Militarism, Masculinity, Metalheads

[Istaev]

a. Good points. My critique of the army as an institution still stands, however, and if you think the benefits of joining outweigh all the other crap, that is obviously your choice.  From what I know about Aristotle's character ethics, whose basic premise i admire, is that Aristotle believed character mostly to be developed in childhood and through good parenting. I knew someone who fought in the Canadian forces and he was a complete failure in many respects so there is no necessary comnection between knowing how to hold a rifle and being a superior human being. From what Ive heard about war psychoogy: after the second world war when boot camp was introduced, the shoot to kill rate among soldiers sky-rocketed by the time of Vietnam. Never forget that the military exists to brainwash you not educate you.
b. You would have to justify that conclusion in more detail for me to respond.
c. I'm a generalist not a specialist. As Goethe said of language: he who knows one, knows none. I count nationalists who've never lived i another country as some of the dumbest people around.

a. the other crap being political in nature? or are you categorically opposed to authoritarian institutions? You're incorrect about Aristotle although I used him only because he represents a pre-modern and anti-individualistic view on socialization and character development. Also, Canada is a terrible example in a discussion about the military.
b. it should be obvious why traditional martial arts are totally impractical. the merits of Western v. Eastern philosophy is outside the scope of this debate but...
c. we're not talking about a narrow discipline here, we're talking about Western and Eastern culture. i think dabbling in eastern philosophy is counterproductive without a mastery of western philosophy because it is more familiar and addresses ideas more immediately applicable to western man. personally, the people I've known who study outside cultures to the exclusion of their own culture are either insincere or have identity issues. it's a form of cultural appropriation and inauthenticity.

[wahn]

b. it should be obvious why traditional martial arts are totally impractical.

But that is the whole point of internal daoist martial arts.

[wahn]

Let me crystallize my thoughts on this:

The military runs rigorous physical training programs on many levels. This builds character, that much is clear. The intellectual part of personality development is, however, entirely missing in military training, if not actively discouraged - since there are no set answers here in western culture.

Certain internal martial arts institutions train very rigorously as well (you will get exactly the same character "benefits") but for a completely different purpose - to affect the mind.

People here keep on pointing out that the modern military is more effective in warfare but that is beside the point. If you have some irrational prejudice against eastern culture but want to become more of a person, i would personally opt for perhaps training with the military for a short time (move as high up as you can in physical training ranking) and then leave the army and join various urban military training programs whilst spending your spare time reading and thinking. Alot of you however are arguing against something you obviously dont understand which is fairly sad.

If, finally, you want to experience war, well that is something entirely different but you should know that you will spend most of your time playing video games in a camp and occasionally knocking civilian doors down to arrest and search people whilst running the risk of being sniped.  All, again, for the fossil fuel CEOs.

[Cargést]

All of the above post is why I am more likely to join a (good) paramilitary organisation, rather than the army.

[nous]

we're not talking about a narrow discipline here, we're talking about Western and Eastern culture. i think dabbling in eastern philosophy is counterproductive without a mastery of western philosophy because it is more familiar and addresses ideas more immediately applicable to western man. personally, the people I've known who study outside cultures to the exclusion of their own culture are either insincere or have identity issues. it's a form of cultural appropriation and inauthenticity.

Here's what I think: "Western philosophy" consists mostly of modern deviations and is a departure from true Philosophy, which is universal and essentially the same in the East as in the West.
If the deviation is more familiar, then this familiarity must be severed. If its ideas are more applicable (whatever that's supposed to mean) for the modern man, then they must be abandoned.
Your psychological observations don't mean anything. That these people are insincere or have "identity issues" could simply signify that they're true philosophers by heart who are struggling against the deviations of "Western philosophy" and its social implications.

Masculinity implies siding with the truth even if that makes you appear unsocial.

[nous]

Life isn't one big heavy metal song or action movie.

I disagree here. Life is a dynamic experience built out of sequences of fear and wonder. There is a narrative and there is plenty of action. A good heavy metal song or a good action movie is an imitation, or a ritualistic representation, of the drama of creation and the arising of order from chaos. What else is necessary for the life of a warrior?

The silence that gives birth to the music. Every warrior needs the knowledge that gives purpose to his action.

[wahn]

Life isn't one big heavy metal song or action movie.

I disagree here. Life is a dynamic experience built out of sequences of fear and wonder. There is a narrative and there is plenty of action. A good heavy metal song or a good action movie is an imitation, or a ritualistic representation, of the drama of creation and the arising of order from chaos. What else is necessary for the life of a warrior?

The silence that gives birth to the music. Every warrior needs the knowledge that gives purpose to his action.

It is obvious that this is just an attempt at poetic *interpretation* of reality. Not that I object to this, but artistic interpretations of the world (of which there are MANY!) do not merit the epistemological standards i would assign to the word "is". Reality *is not* a heavy metal song. Varg might disagree since he spent most of his life dreaming he were in pagan europe, but Kant, Plato, Hegel, Heraclitus (Read fragment 1 only) would all agree. Nietzsche might not though, I admit - but in so doing he would have to discredit the scientific darwinian influences on his thought, which people seem to get all excited about. Further, Nietzsche wouldn't have given two vomits for underground metal I presume, since he had contempt for even Wagner (but that is beside the point - needed saying anyhow). If life were a heavy metal song we wouldn't need heavy metal songs.

[wahn]

All of the above post is why I am more likely to join a (good) paramilitary organisation, rather than the army.

You are choosing a course of action without having considered what I present to you as an alternative. This is the intellectual equivalent of marching into a battle without having studied the map.

[Cargést]

You are choosing a course of action without having considered what I present to you as an alternative. This is the intellectual equivalent of marching into a battle without having studied the map.

You don't know what I mean by "good paramilitary organisation".

[sleipnir]

Conscription is just a way for countries with a small population to secure a respecable "national defense"

Personally, I can't see anything wrong with people of a certain age spending time in the military, if you don't want to do it, there are legal alternatives to it.
 

[wahn]

Canada has a third the population of Germany and a third of Germany's GDP yet Canada has no conscription and Germany does.

[Helmholtz]

It is obvious that this is just an attempt at poetic *interpretation* of reality. Not that I object to this, but artistic interpretations of the world (of which there are MANY!) do not merit the epistemological standards i would assign to the word "is". Reality *is not* a heavy metal song. Varg might disagree since he spent most of his life dreaming he were in pagan europe, but Kant, Plato, Hegel, Heraclitus (Read fragment 1 only) would all agree. Nietzsche might not though, I admit - but in so doing he would have to discredit the scientific darwinian influences on his thought, which people seem to get all excited about. Further, Nietzsche wouldn't have given two vomits for underground metal I presume, since he had contempt for even Wagner (but that is beside the point - needed saying anyhow). If life were a heavy metal song we wouldn't need heavy metal songs.

Your main set of ideas here seems to be "there are other interpretations than those which ANUS has".  I don't think anyone denies this.

[wahn]

It is obvious that this is just an attempt at poetic *interpretation* of reality. Not that I object to this, but artistic interpretations of the world (of which there are MANY!) do not merit the epistemological standards i would assign to the word "is". Reality *is not* a heavy metal song. Varg might disagree since he spent most of his life dreaming he were in pagan europe, but Kant, Plato, Hegel, Heraclitus (Read fragment 1 only) would all agree. Nietzsche might not though, I admit - but in so doing he would have to discredit the scientific darwinian influences on his thought, which people seem to get all excited about. Further, Nietzsche wouldn't have given two vomits for underground metal I presume, since he had contempt for even Wagner (but that is beside the point - needed saying anyhow). If life were a heavy metal song we wouldn't need heavy metal songs.

Your main set of ideas here seems to be "there are other interpretations than those which ANUS has".  I don't think anyone denies this.

Perhaps I wanst too clear. my main argument is that there are: (1) many aesthetic interpretations, which im sure no one denies but it still invalidates the claim that reality is essential a heavy metal song. and one (2) scientific interpretation that would take precedence over all aesthtic interpretation id argue by virtue of being a rational articulation of the laws of the world in a way that music cannot describe reality. Ofcourse this brings us into the domain of philosophy of science namely does science provide a more accurate account of the world than art and from what I know Id argue yes, which is why I made the post.

[Cargést]

Perhaps the point of Art is not to display a more perfect form of Reality, but, rather, to allow such a form to become apparent to those who observe the piece of Art.  I think Shelley wrote something along these lines in "In Defence of Poetry".

[Somnambulist]

I would say that science can describe reality more accurately than music, but music can describe life more vividly than science.