The article concerns itself peripheral with the phenomenon of war, which, although it is in all mouths and heads, exists between our national systems only rudimentarily, mostly in a virtual way. In special, the article is about the phenomenon of terrorism, which shows the impossibility of a war in general. What is called “war” generally, is not war. It is confounded only with the phenomenon of war. In the following, the article will give information on the origins of this mistake and will support the theses.
Dr. Lisz Hirn
The Possibility of War
Dedicated to Israel
If one reads the daily messages, one could mean that nothing but war or martial unrests are ruling this planet - certainly in different quantity and quality. As one main herd the Near East is generally called - especially Israel. It seems like a mystery that peace can´t be reached by this country, but it is not mysterious at all - on the contrary. Since I have a special connection with this country, I dedicate this article to it. As main reference of this writing the philosopher Jean Baudrillard is to be indicated, in special his essay over extreme phenomena, The Transparency of the Evil.
The article concerns itself peripheral with the phenomenon of war, which, although it is in all mouths and heads, exists between our national systems only rudimentarily, mostly in a virtual way. In special, the article is about the phenomenon of terrorism, which shows the impossibility of a war in general. What is called “war” generally, is not war. It is confounded only with the phenomenon of war. In the following, the article will give information on the origins of this mistake and will support the theses. What we do experience nowadays is not war, no archaic use of force, it is terrorism, meant as a radical reaction to the social range. What is terrorism actually?
Usually the average western inhabitant thinks of Near Eastern countries when it comes to terrorism and especially of arabic people who blow themselves up. Most of them survey the fact that there is also a terrorism with “western” features, which achieves frightening extents in the western countries. The speech is here from madmen, which offense themselves in the most radical way against the social system while shooting people arbitrarily. “And the terrorism, what is it than another form of abreacting by force within the social range? [...] It does not concern the reviving of an atavistic force. Archaic force [L.Hirn: which finds their expression in military conflicts ] is more enthusiastic and at the same time more ready to sacrifice. The force, brought out by our hypermodern trend, is terror. [Jean Baudrillard, The Transparency of Evil, Merve Berlin, P. 88]” Whatever form the terrorism is based on, it lives on and by the hypermodern mediality of our time and the omnipresence of the “screen” within all ranges of our life. “It does not concern a collision of hostile forces or antagonistic passions [L.Hirn: as in war], but it is a cooperation of dormant and indifferent forces (to those the slow-acting viewers belong). [...] No irrational episode of our social life: it lies completely in the logic of its acceleration in emptiness [Baudrillard, ibidem, p. 89].” What happens if war is no longer possible, what happens if the national immune system does not have to work satisfactorily any longer, but is exposed to perfect sterility? - The own antibodies of the social organism turn against it; it comes to a genetic metamorphosis of the individual cells: mutations. Metastasis begin to grow uncontrolled and a-rationally within each social range: terrorism.
In which position does the terrorism stand to the system? The terrorism is systeminherent; it is similar to a mutation of the cells of a national system, similar to cancer conditions. The phenomenon of “war” is completely different to the phenomenon of terrorism. It acts antagonistically against the conventions of a national system. “War” attacks the social organism from the outside, terrorism from the inside: it is an autoimmune illness of the system. Terrorism ruins the organs of the state, which consists again of innumerably many cells, fail to the illness. The cells are no longer attacked from outside, so they start to attack themselves. “Since the states have no antagonistic outside, they turn automatically against their own people or territory, in a kind of civil war against their own natural reference (is it not fate of each indication, each significant and representative instance, to abolish its natural reference?) [Baudrillard, ibidem, p. 90.].”
Frequently Asked Questions about "The Possibility of War"
What is the main topic of "The Possibility of War"?
The article primarily discusses the phenomenon of terrorism and its relationship to war, particularly in the context of modern society and the state of Israel. It argues that terrorism is not a form of war, but rather an internal reaction to the social system's hypermodernity and a lack of external threats, drawing heavily on the philosophy of Jean Baudrillard.
What is the author's perspective on war and terrorism?
The author distinguishes between war, which involves antagonistic forces between nations, and terrorism, which is viewed as an autoimmune response within a social system. Terrorism is characterized as a mutation or cancer-like condition where the social organism's own antibodies turn against itself due to sterility and a lack of external threats.
How does the article relate to Israel?
The article uses Israel as an example to illustrate its thesis. Israel's attempts to combat terrorism with a partition wall are seen as a mistake, as the wall creates a false sense of outside while the metastasis of terrorism exist within the state. The author suggests that a two-state solution could potentially re-establish an external antagonistic force (Palestine), making war a possibility and perhaps strengthening the state.
What is the significance of Jean Baudrillard's work in the article?
Jean Baudrillard's essay The Transparency of Evil serves as a main reference for the author's analysis. Baudrillard's ideas on hypermodernity, the absence of antagonistic forces, and the resulting internal reactions of social systems are used to explain the nature of terrorism.
What is terrorism according to the author?
Terrorism is defined as a radical reaction to the social range, fueled by hypermodern mediality and the omnipresence of the "screen." It is not a revival of atavistic force, but a product of the acceleration and emptiness within the social system.
How does the author describe the relationship between terrorism and the state?
Terrorism is described as system-inherent, similar to a mutation or cancer within the cells of a national system. It acts from the inside, unlike war, which attacks from the outside. In the absence of external antagonists, the state may turn against its own people or territory, leading to civil war-like conditions.
What alternative does the author propose to combat terrorism in Israel?
The author suggests that a political two-state solution, creating two antagonistic nations (Israel and Palestine), could provide an external threat and the possibility of war, potentially strengthening the state and making the social partition-wall unnecessary.
- Quote paper
- Mag. Dr. phil. Lisz Hirn (Author), 2009, The possibility of war, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/131063
