It is hard to know which is more serious, the greatest humanitarian disaster of decades or the military threats of a volatile isolationist country the people of which suffer great poverty. They are very different places and situations, but they have the commonalities of great hardship for the innocent for the sake of bellicosity as war is enacted virtually or actually, and through international passivity and impotence.
In Syria, civilians are being used as human shields by both government and opposition with tragic results: William Hague was right to admit, in his own words, that the world response through the UN had been so inadequate it was complete failure, but it was concerning to hear the inference that either through umbrella groups or individual countries, weapons might be sent to the Syrian Opposition forces to help their fight: to me this would exacerbate the bloodshed, entrench Assad in his determination to fight on, and increase the danger of increasing Jihadist terrorist involvement; it would be folly.
Simultaneously G8 leaders reprimanded North Korea for its military threats and activity: as I listened I wondered how this volatile, over-sensitive dictatorship would feel at the public chastisement and felt it would not be well received, particularly with Secretary of State John Kerry travelling to South Korea and China now. Megaphone diplomacy is rarely helpful, and so it may prove.
So, the G8 admitted some failures and acknowledged two serious crises, each of which impacts us all, not least through our shared responsibility for compassion and assistance for our fellow travellers in Syria and Korea, so often forgotten in the rhetoric of quasi or actual war. The winner of the Summit is a certain, limited, truth, and the many losers are the men, women, children and animals of two lands engrossed in the idea or the reality of war; also, perhaps common sense? It is not too late to talk.
Claire Montanaro is a spiritual teacher, channel and blogger with special interest in esoteric philosophy and the world in transition. Loves nature and wildlife. Author of “Spiritual Wisdom”.]]>
How else can pragmatic philosophy (James, 1907, Lecture II) be applied with regard to the points you raise? Would it be strictly in terms of Marxist/sociological conflict theory, or not?
Reference
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. A public domain version of this text (commencing with Lecture II) can be found as a Project Gutenberg ebook at: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1458250&pageno=17.
No, I would call it in terms of common sense! Thank you as always, William, for taking the time to comment.