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/ …
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
NOOOOO you can't just memory-hole the absolutely logical conclusion of millennia of Western philosophy by putting the word 'silly' in brackets, that's like putting wallpaper over a missing wall. At least say "(very silly and non-sexual)."
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @muddletoes
Psst. You are supposed to read the essay to find out why I think it is silly!
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
I refuse to conform to some Platonic ideal of readership but of course I will give you your like and your clickthrough as an internet friend.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @muddletoes ja @BretDevereaux
(I am reading it, of course — or not quite of course, but 'of course' once I remembered which blog this was.)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @muddletoes ja @BretDevereaux
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.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @muddletoes
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?"
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
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]
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @muddletoes ja @BretDevereaux
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]
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @muddletoes
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.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
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...
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @muddletoes
...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!
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäysKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.