Theses/ "The War of the Worlds"

[Gaveston]

1I think that a language is a determinant factor of our world view. Nation is its language. I think that war between different civilizations is the war for a dominant world view.

2Every form of life wants to smash other forms of life to establish itself like a dominant form of life.

3Language is a primary form of life because it forms specific attitude towards the whole world.

4 It means that if one civilization wants to destroy other civilisation it implies destruction of language of other civilisation.

[Steve]

1I think that a language is a determinant factor of our world view. Nation is its language. I think that war between different civilizations is the war for a dominant world view.

2Every form of life wants to smash other forms of life to establish itself like a dominant form of life.

3Language is a primary form of life because it forms specific attitude towards the whole world.

4 It means that if one civilization wants to destroy other civilisation it implies destruction of language of other civilisation.

When you write an outline for a thesis, you have to take a look at your bullet points to see if you can shoot holes through your statements. Then you have to address the holes that you've noticed in your logic. Believe me, if you're going to publish an ill reasoned thesis, the people who read it are going to make mincemeat out of you.

Not every war is based on the need for a dominant world view. I can think of one war in particular that was sold to the world as a search for weapons of mass destruction and to protect the citizens of that country from a dictator who was using chemical weapons to kill a segment of the countries own population. In this instance, a dominant world view is way off the mark as a basis for the construction of your thesis. A more apt question might be, "What are the real reasons for war beyond the ones made known for public scrutiny".

The second bullet point you post bothers me a great deal. First, it is very difficult to defend broad sweeping statements. Not every form of life (at least known life) wants to "...smash other forms of life to establish itself like a dominant form of life." This is not an entirely true statement. Research symbiotic relationships and you will discover some species of life are obligate to other species and depend upon one another for their own survival.

Just some things to think about.

[ChadCoxRox]

Men who work through the development using their feedback and research to create an effective work make me horny.

[Bhp91126]

I think you have that backwards. In my mind wars are about money (resources, land). Germans never fought the French because of their language, but for territories. The destruction of the losers culture/language is only a byproduct of war.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

1I think that a language is a determinant factor of our world view. Nation is its language. I think that war between different civilizations is the war for a dominant world view.

2Every form of life wants to smash other forms of life to establish itself like a dominant form of life.

3Language is a primary form of life because it forms specific attitude towards the whole world.

4 It means that if one civilization wants to destroy other civilisation it implies destruction of language of other civilisation.

Hmm.

2. Not all wars are about dominion over others. Many, perhaps most, boils down to resources. The Roman empire is a good example, every time the treasury was low on gold, Rome pushed its boarders outward.

And Rome didn't kill off the native cultures/languages. If anything Rome was so successful with the spread of its empire simply because they absorbed ideas, cultures, etc.
There are also very logical and soundly thought out causes for wars:

http://www.history.com/news/history-list...us-reasons

Oh I'm sorry, I meant utterly ridiculous reasons..... :tongue:

3. No, not every form of life wants to smash other forms of life. Take Cows. Very peaceful people - they would rather stand about all day chewing cud and discussing the finer points of philosophy and religion... Moo. Moooooo. Moooo....

4. I will content that if a civilization wants to destroy another taking its language from them is one of many methods to do that.

Yet this tends to fit a general pattern of 'missionary' type work, where the more advanced civilization only seeks to do right and enlighten the primitive one.

White man has attempted to dominate and control other peoples through the eons, and one of the tactics used to civilize that natives, you know teach them the civilized language, teach them about God and Jebus. take the primitive brown people and give them a 'better way of life'....

This usually doesn't end well for the less advanced civilization...

Your thesis is going to need a bit more work, and real research before you present it.

Sorry, your idea has some traction, but it is not wholly accurate in the assumption that all species seek to dominate, that war is about only dominion over others.

[Gaveston]

I'm lazy. I dont want to explain my theses

Hmm.
And Rome didn't kill off the native cultures/languages. If anything Rome was so successful with the spread of its empire simply because they absorbed ideas, cultures, etc.
.

Roman Empire had no worthy concurrents except Karfagen. RE easy defeated other countries. Latin became international language. And aristocracy of other cultures had been forced to know dominant language.

It is a very good for us that Karfagen was defeated.

Thank to all of you for your answers.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

I'm lazy. I dont want to explain my theses

Roman Empire had no worthy concurrents except Karfagen. RE easy defeated other countries. Latin became international language. And aristocracy of other cultures had been forced to know dominant language.

It is a very good for us that Karfagen was defeated.

Thank to all of you for your answers.

And still Rome absorbed ideas, culture and even bits of language.

Yes true, while Latin was the 'world language' it wasn't actually forced on the people.

Today we see the same thing with English. It is a world language, no one has been conquered or has a gun held to their head - its just a generally agreed upon good business idea to learn that language.

The biggest example of how Rome approached conquest of peoples is religion. Every god and goddess of its pantheon was adopted from others.

[Virge]

Men who work through the development using their feedback and research to create an effective work make me horny.

Gravity and air make me horny. So do time and space.

[Gaveston]

And still Rome absorbed ideas, culture and even bits of language.


Today we see the same thing with English.

The biggest example of how Rome approached conquest of peoples is religion. Every god and goddess of its pantheon was adopted from others.

Moreover , Roman Empire had its own Hollywood i mean Coliseum, it is ancient version of TV )
Some of Roman Emperors were great showmans), you know... , Neron for example,
and Heliogabalus, especially...))
Do you like Heliogabalus?

[Virge]

Heliogabalus should have been killed before he became emperor. He died a nice death tho