At the start of the course, I practically dreaded the idea of having war as our theme. Prior to starting college, I was never really fascinated by war. It did not interest me; I did not view it as anything but a catalyst for death and suffering. However, as time progressed, I began to see that war is much more than just violence - it is also an instrument for the destruction and deprivation of one’s humanity, a measurement of free will versus fate, a means for furthering one’s well-being (even at the expense of others), and unfortunately, a necessity of human existence.
My first blog entry introduced my definition of war at the beginning of the course, that it is an inevitable, perfect cycle of aggression. I believed war to be a manifestation of man's tendency to cause disorder or raise conflict and that though it is supposed to be a means of protecting one's loved ones and beliefs, it brings destruction and discord and involves even those not directly fighting. I also believed that there is no true right and wrong in war, that each side will believe that they are doing the right thing, and that the labels of “good guy” and “bad guy” all depend on one’s point of view.
I still hold my definition of war as an unending cycle and that there has always been war and there will always be war as true. After reading a very wide spectrum of literary works throughout the course that span from the times of Ancient Greece all the way until the modern era, I have realized that these works that have remained so time-honored up until today have stood the tests of time for a reason. War is universal and timeless. It is an integral part of our nature as self-determining, intelligent, feeling beings. It has always existed. I no longer believe that war manifests completely because of man’s tendencies towards conflict. Rather, conflict itself arises because of people’s self-interest and because of their free will and ability to act as they choose. This is apparent in the issue of agency and free will versus fate and the uncontrollable that arises in several texts (particularly in the Iliad), in the corruption and savagery of men in war (especially in Mother Courage and Simplicius Simplicissimus), and even in the instructions in more didactic texts such as The Prince or The Art of War. Also, I still believe that there is no true “good” and “bad” in war, and this idea has been further validated through my reading. In many of our texts, the conflicting parties are not subject to such labels, and are often very vague or are not even identified. Even in the Iliad where the conflicting armies are clearly distinguished, both sides are shown to have great warriors and not-so-great warriors, good men and bad men, heroes and villains. And sometimes, when it comes down to it, the line between right and wrong is blurred so much to the point where it does not even matter, and people will only care about their own self-interest, such as in Mother Courage when economic factors seemed to be the true reason for the Thirty Years’ War, and the religious motivation that started the war seemed to have been brushed aside.
This class has deeply broadened my view of war. My initial definition and thoughts on war have not changed much, but rather, they have been further developed and validated through my learning and introspection. I see war not only from a historical perspective now, but also through a ethical, economic, philosophical lenses. Though the first quarter is coming to an end, I have only begun delving into the nature of war, and am only now beginning to crack through the shell of human conflict. I both hope and know that my understanding of war will only further solidify and broaden on multiple spectra in my next two quarters of Humanities Core.