Unity

Ahh my first thread, w00t! Anyway, the topic...

I read something today which suggested that unity must stem from opposition to a common foe. And once the foe is no longer present the members turn on each other and ultimately the group disintegrates. Classic examples would be nations at war, sports teams and political parties. What are your thoughts on the matter?

I think that for people to band together there must be a common interest or enemy, or whatever the case may be. Otherwise, why would they?

Interesting topic, by the way.....

This idea....( although I voted against it ), - will explain why later on - is extremely well highlighted in Iraq at the moment.

The arab tribes have been at war with each-other for eons and these wars have generated many alliances and splits over this time.

At the moment they see the American/British infidels as a common foe and as such we see the warlords and the religious clerics forming alliances to defeat this common foe.

Of course as soon as the co-alition troops move out, ( even IF it is a so-called Democracy by this time ), the religious and greedy factions will immediately split once again so as to push their own agendas.

It is likely that civil-war will then ensure until the strongest prevail and the weakest fall.

SO...It seems that I have presented an argument AGAINST my own stance here...but actually, if we move away form the very unstable Middle East we will find that friendships in the main form more alliances than war and greed do.

As a humanist I would hope that this trend increases as the peoples of the world get sick and tired of war and bloodshed and hatred.

If people would put aside their differences and focus on what they do have in common w/eachother, it's possible. But most people focus on eachothers differences rather than what they have in common.
You could use KMC as an example, there's alot of diff opinions, comments, expressions, beliefs in here and alot of people in here, (NOT all) but if you don't agree w/them they tend to degrade you instead of just stating their opinions. Thats what i'm talking about when your focus is on the negative, when most people can agree on something lol in here, so why degrade someone when stating your opinion. My opinion people general focus on the negative, instead of postive.

Fiery Eyes...... I HATE to disagree with you after that statement... 😄......BUT...It is disagreement in the cruel outside world that causes strife and pain and bloodshed.

When people come together to debate and argue AT THIS LEVEL they are in fact avoiding the mayhem that ensues outside.

This opinion was once highlighted by someone famous when theysaid: "Jaw, jaw, jaw...not...war, war, war !"

There is nothing wrong w/debating, but when you see that you shld degrade someone for their opinion, that is wrong. That is what kmc is about debating, discussing...but not degrading people.

Unity can only come w/people find a common ground and work fromt that.

are you talking on a grand scale, or a more personal confrontation?
If you are referring to world wide unity, then no. Maybe if we were invaded by aliens,but even then i'd doubt it. World wide unity is not possible beause people want,need,believe and have different things. I believe it is human nature to not be able to get along and cause confrontations.with confronatations you have somthing to work twords and gain.If world peace was as easy as putting aside differences then we would have had world peace along time ago. The best you can ask for is not world unity,but world understanding.

I suppose the text was referring to medium to grand scale unity. You make some good points ragesRemourse, I agree with many of them myself. A bit of understanding and respect could go a long way in the world today.

Although it seemed a strange thing to consider, that human unity may only be possible when there is a common foe. I felt immediately inclined to reject the idea, but the more I considered it, the more logical it seemed. It makes our species seem almost evil if it is true, that the only time we can unite is when we want to destroy, defeat or overthrow something. 😬 To take a quote from Equilibrium (great movie) "...a single inescapable fact; that mankind united with infinitely greater purpose in pursuit of war, than he ever did in pursuit of peace."

Perhaps love is the only thing that can create unity between humans without the need for a common foe?

I agree with you that man needs confrontation. Humanity needs conflict wheather it be internal or external, it is somthing humanity needs. Sure simple nature can give us confrontation and conflict, but more can be gained when confronting a fellow man who has somthing you want.

Of course the human spirit is capable of world peace. I say that humanity needs confrontation of some sort because this is the way we have lived since the beginning of time. there may have been times where humanity wasnt delusioned by greed or temptation,but history tells us. When humanity wasnt fighting each other for somthing we were monkeys, and even then we were probably fighting each other for the bigger peice of food. World wide unity is not possible because of our history. Everything that ever happend through out history, every decision that was ever made has all led humanity to it's present state. The direction that society is in, is a direction that is heading no where near peace, and doesnt understand the concept. This isnt somthing anyone or anything is at fault for,it is just nature.

Ibelieve the human will, could prove one day to learn from mistakes and introduce the concept of peace. For this to happen today though is an impossible thought. the entire world would have to change. change drastically. you know, maybe if an alien life form came to us and read to us our worlds history and present state.Maybe then we could realize the direction that society is heading. What do you think an alien, an intelligent life form that has never even heard of Earth would think if he read our history and present society?

Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
There is nothing wrong w/debating, but when you see that you shld degrade someone for their opinion, that is wrong. That is what kmc is about debating, discussing...but not degrading people.

Unity can only come w/people find a common ground and work fromt that.

I am sorry Fiery Eyes if you interpret criticism as degradation, as to disagree with someone's beliefs is normally not meant to degrade these beliefs. It is the sensitive souls that hold these vulnerable beliefs that see sound criticism as degrading attacks on belief-systems.

Of course people who have blind belief will get attacked by people who have none - like me - or have different ones - like the opposing religions, but if we all just agree to disagree and if we try to see the other person's point of view now and again we might - just might - start to get that "understanding" that White Eagle taks about.

THEN... as we slowly evolve into higher beings we will lay aside the need for conflict and war and that elusive unity will finally come !

Working toward a common goal really isn't different from having a common foe. Its possible, but it is only temporary. Human beings have too many differing interests to be allied for very long....

Originally posted by ragesRemorse What do you think an alien, an intelligent life form that has never even heard of Earth would think if he read our history and present society? [/B]

Heh, I think they'd be wise to steer clear of the human race, at least for now. We have enough trouble in trying to not kill each other without having to deal with other species. Or perhaps they could show us the error of our ways. Although we should be able to see them ourselves. Lousy human race... 😄 A scary thought would be that we could be the most 'intelligent' and technologically advanced species in the universe. 😐

This reminds me of René Girard' s mimetic desire. We borrow our desires from others. Far from being autonomous, our desire for a certain object is always provoked by the desire of another person for this same object. Since the mimetic rivalry that develops from the struggle for the possession of the objects is contagious, it leads to the threat of violence. If two individuals desire the same thing, there will soon be a third, ... This process quickly snowballs. The object is quickly forgotten, and the mimetic conflict transforms into a general antagonism. The violence would tend to focus on an arbitrary victim and a unanimous antipathy would grow against him. The brutal elimination of the victim would reduce the appetite for violence that possessed everyone a moment before, and leaves the group suddenly appeased and calm. The victim lies before the group, appearing simultaneously as the origin of the crisis and as the one responsible for this miracle of renewed peace. He becomes sacred, that is to say the bearer of the prodigious power of defusing the crisis and bringing peace back.

Originally posted by Cipher
I think that for people to band together there must be a common interest or enemy, or whatever the case may be. Otherwise, why would they?

Interesting topic, by the way.....

If no one else was in there it would be Shaky vs debbiejo.........lol
And that's like oh wow............

Human beings, particularly in the modern Western world, are very egoic, and egoic beings identify with individual needs moreso than group needs. When humans begin to transcend their egos, when we begin to see connection more than competition, then unity will begin to ensue.

✅

Originally posted by WhiteEagle
Ahh my first thread, w00t! Anyway, the topic...

I read something today which suggested that unity [B]must stem from opposition to a common foe. And once the foe is no longer present the members turn on each other and ultimately the group disintegrates. Classic examples would be nations at war, sports teams and political parties. What are your thoughts on the matter? [/B]

Originally posted by WhiteEagle
Ahh my first thread, w00t! Anyway, the topic...

I read something today which suggested that unity [B]must stem from opposition to a common foe. And once the foe is no longer present the members turn on each other and ultimately the group disintegrates. Classic examples would be nations at war, sports teams and political parties. What are your thoughts on the matter? [/B]

Now, the "us and them" concept is a fact. It is a social psychology phenomenon that has been studied, although I do not feel like looking for the proper term and references for it at the moment. You will group together with those that are most like you in whatever group you are a part of. Globally, the US, Europe, and Canada are the most similar. We thus group together against them (everyone else.) Currently the middle-east has shown a great amount of difference from the rest of the world, and as such it is the them, while everyone else is the us, and vice-versa. In smaller groups, you have Whites, Blacks, Asians, Arabs, etc. and us and them have often occurred throughout history, with the Black population being the most different and thus most frequently having been them. Smaller groups will separate in various manners, often due to appearance or ideology. Sometimes separate types of unity will occur depending on the current context, and loyalties will shift dependant on current topic of focus. "Us and them" is a consistently observable phenomenon, typically a result of similar aspects of the individuals/groups in question.