The political matter of interpreting war creates the first philosophical dilemma, yet once this is known, a definition can be attained: The state of tension, the conflict and threat of violence between groups, means that the authorised statement by a supreme body can be seen as to decide wars from rebellions, conflict of arms and group violence from individual violence.
The concept that war only entails states rather than nations, which Clausewitz connotes in the definition given, assumes that politics are only involved in states and also that war is in some way or form a sign of political action. War defined in a dictionary is a state of armed conflict between states or nations or different groups within a nation or state. This definition mostly explains a political-rationalistic account of war, in the fact that war needs to be openly declared. However, political-rationalist theories do not deal well with pre-state or non-state people and their warfare. There are also separate schools of thought on war other than the political account. Up till now, if war is defined as something that happens only between states, then the wars between roaming groups should not get taken notice of, and also neither would conflict on the part of a native, non-state group against a state be seen as war, an example of this is war on terrorism.
Another definition of war is that it is an observable fact of the world we live in, a trend so to say. Battles are just warning signs of the nature of the universe and its aggressive ways. Also even François-Marie Arouet, better known by his pen name Voltaire, believed in this shown by a quote of his: “Famine, plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this wretched world…All animals are perpetually at war with each other…Air, earth and water are arenas of destruction.” (From Pocket Philosophical Dictionary).
The broadness of the English language also shows that frequently used definitions of war may fit in and include meanings used and derived from other, older languages; the major languages being Germanic, Latin and Greek. Many ideas may still remain in verbal and factual interpretation s of war. War in stories, poems and history books show that they could have taken in older ideas of war and used them. Even so, war’s descriptions that still exist in literature left behind by various authors often own the same concept to modern times.
Variations only appear when the author’s judgement of war is different to another; this would suggest that the Ancient Greek concept of war is not that different from the modern times concept of war. Both are aware of the presence or absence of war. An example of this would be the root of the English word ‘war’, werra, is Frankish-German, meaning confusion, discord, or strife, and the verb werran meaning to confuse or perplex. War generates confusion, as Clausewitz noted calling it the “fog of war”, but that does not take away the thought that war is organized to begin with. The Latin root of bellum gives the word belligerent, and duel, an archaic form of bellum; the possibility of two sides doing the fighting. The Greek root of war is polemos, which states that polemical, implying an aggressive controversy: suggestions of violence and conflict. [1]
The current use of war could explain the conflict and confusion surrounded in early definitions, but also without knowing include the notion used from certain political schools. An element that is common to all wars is that war is a state of organised, open ended conflict, which provides a useful definition of the thought. This effective meaning has the advantage of allowing a more flexible definition than others, a flexibility that is vital to examine war not just as a disagreement between two states, but also a disagreement between non-state people and highly organised, politically controlled wars as well as guerrilla uprisings, which seem to have no real controlling body and could even be seen as rising unexpectedly.
Apart from looking at meanings of war, the reasons for war are just as important. If it is stated that man is not free to choose his actions (strong determinism) then war becomes a fated fact of the universe, one that humanity has no power to challenge. [2] The choice of opinions under this ideology can go on, from those who claim war to be an essential event, one that man may never hide from, to others who believe that while accepting war’s inevitability, see that man does have the power to minimize its outcome. The suggestion is that man is not responsible for his own actions and that meaning he is not responsible for war. Opposite of this is a weaker form of looking at the reasoning behind war, certain theorists claim that man is a product of his environment, yet he also possesses the power to change that environment by his actions. Questions raised from this way of thought become quite complex, as they often see that mankind is a subject to unchangeable forces that without delay lead him to wage war.
The nature of war is multipart and a broad vision is needed when giving a definition for it. The topic on its own leads to concern and considerations to the philosophy of human nature, as well as to the more usual areas of morals and political philosophy. In many aspects the philosophy of war demands a thorough examination of all aspects of the author’s beliefs.
[1] Reference to what is war handout.
[2] Reference to what is war handout.
By Rhys Evenden
