PHILOSOPHY OF WAR II

Estimated reading time 6: 30 minutes

The philosophy does not pose to be divining, but holds the possibility of thinking about the future, philosophy, futuristic starting to rethink past conditions may become in this, as exhibited in his work Riccardo Campa of the Jagiellonian University, located in Kraków, Poland, “the Treatise of philosophy futurist” and taking as reference the bet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti.

To ask ourselves about war requires that somewhat hermeneutic exercise in which the futurist surpasses the artistic, the ethical, the poetic, the epistemological and so on, to get to situate ourselves in what is given to us within the context in which we live. Already in the article on this blog titled Philosophy of the War, were some concerns to the debate concerning the implications shooting war is not experienced by many of our readers, perhaps studied so fragile and perhaps understood by those who have experienced it both as participants and victims.

Again you have the urge to ask questions philosophical about a topic as fateful as it is the war, when the philosophy futuristic lacks a current loop of theoretical elements derived from that thinking in critical moments such as the ones currently registered humanity or perhaps not, as there are on the shelves of many of us, important sections of citizens of the world that led to the posterity of what is happening, and will happen with regard to the extinction of a major segment of humanity, or humanity itself, from a political or ideological perspective, in any case humanist in the local, regional, national and of course international.

To question the ethics of the power of those who are in him, and for the suitability, by its conception of humanity, for your mental health, among many more, it is a premise of the greatest importance that the citizens of the polis, of course philosophers all, we'll have to question both ask if the determinations of one or another representative to that extent, you can reach in your illusion to sustain itself in power, or achieve the same, affecting innocent people, and with it a whole series of events, unwanted, which can be detrimental for giving an example “of climate change.” There are no guarantees anywhere on the planet to be safe, we live in a world of uncertainty, we live in a pandemic, the pandemic of violence, which takes away lives, illusions and good people.

https://www.pinterest.es/pin/420664421425294566/

Is the premise that the end justifies the means fair? Of course, from the advantageous position of who, bets knowing that he will win, already in his action it turns him into a being that could be qualified as mean, but it is not always so because there are jousts that are waged for the benefit of humanity and that does not intend to crush the innocence of people. Is it ethical to get out of difficulties by having to undermine others?

The human condition is very complex, the more you have, the more you want to have, there are no scruples in it, ego, narcissism, ambition persists like cancer in the body, in itself war is bad for some and good for others, therefore war is not good or bad, it is war and always contains what overwhelms us. Especially when we pose unnoticed in front of what does not affect us momentarily and this already makes us complicit in the war. Why not worry about what's going on in the backyard, on the other side, on the other side of the world?

Dear readers, we have to think that a nuclear war decreases in us a great chance of survival and the future of our offspring, perhaps in the comfortable place where you are not of major interest to philosophize on this issue, but it is important to do so stripped of that which we are strong in this very moment to move our opinion on the respect of otherness.

The war cannot be abolished because it is a matter of the zoom politikón, does not respect boundaries, ethical, moral, religious, ideological, does not respect age, or gender, or likes, or dislikes, no respect for anything, because if the war is valid after its genesis is not possible to measure consequences for the more that think about it, the collateral damage are unimaginable and with a social cost almost irreparable, as the tissue of the human being is descose drowned in his own tears in his own moan. The term coined for Clausewitz,” war is the continuation of politics by other means, " may mean, among many other meanings, that war could be avoided, and if it occurred, the life of the vanquished could be respected.

Today, with the development of this possibility, no one doubts that a third world war will hardly end otherwise than with the annihilation of the vanquished. We are all so fascinated by all-out war that we can hardly imagine that the American Constitution or the present Russian regime survived defeat following an eventual war between Russia and America. But this means that in a future war it would no longer be a question of the achievement or loss of power, of borders, of markets and vital spaces, of issues, in short, which could also be obtained without violence through political negotiation. (Arend, 2008, pp. 188-189)

Thus, it is understood that there can be a victor in a nuclear war. Is that possible? Where are human rights, international humanitarian law and other treaties that seek to promote the existence of the human being? How can you help? Is it not the beginning of the end of mankind? Are we witnessing the fourth war and not the third world war? What can we call the cold war?