Harut Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 glorious death or survival at all cost? on personal level. on national level. on species level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 glorious death or survival at all cost? on personal level. on national level. on species level. style_images/master/snapback.png Inchpisi heros @nkerner meran meran,!!! chkoran! *************************** Hayastan aselis es mah@ um shunne? ******************************* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 This is a good read... Banzai! Debunking the kamikaze myth http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FK06Dh01.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 I think it is better to be rich, young and healthy than poor, old and ill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 glorious death or survival at all cost? on personal level. on national level. on species level. style_images/master/snapback.png Glorious death - on personal level Survival at all cost - on national level, on species level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted November 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Glorious death - on personal level Survival at all cost - on national level, on species level style_images/master/snapback.png why? how should we understand this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 why? how should we understand this? style_images/master/snapback.png Well, personally I'd rather die with dignity than try to survive at all costs but I think the job of the species is to keep surviving and the same applies to nationality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted November 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Well, personally I'd rather die with dignity than try to survive at all costs but I think the job of the species is to keep surviving and the same applies to nationality. style_images/master/snapback.png but what if everyone chooses dignity like you? isn't a nation or a species a mere group of individuals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Well, personally I'd rather die with dignity than try to survive at all costs but I think the job of the species is to keep surviving and the same applies to nationality. style_images/master/snapback.png It's really hard to anwer why but maybe when it concerns the individual the question becomes what is more respected and valued by other individuals but when it concerns nationality the question is how long and stong a nationality can remain. The survival of the species is obvious because the existence of a species would be pointless if it didn't fight to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 but what if everyone chooses dignity like you? isn't a nation or a species a mere group of individuals? style_images/master/snapback.png Well, it depends on what kind of death and survival-at-all-cost are we talking about. For some people dying for one's country and nation is dignity, thus glorious death, yet it's survival for the nation and for some selling one's body for food is survival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 but what if everyone chooses dignity like you? isn't a nation or a species a mere group of individuals? style_images/master/snapback.png Not everyone must choose death. This is why all nations have different type of people. Those who value the territory (these must die first), those who value the culture, those who value the wealth etc. All of them are equally important. And if you choose to sacrifice in the right way you must keep glory aside. Otherwise it is a emotional self-satisfaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 In the end I always survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 but what if everyone chooses dignity like you? isn't a nation or a species a mere group of individuals? style_images/master/snapback.png Anoushik answer was excellent. The analogy with my cells(failure success) could pretty well explain this. Each of my cells just live, and they are "programmed" to fight to live, no matter what. I may choose to die in dignitity, this won't change the fact that each one fight to live(survival at all cost). Even if each cells of mine forms me, still their product choose else. A nation is not only the product of individual, it has someway a mind of it's own... and the goal for it is to survive no matter what, and in the cases of a species, it's even more true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Well, personally I'd rather die with dignity than try to survive at all costs but I think the job of the species is to keep surviving and the same applies to nationality. style_images/master/snapback.png Anushig jan your young and I understand, and we wish to die a glorios death, worthy of a human being with dignaty and honor but........ see I have a 76 year old father, for the last 5 years his health is deteriated and just past week he fell and broke his hip, now he is confined to a hospital bed and cant move for another 3 weeks, and all this time, in past years he was sick, always had to mantion he wants to live, but life he lived was not worth leving, he is my father and I always pray for him to go in peace die with dignaty but I guess I wont understand how life is so sweet for not wanting to let go with all costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 glorious death or survival at all cost? on personal level. on national level. on species level. style_images/master/snapback.png My take is, one should live for others and if necessary die for others too. As long as one is unselfish and does not cling to life the decision whether to live or die will come automatically. Dying for ones family, ones nation or the whole of humanity is a glorious death. But as our acestors tell us, "imatsial mah@ anmahutiun e". So, a heroic death is not death. A person who willingly and happily sacrifices his life for the benefit of others is not considered dead among those who appreciate it. It is also true that a selfish, self-centered life is no life. Clinging to life is something of a sin. To answer the question, in a normal society some people who are able will sacrifice their lives to save the lives of the others who are not able or willing to do so. So, the family/society/community will survive and thank the heros. As to species, I don't know if all species of bateria have to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted November 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 The analogy with my cells(failure success) could pretty well explain this. Each of my cells just live, and they are "programmed" to fight to live, no matter what. I may choose to die in dignitity, this won't change the fact that each one fight to live(survival at all cost). Even if each cells of mine forms me, still their product choose else. style_images/master/snapback.png Domino, but what if the singulars (cells in your body, individuals in a nation) have decisive role? plus, along your analogy... what if your cells collectively decide on glorious death? how can you then fight for survival at all cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted November 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 very realistic (which has happened many times before in armenians' and others' history) example... naziristan and veziristan, two majors powers are in war with each other. a small nation of jizvitistan is geogrphically in between and must take sides. the people of jizvitistan decide to allay with naziristan and fight agaist veziristan. as the war evolves, it is clear that veziristan is going to suffer a defeat. the people of jizvitistan are offered by veziristan to allay with it or face the cansequence of complete destruction alongside with naziristan, which is so unavoidable at this point. so, would it be right for the people of jizvitistan to betray the old allay and gain a new one in order to survive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted November 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 whenever we talk about survival, cockroaches come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Domino, but what if the singulars (cells in your body, individuals in a nation) have decisive role? plus, along your analogy... what if your cells collectively decide on glorious death? how can you then fight for survival at all cost? style_images/master/snapback.png You're example doesn't work, so I don't exactly understand what you imply. Can you clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 glorious death or survival at all cost? on personal level. on national level. on species level. style_images/master/snapback.png I do not know if I want to be a hero. Sure the thought seems pleasing and comforting to my ego, and sense of self, but I do not know if I want to be a hero in the sense most people have come to know "heroism". But then again, one can argue that we are a hero everyday. There is the high heroism of Marx, Roosevelt, Mao, and then the low heroism of the average man, the farmer, the teacher, the truck driver, the plain man working to guide a family through hunger. Man's need to be a hero, is a planetary thing. And this earthly embodiment of heroism is to transcend ones limited sense of life. I'm just reminded of how we glorify the hero. I have a trouble with this fetishism of heroism because to me it becomes nothing more than a tool for the State. To be a hero we must put ourselves in harm's way in extreme cases where our sacrifice is needed. So when does that occur? Except in rare cases of natural disasters or some other unseen circumstance, the only opportunity to be a hero is given by government and its wars. So what do we have here? If someone is a hero and survives, he is honored with medals and earthly rewards. If someone is a hero and dies, well, nothing much happens but you get noted for it. The third one is the tricky one, if one abstains from the fetishism of heroism one is a "coward" and will not be well received by friends, or your country, etc., because he chose not to take part in one of the governments fomented wars. So then, putting your life at risk, qualifies man to be a hero. The central theme is the terror of death which makes heroes of men. It is with the limelight of death haunting us in the future that hasn't come, that we try to act as heros. But why are hero systems confined to the realms of "national"? Public sector jobs such as being a fireman, a cop, or a soldier are considered heroes ipso facto. Because they are public sector they are government tied. Private sector jobs are not considered hero jobs, even though they occupy some of the most dangerous jobs, such as timber cutters, they aren't heroes. Even though more salespeople might die in a given year than police officers, they are not heroes. Heroism in war, on a national or public level is overstated, and heroism in the private sector in our everyday lives is understated. But why wouldn't it be? It is a convenient exercise into the effort of creating and sustaining a national myth of the war-system that only through the prism of government can you walk onto the alter of heroes. For all anyone knows, we are each heroes in our own right whether we know it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 I do not know if I want to be a hero. Sure the thought seems pleasing and comforting to my ego, and sense of self, but I do not know if I want to be a hero in the sense most people have come to know "heroism". But then again, one can argue that we are a hero everyday. There is the high heroism of Marx, Roosevelt, Mao, and then the low heroism of the average man, the farmer, the teacher, the truck driver, the plain man working to guide a family through hunger. Man's need to be a hero, is a planetary thing. And this earthly embodiment of heroism is to transcend ones limited sense of life. I'm just reminded of how we glorify the hero. I have a trouble with this fetishism of heroism because to me it becomes nothing more than a tool for the State. To be a hero we must put ourselves in harm's way in extreme cases where our sacrifice is needed. So when does that occur? Except in rare cases of natural disasters or some other unseen circumstance, the only opportunity to be a hero is given by government and its wars. So what do we have here? If someone is a hero and survives, he is honored with medals and earthly rewards. If someone is a hero and dies, well, nothing much happens but you get noted for it. The third one is the tricky one, if one abstains from the fetishism of heroism one is a "coward" and will not be well received by friends, or your country, etc., because he chose not to take part in one of the governments fomented wars. So then, putting your life at risk, qualifies man to be a hero. The central theme is the terror of death which makes heroes of men. It is with the limelight of death haunting us in the future that hasn't come, that we try to act as heros. But why are hero systems confined to the realms of "national"? Public sector jobs such as being a fireman, a cop, or a soldier are considered heroes ipso facto. Because they are public sector they are government tied. Private sector jobs are not considered hero jobs, even though they occupy some of the most dangerous jobs, such as timber cutters, they aren't heroes. Even though more salespeople might die in a given year than police officers, they are not heroes. Heroism in war, on a national or public level is overstated, and heroism in the private sector in our everyday lives is understated. But why wouldn't it be? It is a convenient exercise into the effort of creating and sustaining a national myth of the war-system that only through the prism of government can you walk onto the alter of heroes. For all anyone knows, we are each heroes in our own right whether we know it or not. style_images/master/snapback.png Beautiful! I couldn't agree more, and most of all, "hero fetish" is the term I've been desperately searching for. Yes, survival at all costs. In the end we all become dust or our memory is erased, so who the hell cares about this immortality quest. Besides, the glorious minds never pursued heroism, their mark was engraved through slower and more peaceful achievements, through a simple search for trough survival and was probably not often appreciated during their existence. Heroic endeavors are nothing but a highest sense of egoism concealed in the humble garments of altruism. Away with the invention of the poisonous and wrongfully perpetuated altruism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 I think it is better to be rich, young and healthy than poor, old and ill. style_images/master/snapback.png Sure it is, but the irony of life rears its head. When you are young and healthy you have no money. When you have money health fails you and old age creeps up on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Sure it is, but the irony of life rears its head. When you are young and healthy you have no money. When you have money health fails you and old age creeps up on you. style_images/master/snapback.png Not Well it depends what you consider young Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Not Well it depends what you consider young style_images/master/snapback.png Well, you and Sip are exceptions. By the way, that reminds me of Tolstoy. He gave up everything to live a life of an ascetic. I guess nature intended it to be a perfect balance. You must acquire money with age and wisdom to appreciate it, otherwise it's a premature condition which can be counterproductive. If we had everything while we are young, we would end up in the rut at old age. It has to be distributed evenly. But what the heck do I know, I am young and poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Well Sip is the exception but I am not. To me a person who is 45-55 is still young. and this is my goal. to be able to retire sometime around there. And to have enough money to do as I wish, but no need to live a crazy lifestyle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.