050 - Say Goodbye to the End of History: Clausewitz, Hegel, and War

The tragic events in Ukraine have brought to the surface many old quandaries of war.  The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 caused some to believe that a new world order had arrived.  A few scholars even claimed it to be the "end of history." 

Francis Fukuyama published his book "The End of History and the Last Man," in 1992, where he presents the thesis that humanity had reached "not just ... the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: That is, the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (National Interest, #16).  His work his based largely on Hegel's philosophy. 

Fukuyama has since backed down from this claim, given the rise of identity groups fueled by the Internet.  And it appears that  the WWII-style invasion of Ukraine by Russia is the final nail in the coffin of this theory.  

This episode explores the philosophy of war with a review of Clausewitz's work, a contempory of Hegel, as well as an analysis of how Hegel actually viewed war.  

Transcript

Gregory Novak 0:01

Hello, this is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist episode 50. Welcome back. I can't believe we made it all the way to 50 episodes. Thank you all so much for listening. The purpose of this podcast is to explore philosophy, psychology and science with an emphasis on the great philosopher, George William freezer, Cagle. Let me begin by saying that. This podcast is an evolving project. For me, I've learned so much in preparing. For each episode and I hope my perspectives and analysis are beneficial to all you listeners. And those that are familiar with the podcast know that there are certain central tenants in mind that we've been exploring. through these. Various episodes. First that there is more going on in the world and blind purposeless, naturalistic materialism. And that is what we call mind or spirit. I Geist. That evolution is central to the universe. That there is no separate higher realm. but this higher realm spirit is actually within us all. And that we are part of a historical process of increasing consciousness of spirit, freedom, and rationality. Within the world here. In this episode. I'm going to be talking about the unpleasant topic of war. Perhaps, this is no surprise. Given the events going on in the world today with Russia, invading Ukraine. And this particular event has caused me to think a lot about what philosophy has to say about war. And for that one must turn to Clausewitz. His book on war is arguably the most influential, study of war that's ever been done. Carl Von Clausewitz was oppression general and military theorist of the early 19th century who lived at the same time. As Hagle in what is now Germany. And probably a day's drive from where Hagle grew up. And interestingly though, although Clausewitz does not directly. Attribute his thinking to Hagle, uh, it is often described as a Galilean. I will be reviewing cloud switches theories on war first. And then we'll move on to what Hagle had to say in the subject. One thing is for certainty events of the last month have certainly put an end to any type of thinking that the end of history has arrived. And that liberal democracies can now all live peacefully together. We've discussed the end of history concept several times here. This was an idea that was first brought to light by Alexander Kojak. Kevin is influential book introduction to the reading of Hagle. It was published in 1947. And more recently in the book by Francis Fukuyama, the end of history and the last man published in 1992. Both of them. Invoke Hagle is suggesting that the end of history was upon us. Now we've discussed here often that, that. I believe in many others do this hypothesis is flawed. That Hagle did not say that there was some utopian state that it arrived or that it's closely waiting for us. We discussed this in particular in episode 48. On her tribalism fueled by the internet has thrown a monkey wrench into this notion, which Fukiyama himself has acknowledged. But these latest events, the evasion of. Ukraine is more old school, more world war II type aggression signaling that the world has not entered some new age of peace. Which is why I titled this episode, say goodbye to the end of history. And again, just let me make it clear. I do not believe that Hagle himself believed that. The end of history was upon us. This is something other people reading Hagle. If, if. I've come up with on their own. So let's begin. Klaus what's his book on war is considered perhaps the greatest book on military strategy ever written, as I said, and it remains influential even to this day. It was published right after his death in 1832. It was unfinished at the time. He was working on revising the manuscript when he died, his wife actually edited his work and then had it published. after his death. Before we get into the book though, let's take a brief look at Clausewitz himself. He was born in 1780 in Magdeburg and Prussia, which is now part of Germany. He was a soldier in the Napoleonic wars on the side of Prussia. It was actually taken prisoner in the battle of Vienna by Napoleon's forces. As you recall, Yana was where Hagle was finishing his work on his book, the phenomenology of spirit. And he actually witnessed Napoleon. On horseback. Riding by and it, it made a big impression on him and he called Napoleon the world soul. Which is one of the most famous quotes from Hagle. But back to class what's. I said he was taken prisoner. And after being released, he returned back to pressure. however he was opposed to precious then forced Alliance with Napoleon. And as a result, he joined the Russian army. Sharing the Russian German unit. And this Russian German unit later rejoined depression army, and in fighting Napoleon. And this. Prussian army played a key role in Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo. For those of you that studied that battle. Now it was around this time that he began writing on his theories of war and, After his, service, he became the head of a German military school, but he was later called back into duty into military service. At the time of the Polish, Russian war. And he actually led troops right up to the Polish border in 1829, leading troops. And all this time he'd been working on his book on war. And he, succumb to a cholera epidemic, which broke out in Europe in 1826 and caused his death in 1831. At the age of 51. And as he mentioned that his book was unfinished at the time you've been working on it for some 15 years and he was revising and editing it when he died. And regarding the book scholars have noted that it contains some apparent contradictions, however, others point out that these contradictions are. In fact, the result of his dialectical process. And there are different. Takes on this by different scholars. Now. Uh, this was the first of. Uh, have a major work on the, on the philosophy of war. and as I said, it's still being studied in. It's considered very influential today. You often hear people quote Clausewitz when they're talking about war situations. So one of the main principles of Anwar well, First of all there's there's no 32nd elevator speech to describe class. What's his theory of war. And this way it is similar to Hagens. Those philosophy, which we have commented on before. There is no easy, quick description. But forced to summarize. Yeah, Clausewitz describes a three notion approach. And this is so much similar to Hazel's method. However, Clausewitz is three aspects of war do not flow in the same dialectical direction is haggles doesn't does not follow the abstraction negation and concrete actuality. Uh, of our Hegel's dialectics flow. With Clausewitz, it's more that there are three tendencies. Which interact with each other to various degrees. Let me quote him on this. Or is quote, a fascinating Trinity composed of primordial violence, hatred and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind, natural force. The play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam. And it's element of subordination is an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to pure reason and quiet. Now, even this summary is tough to unpack, but let's, let's take a, a try here. First, he describes the element of blind, natural force to be considered. And this is the blind emotion of the people. It's rage. Untempered by thought. The second element he describes is that of chance and probability. And this is important. Is it. That goes to some degree Haydel's notion of nature as being the other of logic. Uh, nature with his blind chance and, and probability at work. So also echos Charles Pierce, his notion of chance and probability, which Pierce called tight schism. Ism as a fundamental element of nature. And we discussed Pierce's theories in detail in episode 46. The third element. And, Clausewitz's theory is that. Subordination that of extending the policy of a nation, which is a rational procedure. The policy of the nation. Now to reduce it even further, you can say it's the three elements are one violent emotion. To chance and three rational calculation. And. Clausewitz does provide an explanation of these three aspects in a little more detail. Let me quote him again. The first of these three aspects concerns more of the people. The second more the commander in his army. The third more, the government. The passions are to blaze up in warm, must already be inherent in the people. The scope that the play of courage and talent will join in the realm of probability and chance depends on the particular character of the commander in the army. But the political aims or the business of government alone. These three tendencies are like three different codes of law, deep rooted in their subject. And it variable in their relationship to one another. A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relation ship among them would conflict with reality, to such an extent. But for this reason alone, it would be totally useless in quote. So, what does this mean? Well, Having the backing of the people is key to any war effort. And the American civil war Lincoln knew that he had a galvanize the north for war because there was going to be a terrible price To pay to keep the union together. It was successful and kept the country hall. And it's not, she's recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest American president. Franklin Roosevelt also accomplished to some world war II for the United States. He stirred the American people to go to war. But on the other hand, more recently, the Vietnam war and the 1960s and early seventies. Uh, never got the full support of the American people. And. Lyndon Johnson was the American president who primarily escalated the warrant. He knew that he didn't have the support of the people. It has been reported that president Lyndon Johnson said after in 1916, broadcasts were popular. Newscaster Walter Cronkite made very negative commentary and pursuing the Vietnam war. And Johnson is reported to have said to an eight. If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America. Johnson Declined to run again for president because of this. And one wonders today in Russia. If the people are fully behind the invasion of Ukraine, Initial indications are the many are not, and this does not bode well for the success of Putin's mission. More in this in a moment. So the important thing here. Is that Klaus Witz is saying that war is not just for the generals. It also involves the people, the country. Who must fight and support the war and the rationale itself, the policy that is the reason for the war. These three aspects must be balanced. If not, it can produce not only horrible, but meaningless results. And some say this happened in world war one. Not personal note. Uh, do you ever get into a fight with your partner and after a while you forget the original reason for the fight, but you just know that you're in a fight and you must keep fighting. The policy decisions behind the war must not be forgotten. And the moral rational reasons must be remembered. I'm not going to get into all the different elements of Clausewitz's work. Is there are vast. I should just point out that Vladimir Lenin, Dwight Eisenhower and Mazda dung used his interpretations extensively. Now some say that with the arrival of the nuclear age that we live in, that Clausewitz's analyses and no longer relevant. I did not believe this to be the case. I as an hour used his understanding of class with extensively in the 1950s to show the horrors and mutual destruction. Which nuclear war would unleash. That there can be no political reason for mutual destruction. And it's certainly not what the people want. And today we again, see a war being waged in Europe with Russia and nuclear power invading its neighbor. Putin claims to have a political reason for this, but it will be up to history to judge whether this is true or not. And. The threat of nuclear, escalation has not stopped him. And so far the, the threat of nuclear escalation to stop the west NATO from interfering more than it has in directly taking on Russia. And the west may be taking a more Clausewitzian approach here of balancing the will of the people and political objectives and only imposing economic sanctions on Russia and supplying Ukraine with weapons. You hear that the west does not want to start a nuclear war over this. And the first thing I want to comment on this is that if one nuclear power backs down from another, then you have a classic master slave dialectical situation where the master is willing to risk his life in the slave. Is not. Which then determines who was the master and who was the slave? We covered Hegel's master-slave dialectic and detail in episode 13. So please go back and listen to that. If you missed it. The point here is that the west I in NATO. As apparently said that the line in the sand is of Putin were to attack any NATO country. So the nuclear deterrent may still be in play. But it is enough of a deterrent to cause the west not to engage directly with Russia right now in Ukraine. No, since I mentioned the master slave dialectic, let's move on to Hagle. Hagle does address war very specifically, briefly, but specifically in the philosophy of right. Paragraph 3 24 to 3 29. This is a section entitled sovereignty. Vis-a-vis foreign states. Which is the second section of his discussion of the state in which is in the third part of the. The work. On the ethical life. I'm going to paraphrase what Hagle says here in these few paragraphs, but please go and read them for yourself. Hagle begins by saying that it's an individual's duty, not only to protect its own property, but to maintain the sovereignty. Uh, the independence of the state. Even at the risk of his own property in life. That one's property cannot be defended unless one is prepared to risk their life for the state. Now the state is a very important concept in Hazel's notion of freedom. Hopefully we can spend some more time in this in a future episode. This is really what the philosophy of right is all about. Individual man is more free. If he's in a family. And family man is more free as, as a society man and society, man is more free within the state. So the state is essential for a person's freedom. And again, I'm saying, man, that applies equally for women as well. Now regarding war, specifically, a war between two states. Hagle is brief. What he has written on. This has been subject to widely. Diverging views. Some contend that he glorified war on this belief, he supported only morally correct wars and others that he was opposed to Warren principle. My own opinion and his Hagle does not fall fully into one of these three camps. His brief discussion of war is in context, more on the individual and the state and what the individual's obligation is and how individuals are obliged to fight for the state. Now I will be quoting one remark from this section. W where he goes on to, Criticized cons proposed league of nations aimed at perpetual peace. And as you know, as a process, philosopher, Hegel believes in change and evolution and he saw perpetual peace. The kind of con had proposes leading to stagnation and death. And here's, here's the quote that I want to read on this Hagle states. Quote. The ethical health of peoples is preserved. In their indifference to the stabilization of finite institutions. Just as the blowing of the winds, preserves the sea from the Fountas, which would be the result of a prolonged comp. Oh, so also corruption in nations would be the product of prolonged. Let alone perpetual peace. And quote. He then goes on to say, however, and this is very important, quote, this however is said to be only a philosophic idea. And it has maintained that actual awards requires some other justification and quote. This is key. Hagle is saying the change for change sake wars for war's sake is not enough. There must be meaningful rationale. To go to war for one state. This was the case in the American civil war and in world war II, but not in Vietnam. Hey go also notes that work and strengthen the bond of the individual to the state, that a situation, a permanent piece within the state. Can also lead to stagnation and death and, and addition to the paragraph. We've been talking about, he states. Quote in peace, civil life continually expands. All its departments, wall themselves in and in the long run, men stagnate, their idiosyncrasies become continually more fixed in hostile fight, but for health, the unity of the body is required and its parts harden themselves into exclusive. And if that is Def perpetual peace is often advocated as an ideal toward which humanity should survive. As a result of war nations are strengthened and quote. Again, this is a result of war, not a reason to go to war. Let's be clear on this. Hey, goes not, warmongering eerie. Seeing how things work. I just one more point on Hagle. He views the state in a similar way as he views an individual. And the individual, according to Hagle defines itself as a self in contrast to another self. Um, it's interesting. This is why Hagle. During his lifetime did not consider America. A full fledged country, like other countries in Europe. And it's primarily because they had no other country bounding them in the west. They were still expanding and say, we're a nation and development in nature in. Of the future. Not yet playing a key role in history and halos time. Now a key thing here. Is recognition for both the individual and the state. The individual wants to be recognized as willing to put their life on the line for it. Same thing goes for the nation state. The need for recognition drives so much of what one does in. 1 1 once. Same thing applies to the nation state. We've talked about this before in previous episodes. And I believe this is actually what's going on in Russia today. Russia does not want to be swept aside as the U S and China battle for world power. They want things to go back to the cold war, where they were one of two superpowers. It will be very interesting to see how things play out and we pray for an end to this city as violence. One thing. It was interesting. Bankrupting Russia worked to end the cold war and break up the Soviet union. Maybe it'll work again. And the present situation where their economic sanctions let's hope so. And one more last point, inhale. As you know, he puts dialectics on the forefront because that is how life is it. Life is dialectical. It is changed and negations are overcome. And so bladed. And this happens between individuals, between groups, within society and between states. History cannot end because that would mean stagnation and death has Hagle states and stagnation is not dialectical. Evolution is everything. There will continue to be conflicts and the nature of these conflicts will change. Certainly. Nuclear war has drastically changed the reasons and methods of war and more changes are likely to occur. So let's summarize. Clausewitz was a contemporary of Hagle and he used a dialectical approach to warfare. He argued that there are three elements that comprise any war and emotional instinct of the people of the state, the command of the generals. And the policy of the governing state. And the case of the invasion of Ukraine, it is not clear to me whether the Russian people are emotionally behind this invasion. And regarding the generals, this may become a moot issue. Given the fact that Ukraine claimed seven Russian generals have been killed so far. And this leaves policy, the third element. And it seems that the stated policy of Russia entering Ukraine is one, a protection preemptive war to extend his boundaries for greater security. Over to me, this seems flawed several NATO countries, currently border Russia. The biggest being Poland. Also NATO is a defensive organization, not an aggressive one. It is not that Ukraine was once technically a part of Russia. Interesting aside. I had a friend in college, a good buddy. Back in the late 1960s, early seventies. So I had a Russian sounding last name and we would often tease him and call him the Russian. And you get very mad about this and he was, I'm not rushing. I'm not rushing. I'm Ukrainian. There's a big difference. And this was back when Ukraine. Was part of the old Soviet union. So there's really no. Truth to this notion that the it's all one country has been broken up somehow. So in my view, None of Clausewitz is three reasons. Hold up here for Russia invading Ukraine. So what is causing it? I believe. It's the need for recognition. So we've been discussing. It was very much a ganglion need as we've covered often. And Klaus Witz himself saw this need for recognition. Is it precursor? For war. Some scholars contend the class would support more emphasis on recognition early on in his writings. Then he did later on when he got more specific with his triadic approach. Let me quote, an international studies journal quote. The early costs, which is theoretical approach is primarily characterized by a violation of existing forms of recognition and quote. This need for recognition is often called existential war, as opposed to instrumental war instrumental war results from the triadic formulation we've been discussing existential or. As a result of the need for recognition. However it is not one or the other. It's not existential war or instrumental war. And Clausewitz never abandoned the need for recognition as a cause for existential war. And I quote from this international studies journal again, Quote. The previous conceptualization of the existential view of war, nevertheless was still present in his thought at the end of his life and quote. I believe this need for recognition is incorporated in the emotional base instinct. Part of Clausewitz is Trinity, That's going to apply it to the country at large or to a segment of the population. Recognition is not about policy. No one says our policy is to be recognized. It's not about the General's how to wage war. It's more basic than that. More fundamental, more instinctual. it's as basic as self identity is itself, which Hagle has taught us. This is what is driving the invasion of Ukraine in my view. And as I said, let's hope and pray. This ends. As quickly as possible. And finally, as we've said here, several times before Hagle viewed history as a slaughter bench, And this is his theodicy. That it's one of the reasons I was attracted to his philosophy. There has organized killing in the world is ideologies clash in a bale for recognition. And supremacy. And for a better way. Unfortunately, this is necessary as a way of spirit gaining more freedom and independence for humanity. It would be nice if somehow. This is different, but this is not a fairy tale. This is real life. As they say freedom is not free. Well, that's it for this episode. Thanks so much. For listening once again. Please follow the podcast, Facebook page at cutting of Geist. Or I will be listing all references cited here. And I often post relevant comments between episodes on this paint. Some. Be sure to check it out. And you can also follow me on Twitter also at cutting of Geist and be sure to like rate and review this podcast, wherever you get your podcasts. And please tell your like-minded friends about it and feel free to share these episodes on social media. And lastly, if you're not a member of the halal study group on Facebook yet, please consider joining. We are 26,000 strong and we are continuing to grow. It's the best philosophy group on Facebook and perhaps the best on the entire internet. So. This is Gregory Nowak. This is the cutting of Geist CNX time.