The definitions of war, although numerous, are not consistent. Encyclopedia Britannica states that war is a "state of conflict, generally armed, between two or more entities", Merriam-Webster claims that war is " a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations", and West's Encyclopedia of American Law says that it is "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." In order to really understand war and not just the definition, we must look back in time as well as thought -- war is derived from violence. Archaeological evidence supports that while civilizations had yet to be built, scores of tribal societies battled each other for food and shelter. Skulls surface that are shattered, punctured, bashed, and mushed together, obviously the affects of violent action. We, along with other animals, have violence as a built-in instinct. As centuries past, chieftains, rulers, emperors, and kings reigned over others because of their "superiority", which stemmed from defeating another with, you guessed it, violent means. Their hate toward other "superior" humans often resulted, and still results, in prolonged violence with agreeing parties. War, as it is called, was merely a way to get back at another ruler, and in a way, it still is. In order to have war, rulers must rise from violence and threaten other rulers with more violence. This is true with every war that has taken place; it is more of an attack on a ruler or a figurehead than it is to any one group of people. For example, all rules and laws that are enacted in a democracy are mostly in the interests of rulers (Congress), otherwise a bill wouldn't even get in the door of the House. The culture of a society is generally based on rules and regulations, and if other societies detest them, they go to war. These rules stem from the rulers themselves.
Often, war is not two-sided; if it was, both would attack each other in tandem. War is a result of an attack on another party and that party's self-defense. For example, before Pearl Harbor, we could have cared less about the "dirty Japs". After they bombed us, however, we abhorred the Japanese with every fiber of our being and attacked them. War, to put it simply, is a physical attack on culture.
An alternate definition for war could be "an all-pervasive phenomenon of the universe", in which it is in human nature to be belligerent. Immanual Kant theorized that war was not just an extended battle and kings screaming "We detest thee!" at each other across wheat fields, but as a means to a more perfect end. Nature uses man's antagonism as a means of discovering a state of calm and security. Eventually, there will be so many wars that a permanent peace would be erected, or so he said at the time. Georg Wilhelm Frederic Hegel, more of a realistic philosopher, believed that war would always exist because it is human nature. Whatever the case may be, war, for the moment, is something that is inevitable. There are too many greedy and power-hungry people in this world to even begin to think about peace.
Often, war is not two-sided; if it was, both would attack each other in tandem. War is a result of an attack on another party and that party's self-defense. For example, before Pearl Harbor, we could have cared less about the "dirty Japs". After they bombed us, however, we abhorred the Japanese with every fiber of our being and attacked them. War, to put it simply, is a physical attack on culture.
An alternate definition for war could be "an all-pervasive phenomenon of the universe", in which it is in human nature to be belligerent. Immanual Kant theorized that war was not just an extended battle and kings screaming "We detest thee!" at each other across wheat fields, but as a means to a more perfect end. Nature uses man's antagonism as a means of discovering a state of calm and security. Eventually, there will be so many wars that a permanent peace would be erected, or so he said at the time. Georg Wilhelm Frederic Hegel, more of a realistic philosopher, believed that war would always exist because it is human nature. Whatever the case may be, war, for the moment, is something that is inevitable. There are too many greedy and power-hungry people in this world to even begin to think about peace.
Bibliography
"Commentary: Kant, Hegel and Deleuze on War." Why War? Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.why-war.com/commentary/2004/12/kant_hegel_deleuze_war.html
"Human Stabbed a Neanderthal, Evidence Suggests | LiveScience." LiveScience | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.livescience.com/history/090721-neanderthal-murder.html
"War -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/635532/war
"War, The Philosophy of [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [IEP]. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/
"War: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com." Answers.com - Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia and much more. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.answers.com/topic/war
"Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war - science-in-society - 07 July 2009 - New Scientist." Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.html?full=true#bx271515B1
Just to let you know, Ms. Field, the timing is royally screwed up on the blog. I submitted my post at around 4:30 pm today, and it says that I posted at 12:31pm. I don't know if it is just my computer, but I'm assuming not.
ReplyDeleteMargo makes an excellent point that war and violence are inherent in human nature. There has been war since the earliest civilizations, and there will probably be war for as long as humans survive. However war is often not so simplistic. There are other motives, such as religion, power, and land that often lead to conflict. Mostly, though, I respectfully disagree with the statement “The culture of a society is generally based on rules and regulations, and if other countries detest them they go to war.” Crepes, berets, and the Impressionist paintings are quintessentially French, however there is no law saying that a French person has to eat crepes, wear a beret, or admire Degas. Similarly, there is no law saying that Italians have to eat pizza or be amazing cooks. Instead of laws shaping a culture, they are created to work cohesively with the culture. The second half of this statement is incorrect in that countries often do not attack other countries because of their rules and regulations. For example, in World War II, Nazi Germany could really care less about what laws France had. They were seeking more land, and ultimately power. The statement “This is true with every war that has taken place; it is more of an attack on a ruler or a figurehead than it is to any one group of people” can also be easily disproved. The recent conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians was based on longstanding animosity and religious difference. Instead of summing up war as a hereditary cause of rulers’ problems, it should instead be described as conflict that emerges from disagreements on a variety of issues and a search for power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your definition of war on multiple regards. You brought up many valuable points on the causes and the means of war. First of all, wars, as you previously stated, are derived from violence, but can also be an act of self-defense. As seen in many past ancestral wars, battles began were usually over continuous disagreements over power, land, trade and money, for example the Persian War. In todays society, wars are still waged based on these basic principles and also because of the perpetual human emotions of greed, selfishness and desire. Wars, in my opinion will always continue to occur because like you said there are way too many power hunger self indulged people in this world. I also agree with you also when you stated that not all wars are fought because of two-sided violence. Many wars are fought in deterrence; such as WWII, when America was attacked by Japan. What you didn’t seem to mention was that although most wars are fought for trade,money, power violence or self-defense, there are some fought in order to help assist people in different countries in distress, such as the Spanish-American War. Taking into consideration all of the causes of war it should be defined as an inventible situation between nations, stemmed from a conflict that cause unnecessary death and displacement of innocent people.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting response, Kayla, although I am not sure the US was truly motivated by concern for the Cuban people. History has shown we are rarely concerned for others (to the point of going to war on their behalf) unless they have something valuable-like oil or a strategic geographical position.
ReplyDelete