morality and neither of them write along the lines of 'personal preference'. Hard to see how you got clued in by them to end up with 'personal preference', a completely unsustainable position - probably that's why neither N nor K went with it.

'Personal preference' morality is is unsustainable because :
1. only sociopaths maintain that in each situation they decide on what action to take on the basis of their prefernces at the given momemt.
2. alternatively, to say that we have a personal preferenc for the morals we hold is an empty thing - of course we have a personal  preference for our the moral code we hold, otherwise we wouldn't hold it. That is not the same as the first option, though. Most crucially, it does not mean that our moral code is invented by ourselves on the back of our own 'personal references'.
3. to say that one has formulated a moral code that is based on one's personal preferences is akin to saying that one has invented a private language - maybe fascinating and deeply satisfying for the person concerned but totally useless when it comes to interacting with others.

Quote:

soren wrote Interesting. Kant and Nietzsche have diametrically opposite views on morality and neither of them write along the lines of 'personal preference'. Hard to see how you got clued in by them to end up with 'personal preference', a completely unsustainable position - probably that's why neither N nor K went with it.

Kant spoke of intentions, which is why I mentioned him. Nietzsche speaks of a morality of courage, strength, and independence, which is why I mentioned him. Nietzsche's critique of morality does point to it as personal preference. One of his major points was that morality is never abstracted from the person practicing it, which the neo-Platonists claim to do. While neo-Platonists speak of "spirit", "god" etc. it's all a mask; the morality still comes from them. Do you think Nietzsche was detached from his "master morality"? No. He was intimately tied with it; that's why he supported it. As I said, it's personal preference.


Quote:

soren wrote 'Personal preference' morality is is unsustainable because : 1. only sociopaths maintain that in each situation they decide on what action to take on the basis of their prefernces at the given momemt.

Strawman.


Quote:

soren wrote 2. alternatively, to say that we have a personal preferenc for the morals we hold is an empty thing - of course we have a personal  preference for our the moral code we hold, otherwise we wouldn't hold it. That is not the same as the first option, though. Most crucially, it does not mean that our moral code is invented by ourselves on the back of our own 'personal references'.

Which is why I referenced Kant and Nietzsche. I never made a claim I personally invented it.


Quote:

soren wrote 3. to say that one has formulated a moral code that is based on one's personal preferences is akin to saying that one has invented a private language - maybe fascinating and deeply satisfying for the person concerned but totally useless when it comes to interacting with others.

Again, this is a strawman. I've been clear from the beginning on who my personal view is influenced by - Kant, Nietzsche - never have I claimed to have a morality that is akin to a "private language".
It's odd you accuse me of having a "private langauge" when this is actually very close to what the mystics and religious folk argue; that morality is based on some form that transcends space, time, and causality.

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 4:13pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 3:57pm: Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:56pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:19pm: Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? Pretty much. How does that expression go, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You shoud know this. You and your cronies from D&R have sprouted and defended some of the most vile and disgusting acts to ever have graced the net. But let me guess, your violence and hate is objective, right? So you actually approve of the views of those on D&R you profess to despise.? Nice dodge. Is your morality based on personal preferences or does it come from a god or some mystical timeless, selfless, eternal mode of behaviour? My morality is based on personal preference, and no doubt influenced by upbringing and life experience, as is yours.

So the "vile" and "disgusting" acts you support on D&R are personal preference, are they not?

a "nation" is a shared unitary cultural consciousness which prompts community co-support and action, imho. As in what immigration policy would better be.

What makes a nation 'great'?

Prosperity and Victory in war.

After that... Nostalgia and chauvinism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 5:07am:

What makes a nation 'great'? Prosperity and Victory in war. After that... Nostalgia and chauvinism.

LOL

What you mean is, that such 'pretensions' are mere vanity.

True, often.

And especially if we are speak of ourselves, of our own culture, today.

But what about our respect for others, and for those of former times?



e.g.
I admire the founding fathers of the USA.
Browse the constitution, and the preamble of the constitution of the USA some time.
It is stirring stuff.

Google;
"we the people"

Was the system of government which the founding fathers of the USA tried to establish perfect?

No.

But those people were light years ahead of its time in the late 1700's, imo!

And, to be admired, imo.

Yadda wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 10:17am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9th, 2011 at 5:07am: What makes a nation 'great'? Prosperity and Victory in war. After that... Nostalgia and chauvinism. LOL What you mean is, that such 'pretensions' are mere vanity. True, often. And especially if we are speak of ourselves, of our own culture, today. But what about our respect for others, and for those of former times? e.g. I admire the founding fathers of the USA. Browse the constitution, and the preamble of the constitution of the USA some time. It is stirring stuff. Google; "we the people" Was the system of government which the founding fathers of the USA tried to establish perfect? No. But those people were light years ahead of its time in the late 1700's, imo! And, to be admired, imo.

But they're great because they defeated the greatest superpower of its day at war...

And they're still talking about it 300 years later.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 2:12am:

. But they're great because they defeated the greatest superpower of its day at war...

But my reading of those events, was that the colonists did not seek war with Britain.

Rather, that [many of] the colonists tried to negotiate a measure of self determination and self government for their colonies, and thereby tried to avoid any direct [political] conflict with the British powers of the day.

But in the end, the colonists fought a war with British powers,
...so as to try to secure the religious and political freedoms which they collectively aspired to.





NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 2:12am:

. And they're still talking about it 300 years later.

And shouldn't citizens of the USA today, be proud of what their founding fathers [at least initially] achieved??

IMO, they should.

IMO, it appears that the USA, in its system of government, has been the greatest exponent of human freedoms and good human aspirations in this world.

But imo, many of those ideals [espoused by their founding fathers] have been betrayed and undermined by the apathy and greed of recent generations, and subsequent US government administrations, seeking to relieve the people of their authority and rights.

The ideal that most citizens have, is that their government should serve the people.

Human history shows us that [over time] many, many 'democratic' governments of men, eventually [, like the people they serve ?? ] corrupt themselves, and government authority morphs into a tyranny which becomes largely unaccountable to the people, and which begin to oppress the people, so as to secure their own 'primacy'.

i.e.
Many so called 'democracies' today, have morphed into a system of government, which is effectively an 'elected' dictatorship, or autocracy  [e.g. In recent years, Italy has become in some measure an autocracy, ruled by media tycoon, Silvio Berlusconi ] .
Every 3-5 years, we elect a group of 'representatives', who then proceed to rule over us.
I suppose we 'the people' should be grateful, that every few years our politicians, again, allow us to select our rulers from among them.    :D

Dictionary;
democracy = = a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. Ø a state governed in such a way. Ø control of a group by the majority of its members.

Churchill (a Nobel Prize winner for literature) said that law, language and literature are considerable factors in national greatness.
Greatness, mind, not might or conquest or size.

The measure of greatness for nations is the same as for people, books, art, and the rest: the endurace of their influence, their example working as a leavening agent on others.

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 8:14am:

Churchill (a Nobel Prize winner for literature) said that law, language and literature are considerable factors in national greatness. Greatness, mind, not might or conquest or size. The measure of greatness for nations is the same as for people, books, art, and the rest: the endurace of their influence, their example working as a leavening agent on others.

A nice quote comes to mind;

The measure of a civilization is not only, in how great its material achievements are in the world around it, but also, what measure of dignity and justice a civilization affords to its weakest, most powerless members.

Or words to that effect.

Google;
the measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members

Quote:

the measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members

So true.

Yadda wrote on Jan 20^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

What makes a nation 'great'?

Its sense of humour. Maate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYuPwX_zEJ0

;D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 11:07pm:

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 4:13pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 3:57pm: Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:56pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:19pm: Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? Pretty much. How does that expression go, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You shoud know this. You and your cronies from D&R have sprouted and defended some of the most vile and disgusting acts to ever have graced the net. But let me guess, your violence and hate is objective, right? So you actually approve of the views of those on D&R you profess to despise.? Nice dodge. Is your morality based on personal preferences or does it come from a god or some mystical timeless, selfless, eternal mode of behaviour? My morality is based on personal preference, and no doubt influenced by upbringing and life experience, as is yours. So the "vile" and "disgusting" acts you support on D&R are personal preference, are they not?

I don't consider the things I support to be vile and disgusting.

Different horses for different courses then.
Seems to be the original point I was making.

.....all great nations have imperial fascist foreign policies that are based on violence cruelty and arrogant expansionism

Currently we have the great nation called the USA.

over 1000 military installations in over 140 nations across the planet

DO AS YOU ARE TOLD MY FRIENDS

and by "great" I mean 'evil'

There are only 3 trully great nations on the surface of this planet today

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 11:17pm:

.....all great nations have imperial fascist foreign policies that are based on violence cruelty and arrogant expansionism Currently we have the great nation called the USA. over 1000 military installations in over 140 nations across the planet DO AS YOU ARE TOLD MY FRIENDS and by "great" I mean 'evil' There are only 3 trully great nations on the surface of this planet today

Enlighten us, please.

Don't hold your breath, Yadda. The guy's a looney.

Hate to say it, but the Art (computer) Industry is making this Nation wealthy, not Politics ...which seems to be slowly going broke and would be utterly spent if it wasn't for the 'mandatory' vote.

Move over Minoa
Move over Ramses 2 Egypt.
Move over WETA Workshop

Here comes the WWW.COMmunity of OCEANIA.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 6:48pm:

Hate to say it, but the Art (computer) Industry is making this Nation wealthy, not Politics ...which seems to be slowly going broke and would be utterly spent if it wasn't for the 'mandatory' vote. Move over Minoa Move over Ramses 2 Egypt. Move over WETA Workshop Here comes the WWW.COMmunity of OCEANIA.

You too?
(a looney?)

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right?

The US military machine... and any military machine that is dominant would say yes.

Sappho wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:46am:

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? The US military machine... and any military machine that is dominant would say yes.

Via the doctrine of exceptionalism...

Wealth, which brings with it leisure, is that which makes a nation great. You must have leisure time for thinking and creating and the wealth to bring that thinking and creating into fruition.

Wealth is born of dominating and subjugating surrounding territories.

That is.....you beat the poo out of your weak neighbour, take his wives, his camels, the fleas under their armpits, and all his eggs.

Is that the wealth of which you speak?

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 7:43pm:

That is.....you beat the poo out of your weak neighbour, take his wives, his camels, the fleas under their armpits, and all his eggs. Is that the wealth of which you speak?

Pretty much yeah... this is the message loud and clear from history.

Consider the Spartans... Romans... Europeans and Arabs of their respective Renaissances... the British Empire...

And what has that do to with Foolosophy?  Surely that is a given Militarily?

Obvious.

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:58pm:

And what has that do to with Foolosophy?  Surely that is a given Militarily? Obvious.

I've already explained that Aussie... the wealthy have more leisure time... leisure is necessary for thought and creativity.  

 

Sappho wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:46am:

Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? The US military machine... and any military machine that is dominant would say yes.

It is a very obvious fallacy to say that if something is dominant it must be, by implication, wrong. I for one can't think of any other country I'd prefer as a hegemon in my lifetime that th US. Or in my children's lifetime. Or my children's children's lifetime - etc, etc.

Some hegemons are far better than all the alternatives. The US is such a one.

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 9:34pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 8:46am: Belgarion wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 1:00pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 8:43pm: Right, wrong, good, and evil is all perspective. So it would depends on what one considers right, wrong, good, or evil if I would be beyond it or not. So any act, no matter how vile or disgusting, can be excused if from the perpetrators perspective it is right? The US military machine... and any military machine that is dominant would say yes. It is a very obvious fallacy to say that if something is dominant it must be, by implication, wrong.

I didn't say that... I said that any dominant military machine is by implication right.

That's not a better fallacy. Might in itself is not right.

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 11:17pm:

.....all great nations have imperial fascist foreign policies that are based on violence cruelty and arrogant expansionism Currently we have the great nation called the USA. over 1000 military installations in over 140 nations across the planet DO AS YOU ARE TOLD MY FRIENDS and by "great" I mean 'evil' There are only 3 trully great nations on the surface of this planet today

You are a looney.

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 9:56pm:

That's not a better fallacy. Might in itself is not right.

Nor is it so wrong as to be questioned in any serious manner.

Sappho....debate (with yourself) the relative worth whether today is Sunday or not.

Sappho wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 9:58pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:56pm: That's not a better fallacy. Might in itself is not right. Nor is it so wrong as to be questioned in any serious manner.

That's meaningless.

Might can be questioned and in a very serious manner.

Speak sense if you want to argue a point.

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 10:25pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:58pm: Soren wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:56pm: That's not a better fallacy. Might in itself is not right. Nor is it so wrong as to be questioned in any serious manner. That's meaningless. Might can be questioned and in a very serious manner. Speak sense if you want to argue a point.

Oh I'm speaking sense alright. And since you mention US might... lets use that to explore what I mean. The US refuse to recognise the International Tribunal at the hague which hears war crimes amongst other things. So straight up... how on earth can you question the US on their war crimes, in a very serious manner, if they refuse to be answerable for those war crimes?

What's more, with people like you willing to turn a blind eye to the profound abuses of this dominant might lest you or your children or your children's children loose that mighty ally... again, how can they be questioned in any serious way and made answerable for their crimes?

Cicero said "Laws are silent in time of war." Nothing has changed on that score... yet only the law can question in any serious way, war crimes.

I note with irony the support the US gave to the Nuremberg Trials.

Therefore... whilst might is not necessarily right, neither is it so wrong as to be questioned in any serious way.

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 10:23pm:

Sappho....debate (with yourself) the relative worth whether today is Sunday or not.

What's the matter Aussie... are you missing my presence at your political pussy cat forum so much so that you have to seek me out here and try to engage me in discussion.

How pathetic.  ;)

Sappho wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:50am:

Wealth, which brings with it leisure, is that which makes a nation great. You must have leisure time for thinking and creating and the wealth to bring that thinking and creating into fruition. Wealth is born of dominating and subjugating surrounding territories.

Err, WRONG, imo!

THAT, is the way of Cain, the murderer.

Sappho,

What you are committing to, imo, is the principle that;
Being an oppressor of other men [and women], is what makes a [ strong] man 'wealthy' [....and a weak man poor].

IMO, PROSPERITY [the love of wealth], is a false god [...which is worshipped by many/most men].

James 4:1
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
2  Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
3  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.


Sappho,

consider this logic circle...

TRUTH [free and open] brings JUSTICE.
JUSTICE brings PEACE.
PEACE brings PROSPERITY.
PROSPERITY brings GREED, ENVY and PRIDE [vanity] to the hearts of men.
GREED, ENVY and PRIDE are the servants of EVIL [intent].

TRUTH is the 'cornerstone' of the [transient] building, PROSPERITY.
But, TRUTH is hated and despised by the EVIL heart.
And, if the love of TRUTH in men is displaced, by their embrace of EVIL, then....
When EVIL abides in the hearts of men [empowered by its servants GREED, ENVY and PRIDE],
....JUSTICE and PEACE will be, destroyed by EVIL.
....[and the 'building'] PROSPERITY, will then quickly crumble into dust.
WAR and DESTRUCTION cannot be far off.
POVERTY and WAR abide together, until they destroy PRIDE [in the heart of men].
When PRIDE is absent, TRUTH will then seek [but is not assured] a presence.
If a love a TRUTH is again embraced [among men], EVIL [intent] will be banished from among them.


+++

IMO, wealth from oppression [warfare] is not sustainable.

Wealth from oppression [warfare] must always be fleeting.

IMO, using oppression, as a path to wealth, is like an irrational man who is cold, who, coming upon a locked [secure] house, decides to set the house alight with fire, so as to be comforted by the warmth of the burning house.
That is fine, and the man will be comforted, while the house still burns.
But once the house has been consumed by the fire, all that the man will be standing in front of, is a pile of cooling ashes.
i.e.
Oppression [warfare, the 'fire'] ultimately brings poverty.
IMO, warfare [and poverty] is the 'fruit' of an irrational, wicked heart.


Look at the USA.
Once a mostly just and peaceful, and very wealthy nation.
The past wealth of the USA, imo, was built mostly on the consequence of that nation embracing principles of truth and justice.
[Though the oppression of the native people of the USA was an aberrant and unjust episode in its history.]
IMO, in recent decades [and for the whole of the 20th century ? ] corporate USA [acting through the executive government of the USA] have sought wealth, from the oppression and the exploitation of the people of other nations.
How long can such immoral conduct be sustained ???
IMO, such conduct is always, ultimately, self destructive.


+++

IMO,
PROSPERITY [wealth] among men, is a consequence of PEACE.

And PEACE is a consequence of a functioning JUSTICE system.

A functioning JUSTICE system, requires a respect among men, for free and open TRUTH [...to the point that men are prepared to defend TRUTH].

TRUTH [free and open] brings JUSTICE, brings PEACE, brings PROSPERITY [wealth].

Yadda wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:16am:

Sappho wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 8:50am: Wealth, which brings with it leisure, is that which makes a nation great. You must have leisure time for thinking and creating and the wealth to bring that thinking and creating into fruition. Wealth is born of dominating and subjugating surrounding territories. Err, WRONG, imo! THAT, is the way of Cain, the murderer. [insert yadda yadda blah blah here]

If I am wrong... then instead of quoting bible at me, which is filled with territorial and waring disputes... why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory.

You dare to site the US as an example of a once peaceful nation? My my... does your ignorance know no boundaries. That Christian country only knows blood shed and capitalism.  

Sappho wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

Yadda wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 7:16am: Sappho wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 8:50am: Wealth, which brings with it leisure, is that which makes a nation great. You must have leisure time for thinking and creating and the wealth to bring that thinking and creating into fruition. Wealth is born of dominating and subjugating surrounding territories. Err, WRONG, imo! THAT, is the way of Cain, the murderer. [insert yadda yadda blah blah here] If I am wrong... then instead of quoting bible at me, which is filled with territorial and waring disputes... why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory.

Sappho,

I concede, i can't.

Men have always corrupted themselves [reverted to warfare among themselves].


Sappho 1

Yadda  0


But, contentious as i always am    ;D , i would still argue that my logic is still correct, as to, that poverty is a consequence of warfare among men.

And that prosperity is a consequence of peace [stemming from a functioning justice system] among men.






+++


"Men have always corrupted themselves [reverted to warfare among themselves]."



Quote:

John Connor: We're not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean. The Terminator: It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.

Yadda, whether you like it or not... we are animals... we are a species of the animal kingdom... Animals fight for territory. The more territitory they have, the better their chances of survival because the more access those animals have to food and water.

Humans just happen to be the smartest animals on the block, so not only can we secure our survival through territorial grabs, we can use the subsequent leisure time born of less 'survival' effort to explore our ideas and creativity.

Sappho wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory.

Switzerland. Finland. Singapore, Sth Korea. Germany. Norway. Lichtenstein, Luxembourg.

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

Sappho wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 11:12am: why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory. Switzerland. Finland. Singapore, Sth Korea. Germany. Norway. Lichtenstein, Luxembourg.

Exactly. Territory is the currency of empires.

Amerika - the "empire without an empire" - is a new phenomenon. The business of Amerika is business.

The new game, since the 16th century, is the aquisition of capital. Even gold has faded into obscurity. Serfdom, the British Navy, ursury laws, noblesse oblige, the colonies; all make way for the interests of shareholders, and Amerika has been pivotal in this shift by negotiating the new world order in its own interests.

Military aquisition of territory died with the Third Reich. With population levels rising, there's no shortage of labour. Prior to the recession of 2001, there was no shortage of markets either.

The trick now is how to make the new global order work with overpopulation and dwindling supplies - WITHOUT the aquisition of territory.

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

Sappho wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 11:12am: why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory. Switzerland. Finland. Singapore, Sth Korea. Germany. Norway. Lichtenstein, Luxembourg.

Yes, Singapore is a particularly good example of the prosperity that can be achieved, with peace and human enterprise.

I could answer to the question: "What makes THIS nation great?"
But I think I might crush a lot of fragile little eggshells here.
:-/

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

Sappho wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 11:12am: why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory. Switzerland. Finland. Singapore, Sth Korea. Norway. Lichtenstein, Luxembourg.

Having removed germany from the list... what actually makes those nations great of themselves?

Please don't include things that they have taken from other 'great' cultures.

Sappho wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 1:44pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 11:04am: Sappho wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 11:12am: why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory. Switzerland. Finland. Singapore, Sth Korea. Norway. Lichtenstein, Luxembourg. Having removed germany from the list... what actually makes those nations great of themselves? Please don't include things that they have taken from other 'great' cultures.

Billiy Connolly

Quote:

"Nothing good comes from Switzeland. Cookoo clocks and fvckin' toblerone! It's impossible to eat a fvckin' toblerone without hurting yourself! What sick mind would invent a bar of chocolate that hurts you? Only them fvckers!"

Sappho wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 1:44pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 11:04am: Sappho wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 11:12am: why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory. Switzerland. Finland. Singapore, Sth Korea. Norway. Lichtenstein, Luxembourg. Having removed germany from the list... what actually makes those nations great of themselves? Please don't include things that they have taken from other 'great' cultures.

Nothing. They've just found a place for themselves in the global marketplace. With the exception of Norway (an oil/gas supplier), they are all countries that provide financial services to others. In essence, they are middle-men.

Germany and China, on the other hand, are manufacturers. They actually make things. They also have a long history of making things, predating capitalism.

What makes a nation great? Trade. Trade brings education, capital, language, and dare I say it: multiculturalism. Trade provides an outward gaze and an openness to foreigners. Trade brings opportunities to citizens that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Australia is a trading nation, despite the intentions of its early colonial governors. NSW was set up to be an insular farming backwater - a pastoral utopia designed to make convicts work hard and keep them away from the rest of the world. Sydney was never a gaol. Australia's isolation left convicts with the relative freedom to live in their own houses and wear their own clothes.

But the convicts kept their eyes on the horizon, and successive gold rushes turned Australia into an immigrant trading nation. England also needed naval bases in the Asia Pacific region to counter the Dutch, French and Russians, so we looked towards the north and became increasingly vigilant/paranoid about invasion.

Australia is a curious mix of outward curiousity and insular provincialism. As people moved off the land and rural and regional towns died, Australia's insularity has been transferred to the suburbs. But we still keep our eyes on the horizon. Australia is an immigrant, trading nation, and this, along with the resources in the ground, is the reason for its success.

What makes Germany Great for starters is knowing oneself.
They know they are no good at Politics and Military as a majority of power.
They do know they have a thriving Medical and Sporting Industry.
Both are far better than anything the UK can offer up.

So, what is Australia's best assets or what is Australia good at in comparison? Clue - it ain't Politics, thats for sure.

Karnal wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

Nothing. They've just found a place for themselves in the global marketplace. With the exception of Norway (an oil/gas supplier), they are all countries that provide financial services to others. In essence, they are middle-men. ..... What makes a nation great? Trade.

And the differance is??


Anyway, Korea and Finland are not middle-men. They make things the world wants.
Switzerland also makes lots of things the world wants. Sweden also.

Switzerland? Sure they do: they make laws that protect banks.

You're right though. South Korea definately makes things. Manufacturing does make a nation great, but not ephemerally so. Like trade and labour costs, manufacturing comes and goes. Britain once dominated the world's cloth market. Now?

These things come and go with the wind. Nations themselves can hardly be seen as the unit of "greatness". Cultures, too, absorb and discard values. Whatever happened to the Protestant work ethic?

It's been outsourced to Korea.

We are, and have always been homo economicus, and we're subject to the global trade winds along with everybody else.

Karnal wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 11:03am:

We are, and have always been homo economicus, and we're subject to the global trade winds along with everybody else.

So true....

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/11/12DARWIN_wideweb__470x287,0.jpg

Flat out catching trade winds, 24/7.

Sappho wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

If I am wrong... then instead of quoting bible at me, which is filled with territorial and waring disputes... why not prove that I am wrong by referencing a great nation that did not become great through the aquisition of territory.

The Etruscans. They gained their wealth through trade and innovation, unlike the Romans who followed them.  Well, the Romans did mass produce Arretine ware, but that's about it. Most of their riches were booty from their various bellicose campaigns.  Their empire stagnated when they ran out of places to conquer.

I'll add my 2 cents worth - administrative judicial and financial systems. That's what just about made the Romans civilised.

China had its cultural greatness a very long time ago, as did Asia. Its only reflecting the Age of Namerica (North America) like the Moon does sunlight, as does the Individualism of the African American 'Labourer'. If an African did serve Asia directly, then he would be something akin to a Academic.
Anyway, China is growing, but only as a SuperNova ...its running on fumes of a world that is quickly vanishing and changing with the times.
It suddenly has all this wealth, but (thanks to Zimbabwe ;)) the Global Economy, especially the USA, will "Shut up Shop" for renovations, stock take, etc and China will be left knocking on closed doors.
The result will be a complete collapse, especially under the demand of its immense population. It will be forced to attack into Siberia for more land, resources, etc ...and well, the rest is for another post. :-X

So, what would make Australia Great?
Firstly, not Politics. Especially when the Federal Level rules the roost over the States, and Provinces (Independents) and Councils, etc. The Federal Level always serves the wellbeing of the International Community as the priority. Thats why so much money goes overseas and towards the United Nations. The Gov-General serves the UK and the Prime Minister serves the USA (Gillard and Howard are too recent good examples) - with the UK serving the USA anyway (rather than its fellow Europeans ...but thats another post :-X)
This is why Politcs could never Empower this Country's needs directly unless it was via Volunteer. You could say "In America: Politics gets Powerful for Freedom" and "In Australia: Politics is Free from Power" ;)

I think the Art Industry will become Australia's major Industry, followed by Religion. The Computer/Internet is making Australia wealthier compared to Television, which seems to be much like Federal Politics ...which explains why Celebrities/Actors/etc can only 'make it' if they go overseas (and then go on about how 'aussie' they really are ::)).
The Future of Australia will be Artistic and we will exist in our 'Age' like the ancient Minoans. Art is powerful, as Ramses 2 showed - he lost the battle against the Hittites via Military, but destroyed the Hittites via Art. I think Australia will also create more advances in Oceanography and all things Water (preservation, creation, irrigation, etc) like the USA has done with Aviation/Space Exploration. Our 'Computer Animation' Companies are already superior to anything North America pumps out and we have the top 3 Commercial Diving Academies in the World.

So when our time will come, it won't be Politics that runs this Nation's future (because it holds so tightly to the teet of the UK or the Past, so to speak) - it will be Art and I'm not talking that chardonney-sudsy Archibald-Televisual tribe of traditional and out-dated Art methods that just wanna paint Nudes.

Australia will be Great ...soon, when all else 'fails'.