Rousseau won first prize from the Académie de Dijon in 1750, not in 1754. In 1754, he responded to the prompt: "What is the origin of inequality among people, and is it authorized by natural law?" with his Discourse on Inequality and lost. The actual winner in 1754 was François Xavier Talbert.
The technologies best suited to secure perpetual peace already exist in the form of guns and propaganda. Shoot the boisterous rebels; shun any remaining non-believers. The end goal of perpetual peace goes to the people in power armed with both the physical and psychological means to either control or destroy dissenters—you know, the pesky unpeaceful types.
Every society has certain people seemingly hellbent on disturbing the peace. Thus, we've spent more than 3,200 of the past 3,500 years in violent conflict with one another in at least one part of the globe or another. But someone always wins, and it's usually done with violent weapons and deceitful persuasion. Killing machines and scandalous stories always win the day.
But I guess it depends on your definition of peace, including to whom it belongs (or for lack of a better framework, to whom it's most deserved) and to what degree it's important compared to the means required to uphold it.
Perhaps these ever-confounding questions explain why we've had such a problem with peace for the past few millennia.
I think it would have to include a concrete idea of what civilization entails and the barbarism position and how civilization would interact with the barbaric negations of itself, which in fact would be part of itself.
Rousseau won first prize from the Académie de Dijon in 1750, not in 1754. In 1754, he responded to the prompt: "What is the origin of inequality among people, and is it authorized by natural law?" with his Discourse on Inequality and lost. The actual winner in 1754 was François Xavier Talbert.
Was about to comment this
☝️🤓
The technologies best suited to secure perpetual peace already exist in the form of guns and propaganda. Shoot the boisterous rebels; shun any remaining non-believers. The end goal of perpetual peace goes to the people in power armed with both the physical and psychological means to either control or destroy dissenters—you know, the pesky unpeaceful types.
Every society has certain people seemingly hellbent on disturbing the peace. Thus, we've spent more than 3,200 of the past 3,500 years in violent conflict with one another in at least one part of the globe or another. But someone always wins, and it's usually done with violent weapons and deceitful persuasion. Killing machines and scandalous stories always win the day.
But I guess it depends on your definition of peace, including to whom it belongs (or for lack of a better framework, to whom it's most deserved) and to what degree it's important compared to the means required to uphold it.
Perhaps these ever-confounding questions explain why we've had such a problem with peace for the past few millennia.
Best of luck with finding your solution.
woah..
Woah indeed.
Should I flesh out this one and actually submit something rather than hiding in the comments like a coward?
I think it would have to include a concrete idea of what civilization entails and the barbarism position and how civilization would interact with the barbaric negations of itself, which in fact would be part of itself.
Technology, law, general cultural Geist…