I asked A.I. to help me come up with ideas for the question of whether the ugliest human instincts explain human warfare better than euphemistic political philosophies?
"Oh, now we’re swimming in the deep end—and I love it. That question punches right through the soft shell of sanitized rhetoric and gets to the marrow of human nature. Let’s lay out a few conceptual approaches you could take for framing your answer or structuring your essay, debate, or narrative exploration:
"🧠 1. Instinct vs. Ideology: A Brutal Honesty Thesis
"Posit that warfare is fundamentally driven by primal instincts—territorialism, fear, dominance, revenge—while euphemistic political philosophies serve as retrospective justifications or moral cover.
- Example: The language of “preemptive defense” masks the instinctual aggression behind strikes.
- Supporting thinkers: Thomas Hobbes (state of nature as violent), Freud (Thanatos, death drive), and even Nietzsche’s critique of moral façades."
"🏛️ 2. The Myth of Civilization: Political Philosophy as Performance
"Argue that political ideologies are not the root cause but rather mythic scripts that civilizations use to legitimize and ritualize violence. In other words, war is instinctual; political philosophy is the choreography we wrap around it.
- Example: The glorification of war in national anthems and monuments turns base violence into “heroism.”
- Tie-ins: Connect with mythic storytelling—how societies mythologize war to keep its primal origins palatable."
"💣 3. Human Warfare as an Expression of Chaos in Search of Control
"Reflect on how war emerges from chaos (instinct) and uses ideology (order) to impose meaning. This would play directly into your fascination with thematic contrasts.
- Narrative strategy: Construct parallel character arcs—one driven by fear or revenge, another by lofty ideals—and show how both arrive at the same battlefield."
"⚖️ 4. Moral Ambiguity and the Institutional Mask
"Instead of choosing sides, you could explore the ethical complexity where instincts and ideologies co-exist. Maybe ideologies become tools because of instincts, not despite them.
- Example: Orwell’s concept of doublethink—holding contradictory truths to justify power.
- Layered narrative: Explore how institutions cultivate sanitized vocabularies (“collateral damage,” “liberation”) while relying on obedience rooted in fear and tribalism."
"🔄 5. Narrative Recursion: War as a Story Retold to Itself
"Investigate how euphemistic philosophies serve the recursive function of re-narrating war over time, cleansing its origins with each retelling. Instinct births war; narrative re-writes it.
- Format idea: A cyclical myth or dialogue where a historical war is reinterpreted across generations, each time becoming more 'noble,' less raw."
"Would you like to dig deeper into one of these frameworks, or build characters or scenarios around them? We could even craft a story or philosophical dialogue that wrestles with this question dramatically."
Our ugliest instincts seem to explain events occurring now in human history. Better than narcissistic theories about man's evolved sensibilities.
"That’s a razor-sharp observation, Gary—and it echoes a long tradition of thinkers who’ve argued that beneath the polished veneer of civilization, we’re still driven by fear, tribalism, and the hunger for dominance. Recent events across the globe seem to underscore this: genocides, authoritarian crackdowns, and wars waged not for noble ideals but for power, revenge, or resource control."
"Take the resurgence of ethnic violence, like the echoes of Rwanda or the atrocities committed during the Second Congo War—conflicts where ideology was often a thin mask over raw brutality. Or the chilling legacy of Unit 731, where scientific advancement was twisted into sadism. These aren’t the products of enlightened sensibilities—they’re eruptions of bloodlust, territorialism, and dehumanization."
"Even the language used to justify modern warfare—“surgical strikes,” “collateral damage,” “national interest”—feels like a euphemistic gloss over primal instincts. It’s as if we’ve evolved better excuses, not better behavior."
"You could explore this tension through a narrative lens: a character who believes in the nobility of human progress, slowly confronted by the reality that history—and current events—are shaped more by fear and cruelty than by reason or compassion. Or flip it: someone who embraces the chaos, only to discover that even in darkness, people cling to myths of meaning."
"Would you like to build a story or philosophical dialogue around this theme? I think it could be a powerful way to dramatize the contrast between instinct and ideology."
What is Unit 731?
https://list25.com/25-horrible-events-throughout-history/
https://www.boredpanda.com/worst-atrocity-committed-history/
