Philosophy Now Forum

To you, as you're 'bathed' in them; What is Art and What is War?

Some things to consider:

Metaphysics met·a·phys·ics [met-uh-fiz-iks]
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.

Universals and particulars
Substance and accident
Abstract and concrete objects
Essence and existence
Determinism and indeterminism

So am I to assume that all the war mongers have been banished? Or is it just that they know they speak in the tongue, they have never actually realized, born of the imagination of a twisted ego, that sits in an easy chair, protected by the pen, backed by the sword.

Yet this thread is not just for them. I would like to know what anyone thinks the essence/nature of both art and war are, and if there can be such a thing as the 'art of war.'

There is art in any activity that Man tries to do well with engagement and reflection.

chaz wyman wrote:There is art in any activity that Man tries to do well with engagement and reflection.

Care to take the time to expand a little, as to the why of your belief; the underlying principles?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:There is art in any activity that Man tries to do well with engagement and reflection.

Care to take the time to expand a little, as to the why of your belief; the underlying principles?

No, not really. There are no underlying principles.
What I understand from this is a life-time's observation of the uses to which the word 'art' has been put, and a personal artistry in many endeavours I have pursued.

You were in the "forces" were you not, Spheres? so I guess you have some sympatico with the "art" of war, considering you must have volunteered.

reasonvemotion wrote:You were in the "forces" were you not, Spheres? so I guess you have some sympatico with the "art" of war, considering you must have volunteered.

No, actually I detest war, and see that the phrase "art of war" is an oxymoron. Art is about creation via imagination and war is about destruction via fear. And while it could be said that both deal with the selfish release of pain, only one outlet is forced upon another. Only the psychotic are simpatico with war.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:You were in the "forces" were you not, Spheres? so I guess you have some sympatico with the "art" of war, considering you must have volunteered.

No, actually I detest war, and see that the phrase "art of war" is an oxymoron. Art is about creation via imagination and war is about destruction via fear. And while it could be said that both deal with the selfish release of pain, only one outlet is forced upon another. Only the psychotic are simpatico with war.

I'm not simpatico with war either.
It is a waster of life, time, and resources, that does not stop it being practiced artfully.

If you took the trouble to actually read Sun Tzu you would learn that he was also well aware that war was a waste of time, life and so on. The most successful battle is the one that is won without a single drop of blood being shed.
If both sides took the advice of Sun Tzu no one would even fight.

reasonvemotion wrote:

You were in the "forces" were you not, Spheres? so I guess you have some sympatico with the "art" of war, considering you must have volunteered.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

No, actually I detest war, and see that the phrase "art of war" is an oxymoron. Art is about creation via imagination and war is about destruction via fear. And while it could be said that both deal with the selfish release of pain, only one outlet is forced upon another. Only the psychotic are simpatico with war.

You reply "No", does that mean you have never been in the forces?

reasonvemotion wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:

You were in the "forces" were you not, Spheres? so I guess you have some sympatico with the "art" of war, considering you must have volunteered.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

No, actually I detest war, and see that the phrase "art of war" is an oxymoron. Art is about creation via imagination and war is about destruction via fear. And while it could be said that both deal with the selfish release of pain, only one outlet is forced upon another. Only the psychotic are simpatico with war.

You reply "No", does that mean you have never been in the forces?

Actually I was specifically addressing where my sympathy lies. Additionally I see that I am, what I am today. My past, is what I was in the past, and is in no way necessarily indicative, of what I am now. Quite the contrary, ones past is often that which fuels the change for their future, if one cares to grow. So yes, I'm avoiding answering your query either way, and wonder why you ask in the first place. I'm also one of those that tends to 'try' and not pigeon hole someone due to their profession. It's not what you do, or have done, professionally in a world where one is forced to have a profession, in order to survive, that counts, as there are many variables that come into play, as to what choices one has, that are beyond their control, to varying degrees.

I know, I'm just a pain in the ass!

So the answer is "Yes" I was in the forces.

SpheresOfBalance:

My past, is what I was in the past, and is in no way necessarily indicative, of what I am now

and I disagree with your statement above. Our pasts play a continuing and important part in who and how we are today.

reasonvemotion wrote:So the answer is "Yes" I was in the forces.

SpheresOfBalance:

My past, is what I was in the past, and is in no way necessarily indicative, of what I am now

A not necessarily true assumption on your part. My words, your assumption, as if you could know how I played it.


and I disagree with your statement above. Our pasts play a continuing and important part in who and how we are today.

You missed the point I made. Which was that any particular thing that one is apart of in their past, does not necessarily indicate that they are still sympathetic towards in their future, and instead can be quite the opposite. One can approve of something while young that they disapprove of once older, and vice versa. The past is not necessarily indicative of the present. For instance, a long time ago, I used to be a hardcore Anti-Abortionist, but now I'm a hardcore Anti-Abortion-Pro-Choice advocate, with Pro Choice being the dominate belief.

SpheresOfBalance:

A not necessarily true assumption on your part. My words, your assumption, as if you could know how I played it.

I try never to asssume.


SpheresOfBalance:

I'm non violent yet I was in the navy. When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment...............I have worked as an Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator (operating 5 electronic sensors), I've loaded a live nuclear weapon (that was fun).

Ponder and deliberate before you make a move, Sun Tzu's, Art of War

that is how I play it.

SpheresOfBalance:

I'm non violent yet I was in the navy. When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment...............I have worked as an Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator (operating 5 electronic sensors), I've loaded a live nuclear weapon (that was fun).

If this is a accurate quote, it is complete hypocrisy.