This week on the blog, we keep up our look at the (silly) idea of there being a 'universal' set of warrior values or combat experience by talking about the types of warfare, along with the experience of battle itself in different cultures.https://acoup.blog/2021/02/05/collections-the-universal-warrior-part-iia-the-many-faces-of-battle/ …
-
A weakness of the argumentation is that beyond just documenting the historic change in circumstantial stress and corresponding virtue, you need to establish that these does not merely "sharpen the spear" in terms of an underlying virtue that adapts to circumstance in every era.
I'd need to see someone try to pin down that virtue. I think I've shown fairly clearly it isn't 'courage.' At some point, this becomes a non-falsifiable premise, doesn't it? "Everything that you can observe changes, but what about things you can't?"
-
-
You demonstrate that both war trauma and the understanding of courageous action change in historical context, but if you established that there emerges a courage[1] and a courage[2] which are semantically immiscible, I was not smart enough to see it. [1/2]
-
What I saw could be regularized as optimal warfare behaviour in the face of disincentivising trauma, for instance. (I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that it's hard to make the point you're trying to make.) [2/2]
- 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.