Isn't the concept of war crazy?
- Thread starter Genesis
- Start date
Back in the stone ages, men used to fight for just the most basic things whose rewards were very quick to get. Things like women, food, safe place to stay. As humans advanced, they formed groups and even larger groups. They developed things which took time and sweat. Society was established, culture developed. Things to defend were not only physical but abstract too. Human bonds of society instilled an emotion of affection and love. Then came war. To protect their society, men became willing to sacrifice their life, to protect their ideals, family, society. Civilisations advanced so the cost of protecting the cherished became larger too, you couldn't just hope to defend your land and hope to stay alive to reap the benefits. Does that make you to not protect your society? In the stone ages, maybe there was one in fight, then clans on clans, tribes on tribes, now army on army. The basic reason and feelings are the same, just that the fights have become larger, meaner, nastier and mass scale.
It is different thing that some take advantage of these basic feelings of fraternity and brotherhood for their personal gaons and ambitions. These few dupe their own to fight the war for them, but men fight not for those few but for their society (though they might not know that they are duped). Questions of reaping the spoils of war does not arise, first thought comes of "do or die" for your people.
Just my thoughts...
It is different thing that some take advantage of these basic feelings of fraternity and brotherhood for their personal gaons and ambitions. These few dupe their own to fight the war for them, but men fight not for those few but for their society (though they might not know that they are duped). Questions of reaping the spoils of war does not arise, first thought comes of "do or die" for your people.
Just my thoughts...
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Actually, von Clausewitz is trying to argue whether or not war is justifiable, not whether or not war are sane or insane. His point of view was that he believe war is the extension of policy, hence in theory, a war can always be justified as with any leader can justify their policy .
But I don't think he believe war is sane because of that point. In fact, if I remember correctly, On war, he said war is sometime illogical, and sometime senseless.
I have written an article about the Philosophy of War, but I never have time to proof read it and I never did put it on PDF.
Yup agreed with your explanation. Both Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz emphasize war only as means of last resort - sanity!
Put it up, if you want (although would advise in limited access) will go through it too and give you a feedback as a reader if you want.
Last edited:
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Isn't the concept of war crazy?
No. It is not. But to satisfy the intellectually curious, let us say that war is 'crazy'.
In any relationship, there is inevitably politics. Employer-employee. Husband-wife. Siblings. Peers. As long as there are divergences in opinions, desires, and needs, there will be a need for politics, which is the resolution of conflicts without violence. As we scale up from between individuals to communities to organizations to eventually nation-states, nothing has changed. Individuals are self represented. Masses have agents to represent the whole. As such, agents should reflect, or at least they perceives so, the general desires and will of the masses.
So if politics is about the resolutions of conflicts without the resort to violence, and if the concept of war is crazy under the same philosophical constructs of politics, then the failure of coming to compromises is crazy. An irrationality leads to another.
Take something that is perceives to be simple but is actually complex: driving.
In engineering, the phrase 'conflict resolution' is liberally applied. In engineering a safe and reliable system where drivers have divergent desires and needs, we rely on both physical and moral measures in that engineering effort. A sturdy fence to separate different directions of driving is physical. Painted lines on the road is moral in the sense that we completely rely upon the drivers to understand the need for that separation.
With that sturdy fence, no compromises are required. Whereas with the painted lines, each driver recognize that if he does not compromise, he will not get to his destination safely. Inside this philosophical construct on driving, anyone who does not compromise, as in staying inside those painted lines, is considered to be 'crazy'. That uncompromising attitude is incomprehensible to the driver in the other lane going the opposite direction. Hence, the driver who deviates must be 'crazy'.
If the idea of doing violence to get what you want is crazy, then in the final analysis, if you are found to be uncompromising, then you must be the crazy person the community must watch.
This now leads to a dilemma. If the agent that leads a country, the president or king or emperor, has made it clear that his country will not compromise, and compromises are necessary in politics, what is the rest of the community to do ? Do they have to be proactive ? Yes, but to do what ? The country that is uncompromising believes its stance is uncompromise-able. Country A believes it must invade B and that stance is uncompromise-able. Country B believes its existence is uncompromise-able. Who is the crazy one here ? Do the rest of the community act violently to prevent the annihilation of B ? But then would that not make that group crazy ? Do nothing and let B die ? Would that not in its face a crazy idea ?
If it is argued that a drastic idea like an invasion is an inappropriate example, then whoever would make that argument is woefully uninformed of history. Hitler believed that Jews must be eradicated and that stance, to him and to many even unto today, is uncompromise-able. The Jews disagrees and their collective disagreement is uncompromise-able. So are Hitler and the Jews crazy for their uncompromising stances ?
The question 'Isn't the concept of war crazy?' is itself crazy in light of human nature and inevitable politics.
No. It is not. But to satisfy the intellectually curious, let us say that war is 'crazy'.
In any relationship, there is inevitably politics. Employer-employee. Husband-wife. Siblings. Peers. As long as there are divergences in opinions, desires, and needs, there will be a need for politics, which is the resolution of conflicts without violence. As we scale up from between individuals to communities to organizations to eventually nation-states, nothing has changed. Individuals are self represented. Masses have agents to represent the whole. As such, agents should reflect, or at least they perceives so, the general desires and will of the masses.
So if politics is about the resolutions of conflicts without the resort to violence, and if the concept of war is crazy under the same philosophical constructs of politics, then the failure of coming to compromises is crazy. An irrationality leads to another.
Take something that is perceives to be simple but is actually complex: driving.
In engineering, the phrase 'conflict resolution' is liberally applied. In engineering a safe and reliable system where drivers have divergent desires and needs, we rely on both physical and moral measures in that engineering effort. A sturdy fence to separate different directions of driving is physical. Painted lines on the road is moral in the sense that we completely rely upon the drivers to understand the need for that separation.
With that sturdy fence, no compromises are required. Whereas with the painted lines, each driver recognize that if he does not compromise, he will not get to his destination safely. Inside this philosophical construct on driving, anyone who does not compromise, as in staying inside those painted lines, is considered to be 'crazy'. That uncompromising attitude is incomprehensible to the driver in the other lane going the opposite direction. Hence, the driver who deviates must be 'crazy'.
If the idea of doing violence to get what you want is crazy, then in the final analysis, if you are found to be uncompromising, then you must be the crazy person the community must watch.
This now leads to a dilemma. If the agent that leads a country, the president or king or emperor, has made it clear that his country will not compromise, and compromises are necessary in politics, what is the rest of the community to do ? Do they have to be proactive ? Yes, but to do what ? The country that is uncompromising believes its stance is uncompromise-able. Country A believes it must invade B and that stance is uncompromise-able. Country B believes its existence is uncompromise-able. Who is the crazy one here ? Do the rest of the community act violently to prevent the annihilation of B ? But then would that not make that group crazy ? Do nothing and let B die ? Would that not in its face a crazy idea ?
If it is argued that a drastic idea like an invasion is an inappropriate example, then whoever would make that argument is woefully uninformed of history. Hitler believed that Jews must be eradicated and that stance, to him and to many even unto today, is uncompromise-able. The Jews disagrees and their collective disagreement is uncompromise-able. So are Hitler and the Jews crazy for their uncompromising stances ?
The question 'Isn't the concept of war crazy?' is itself crazy in light of human nature and inevitable politics.
Similar threads
