The Conflict Motive and Human Nature

In the following article, we speak of and propose contradictory views on the collective motives behind armed conflicts that have occurred through history. We attempt to explain a society’s mass reasoning behind entering into war with another society and that reasoning’s direct source- human nature. As you will read on, Arnav proposes and backs the perspective that all human armed conflict is based on the idea that humans seek to propagate a core set of ideologies they believe in and seek to destroy any competing ideologies- they fight for what they believe in at the subconscious, very basic instinct level. Rahul proposes and backs the view that all human conflict is based on the desire for acquisition of power or resources-they fight for money.

The perspectives put forth below are not backed by hard research and are solely the opininons of the writers, contrary to most other literature on Atypical Rationale. There is no legitimate way to prove either and the choice between the two is purely subjective- both are equally plausible and the only way you can differentiate between their legitimacy is by your own discretion and beliefs about human nature.

Onward to Anarchy

Natural State. The State of the free men. A societal setup exempt of rules, devoid of laws and free from ‘constitutionalised’ concentration of power and public organization. Basically, in simple terms, a time when you could do whatever you wanted, whenever  you wanted, and your freedom only ended where somebody else’s began.

Anarchy.

The Reservations Paradox

In the following article, I speak against the concept of reservations for minorities in employment, education institutions, political processes, etc. Reservations for minorities is a mainly India-based concept especially for the equity of different castes under the caste system, however several legal provisions in several other countries exist as well – UK’s 2010 Equality Act, USA’s and Israel’s Affirmative Action, China’s general reservations for women, etc. Note that my knowledge of reservation systems outside of India is limited, and I apologize for any factual inaccuracies I may make if I refer to reservations not in India.

What the Fuck is Political Correctness?

When did our society progress (or regress) to this- how have we, even with our concepts of liberalisation and humanisation (go gay people!), reached a point where the need for the term ‘political correctness’ has come to exist?

The real question I would like to ask as of now is, what the fuck political correctness is. Another marvel of the 21^st century, Wikipedia, describes it as ‘the term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society’. And while this definition is undoubtedly one of the most politically correct definitions I have read, it leaves my head simmering with an ocean of questions, the most pertinent of all revolving around the very nature of political incorrectness and its manifestations in our lives.

Incurably Gay

I recently watched Clint Eastwood’s 2011 film ‘J. Edgar’, which portrays the de facto founder and head of the FBI, played by the brilliant as always Leonardo DiCaprio, becoming one of the most powerful men in America. A staunch believer in racial and classist supremacy, he works as the defender of his country against domestic threats ranging from Communists to the Negros. He is brought up in an environment which doggedly condemns any sort of ‘odd’ or homosexual behavior; however it can be seen in the movie that he does have underlying homosexual tendencies that are exposed in moments of weakness, especially through his friend/lover/colleague Clyde Tolson. This side of his character lends credence to the fact that many people no matter their sexual orientation background, no matter how rigidly homophobic they may be, are in fact gay. It counters the earlier accepted idea that homosexuality is a choice, not an inherited genetic trait, and that through rehabilitation, it can be treated.

In this article, a sort of follow-up to my previous post on this topic, Why You Should Be Gay, I speak of the romanticism of homosexuality in an attempt by non-conformists to acquire attention, as well as how psychology as a science is corrupted by social influence and how psychology clearly depicts homosexuality as a disorder.

Historic Homophobia and The Benefits of Being Gay

For my first article, i write about the justification for homophobia through anthropological history, the invisible service homosexuals offer to society (or did, at least), and how you’re probably gay too, you just don’t know it yet. Read on below to find out.

Gays through history have been subjugated by social norms and have been consistently persecuted, executed and sometimes quarantined by the society they exist in. In some cases, however, homosexuals have been accepted in culture, sometimes even given completely equal rights and their own essential roles in the working of that civilization. However, in the majority of these cases, homosexuality wasn’t viewed as it is today, i.e., an emotional relationship between two of the same sex. Instead, it was perceived as a purely sexual act, mostly by men, where higher classed men in society would often engage in sexual acts with lower class, younger or slave males as a substitute for females, or as a symbol of dominance over an inferior male (read more about this psychology and homosexuality through history here).

The recent legal acceptance of homosexuals in the USA symbolizes the beginning of a widespread movement across the dominant society, i.e. the West, which, when it occurs, is likely to spill over into less ‘tolerant’ areas of China and Russia, and into more religious areas like the Middle East, India, and Africa. (One must also note that while there is a very high correlation of religiosity with homophobia, China and Russia are very large and prominent exceptions to that norm. See below.)

The Raison D’Etre

To begin with, we’d like to elaborate on why thinking differently and perceiving things objectively or at least in a different way is vital for the correction of mainstream thinking. The fundamental idea of democracy is to make accommodations for ideas other than the majority’s, for the whole’s benefit. Expressing unconventional thinking on a broad array of things helps breed contemplation on why things are as they are, how they should be and how we should or shouldn’t do something about them. The understanding of why non-conformist thinking is imperative is likely to be explained in detail in the future.

In this unavoidably awkward first post, we intend to describe what we intend to do with this site and where we hope it will go and lead us. For starters, Atypical Rationale’s long-term raison d’etre is to share our own opinions and invite others to share theirs, hopefully sparking debates and exchange of ideas. In a purely selfish motive, using the blog as an outlet for our ideas and perspectives soon after their birth would probably help us consolidate them in our memory for future use.