Recently a college professor in Texas, near Ft. Hood, published an article that said she was giving up teaching US military history because of students coming to her out of the wars. She writes that what the students "needed was personal catharsis, but I am not a trained psychologist. What these students craved was the opportunity to express their anger or pain, but my class was not the place to do it." Socrates was a veteran of Delium; Leonardo da Vinci made war machines. If your experiences have called you to try to understand, good. The first line of Aristotle's Metaphysics is, "All men by nature desire to know." By answering that call, you are doing something in accord with the best and highest part of your nature. What might be useful to you is some advice on how to structure your studies so that you can achieve that goal. Professors know only what they know; they can only help you within the limits of their disciplines. You must learn how to steer yourself to the disciplines that you most feel called to explore. There are two kinds of academic disciplines, which we can call "what?" and "why?" disciplines. "What?" disciplines pursue answers to questions of fact. "Why?" disciplines pursue answers to questions of meaning. History, including military history, is a "what?" discipline. The professor in our example is trying to convey a very specific "what" -- that is, she is trying to explore "what happened?" during the specific period mentioned in her course description. She has no expertise outside of that area. It's not that she doesn't want to help, but that she doesn't know how. If what you are trying to do is understand the why of war, there are three disciplines that will serve you better. The first is philosophy; the second is theology; and the third is literature. Philosophy and theology were the king and queen of the university throughout most of its history. All human knowledge is rooted in philosophy: the sciences, for example, were known until very recently as "natural philosophy." Philosophy still keeps the foundations of all the other fields, including mathematics, science, politics, and ethics. It will require substantial personal discipline, however, to get deep enough into the field to begin to get at what you are interested in exploring. Nevertheless, if you have that discipline, it is the field most likely to prove fruitful. If you can find a program strong on medieval philosophy, you can explore the roots of the current crisis -- and also, I believe, you can help develop the road out of that crisis. Theology as a discipline is different from what you may have encountered in Sunday School. It can bring you in touch with people who have been disturbed by the same questions as you, and have sought understanding as you are doing. The best theology programs offer a rational and disciplined exploration of the universe, which will provide you with a reason for your faith rather than simply with faith alone. You may find this anchor helpful. Literature is a newer field, which broke away from philosophy only in the last few hundred years. Nevertheless, people have been writing books that explore these questions from the beginning -- indeed, the greatest of our books on the subject is probably the Iliad. The great works are all available to you in translation, though here -- as in both of the other fields above -- you will benefit yourself greatly by learning one of the languages in which your field is strongest. Greek, Latin, German, Russian, French -- any of these languages will open another world to you (and, a small matter but perhaps a useful one, will provide you with a marketable skill in translation work; obviously the living languages most of all). None of that is meant to direct you away from history. History is a necessary discipline, because it provides you with the furniture for understanding. You need to know what has happened before you can explore questions about the meaning of what has happened. History is necessary, but it is not sufficient: and so, when you go to a history class, you should expect only to explore questions of fact, not meaning. The 20th-century philosopher Hannah Arendt praised Socrates precisely because he was the kind of man, so rare in philosophy, who both thought and did. She was that kind herself, having helped the Zionists in Germany before WWII until she was captured by the Gestapo, then fleeing to France, being captured there and put in a concentration camp, escaping and fleeing to America. The two sets of skills go well together, thinking and doing. You will need personal discipline, and the humility to admit that you have come to learn and wish to hear what others think. In the end, though, it will enrich all of us to have more thinkers who have also been and done. (You may also wish to read Carl Prine's essay on the subject, and especially the remarks he collected from military-oriented professors he knows. They have some useful advice as well.)
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/PeaFx-2evdc/for-the-warrior-who-wants-to-study.html
Posted
Sep 23 2011, 01:32 AM
by
BLACKFIVE