That's not a refutation. Clausewitz wouldn't, I suspect, meaningfully disagree with that sentence. Heraclitus is noting that war is important, not offering a theory of how it should be conducted.
-
That said, I'd also say that, in reading the Clausewitz that started this, there is a risk of reading "the political object" too narrowly or understanding it in too modern a sense of 'politics.' The political object is merely the calculated end-goal of the conflict.
"Steal some food from that tribe over there" still qualifies as the 'political object.' Indeed, "steal some food" - or more correctly "steal some farmland with which to produce food (and ideally some farmers too)" is the quintessential political object.
-
-
Boo i responded to the first tweet out of three.
-
Well, off of what you said, I agree, on an individual level, those desires are not political. But war doesn't happen on an individual level (I'd argue definitionally), it happens on a group level. And turning individual desires into group action is the definition of politics.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.