-----Original Message----- From: David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Dec 8, 2004 12:01 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: CFP: PEACE REVIEW on the Psychological Interpretation of War on 12/7/04 10:50 PM, Lawrence Helm at lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Eric: > > I copied the "Peace Review" Post down at the bottom. I found the same thing > "silly" that you did. Koenigsberg addresses war as though it were a > psychological aberration like kleptomania: They just couldn't help > themselves: The desire to fight a war became too much for them. > > His article implies that great numbers of people die because of the "appeal" > of war. Some sort of psychological interpretation needs to be discovered so > that we can put a stop to this, he says. And Amago wrote: Not such a far fetched conclusion: people love war. His is an amazing, heretofore unasked, question: why love something that is so pain filled and destructive? Historians and those among us who have read widely and talked with veterans, or better yet, who are veterans, know why people go to war now, why they went to war in the past (not the same reasons; shorthand version--they used to be in search of loot, now they go for medals, patriotism, honor, but love of comrades and not wanting to let them down is a constant) and why they act as they do when they get there. We also know that these motives and the motives of people who declare war are not identical. A.A. In other words, the need for war is a constant. The excuses and rationalizations for it vary. D.R. Some people enjoy war. Many people enjoy tragedy, either the real thing or a literary version. Understanding that people enjoy tragedy has done little to reduce the amount of tragedy in the world. A.A. Understanding that people enjoy tragedy is not the same as understanding why they enjoy tragedy. The why is what K. was getting at. D.R. I doubt that understanding the motives of those who love war will do much to prevent war. That understanding has, however, together with humanist and pragmatic impulses, given us modern "rules" of war. A.A. I'm not so sure. Understanding excuses is pointless. Understanding the need for excuses is a different story. If we knew why we need something, then we stand a chance of getting that need met in a less destructive way. D.R. What made people in the nineteenth century confident that large scale war was impossible was the inflation in costs. It was thought that no one could possibly pay for a large scale war. The argument was absoletely correct; the First and Second World Wars bankrupted Europe. But when there are people willing to loan you the money, not being able to pay doesn't prevent folk from indulging themselves. I would argue that one of the most important changes in the nature of warfare in the past hundred years is the development of the income tax and the national debt. Now we can afford really, really expensive wars. A.A. You're right. It is argued that Japan is what it is because it was razed to the ground in WWII and had to come back up. It's interesting that so few people see war as a waste of money. All that money could go into making our lives richer. Instead it goes into destroying ourselves, which is to say, enjoying ourselves. Maybe self destruction was built into the system, leaving war in control of us, not us controling it. We may as well stop belly aching about Iraq and just enjoy it. It's curious we feel so threatened by inner cities and avoid them because we don't feel safe there. Andy Amago David Ritchie Portland, Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html