If people are in inner-conflict then small wonder that this manifests in outer conflicts, no? This might fall within the interesting tradition of "Psychomachia" or mind-war, classically conceived as the battle for good and evil in the soul of man.

I am writing this thread after discussion with a friend about outer and inner war. My friend maintains that he has had a 'ceasefire' from social situations as he was 'at war with the world'. — Jack Cummins

In my view this wouldn't be the first definition of use for the term "war". Inner struggle or something?

I wonder about the relationship between inner and outer conflict. It may relate to the psychology of projection, with people not recognising wars of opposites within and seeing faults in others, the enemy. The enemies may be another religious perspective, Sadam Hussein or a terrorist. It does connect the opposites of good and evil as constructed in the human psyche. It probably begins in the playground and ideas of 'otherness'.

So, do you think that there is not a relationship between inner conflicts and outer ones? Is it simply a matter of the battlefield? How do you see the concept or definition of war? The idea of a 'political animal' is also worth thinking about because it involves sentient needs and desires, but also issues of power which are constructed externally and internally.

It's not like people go and shoot eachother because they had nothing better to do.

At the core of war is the belief, "We are more entitled to certain resources than other people, and we have the (divine) right to obtain those resources by whatever means necessary."

War may be driven by beliefs, especially if they are fixed rather than flexible. It may also involve attachment to beliefs.

There is an element of human xenophobia that plays a part in war but which doesn't seem particularly relevant to inner conflict.

The hatred and fear of difference is a factor in war and violence, whether it is another racial group, the 'other sex' or a minority group can be an example of inner conflict. That is because it is based on fear of that which is different. It goes back to Melanie Klein's ideas of splitting. This involves the separation of mother and child, as well as the splitting of the good vs bad mother. Fear itself is about opposites, especially bound up with ideas of otherness and ego identity.

How do you see the concept or definition of war? — Jack Cummins

And armed struggle between either nations or groups of people. Then you have the legal definitions of just what is conisidered to be a war. And all related definitions like "civilians", "enemy combatants" and "prisoners of war" etc.

An inner struggle of a person or his or her relationship with the society I wouldn't call war. Viewing this as "war" sounds quite dramatic or melodramatic, but I guess on a personal level it is quite different from the social-political (anti-social?) phenomenon of war.

I found the following legal definition of war:
'War is a phenomenon of organised collective violence that affects either the relations between two or more societies or more societies or the power relations within a society governed by the law of armed conflict, also called international humanitarian law', in 'War. The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law' (hhtps// guide- humanitarian law org).

The legal definition may be a means of defining what is acceptable, including ethical assumptions. However, it does not look at the nature of war in any deeper analytical way. It could be seen as having an implicit assumption of war being 'natural'. However, it does not query the status quo at all, the history of war as a solution and the question of why do people fight wars?

Hello, Good Day to Everyone.

I will join this discussion at this point, if you don't mind. Let's attempt to leave aside the formalities as much as possible, otherwise this specific topic tends to degenerate into an abstract discussion about the rules of War. In other words, let's keep things sharp and on point, shall we?

The OP asks: "war: How May the Idea, its Causes, and Underlying Philosophies be Understood?"

I'll say a word about the philosophical part. Technically speaking (yes, I'm playing the "war lawyer" part here, please tolerate me for a moment in that sense), the Underlying Philosophies of war, are to be best understood (this is my thesis, anyway) in a literal sense. What does that mean? That there are (at the very least) two good "candidate words" for that literal sense, and those are the following ones:

Warriorism, from Warrior-ism, from Warrior, from War. That is the literal etymology of that word.

Martialism, from Martial Law, from Martial, from the Greek God of War: Mars.

Which one of those is the "correct one", so to speak? Evidently, it is "Warriorism", for that is a far more "ancient" way of thinking. If we compare the very word "Warriorism" to the very word "Martialism", we can just sort of detect that the former, and not the latter, has "more dignity", so to speak. And how do we "detect" it, exactly? Well, I'm afraid to disappoint you, as there is no scientific explanation of it yet, and there is hardly any scientific evidence for some of the hypothesis that cognitive neuroscientists are attempting to systematize at the moment. However, there is some "hope", since that detection that I was speaking about is sort of like an Aesthetic phenomenon, if you will. The very word "Warriorism" just sounds preferable to the very word "Martialism", at least to my mind, it does. Of course, that does not by itself prove that anyone else is having a similar experience to mine, or that they could even have it to begin with (though I think it's at least possible that they might have a similar experience under similar conditions).

What are your thoughts on all those things that I just said? Do you agree? Do you disagree? To what degree do you agree or disagree, or just simply don't even agree or disagree to begin with?

Your remarks on ideas of warriors and martialism are useful in thinking of how war evolved. In many ways, war may have been a means of defense and territorial boundary negotiations. This is similar to in the animal kingdom but a culture around war developed. This involved ritualism, ideas of what was legitimate or 'just, or even 'good' war.

It is likely that people became more questioning of war after the first and second world wars. The philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was a leading in figure in the CND movement. War has changed so much since the time of warriors. Of course, people died fighting but it cannot be compared with the wars of the twentieth first century in the extent of consequences.

The idea of warriorship had entertainment value and even in a time of sensationalism in entertainment, it would raise a lot of questions if the large scale wars were a source of pleasure or enjoyment. It is more than martial arts or the injuries of wrestling matches. The wars of the present time could wipe out nations and the planet, with the potential of future generations.

Have we forgotten Clausewitz? War is a mere continuation of policy by other means. (longer quote at end of post)

Russia's invasion of the Ukraine was the result of policy / politics. The same goes for the war in Sudan or Gaza, or any other war you care to name. The facts of policy lead to the facts of war -- how bad a war is going to be; how long, how short, how ghastly, etc.

Given our mixed primate heritage (big bright brain, willingness to kill, etc.) humans are and always have been capable of waging war using whatever means are at hand -- sticks, rocks, bullets, bombs, nuclear devices...

Getting back to policy, though. Sometimes policy can sound quite lunatic: buying Greenland; bringing Canada (kicking and screaming) into the American union of states; Germany acquiring the grain fields of Ukraine and Russia as well as its oil fields. The European powers liked the policy of owning everything as soon as Columbus got back from his first trip. We Americans established the policy of Manifest Destiny early on, which led to a long stretch of wars on various groups.

The goods of the planet are not evenly distributed, and we, greedy bastards that we are, generally take it easy, but we take it (if at all possible) from others who just happen to be sitting on it. Like the residents of Congo who find themselves witting on suddenly desirable cobalt. A world power hasn't stepped in yet to seize it, but local entrepreneurial entities are busy taking it and leaving a mess behind. (Belgium seized a good deal of the riches of the Congo while they had it in their grasp. Cobalt and uranium were of less interest than rubber, at the time.)

Gun Boat diplomacy is not a contradiction in terms. Powerless nations -- Nepal, say -- can try to be a diplomatic intermediary, but the diplomacy of nations with gun boats will be more 'effective'. The US or China can be much more persuasive.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I admire the peace policy of Quakers, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, or the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, but they don't sway national policy much.





Clausewitz (1780–1831) We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

It is likely that people became more questioning of war after the first and second world wars. — Jack Cummins

And then it became even more complicated during the Cold War, in which there were several "subset wars", if you will, such as the Vietnam War, for example. And it is even more complicated in more recent times, especially in recent times, for example in places like Ukraine.

So, I have to ask: was there a point in Modern history in which there weren't any active wars going on, anywhere on the planet? If one finds such moments, then one has discovered something edifying, since those moments are objectively peaceful, in the literal sense of Peace understood as the concept that is diametrically opposed to the concept of War in that same literal sense.

the diplomacy of nations with gun boats will be more 'effective'. — BC

Even if that's true, it does not follow from there that the diplomacy of nations with "gun boats", as you call them, would be more dignified. And yeah, I mean that as an opinion, not necessarily as a fact.

The US or China can be much more persuasive. — BC

I don't think that persuasiveness has anything to do with their success. Their international policies seem barbaric, speaking frankly. Barbarians may be good at war, but they tend to leave a bit of a mess once they're done extracting whatever they were here to extract in the first place. Then they leave, and that mess that they made is now someone else's problem. And that "someone else" is usually some common folk. Some of them might move to another country. Others will move to somewhere else within the country. Others will stay where they are, right next to whatever problem the International "Powers that Be" have created in that area. And some others, out of pure resentment, ideology, or perhaps simple need, or even any combination of those three, become completely radicalized.

So who should take the blame, in such an "abstract" scenario?

dignified — Arcane Sandwich

And what's 'dignity' got to do with it?

I don't think that persuasiveness has anything to do with their success. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not talking here about the persuasiveness of argument or logic. The "persuasiveness" of which I speak is the persuasiveness of bombs blowing up one's city, having one's harbors mined--that sort of thing. You are right, though: nations do often resist "gunboats". Their cities can be bombed without leading to capitulation. The Soviet Union lost a lot to the Nazi war machine, but they did not consider giving up the fight.

Not to overlook Japan in WWII: They had accumulated quite a bit of conquered territory before "WWII" proper got under way. Pearl Harbor was one piece of a coordinated attack that day. Thanks to our own conquest of North America, the US was able to mount a war in both the Pacific and in Europe.

Both Japan and Germany recognized their need to acquire the kind of resources that the USSR, United States, and the British Empire controlled--minerals, productive land, productive people, oil... That was the policy behind the war--take it away from those who possessed it and use it for their own purposes. After all, that's what the USSR, British Empire, and the Americans (and others) had done successfully.

On the other hand, most of Europe ended up under German control in WWII, and had Hitler finished off Great Britain and not attacked the USSR, things might have turned out differently.

You are also right about who gets left with the destruction. It took Europe a long time to clean up the 'mess' of WWII; WWI and WWII bombs are still being dug up and disarmed. Bones of dead soldiers still surface in fields. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia still bear the scars of bombing and defoliation chemicals (Agent Orange). There is not much left to Gaza, save rubble.

War, especially as it developed in the late 19th and 20th centuries, is indeed barbaric. But that's people for you: we are never very far from barbarism.

But that's people for you: we are never very far from barbarism. — BC

And yet we try to be. To be very far from barbarism in that sense, because that is the Ethical thing to do. We can Romanticize barbarism itself, but that's a mere fantasy that we are indulging in when we do that. In the world of responsible citizens, no one has the right to kill another human being without a valid and sound Ethical justification for it. Wars are not Ethical by definition.

In the context of inner VS outer war, to my mind diplomacy (as opposed to war) is merely a non violent war, not an alternative to war. Say, the Cold War.

Conflict, due to opposing interests, is inevitable. Whether this conflict is resolved through war, espionage or diplomacy is merely a difference of style.

Wars are not Ethical by definition. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm a pacifist and I agree that wars are unethical. Pacifism is an individual position. Nations can not take that view. Nations don't worry about ethics. Nations have interests, and that's what guides them. The leaders of a given nation may be very mistaken about their bests interests, but that's all part of the limits of intelligence.

Ethics are a matter of individual behavior. A politician can be ethical or unethical. National policy is apart from, not ruled by, individual ethics.

This difference creates a conflict between a state and its citizens. The good of the country may involve actions that, from an individual perspective, may range from merely wrong all the way to abomination. Our nuclear policy falls into that category. To maintain weapons in sufficient quantity to kill off our species and many others in one short day of nuclear warfare is an abomination. It's worse than wrong.

Generals and politicians, even some citizens, may decide that mutually assured destruction is OK as long as the other side doesn't win. Most citizens, some politicians, and even some generals will consider reject the idea.

The ethics of pacifism will lead some to reject their membership in and obligations to a state. This can lead to a difficult life as an outsider. Some men moved to other countries in the Vietnam war era to effectively reject their native land.

In the case of the October attack by Hamas on Israel, it's difficult to take a pacifist position. The attack was bad and the reprisals (the apparently goal of which is to destroy Gaza) leave nothing to approve. What we have is Iran (Hamas) and the State of Israel pursuing their interests, and damn anybody who gets in the way.

I find this to be useful for thinking about the nature of the philosophy of war (and peace). Understanding and reflecting on the nature of war may helpful as a stepping stone towards thinking beyond it. I wonder if this applies to current situations of wars in the world in the 21st century. Any thoughts? — Jack Cummins

Isn't war (armed conflict) in general about gaining territory and control of values? What could be more natural to humans? I don't think people's inner turmoil tells us much about war. I also think we throw the word 'war' around with cavalier imprecision because it has (or use to have) a journalistic gravitas: as in the war of terror, the culture wars, the war on poverty, etc.

The good of the country may involve actions that, from an individual perspective, may range from merely wrong all the way to abomination. — BC

Then in that case, the ethical thing to do (or at least, aim to do) is to be merely wrong. It is possible for a citizen to be wrong, since they have the basic right to think. It does not follow from there, however, that they (the citizens) have a right to perform an act of abomination.

It's worse than wrong. — BC

It is, that is why neither citizens nor folk can afford to commit such crimes. Because that is what they are: a crime is a crime because it is an Ethical abomination to begin with.

Generals and politicians, even some citizens, may decide that mutually assured destruction is OK as long as the other side doesn't win. Most citizens, some politicians, and even some generals will consider reject the idea. — BC

Exactly. So it's about power and influence, essentially. Fame, prestige, and all that. It is, quite literally, a Power Game. That, however, does not necessarily mean that "powergamers" the best players or agents to rely on such intellectual fronts.

In the case of the October attack by Hamas on Israel, it's difficult to take a pacifist position. — BC

Because it is a very complicated conflict to begin with, it is not exactly easy to look at this conflict from a militaristic standpoint.

The attack was bad and the reprisals (the apparently goal of which is to destroy Gaza) leave nothing to approve. What we have is Iran (Hamas) and the State of Israel pursuing their interests, and damn anybody who gets in the way. — BC

Well, all I can say on the topic of the War in the Middle East, I can only share with you a music video that I like and that I agree with, more or less:

It's all a matter of conflict resolution. We appeal to reason, we draw straws, we file lawsuits, we throw eggs at their house, we throw a punch, we fire a weapon, we level their city. There are all sorts of ways to resolve issues, some more costly than others.

Within civilized societies, we reject the concept of "self help," which means we don't allow people just to figure out the best way to resolve their problems on their own without regard to standards, but we set up processes. If you violate the rules in football, the referee calls the penalty, and failure to follow his rule will result in greater and greater penalty.

The problem arises when there is no accepted authority and no rule for adjudication. We can't sue Putin for the damages exacted in Ukraine and we can't imprison him.

It's a thought I had about the international court issuing the warrant for Netanyahu's arrest, where they went through what they felt to be a legally binding process such that they are now authorized to arrest him. I would suggest that the capture of foriegn leader who does not accept your way of conflict resolution would be an act of war and and an expected warlike response should be anticipated. It's not a matter of whether the arrest warrant is justified under some moral theory or another, it's whether the enforcement is an accepted one by the entity being affected and whether that entity is ultimately powerless to resist it.

The legal definition may be a means of defining what is acceptable, including ethical assumptions. However, it does not look at the nature of war in any deeper analytical way. It could be seen as having an implicit assumption of war being 'natural'. However, it does not query the status quo at all, the history of war as a solution and the question of why do people fight wars? — Jack Cummins

War in a way is legalized violence as the nations or groups that usually consider each other belligerents or enemies. It is also normalized: in a war, you can be a soldier and you kill enemy soldiers, that are also trying to kill you. This is deeply ingrained in every human society and we don't see how absurd it is. But it's very logical, even if absurd.

And what do people mean by the "nature" of war? What is the "nature" of let's say commerce or of scientific research, or education? There are the objectives of war, the technology and military thinking that has let it to be as it is now. What do you ask when you ask for the "nature" of war?

And what do people mean by the "nature" of war? What is the "nature" of let's say commerce or of scientific research, or education? There are the objectives of war, the technology and military thinking that has let it to be as it is now. What do you ask when you ask for the "nature" of war? — ssu

There is no such "nature" of war, scientifically speaking. The best that such an idea has "going for it" is perhaps the Warrior Gene stuff, as in, the genetics of aggression, but not much more than that.

Warrior gene? That sounds to me like stuff that people with absolutely no knowledge of war and warfighting and a very negative view of "warriorhood" would give a name to something that is basically about higher levels of behavioral aggression in response to provocation. Especially when it's the certain mutations of this gene that have been linked to an increased risk of violence, when there has been abuse in early life, which seems to act as the trigger that turns on the dormant predisposition to violence with men. Easily provoked aggressive people (read men) are not the kind of methodological people that make good experienced soldiers. That aggressive psychopaths, criminals, outcasts make the best soldiers is more of an idea that Hollywood champions than what reality tells us. Even if you cannot be timid and afraid in war (which would basically be the opposite of aggressiveness), quick thinking, training, stamina, leadership and the ability to operate in a team is far more important than strength and aggression.

In fact, I view this as a misconception or that we simply do not think of the whole notion of war much. It isn't psychopatic violence, it is something that our species has simply perfected up to whole new level. It's not about the individual, it's about a group, society and nation. If for an animal hostility toward other animals is crucial in defending it's territory, it's flock or pack, our reasons for war are also totally on different level. Noah Hariri said it well when he said that we fight wars for the narratives we tell us. That is a long way from the agenda just being food security.

What reading your post leads me to think is how war is a central factor in politics. It is about wielding power by force. Policy has become central, as a means of social contracts. Sometimes, policies are followed in an extremely concrete way, as the law, often taking advantage of loopholes. War may be the shadow of ethics in enforcing what is sanctioned or not by leaders and people in power.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Warrior gene? That sounds to me like stuff that people with absolutely no knowledge of war and warfighting and a very negative view of "warriorhood" would give a name to something that is basically about higher levels of behavioral aggression in response to provocation. — ssu

I don't know if I would describe myself as Pacifist, since I practice a sport that is technically considered a martial art (I do brazilian jiu jitsu, I'm a blue belt, not that such things have any sort of opinion-swaying authority). My point is that I practice a martial art (i.e., something that has to do with physical "conflict resolution", if that makes any sense). The very expression "martial art" is connected, etymologically, to the word "martial", which is itself etymologically connected to Mars, the Roman God of War, which is basically a watered-down copy of Ares, the Greek God of War.

And so, in my humble opinion, there is a spectrum, a "line", if you will, that runs from War to Peace, and consequently from Martialism to Pacifism. It's not an "all or nothing deal". Metaphorically speaking, there is always some peace inside of War, and there is always some war inside of Peace.

Yes, diplomacy may be seen as a non-violent approach to war and even a war of words and arguments. It can still be an intense battle, fuelled by anger. It is probably on that level that outer war can be compared with the battles of internal conflicts in one's inner world.

Even non-violent action, can be a form of war of a different kind, especially as protest. Non-violence has power, as shown by Gandhi. Of course there is martyrdom which is different from violence but involves the choice to give up one's life for a cause. Socrates may be the role model of martyrdom.

The nature of resolution of conflicts has become more complex in the power dynamics of the world. There are so many different codes and sets of rules which can be used or violated making it so strategic. With the authority element those in positions of power have a lead but there are likely to be so many oppositions. It may come down to cultural relativism in politics, which may give rise to a swing between totalitarian control and anarchist solutions.

Socrates may be the role model of martyrdom. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps, though a lot of people would say that Jesus would be a better example, or perhaps the samurai that dies by his own hand due to his dishonor, would be an even greater example.

It may come down to cultural relativism in politics, which may give rise to a swing between totalitarian control and anarchist solutions. — Jack Cummins

That is exactly what it is. It is more complicated than that, in "how it works", but that is essentially it, what you just said there.