Hejsan
Jag genomför Försvarshögskolans chefsprogram och skall skriva C-uppsats. Funderar på att skriva om nyttan av att läsa filosofi kopplat till militärteori och krigsvetenskap. Det finns dock en mängd filosofer att välja mellan. Någon som har tips på filosofer som ni själva bedömer kan ha en relevans avseende t ex studiet av krig och konflikter eller begrepp och språkfilosofi med förklaringskraft mot militära operationer eller av annan karaktär som kan vara intressant ur ett konflikthanteringsperspektiv.
Tacksam för svar
J :)
Filosofi och militärteori
Moderator: Moderatorgruppen
-
Avantgardet
- Inlägg: 8884
- Blev medlem: 06 okt 2006 22:33
- Ort: Socialklass III
Kan det vara så att du heter jan åke tälle? kanske inte så smart att använda sig av sitt riktiga namn på offentliga forum, men å andra sidan kanske jag inte är en tillräckligt bra analytiker för att gissa rätt.
Håller med Avantgardet, anser själv att vapenvägran är det bästa konflikhanteringsverktyget, vapenvägrade själv då jag är pacifist vilket innebar ett straff som jag dock hanterade på ett bra sätt.
"Ancient History Sourcebook:
Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE):
The Character of Hannibal
The Histories, Book IX, Chapters 22-26:
Of all that befell the Romans and Carthaginians, good or bad, the cause was one man and one mind---Hannibal. For it is notorious that he managed the Italian campaigns in person, and the Spanish by the agency of the elder of his brothers, Hasdrubal, and subsequently by that of Mago, the leaders who killed the two Roman generals in Spain about the same time. Again, he conducted the Sicilian campaign first through Hippocrates and afterwards through Myttonus the Libyan. So also in Greece and Illyria: and, by brandishing before their faces the dangers arising from these latter places, he was enabled to distract the attention of the Romans thanks to his understanding with King Philip [Philip V, King of Macedon]. So great and wonderful is the influence of a Man, and a mind duly fitted by original constitution for any undertaking within the reach of human powers.
But since the position of affairs has brought us to inquiry into the genius of Hannibal, the occasion seems to me to demand that I should explain in regard to him the peculiarities of his character which have been especially the subject of controversy. Some regard him as having been extraordinarily cruel, some exceedingly grasping of money. But to speak the truth of him, or of any person engaged in public affairs, is not easy. Some maintain that men's natures are brought out by their circumstances, and that they are detected when in office, or as some say when in misfortunes, though they have up to that time completely maintained their secrecy. 1, on the contrary, do not regard this as a sound dictum. For I think that men in these circumstances are compelled, not occasionally but frequently, either by the suggestions of friends or the complexity of affairs, to speak and act contrary to real principles.
And there are many proofs of this to be found in past history if any one will give the necessary attention. Is it not universally stated by the historians that Agathocles, tyrant of Sicily, after having the reputation of extreme cruelty in his original measures for the establishment of his dynasty, when he had once become convinced that his power over the Siceliots was firmly established, is considered to have become the most humane and mild of rulers? Again, was not Cleomenes of Sparta a most excellent king, a most cruel tyrant, and then again as a private individual most obliging and benevolent? And yet it is not reasonable to suppose the most opposite dispositions to exist in the same nature. They are compelled to change with the changes of circumstances: and so some rulers often display to the world a disposition as opposite as possible to their true nature. Therefore, the natures of men not only are not brought out by such things, but on the contrary are rather obscured. The same effect is produced also not only in commanders, despots, and kings, but in states also, by the suggestions of friends. For instance, you will find the Athenians responsible for very few tyrannical acts, and of many kindly and noble ones, while Aristeides and Pericles were at the head of the state: but quite the reverse when Cleon and Chares were so. And when the Lacedaemonians were supreme in Greece, all the measures taken by King Cleombrotus were conceived in the interests of their allies, but those by Agesilaus not so. The characters of states therefore vary with the variations of their leaders. King Philip again, when Taurion and Demetrius were acting with him, was most impious in his conduct, but when Aratus or Chrysogonus, most humane.
The case of Hannibal seems to me to be on a par with these. His circumstances were so extraordinary and shifting, his closest friends so widely different, that it is exceedingly difficult to estimate his character from his proceedings in Italy. What those circumstances suggested to him may easily be understood from what I have already said, and what is immediately to follow; but it is not right to omit the suggestions made by his friends either, especially as this matter may be rendered sufficiently clear by one instance of the advice offered him. At the time that Hannibal was meditating the march from Iberia to Italy with his army, he was confronted with the extreme difficulty of providing food and securing provisions, both because the journey was thought to be of insuperable length, and because the barbarians that lived in the intervening country were numerous and savage. It appears that at that time the difficulty frequently came on for discussion at the council; and that one of his friends, called Hannibal Monomachus, gave it as his opinion that there was one and only one way by which it was possible to get as far as Italy. Upon Hannibal bidding him speak out, he said that they must teach the army to eat human flesh, and make them accustomed to it. Hannibal could say nothing against the boldness and effectiveness of the idea, but was unable to persuade himself or his friends to entertain it. It is this man's acts in Italy that they say were attributed to Hannibal, to maintain the accusation of cruelty, as well as such as were the result of circumstances.
Fond of money indeed he does seem to have been to a conspicuous degree, and to have had a friend of the same character---Mago, who commanded in Bruttium. That account I got from the Carthaginians themselves; for natives know best not only which way the wind lies, as the proverb has it, but the characters also of their fellow-countrymen. But I heard a still more detailed story from Massanissa, who maintained the charge of money-loving against all Carthaginians generally, but especially against Hannibal and Mago called the Samnite. Among other stories, he told me that these two men had arranged a most generous subdivision of operations between each other from their earliest youth; and though they had each taken a very large number of cities in Iberia and Italy by force or fraud, they had never taken part in the same operation together; but had always schemed against each other, more than against the enemy, in order to prevent the one being with the other at the taking of a city: that they might neither quarrel in consequence of a thing of this sort nor have to divide the profit on the ground of their equality of rank.
The influence of friends then, and still more that of circumstances, in doing violence to and changing the natural character of Hannibal, is shown by what I have narrated and will be shown by what I have to narrate. For as soon as Capua fell into the hands of the Romans, the other cities naturally became restless, and began to look round for opportunities and pretexts for revolting back again to Rome. It was then that Hannibal seems to have been at his lowest point of distress and despair. For neither was he able to keep a watch upon all the cities so widely removed from each other---while he remained entrenched at one spot, and the enemy were maneuvering against him with several armies---nor could he divide his force into many parts; for he would have put an easy victory into the hands of the enemy by becoming inferior to them in numbers, and finding it impossible to be personally present at all points. Wherefore he was obliged to completely abandon some of the cities, and withdraw his garrisons from others: being afraid lest, in the course of the revolutions which might occur, he should lose his own soldiers as well. Some cities again he made up his mind to treat with treacherous violence, removing their inhabitants to other cities, and giving their property up to plunder; in consequence of which many were enraged with him, and accused him of impiety or cruelty. For the fact was that these movements were accompanied by robberies of money, murders, and violence, on various pretexts at the hands of the outgoing or incoming soldiers in the cities, because they always supposed that the inhabitants that were left behind were on the verge of turning over to the enemy. It is, therefore, very difficult to express an opinion on the natural character of Hannibal, owing to the influence exercised on it by the counsel of friends and the force of circumstances. The prevailing notion about him, however, at Carthage was that he was greedy of money, at Rome that he was cruel . . .
Source:
From: Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, 2 Vols., trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh (London: Macmillan, 1889), I.582-586."
Källa från en samling med flera kortare textutdrag som även behandlar antik filosofi, tillåtna för vidarepublicering. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html
Tyvärr, nästan ingenting har förändrats på över 2200 år. Det intressanta är hur lite den goda etiken styr dessa ledare, oavsett vilken religion de bekänner sig till, eller under vilken tidsera de verkar i, från Hannibal till Micheil Saakasjvili.
Norman Schwarzkopf medgav att vissa taktiska operationer under Gulfkriget var direkt inspirerade av hans egna studier och beundran för Hannibal, så var går gränsen? Dumheten är tidlös och krig är den största idiotin någon kan deltaga i både som offer och militär. Filosofin för militärer, bör benämnas "efterklokhet", för medan de ännu är aktiva gäller ingen sund logik överhuvudtaget.
Håller med Avantgardet, anser själv att vapenvägran är det bästa konflikhanteringsverktyget, vapenvägrade själv då jag är pacifist vilket innebar ett straff som jag dock hanterade på ett bra sätt.
"Ancient History Sourcebook:
Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE):
The Character of Hannibal
The Histories, Book IX, Chapters 22-26:
Of all that befell the Romans and Carthaginians, good or bad, the cause was one man and one mind---Hannibal. For it is notorious that he managed the Italian campaigns in person, and the Spanish by the agency of the elder of his brothers, Hasdrubal, and subsequently by that of Mago, the leaders who killed the two Roman generals in Spain about the same time. Again, he conducted the Sicilian campaign first through Hippocrates and afterwards through Myttonus the Libyan. So also in Greece and Illyria: and, by brandishing before their faces the dangers arising from these latter places, he was enabled to distract the attention of the Romans thanks to his understanding with King Philip [Philip V, King of Macedon]. So great and wonderful is the influence of a Man, and a mind duly fitted by original constitution for any undertaking within the reach of human powers.
But since the position of affairs has brought us to inquiry into the genius of Hannibal, the occasion seems to me to demand that I should explain in regard to him the peculiarities of his character which have been especially the subject of controversy. Some regard him as having been extraordinarily cruel, some exceedingly grasping of money. But to speak the truth of him, or of any person engaged in public affairs, is not easy. Some maintain that men's natures are brought out by their circumstances, and that they are detected when in office, or as some say when in misfortunes, though they have up to that time completely maintained their secrecy. 1, on the contrary, do not regard this as a sound dictum. For I think that men in these circumstances are compelled, not occasionally but frequently, either by the suggestions of friends or the complexity of affairs, to speak and act contrary to real principles.
And there are many proofs of this to be found in past history if any one will give the necessary attention. Is it not universally stated by the historians that Agathocles, tyrant of Sicily, after having the reputation of extreme cruelty in his original measures for the establishment of his dynasty, when he had once become convinced that his power over the Siceliots was firmly established, is considered to have become the most humane and mild of rulers? Again, was not Cleomenes of Sparta a most excellent king, a most cruel tyrant, and then again as a private individual most obliging and benevolent? And yet it is not reasonable to suppose the most opposite dispositions to exist in the same nature. They are compelled to change with the changes of circumstances: and so some rulers often display to the world a disposition as opposite as possible to their true nature. Therefore, the natures of men not only are not brought out by such things, but on the contrary are rather obscured. The same effect is produced also not only in commanders, despots, and kings, but in states also, by the suggestions of friends. For instance, you will find the Athenians responsible for very few tyrannical acts, and of many kindly and noble ones, while Aristeides and Pericles were at the head of the state: but quite the reverse when Cleon and Chares were so. And when the Lacedaemonians were supreme in Greece, all the measures taken by King Cleombrotus were conceived in the interests of their allies, but those by Agesilaus not so. The characters of states therefore vary with the variations of their leaders. King Philip again, when Taurion and Demetrius were acting with him, was most impious in his conduct, but when Aratus or Chrysogonus, most humane.
The case of Hannibal seems to me to be on a par with these. His circumstances were so extraordinary and shifting, his closest friends so widely different, that it is exceedingly difficult to estimate his character from his proceedings in Italy. What those circumstances suggested to him may easily be understood from what I have already said, and what is immediately to follow; but it is not right to omit the suggestions made by his friends either, especially as this matter may be rendered sufficiently clear by one instance of the advice offered him. At the time that Hannibal was meditating the march from Iberia to Italy with his army, he was confronted with the extreme difficulty of providing food and securing provisions, both because the journey was thought to be of insuperable length, and because the barbarians that lived in the intervening country were numerous and savage. It appears that at that time the difficulty frequently came on for discussion at the council; and that one of his friends, called Hannibal Monomachus, gave it as his opinion that there was one and only one way by which it was possible to get as far as Italy. Upon Hannibal bidding him speak out, he said that they must teach the army to eat human flesh, and make them accustomed to it. Hannibal could say nothing against the boldness and effectiveness of the idea, but was unable to persuade himself or his friends to entertain it. It is this man's acts in Italy that they say were attributed to Hannibal, to maintain the accusation of cruelty, as well as such as were the result of circumstances.
Fond of money indeed he does seem to have been to a conspicuous degree, and to have had a friend of the same character---Mago, who commanded in Bruttium. That account I got from the Carthaginians themselves; for natives know best not only which way the wind lies, as the proverb has it, but the characters also of their fellow-countrymen. But I heard a still more detailed story from Massanissa, who maintained the charge of money-loving against all Carthaginians generally, but especially against Hannibal and Mago called the Samnite. Among other stories, he told me that these two men had arranged a most generous subdivision of operations between each other from their earliest youth; and though they had each taken a very large number of cities in Iberia and Italy by force or fraud, they had never taken part in the same operation together; but had always schemed against each other, more than against the enemy, in order to prevent the one being with the other at the taking of a city: that they might neither quarrel in consequence of a thing of this sort nor have to divide the profit on the ground of their equality of rank.
The influence of friends then, and still more that of circumstances, in doing violence to and changing the natural character of Hannibal, is shown by what I have narrated and will be shown by what I have to narrate. For as soon as Capua fell into the hands of the Romans, the other cities naturally became restless, and began to look round for opportunities and pretexts for revolting back again to Rome. It was then that Hannibal seems to have been at his lowest point of distress and despair. For neither was he able to keep a watch upon all the cities so widely removed from each other---while he remained entrenched at one spot, and the enemy were maneuvering against him with several armies---nor could he divide his force into many parts; for he would have put an easy victory into the hands of the enemy by becoming inferior to them in numbers, and finding it impossible to be personally present at all points. Wherefore he was obliged to completely abandon some of the cities, and withdraw his garrisons from others: being afraid lest, in the course of the revolutions which might occur, he should lose his own soldiers as well. Some cities again he made up his mind to treat with treacherous violence, removing their inhabitants to other cities, and giving their property up to plunder; in consequence of which many were enraged with him, and accused him of impiety or cruelty. For the fact was that these movements were accompanied by robberies of money, murders, and violence, on various pretexts at the hands of the outgoing or incoming soldiers in the cities, because they always supposed that the inhabitants that were left behind were on the verge of turning over to the enemy. It is, therefore, very difficult to express an opinion on the natural character of Hannibal, owing to the influence exercised on it by the counsel of friends and the force of circumstances. The prevailing notion about him, however, at Carthage was that he was greedy of money, at Rome that he was cruel . . .
Source:
From: Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, 2 Vols., trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh (London: Macmillan, 1889), I.582-586."
Källa från en samling med flera kortare textutdrag som även behandlar antik filosofi, tillåtna för vidarepublicering. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html
Tyvärr, nästan ingenting har förändrats på över 2200 år. Det intressanta är hur lite den goda etiken styr dessa ledare, oavsett vilken religion de bekänner sig till, eller under vilken tidsera de verkar i, från Hannibal till Micheil Saakasjvili.
Norman Schwarzkopf medgav att vissa taktiska operationer under Gulfkriget var direkt inspirerade av hans egna studier och beundran för Hannibal, så var går gränsen? Dumheten är tidlös och krig är den största idiotin någon kan deltaga i både som offer och militär. Filosofin för militärer, bör benämnas "efterklokhet", för medan de ännu är aktiva gäller ingen sund logik överhuvudtaget.
Jag vet inte om man kan räkna in spelteori till filosofi, men det är något som definitivt är användbart i konfliktsituationer. Se särskilt nobelpriset i ekonomi 2005.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelteori
(kolla, en referens till hemvärnet!)
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelteori
(kolla, en referens till hemvärnet!)
Re: Filosofi och militärteori
janaketalle skrev:Hejsan
Jag genomför Försvarshögskolans chefsprogram och skall skriva C-uppsats. Funderar på att skriva om nyttan av att läsa filosofi kopplat till militärteori och krigsvetenskap. Det finns dock en mängd filosofer att välja mellan. Någon som har tips på filosofer som ni själva bedömer kan ha en relevans avseende t ex studiet av krig och konflikter eller begrepp och språkfilosofi med förklaringskraft mot militära operationer eller av annan karaktär som kan vara intressant ur ett konflikthanteringsperspektiv.
Tacksam för svar
J :)
Läs något av Gandhi... Kolla länken!
http://se.librarything.com/tag/Gandhi
MVH
Algotezza (själv kronvrak)
Algotezza aka Algotezza
Re: Filosofi och militärteori
janaketalle skrev:Hejsan
Jag genomför Försvarshögskolans chefsprogram och skall skriva C-uppsats. Funderar på att skriva om nyttan av att läsa filosofi kopplat till militärteori och krigsvetenskap. Det finns dock en mängd filosofer att välja mellan. Någon som har tips på filosofer som ni själva bedömer kan ha en relevans avseende t ex studiet av krig och konflikter eller begrepp och språkfilosofi med förklaringskraft mot militära operationer eller av annan karaktär som kan vara intressant ur ett konflikthanteringsperspektiv.
Tacksam för svar
J :)
Hej!
Även om Karl Popper är mer känd för de kriterier han ställt på vetenskapen har han också skrivit en mycket läsvärd bok i två delar The Open Society and Its Enemies (Det öppna samhället och dess fiender). I boken behandlas filosofer från Platon till Marx. I kapitlen om Hegel (husfilosofen för både nationalsocialister och kommunister) går han in på det falska och meningslösa bruket av språket i tyrannins tjänst.
Gå och kolla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_S ... ts_Enemies
-
Avantgardet
- Inlägg: 8884
- Blev medlem: 06 okt 2006 22:33
- Ort: Socialklass III
Re: Filosofi och militärteori
Chloe skrev:janaketalle skrev:Hejsan
Jag genomför Försvarshögskolans chefsprogram och skall skriva C-uppsats. Funderar på att skriva om nyttan av att läsa filosofi kopplat till militärteori och krigsvetenskap. Det finns dock en mängd filosofer att välja mellan. Någon som har tips på filosofer som ni själva bedömer kan ha en relevans avseende t ex studiet av krig och konflikter eller begrepp och språkfilosofi med förklaringskraft mot militära operationer eller av annan karaktär som kan vara intressant ur ett konflikthanteringsperspektiv.
Tacksam för svar
J :)
Hej!
Även om Karl Popper är mer känd för de kriterier han ställt på vetenskapen har han också skrivit en mycket läsvärd bok i två delar The Open Society and Its Enemies (Det öppna samhället och dess fiender). I boken behandlas filosofer från Platon till Marx. I kapitlen om Hegel (husfilosofen för både nationalsocialister och kommunister) går han in på det falska och meningslösa bruket av språket i tyrannins tjänst.
Gå och kolla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_S ... ts_Enemies
Sedan när läser nazister filosofer i allmänhet och Hegel i synnerhet?
Marxismen är ju en reaktion mot Hegels historiesyn. Marx "vänder upp och ner" på Hegel. Varför skulle Hegel då vara husfilosof för kommunister? Bara därför att både Marx och Hegel talar om ett utopiskt framtida samhälle?
undrar Algotezza
Algotezza aka Algotezza
Avantgardet. Inte så vackert att idiotförklara janaketalle, han kanske ville skapa något nytt, eller får inte filosofi nämnas ihop med militärteori? Någonsin?
Zokrates, är det inte ett lika riktigt namn som Jan-Åke?
Mest oriktigt "Zokrates vs janaketalle" 0-1.
Stå på dej janaketalle, hoppas du inte stöter på fler negativa personer.
Ulf Henricsson (officer?) kanske inte står under "gamla filosofer med riktiga namn" i telefonkatalogen. Fast det är nog en man med djupare tankar om livet och krigssitutioner.
Zokrates, är det inte ett lika riktigt namn som Jan-Åke?
Mest oriktigt "Zokrates vs janaketalle" 0-1.
Stå på dej janaketalle, hoppas du inte stöter på fler negativa personer.
Ulf Henricsson (officer?) kanske inte står under "gamla filosofer med riktiga namn" i telefonkatalogen. Fast det är nog en man med djupare tankar om livet och krigssitutioner.
Vilka är online
Användare som besöker denna kategori: 33 och 0 gäster