Death in War as Verification

Dear Colleague,

Richard argues (please scroll down the page) that the objective of battle and warfare is not to kill, but rather to die: to die in order to prove that what we die for is true.

But what about "killing," assumed to be the purpose of battle and warfare? We kill the enemy in order to compel them to die for our idea or ideal (the proof of the pudding is in the dying).

For additional evidence supporting this hypothesis, please read NATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL, now available as an eBook.

Best regards,

MHGS

Mary Helen Guider-Shaw
Director of Public Relations
Library of Social Science
Phone: (630) 212-0485

Email: mhgs@libraryofsocialscience

 
The ideas for which we die...are true

Franco Fornari calls war the spectacular establishment of a general human situation whereby “death assumes absolute value.” The ideas for which we die are considered to be true because death becomes a “demonstrative process.” Willingness to die in battle shows sincerity. Death in battle testifies to the truth of the ideology for which people fight.

The connection between death and truth grows out of our feeling that surely if someone goes so far as to give their life for an idea, then there must be something to it. We find it difficult to conceive that human beings would die for an idea possessing no validity. Surely human beings would not kill people and allow themselves to be killed in the name of no thing.

Dead and mangled bodies on the field of battle imply the existence of some “thing” in the name of which the frenzied activity and destruction—the carnage—has occurred, testifying to the reality of that thing. People imagine that if radical acts of destruction are taking place, then they must be occurring based on something real. Acts of destruction confer reality on the entity or idea in whose name these acts are undertaken.

Dismembered
Limbless British Veterans after the First World War (Roehampton Military Hospital)
First World War Casualties
ww1-statistics