Homework. For that darned History class.

[kyrasantae]

In which it is laid out the tenets of an alternate interpretation of human nature and in which it is used to explain the driving forces behind the man of war and the man of peace.

Introduction
To best understand the motivations of man, one must not consider the nature of man with the oft-differently interpreted concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ Instead, one must use more specific, yet still abstract, concepts, in which case they can be identified as ‘hostility’ and ‘patience.’

Man’s nature is to be hostile or violent (the extreme form of hostility) – even prehistorically, mankind had discovered conveniently that to kill was the best way to get meat to eat, and, that minor disagreements (generated by a lesser form of hostility) were the key to getting attention. Only when civilisations developed was it introduced that patience was to be an important part of man’s life: it took time to build shelters, cultivate and grow plants, domesticate animals. These were things that were, in some ways, easier to do when man was still nomadic. Patience became a quality that was believed to be superior to quick action — that careful consideration and willingness to wait brought about better results than acting quickly. A modern example would be that of an inventor working on an invention. He has to take his time to work out the kinks in his design to make it as good as he can, rather than slapping together a gadget in a short period of time (which might end up falling apart or not operating properly at all).

In our modern society, as in the example above, patience is the underlying value that is most dominant; our hostile nature is suppressed by the belief that patience is the ideal way to deal with conflict. Regardless of this, every man possesses still this original nature – most often it is found in a state of imbalance, with patience overpowering hostility. That is why we can be kind to each other, friendly, and generally willing to negotiate with each other for a mutually agreeable solution to problems. But sometimes the nature of hostility finds its way through the cracks of the modern stranglehold of patience, and that is what causes conflicts among people, violence amongst people, war amongst people. A very minor example of this could be simply a bargaining between a buyer and a seller. The negotiation could go well at the beginning, but at some point perhaps the seller gets frustrated (i.e. loses his patience) at maybe how slowly the talks are going and simply calls it off completely, offending the turned-away buyer. This is an example of how hostility can break through the walls of patience.

In some people (and this is affected by their personal background) patience may be weaker. In others, hostility may be very well overcome. However, hostility may not always reveal itself in our actions immediately. Take myself as an example: I may be generally peaceful and patient in my actions, but inside my subconscious (i.e. in dreams) or in my thoughts (and not everybody knows this), I see myself doing violent things. (This may actually be caused by a deficiency by which there is so much pressure applied on me to remain patient that hostility just explodes into dominance via frustration.) Therefore some people have the ability to control how much influence each of the main values have on them.

Thus said, the ideas put forth in this work take form.

How is a soldier made?
It is far easier done than to make the excuses for it. Any man who decides to enlist in the military are lead by their nature to do it regardless of conscious motive; it is their born nature that has risen from oppression and desires to be acted upon. The military is subconsciously decided on as the best way to do deal with their strong hostile feelings because other ways of doing so are accused as crime – while as a soldier he is generally allowed to kill and let hostility take charge. Any reasons of national pride or duty are illusion, for they are not true reasons for him wanting to become a soldier but agents that break down the force of patience and encourage the force of hostility to take over.

For those men who, by circumstance, are drafted into the military, the purpose of the intensely rigid and strenuous ‘basic training’ is indeed to revive and strengthen his ‘basic’ nature – hostility. The process of training, like nationalistic ideas, breaks down the patient barrier that makes him ‘civilised’ (for the enlisted men this process serves to reinforce this), but is many times more effective than nationalism alone.

Civilians are not necessarily just those who are more patient than hostile. Some civilians may even be fit to be soldiers because of their balance between their natures but they have not had the initial agent of nationalism (or other similar agent) to lead them to take action and serve in the armed forces. When the time comes, though, these men will probably be the fiercer fighters in the conscripted forces.

Twisted expectations
It is well known that man’s greatest fear is death. Is a soldier afraid to die? Of course he is, but that is his patience speaking: in war his ‘civilised’ patient nature is not around to tell him that there has to be a better solution to the conflict that he is in. His hostility is let all-out, his patience cannot keep him from doing anything that delays or eliminates an opportunity to become hostile. The willingness to die is a consequence of the willingness to kill as accepted by and completely conforms to the intent of the competitive nature of hostile temperament (in competition someone must always lose, and it is not always the opponent).

A man’s loyalty and discipline are prized qualities because they maintain the present balance of his dual natures. The soldier uses these qualities to keep the supremacy of his hostile nature; the civilian uses them to keep the supremacy of his patient nature. Little explanation is required for why the soldier's ability to be hostile is important or why the civilian’s ability to be patient is important – that is what makes them what they are.

Nationalism, being an agent to break down patience, sometimes is not strong enough to do what it is intended to do. That is why in wartime we have civilians helping out on the home front. They have the pride and the feeling of wanting to serve the country, but their balance of natures is not yet tipped in favour of hostility.

What do we do without soldiers?
A nation without soldiers is a nation without security; without a buffer of soldiers to fend off other parties of aggression (armies from other nations), patient civilians are going to easily become victims of that aggression. Yes, they would try to take it slowly and think of ways to reduce or negotiate with the root cause of the conflict (often that of a leader with elevated hostile tendencies), but obviously these civilians are going to be dying by the thousands if they took time to negotiate! This is not desirable for the civilians and that is why they resign themselves to allow an army to be raised. With an army, opposing nations can fight each other without people dying who are not willing to die (that is, civilians), buying time for the civilians to figure out how to resolve the conflict.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Vincent Povirk, Debra Sembrano, and Colin Huerter for the brainstorming session and Mo Zhang for the creative approach that set me going. Some ideas were also inspired by the 1983 film “Anybody’s Son Will Do” by Gwynne Dyer and the class discussion that followed it. Additional thanks to Joonas Vartiainen for moral support (for once someone doesn’t think I’m crazy!)

Antonuk can say what she wants but her biggest lie is saying she is trying not to force her viewpoint on us and her biggest mistake is calling us all hypocrites before hearing our full word [because our ideas are not either one extreme or another; is it not true that there is understandibly definitely contradiction in anyone's understanding of the world? If that were the case then why must she stop us in the middle of presenting ourselves and say it that 'if you keep going like that you'll screw up really bad'?] and her biggest blunder is thinking we're all idiots and don't have the right to silent disagreement.

And I shall guarantee you [that, if she could,] she will tear this essay to shreds like she did the misguided G4 letter last year for its basic premise is nothing she has taught and is probably too 'superficial' and 'immature' and 'idealistic' for 'the work of an IB student' while it is not allowed to be argued that man's nature is inherently greedy. She will tear it to shreds because it speaks not of pride as the sole source of moral suppression nor does it present historical proof and because it is a product of 'emotional reaction' rather than of a 'researched/informed reaction' -- valuing, in plain, head over heart. How are there only hypocrites between idealists and realists? If 'real' implies 'truth' and 'truth' implies 'right,' it implies realism is right but can idealism ever be right? As well, does idealism have to apply to a vision of collectivism and realism a 'reality' of individualism? Can it be the other way around?

I don't think of asking these questions in class, or making any statements of opinion [there]. Think of it as a valuable object. Every time you take it out for someone to look at, either that person or someone else tries to take it away from you. After a while you become so protective of it you just don't bring it out anymore or only show people when you and the viewer are alone. Now replace that valuable object with my philosophies. That's why I don't try to join the class discussions. If my ideas had ever been accepted [for what they are worth] by a person of higher authority it would have been different. If there was one time you could show someone your object without someone trying to steal it you'd be somewhat more optimistic than if it almost got stolen every single time. It's why I write in my diary only when I'm alone in my room. The only reason why I prefer to do my homework when no one's watching or in the vicinity (especially if it's moral stuff like this essay for social class). (And my mom thinks I'm psychotic because of that! How absurd!)