I'm more interested in hearing about the philosophy which comforted Vietnamese civilians who had to live their lives under constant American terror-bombing than I am in hearing about the philosophy which comforted the bombers.
>People used to hold out great hope for a public square in which individuals put petty disputes aside and engage in rational discussion about important issues. Unfortunately, public discourse today—especially on the internet—is full of adults behaving like poorly socialized children, acting out to show off for people they want to impress. In short, they engage in moral grandstanding, or the use of moral talk for self-promotion. Drawing from work in psychology, economics, and political science, this book develops an explanation of why people grandstand when they talk about morality and politics. Using the tools of moral philosophy, it argues that grandstanding is not just annoying, but morally bad. And finally, it explains what we can do to encourage people to support a public square worth participating in, by avoiding grandstanding.
Human, generally, are really great at making people suffer. Was it right to be bombing North Vietnam? Was it right to be torturing people in prison camps?
Overall, I do agree that it would be interesting to learn from an memoirs from North Vietnamese at this time. I have never thought to look for that. So thank you for highlighting.
did... did you google that? could you share what you found? i don't see any relevant submissions in your history.
Eastern Philosophy on suffering and war would be an interesting topic.
Think beginner that has mainly focused on western ideas wanting to get a foundation in eastern philosophy and then go from there.
I would expect Vietnamese socially tied to different eras like Catholic, French colony and Marxist to have very different views. What they share in common must be pretty fascinating.
I wonder if there are any examples of the reverse?
https://www.history.com/news/laos-most-bombed-country-vietna...