Being smart or being wise that's the problem
Almost every time, when we are talking about wisdom, we are facing the proverb, that the smart person would survive from troubles, but the wise man would not ever go in those troubles, but is wise man smart? And what actually is wisdom? Is wisdom the thing, that we would grow a beard, and sit in some chair, and tell many things, what doesn't mean a thing?
Or is the wisdom only the ability to double check everything, before we would do something? Sometimes the wisdom is mentioned only as of the way to say, that elder person is smart. So the smart young inmate is an only smart and smart old person is wise because that would tell people, about the respect of that elder person.
Smart is the world, which means the young person, who uses glasses, and make things, what sometimes are successful and sometimes not, and the wise man is the master, who supervises the work, and the reason, why master doesn't make mistakes is, that the master would not make practical work in that precise project. But in the process, what made that person the master, that master has someday before being the young student, who made mistakes. And mistakes are teaching the person.
But we can think, that states are also persons, and mistakes are teaching also states and state leaders about things, what they should not do. This is why we have national archives, that the results of the decisions can found from those files. So archives are the memory of the nations. Every person in the world are making mistakes, and if the person has a large working area, that means that mistakes have large scale influence, if they are made by the leader of the state.
And here we can continue to think about the wrong decision, and ask who is responsible that the wrong person is working as the leader of the state? The head of the state might be awful, but the thing is that regular persons have given their votes and support for that person, and that is the thing, what we must remember. They have allowed that person being the head of the state, and that's it.
But when we are thinking about things like nuclear weapons, and the scientists, who have made those things, we are always facing the question, that who made decisions to get those weapons. And then we might make another induction thought, and ask, "should we get everything, what somebody can do"? If we see something nice in the shop, should we get that thing? That's another way to ask, should the military always get and produce everything, what science can give to those organizations?
And in this case, we must realize, that persons, who are creating weapons and make another kind of science are working for the governments, who pay their salaries. They must dare to say, people, if some weapon or equipment is too effective. And then we are facing the situation, that military commanders want always minimize their own losses, what makes war so brutal.
But those men are trained to make decisions what costs the life of own side or another side, and that commander might rather want to see that every loss of human lives happens on another side. After that, this man or woman can tell the president that the mission was successful and own losses were minimum. This satisfies the political leaders, and that's it.
That is the philosophy, why some weapons are getting in the arsenal. But the problems are the non-lethal weapons, what are making the conflicts more complicated and increase the will to use weapons against the opposite side. One of those non-lethal weapons is the opiate bomb. That bomb would stun the targets, and then the own troops can collect the guns away without human casualties.
But also psychological weapons are very effective, and that means, in theory, the people on the opposite side would incite to rebel by using satellites, what are pushing air molecules by using electromagnetic radiation. That would allow creating the large-area virtual loudspeaker, which can cover the entire country.
The electromagnetic radiation would push the air molecules and cause the silent noise, which would be really influential to the people if that would continue a long period, and repeats the message simultaneously. If the targeted persons don't know about that kind of systems they are even more influential, and if it is using many weeks or months, that would cause interesting reactions in the mind of those people.
Almost every time, when we are talking about wisdom, we are facing the proverb, that the smart person would survive from troubles, but the wise man would not ever go in those troubles, but is wise man smart? And what actually is wisdom? Is wisdom the thing, that we would grow a beard, and sit in some chair, and tell many things, what doesn't mean a thing?
Or is the wisdom only the ability to double check everything, before we would do something? Sometimes the wisdom is mentioned only as of the way to say, that elder person is smart. So the smart young inmate is an only smart and smart old person is wise because that would tell people, about the respect of that elder person.
Smart is the world, which means the young person, who uses glasses, and make things, what sometimes are successful and sometimes not, and the wise man is the master, who supervises the work, and the reason, why master doesn't make mistakes is, that the master would not make practical work in that precise project. But in the process, what made that person the master, that master has someday before being the young student, who made mistakes. And mistakes are teaching the person.
But we can think, that states are also persons, and mistakes are teaching also states and state leaders about things, what they should not do. This is why we have national archives, that the results of the decisions can found from those files. So archives are the memory of the nations. Every person in the world are making mistakes, and if the person has a large working area, that means that mistakes have large scale influence, if they are made by the leader of the state.
And here we can continue to think about the wrong decision, and ask who is responsible that the wrong person is working as the leader of the state? The head of the state might be awful, but the thing is that regular persons have given their votes and support for that person, and that is the thing, what we must remember. They have allowed that person being the head of the state, and that's it.
But when we are thinking about things like nuclear weapons, and the scientists, who have made those things, we are always facing the question, that who made decisions to get those weapons. And then we might make another induction thought, and ask, "should we get everything, what somebody can do"? If we see something nice in the shop, should we get that thing? That's another way to ask, should the military always get and produce everything, what science can give to those organizations?
And in this case, we must realize, that persons, who are creating weapons and make another kind of science are working for the governments, who pay their salaries. They must dare to say, people, if some weapon or equipment is too effective. And then we are facing the situation, that military commanders want always minimize their own losses, what makes war so brutal.
But those men are trained to make decisions what costs the life of own side or another side, and that commander might rather want to see that every loss of human lives happens on another side. After that, this man or woman can tell the president that the mission was successful and own losses were minimum. This satisfies the political leaders, and that's it.
That is the philosophy, why some weapons are getting in the arsenal. But the problems are the non-lethal weapons, what are making the conflicts more complicated and increase the will to use weapons against the opposite side. One of those non-lethal weapons is the opiate bomb. That bomb would stun the targets, and then the own troops can collect the guns away without human casualties.
But also psychological weapons are very effective, and that means, in theory, the people on the opposite side would incite to rebel by using satellites, what are pushing air molecules by using electromagnetic radiation. That would allow creating the large-area virtual loudspeaker, which can cover the entire country.
The electromagnetic radiation would push the air molecules and cause the silent noise, which would be really influential to the people if that would continue a long period, and repeats the message simultaneously. If the targeted persons don't know about that kind of systems they are even more influential, and if it is using many weeks or months, that would cause interesting reactions in the mind of those people.
Comments
Post a Comment