Thomas Hobbes: 'War consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known.'

War consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known.

Thomas Hobbes, a renowned philosopher, once said, "War consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known." This quote holds a profound meaning that extends beyond the traditional understanding of war as mere physical confrontation. Hobbes suggests that war encompasses a broader period, where the desire for conflict manifests and the potential for battle looms.At its core, this quote emphasizes that war is not confined to the actual act of fighting. Rather, it encompasses a significant length of time wherein the intentions and motivations for battling are sufficiently evident. Hobbes' assertion challenges the conventional notion of war as a finite event and urges us to consider the psychology and motivations behind the will to engage in armed conflicts.Looking deeper into Hobbes' statement, we can unveil a thought-provoking concept that adds an intriguing layer to our understanding of war: the notion of the will to contend. While war is often associated with physical violence and clash of arms, the will to engage in battle can transcend the battlefield itself. It dwells in the realm of ideas, beliefs, and the profound motivations that lead individuals, nations, or even civilizations to confront each other violently.One can perceive the will to contend as a philosophy diverse from the act of war but intrinsically connected to it. This concept invites us to analyze the underlying factors that drive individuals or groups to embrace the path of conflict. It compels us to delve into the root causes, be they political, religious, economic, or ideological, that ignite the flames of war.Moreover, the will to contend also challenges our understanding of war as a dichotomy between aggressors and victims. It prompts us to question the role of collective will, as societies, nation-states, and even global powers navigate the uncertain terrain of conflict. By considering the will to contend, we recognize that war is not solely an external threat imposed upon passive individuals or communities but is also enabled and driven by their own volition.To contrast Hobbes' perspective, another philosophical concept comes to mind: that of peaceful evolution. While the will to contend asserts the potential for conflict, the notion of peaceful evolution presents an alternative path. Peaceful evolution embodies the idea of societal progress, transformation, and even global development without the need for violent confrontation.Where conflict is born out of differing wills, peaceful evolution suggests that it is possible to reconcile and harmonize these divergent interests through dialogue, negotiation, and constructive collaboration. It offers an optimistic vision in which war is replaced by a continuous engagement to resolve disputes and foster common ground, ultimately leading to collective growth and prosperity.By contrasting the will to contend with peaceful evolution, we confront the fundamental question of human nature: Are we inherently driven to conflict or capable of transcending this impulse? While history is riddled with examples of wars and conflicts, peaceful evolution challenges us to adopt a more hopeful perspective and strive for peaceful resolutions rather than resorting to violence.In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes' quote sheds light on the true nature of war. It expands our understanding by emphasizing that war is not limited to physical battles but encompasses a significant period where the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known. This quote acts as a catalyst for exploring the motivations and drivers behind conflict. By introducing the concept of the will to contend and contrasting it with peaceful evolution, we engage in a philosophical discourse that challenges our understanding of war and prompts us to reflect on our collective ability to choose a path of peace and progress.