On the Impending Irrelevance of War and how it will pose a Threat to Our Sanity.

As of yet, it may appear as though my chief contention was that Sanity is entirely relative. It would appear as though, as in the instance wherein I mentioned the inevitability of all conceptions being misconceptions*, I am postulating that it is impossible to distinguish Sanity from Insanity, and that either the latter does not exist or the former does not, if not both. Yet I do draw a line somewhere: Insanity is the naiive clinging to a set of conscious values, a method of logic, and a map of the world, once those values have all ready run their course and serve no further purpose.

We are confronted, if we are, as a species, in a process of Growth and Progress, with the immanent irrelevance of War. War will become no longer a necessity.

 

I have defined Insanity as that condition whereby a process, method, or style of reasoning that has become obsolete is perpetuated in spite of the NEW, born out of a Will to Ignorance and the perpetuation of the Old.

 

In Hindu yoga, it is believed that the source of any Will to Power or Aggression rests in the third chakra. The goal of certain schools of yoga is to unite the third chakra with the fifth chakra, which is concerned with Self-Expression and Abstraction. In this process, the Will to Power is no longer directed outwards, in its physical manifestation, but it is directed inwards. The individual “conquers one’s self”, as it were. This is not to be confused with the situation Nietzsche describes as the condition of the Bad Conscience.

The war becomes internalized as an intellectual struggle for refinement, taking place entirely within the individual psyche.

 

It is easy to draw a parallel between the Militarism of the Soldier and the Intellectual Rigour and Zeal of the Philosopher. Each individual may feel as though he has been fighting to defend the layperson, either in the instance of the civilian or the anti-intellectual.

The anti-intellectual may make the claim that he or she has the “right” to be anti-intellectual. Yet there may very well be a fallacy therein.

The entire NOTION of a “right” is a social construct. It exists by virtue of its relevance and the presence of people who acknowledge it. Its conception was by virtue of a group of philosophers and intellectuals.

Suppose that the anti-intellectual is approached by a Fascist. The fascist, having been very well-read, makes the assertion that, in fact, the anti-intellectual does NOT have ANY human rights.

The anti-intellectual may make the ASSERTION or claim that he or she has rights. Yet in the absence of a sharpened intellect, the anti-intellectual would be unable to pose a winning ARGUMENT. The fascist, by his or her surpassing wit, may change the course of history and thereby abolish any semblance of “individual rights”. This would prove the anti-intellectual’s original assertion false. The fascist may DICTATE, in such a position of power, that everyone be educated to become an intellectual.

The only way to prevent this threat is to take responsibility for one’s intellect. It is philosophy that can even postulate the notion of a “right”. In order to prevent the spread of Fascism and other forms of Totalitarianism wherein everyone is compelled to think THE SAME WAY, one must compel oneself to THINK in a UNIQUE WAY.

I sometimes feel that, as a philosopher, I may have some semblance of understanding what the experience of the Vietnam War Veterans was. My intellectualism is condemned by the people whose freedom I try to defend.

 

If physical War becomes obsolete, the challenge will become for Humanity to direct its aggression towards the refinement of its intellect. This will be no longer a collective process but a widespread individual phenomenon. It will be unlike any kind of Totalitarianism, Communism, or Hive-mind, although words may make it appear to be that way. What we will have is a large trend of people individuating and self-actualising: The exact opposite of the effects of Totalitarianism, et cetera.

Yet if we continue to wage physical war once there is no longer a necessity for it, this will be an Insane act. The people waging War will be crazy simply because they decide to do so.

Do we really want maniacs and lunatics to have access to the most advanced armaments? Do we want this to happen in the midst of Mankind’s greatest achievements?

 

*This condition, that of all conceptions being misconceptions, refers only to a particular set of instances I have delineated as the Sinking House problem.

 

Dm.A.A.