As two time recipient of the medal of honor, Smedley Butler said:
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses... — Manuel
Wars have only ever been justifiable from a defensive perspective - I believe that the Allied forces had a moral imperative to win the Second World War so as to save the world from Hitler. But it can never be a good thing, especially now, with weapons that can destroy all life on earth. — Wayfarer
I don't think he ever felt like he should fight in many ways. My Dad was a devote Roman Catholic and went to church daily for decades, just to light candles for his prayers up to coordinating the living Manger each Christmas.Wonder how he felt - relieved tinged with guilt ? — Amity
Did he survive ? — Amity
I asked earlier if 'war' is seen not as a solution but a problem in itself, how do we solve it ?
What sayest the Pragmatist or Stoic view. John Dewey, Epictetus ? — Amity
I don't have high hopes for the goodness of man, for universal pacifism or other high mindedness and pompous grandstanding. I believe in the old Roman saying from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus "Si vis pacem, para bellum". — ssu
The distrust nations share doesn't go easily away. The Swiss still have a large reservist army even if it is crazy to think that the EU countries would invade it (or any other country would). Yet the Swiss have decided after a referendum to sustain their military and the country still opts to be non-aligned.So, 'universal pacifism' might not be achieved but there are other kinds, perhaps more realistic.
Peacebuilding interventions - and asking questions about 'whose peace' for whose benefit and at what cost ? Peace has to become the more attractive option - how can that be done ? — Amity
Because the OP seems to barely have anything to do with war. — StreetlightX
it's probably not a thread on war, but some librarian's bookish take on it from the comfort of a cozy chair somewhere pontificating about war as a matter of ideas and feelings and erasing almost the entirety of what war has ever meant for human beings both today and throughout history. — StreetlightX
Your other posts speak of 'fear' and 'desire' and 'inner wars' and so on. — StreetlightX
It involves arms, metal, wood and stone. It involves bodies and their destruction, the logistics of moving men and supplies across treacherous lines, the conquering of lands and the negotiation of geography. It involves production at home and the organization of economies for the sake of sustaining troops on battefronts longs distances away, along with defense infrastructure, among other things. — StreetlightX
'Inner war'? What a pathetic notion. The appropriation of the horror of one of the most destructive things that humans do to each other to be twisted into some New Age hippie kumbaya 'find yourself' nonsense. It's hard to imagine anything that makes more of a mockery of war and those who have suffered from it than this kind of spiritualization of it. — StreetlightX
'War' can be at a personal level as well as global. Individual struggles to conquer inner demons, to find peace. None more so than the soldiers who are conflicted - their concerns that the war they are fighting might not be 'just' - the guilt involved. The realisation that comes when the pockets of dead enemy soldiers are picked or discovered - the diaries, the family photos - just like those carried by themselves. Who is the enemy ?
The moral issues creating an inner war. — Amity
Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius come to mind. Also the contemporary Stoicist writings of James Stockdale and Nancy Sherman. — 180 Proof
And I believe in Cicero's assertion that silent enim leges inter arma, and think Sherman was right when he said war is cruelty and cannot be reformed. — Ciceronianus the White
"One wages war to acquire ..." - that is Desire.
"threats, real or imagined" - that is Fear. — Amity
:up: :up: :clap:The neoliberal drive to psychologize every possible phenomenon including war - the most impersonal of human phenomena - is a real discursive cancer, and it really needs to stop. Not only is it incredibly lazy - any reference to history, sociology, or power dynamics is mute - a phenomenon that is primarily historical, sociological, and related to power becomes medicalized and introspective. — StreetlightX
From the standpoint of a Stoic Sage, I think war, if not defensive, would be viewed as motivated by concerns related to acquisition of territory. wealth and power, which are matters regarding which we should be indifferent, and contrary to virtue.
I'm not sure what Dewey felt about war, but suspect that he would feel context must be considered in assessing the appropriateness of judgments, and that as a result it's not possible to to draw absolute conclusions regarding it, if he addressed it as a philosopher. — Ciceronianus the White
Indifference exists between good and bad. Stoics claimed that virtues are desirable, while vices should be casted away. Therefore, indifference appears to be the gray area between these two categories. It is important to note that both vices and virtues are within our control, because we can control our mind and will, and therefore we have power over our actions. Things that are indifferent lie completely out of our control, and this is very important to remember for Stoics. In the Enchiridion, Epictetus further explains the difference between the things we can control and the things we cannot. — thewisemind.net
War has this curious way of intoxicating us and our societies. It shows how frighteningly adaptable and malleable we are. Yet that might be also our strength that we do adapt. Because it's usually not that only the so-called anti-social type who prevail in wars, it's how totally ordinary people do fight them. Military men and women are usually the most rational and pragmatic people and furthest from the erratic "artist" type. — ssu
His poetry both described the horrors of the trenches and satirised the patriotic pretensions of those who, in Sassoon's view, were responsible for a jingoism-fuelled war.[2] — Wiki
I had a quick look at this - what do you mean by 'the so-called anti-social type' and how do they 'prevail in wars' ? Examples ? — Amity
Erratic in the positive way, not something regular. Art that catches our attention is something out of the ordinary. And artists generally show in their work, whatever it is, human feelings.That includes the military and artistic types. Why would you describe the latter as 'erratic' ? — Amity
All servicemen, volunteers and professional soldiers include all types of people. Somehow many people think that those drafted, conscripts, are "people like us" where people volunteering for military service are different. It's degrading to think so. When you have such large numbers of people, there are all kinds of people involved and the idea of one "military-type" is wrong (even if you can find the occasional stereotype). If people's perception of the military is what Hollywood represents it to be, it's far from the actual reality of ordinary military life and those who serve.The conscripts fighting in the trenches included all types. — Amity
And how many in the military are for war? It's like saying that doctors and medics are for disease and accidents.They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war. — Amity
To follow orders, yes. But to serve in the military, they are given a lot of those "poetic thoughts". Still, the hire-for-money-willing-to-serve-anybody mercenary is an rare oddity. In fact the modern private contractor business has long been taken under the control of the intelligence services of the great powers. I think the South African Executive Outcomes was for a while genuinely offering "will serve without political links" service.Clearly, military personnel are probably not given to poetic thoughts as they follow out orders. — Amity
True, but the pragmatism of the human endeavor like in the military and in war is many times sidelined to make a statement about politics or the society in general.Problems are not just technical in nature with a manual to follow...not so very far from being 'artistic' by using their skills and thinking of 'brotherhood'. — Amity
They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war.
— Amity
And how many in the military are for war? It's like saying that doctors and medics are for disease and accidents. — ssu
Many politicians and the medical profession still use war vocabulary to further their agendas or projects.
Should we be changing the way we approach such issues - having a 'War Cabinet' about Brexit or a 'War on Cancer' ? — Amity
A military, also known collectively as armed forces, is a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare. It is typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform.
...of uncertain etymology, one suggestion being derived from *mil-it- – going in a body or mass.[5][6]
As a noun, the military usually refers generally to a country's armed forces, or sometimes, more specifically, to the senior officers who command them.[4][7] In general, it refers to the physicality of armed forces, their personnel, equipment, and the physical area which they occupy.
As an adjective, military originally referred only to soldiers and soldiering, but it soon broadened to apply to land forces in general, and anything to do with their profession — Wiki: Military
...all types of people to act in uniform as an organized group. It's simply a pragmatic issue: the better controlled, coordinated and organized force likely will prevail. — ssu
So the cat is out of the bag… Soldiers kill people. Now what are we going to do about it? And the big one at the moment is the case of Robert Bales. It’s the major issue that has spearheaded this sudden distaste for the ravages of war — the issue of the American soldier that killed 16 civilians in Afghanistan. But what did he do wrong really? We can criticize in our recliners, but few of us have actually been those dogs of war crying havoc... — Dehumanization Eliminates the Guilt
For Warriner, the original oath still resonates, particularly the phrase: “I will utterly reject harm and mischief,” which is commonly misquoted as “First do no harm.” He says, “For me that fits perfectly with not over diagnosing, not over treating, and sharing decision making.”
He finds the vow, “I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being,” which was included in the 1964 version of the oath, particularly meaningful. “When I teach juniors about how to help patients I remind them these are not blood tests—they are people,” he says. — The BMJ :Is the Hippocratic oath still relevant to practising doctors today ?
We call it a ‘fight’, with individual battles and skirmishes and sacrifices to be made, and when lives are lost, we make death an honourable and heroic martyrdom.
That last sentence was difficult to write. I felt awkward writing it and you may feel uncomfortable reading it because as I type these words from the safety of isolation, my colleagues are facing serious risk. Many lives have already been lost.
We all feel heartbroken at the loss of our colleagues but we must not accept that their deaths were necessary or inevitable – this is not a war and it is not what nurses joined the profession for. We should not be expected to give our lives for our work. — Covid 19 - Why we need to ditch the military terms
[ emphasis added * ]Marcus Aurelius spent a good part of his reign as Emperor at war, and died in his military headquarters in Pannonia (now Serbia). The Empire also saw famine and plague while he was Emperor. I'm amazed he found time to write his Meditations--but know of nothing he wrote specifically addressing war. I suspect his attitude toward it was that war was evil, but a necessary evil to sustain the Empire. — Ciceronianus the White
The interesting question is just who signs up for war? Consider my country, for example. Here in Finland the Constitutions says the following:Anyone who signs up for the military know what they are signing up for.
They take an oath. In the US, it includes defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the the orders of the President. — Amity
Notice that it means every citizen, man or woman. And only after the 1970's a further exemptions have been made for military conscription for males:Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence, as provided by an Act.
Provisions on the right to exemption, on grounds of conscience, from participation in military national defence are laid down by an Act.
Interesting question. I'll just answer about the use of military force. How "patriotic" is to defy your government and resort to "extra-parliamentary opposition" is another question I think.Another discussion could be had about who the President might consider a 'domestic enemy'.
Think protest march v riots. Who are the 'patriots' ? Who the traitors ? — Amity
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.