Alan Watts: 'Wars based on principle are far more destructive... the attacker will not destroy that which he is after.'

Wars based on principle are far more destructive... the attacker will not destroy that which he is after.

In the quote by Alan Watts, he suggests that wars based on principle are far more destructive than wars fought for material gain or territorial expansion. According to Watts, when an attacker goes to war driven by a principle or ideology, they are unlikely to succeed in destroying what they seek to eliminate. This quote encapsulates the paradoxical nature of wars fought for principles and raises questions about the true motives and consequences of such conflicts.War, fundamentally, is a violent confrontation usually stemming from a clash of interests or beliefs. Traditionally, territorial acquisition, resources, or power have been the primary motivations behind armed conflicts throughout history. These wars, though often devastating in their own right, are more straightforward. The attacker seeks control over something tangible, and the destruction they cause can be measured in physical terms.However, when wars are based on principles or ideologies, the destruction transcends physical boundaries and seeps into the very fabric of society. The attacker aims to eradicate an idea, change a societal structure, or impose a specific set of beliefs. But as Watts suggests, it is incredibly challenging to completely destroy an idea or uproot deeply ingrained belief systems. The essence of an ideology lives within the minds and hearts of people, and it can persist even in the face of physical destruction.To delve deeper into the concept presented by Watts, we can explore the notion of memetics – the study of how ideas and beliefs spread and evolve within a society. The influential biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" to describe the cultural counterpart to a gene, emphasizing the power and resilience of ideas in shaping human behavior. Applying this concept to the phenomenon of wars fought for principles, we can begin to understand why attackers often fail to erase the very thing they seek to dismantle.Just as a gene survives through replication and adaptation, an idea replicates itself through the minds of individuals and adapts to changing circumstances. It can be passed down from generation to generation, morphing and transforming along the way. Therefore, even if one generation of believers is physically destroyed or silenced, there will always be others who still carry the seeds of the initial idea.Additionally, the resilience of ideas can be attributed to the emotional and psychological aspects that accompany them. Principles and ideologies are often deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of a society or a cultural group. They tie into personal identity, cultural heritage, and a sense of belonging. When these principles are threatened, it often triggers a defensive response, further reinforcing the belief system and making it resistant to eradication.Furthermore, the act of attacking ideology with force can unintentionally ignite a spark of resistance and determination in those who hold onto the principle being attacked. History has shown that oppressive regimes or invaders rarely succeed in fully obliterating the spirit of freedom, justice, or human rights within the people they subjugate. Instead, the battle becomes a rallying cry, fueling a deeper resolve to protect and preserve the very principles the attacker seeks to erase.In conclusion, Alan Watts' quote highlights the destructive nature of wars fought for principles and ideologies. While conflicts driven by material gain or territorial conquest can be measured in terms of physical destruction, wars based on principles are far more profound and penetrating. The attacker's aim to destroy an idea often fails due to the intangible nature of beliefs and their ability to adapt and survive through generations. This insight is further enriched by the concept of memetics, emphasizing the resilience and the emotional attachment people have towards their ideals. The quote invites us to reflect on our motivations and the consequences of wars fought on abstract principles, challenging us to seek alternative paths towards resolving conflicts rooted in ideology.