![]() ![]() As a result, A refuses to engage in serious negotiations, preferring to arm itself. Consider for instance militarists in country A, who are convinced that inhabitants of country B are caught in the grip of an unshakeable instinct-driven warproneness. But concerning such matters the connection between expectation and reality becomes complex, because of the risk that theories of human nature feed directly into people being liable to modify their behavior (although not their ‘nature’) as a result. Strictly speaking, the same applies to theories of human nature too: peoples’ instincts, including the ostensible ‘instinct’ for violence, will remain whatever they are regardless of what we think about them. Similarly for gravity before and after Newton, space-time before and after Einstein, and so forth. Before Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, although many serious thinkers believed the Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe, their error did not alter the astrodynamics of the solar system, which was then and has continued to be heliocentric, regardless of what theories people have had about it. Man remains what he has always been.” This is certainly true with respect to our knowledge of the physical world. Skinner wrote that “no theory changes what it is a theory about. In his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971), psychologist B. If we are, and if violence and war are therefore inevitable, then efforts toward peace would appear futile, and we should all resign ourselves to a Hobbesian “warre of every man against every man” ( Leviathan, 1651) along with the martial necessities this implies, including swollen military budgets, diminished resources for domestic policies, a presumption of international enmity, and so forth. In my opinion, amongst the most important ideas are those surrounding questions of ‘human nature’, especially the questions whether human beings are innately violent or naturally predisposed to war. ![]() It is also unarguably true that not all ideas are equally consequential. Few people – and probably no philosophers – would disagree with this. Three elements support this hypothesis: the visibility of the “wolf warriors” in China, the subtle references to the “century of humili- ation” and finally the instrumentalization of the cultural divide to alienate democratic regimes.SUBSCRIBE NOW War & Peace Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike? David P. ![]() Thus, “wolf warrior” diplomacy does not affect the objectives of Chinese foreign policy. In line with previous Chinese leaders, the main purpose of this domestically oriented foreign policy is to legitimize the CCP in the eyes of its own citizens. The paradox is that the real target of China’s foreign policy are the Chinese themselves, at home or abroad. While this new practice, heavily criticized by Western and Asian public opinion, reinforces the perception of China as a threat, this paper questions the motives of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in perpetuating such a policy. For several years, and especially since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis, some Chinese diplomats, commonly called “wolf warriors” by Western media, have adopted a warlike tone in the media and on social networks. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |