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/ …
-
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]
Except that arguing to that level isn't really necessary, is it? I'm responding to the argument that ancient 'warrior values' are directly applicable to modern civilian life. If I can demonstrate they aren't even applicable to modern war, I've more than met my burden here.
-
-
To be very frank, looking at the counter-arguments so far, what I am actually seeing in my comments and elsewhere is a lot of fellows whose personal worth is pretty clearly wrapped up in this notion, but who are not prepared to offer any evidence to defend their position...
-
...beyond a sort of "I know it when I see it" personal anecdote about how the guys they knew where up to it. Which "my social context works in my social context" is true, but not exactly an effective retort to the idea of historical contingency!
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.