Dela Cruz

1
2011-17384
Alexis de La Cruz
Philosophy 198
Sir Perseville Mendoza
13, August. 2013

Does Ares needs Athenas owl? - Philosophy behind the men of war.

What constitutes victory in the context of war? Annihilation of the enemy is the way to
do it but it seems that there are other factors that we would rather have included than just the
downfall of adversaries. Why is it even that lands, empires, kingdoms send its men to wage war
against foreign neighbors? It is violent, a waste of resources and brings about misery; but why
did our predecessors still find it necessary to engage in such tragic play? All actions are made
under the assumption that it would lead to some good (Aristotles Nichomachean Ethics). War,
forces us to throw away some goods, the assumption then would be that the end action for war is
something of better a better kind. Throwing away goods for the sake of a superior end is an
acceptable action; any sensible man would do so (Nichomachean Ethics). Why do we not accept
war as an end worth pursuing for itself? War is evil in itself. Anyone who pursue something that
does not lead to any good is either ignorant to what is good or someone who does not share any
qualities of humanity. Even if someone engage in war out of irrational passion take for example
the Trojan war, it is done under the assumption that it would bring about something good which
is, on that case, on a personal level.
Dela Cruz

2
What might be the desired end, which causes war? We have talked about the personal
level of it, which often arouse from irrational passions. If we exclude its personal factor, which is
often depicted among the self-indulged Greek Gods, the answer lies with the polis
1
. It is the duty
of the leaders of the polis to make it so that it is a suitable place for the citizens to maximize their
potential. To be able to do that, they must eliminate what impedes the development of the
citizens while trying to expand the available resources; and war is very much fitted for the role of
securing these needs. Hence, the desirable end of war, in the context of the polis is societal
development and overpowering an enemy alone does not qualify for victory or the desirable end
in engaging in war. Winning without any tangible gain will defeat its purpose. A most fruitful
victory constitutes the least possible damage, which is none, and the maximum possible gain. To
accomplish such requires a high level of intellectuality while physical strength comes secondary.
How much does knowledge contributes to victory? We have discussed in the first part
that war strives to a desirable end, which was societal development in the context of a polis. In
how do we go in achieving this however, does not manifest itself exclusively to its physical
aspects. War, be it on a micro or macro level, is much more than just arm-wrestling. Relying on
physical strength alone is impractical, it must be guided by our rational mind otherwise it is
unproductive. A man who relies purely on brute strength is no different from a beast;
uncontrollable, unthinking, reckless and is bound to loose against a rational man. Real victory is
not achieved by just having an advantage in physical manifestations such as size. He must have
the capacity to maximize his strengths and cover up or even better his weaknesses. Just as what
Sun Tzu stated in his book, to have many calculations is bound to be victorious (Art of War,
chapter 1). Winning therefore is to outwit the enemy. David, Alexander the Great, Napoleon
Bonaparte and even Hitler are all short men with small physique but were able to defeat a larger

1
Greek word for city. Greek philosophers like Plato refers to its best form as that of which leads to a common good.
Dela Cruz

3
enemy, conquer half of the world and follow orders rooted from an absurd belief. How they were
able to do it, definitely not because of their physical strength. The probability for victory of a
man therefore, is not measured in how toned his biceps are or how much pain his punch could
inflict, because at the end it is still futile against a wall. So going back to the question how much
does knowledge contributes to victory, it is that which forge a path towards it. By making this
conjecture however, does not imply that we have no use of physical strength. Having such is an
advantage but without the rational mind polishing and ruling over it, will make it an inefficient
attempt.
What is the role of a leader? It is essential that a leader must be a capable one because he
stands as a model to his men. The importance of having a model is that, the actions of these
models will be what the subordinates will make out of themselves (Nichomachean Ethics, Book
II). He is the epitome of the group. The character of the leader reflects the character of the army
and the state he is leading. Hence, he must represent himself in a fashion that is suited for the
respect of his subordinate. Respect is a necessary factor from the subordinate to the leader,
because if there is no respect his orders will always bound to fail or if not, lead to an
unsatisfactory end. He must also be able to maximize the resources and the capabilities of his
army, so he must be knowledgeable about the strength and weaknesses of his subordinates and
his state in general (The Book of Five Rings). There are two prominent kinds of leaders, the ruler
and the general. The latter, is the one responsible for shaping the character of the army. The
general also serves as the defense of the state; hes weak, the state falls, hes strong, the state is
preserved (Art of War, Chapter 3). The former on the other hand serves as the one who rule over
the state. He has powers such as to appoint, dismiss and promote officials as that of the general.
We can liken this two to the king of a kingdom and its general who rules over the army. The
Dela Cruz

4
ruler may, but not necessarily have to appear ferocious to the enemy. Intimidation may breed
fear from the enemy states, hence, avoids opposition or invasion in his sown; but it may also
provoke them resulting otherwise. Weak appearance also has its own advantages, by doing so;
the enemy would be unguarded, making a weaker defense on their side. Imagine a school in
which is governed by the strongest students. These students will fall under categories, which are
formed under impressions. There will be the superior ones, which are the bullies and the popular
and there will be the inferior the bullied and the unpopular. Students who fall under the first
category are of course feared and sometimes admired, making the other students unable to go
against them. However, they are not exempted from trouble because there are still students who
would oppose and challenge them; the other bullies. The students from the second category on
the other hand, are not seen as a threat, because they do not appear to have any significant role
aside from a possible subject for oppression. If some of these students, the bullied and unpopular
are discreetly of the same level of strength, when up against bullies, they will have the advantage
because the bullies will become negligent since the other does not pose a threat. This then, will
result to the downfall of the ones in the first category. As what Yamamoto Tsumetomo
2
would
say, negligence is an extreme thing (Hagakure, The book of the samurai, Chapter 1). This can be
seen in different perspectives. If it was Niccollo Machiavelli, then to fall into the first category is
the best choice. He would argue that it would be better to be feared, by doing so, you could
establish your authority, and hence opposition would be minimized. In contrast, if it was Sun
Tzu, the most efficient position is the unpopular group; after all war is about deception (Art of
war, Chapter 1). Moreover, it appears to be a superior character of an assassin, being able to hide
the killing intent until the last moment of action rendering his victim unprepared. On which

2
Yamamoto is a samurai which thoughts are compiled into a book entitled Hagakure, a book for practical and
spiritual guide of a warrior.
Dela Cruz

5
account is more right will not be discussed, the point of this example is to depict the bearing of
appearance to a state and to a leader.
As what was discussed earlier, a good leader is an integral factor of victory, however it
does not stop with a good leader making good strategy, maintaining a strategic appearance while
maximizing the resources. The leader directs his army to victory but the action lies within his
men, the labor force. Victory comprises the whole army; each individual warrior contributes to
the telos
3
so the role of the leader is to cultivate a strong character to his men and that would
comprise a strong army. Hence, what makes a good leader good is that he makes his men, good
men. Cultivating the character of an individual does not happen overnight, it undergoes constant
repetition and years of training. As what Bruce Lee would say, I fear a man who has done one
kick 10,000 times. If that was 10,000 kicks done 10,000 times then that must be better. To shape
ones character lies on how the leaders make his men engage in good habits, so he must have a
sense of good action. If the leader has a sense of a good action then the habits that will develop
in his subordinates will be good habits. That is why there is a need for a leader and this leader
needs to be a good one. A leader is like a teacher, and at times acts like one. Suppose that there
are two classes, a good teacher facilitates the first and the second by a bad one. A good teacher,
having the qualities of a good one would follow that he would instill to his students only good, or
at least mostly good, qualities. A bad teacher on the other hand, having the qualities of a bad one
would instill only bad qualities. The character of a teacher reflects to his students. Hence, what
we must look for is not a leader who does a job in leading but a leader who does a good job in
leading.

3
Greek word for end/purpose, it is central to the ethics of Aristotle.
Dela Cruz

6
What is the role of philosophy in shaping the character of a warrior? Philosophy does
have a role in war and perhaps is that which makes a worthy end. We have concluded that it is
necessary to cultivate the character of individual warriors to make a stronger army. Similar can
be said to a state, if the people in a state have a good character; that state would be the most
desirable. To make a man wholeheartedly do something and surpasses what holds him back, he
must have a purpose. Fear of pain makes an individual, avoid the more noble action
(Nichomachean Ethics, Book II). In the face of fear and misery, one is able to cope up with the
situation by turning to a higher level of introspection to make sense of his desolated fortune and
find a greater motivation. One who does a job in doing this but is not the only one is religion.
Take the Vikings for example; they have a concept of Valhalla
4
, which they will be sent after
dying in a battle. With this, their fear of death will depreciate (BBC). Another is the Samurais.
Their first religion was Shintoism, then some adopted Buddhism, reinterpreted by the school of
Tendai Sect., then the most prominent religion that is associated with the samurai is the school of
Zen. They shifted to another when they thought that the former could not provide them enough
purpose towards their situation. Zen had brought them new courage, because it had made them
develop a detachment to the material things and a strong sense of duty, which did a better job in
helping them face death fearlessly. It takes more than courage in going to a war, they must learn
how to accept death, like it was an honorable fate. Getting rid of fear of ones own perish makes
a man not stronger but invincible. Hence, one must develop a good philosophy.
Ares, the Greek god of war, symbolizes strength and the violent aspects of war. The
goddess Athena along with her owl, which is the mark of knowledge, symbolizes military
strategy and generalship. Does Ares needs Athenas owl? The answer cannot be clearer.

4
A majestic place in Asgard, found in Norse Mythology.
Dela Cruz

7
Reference:

Books Sources:

Sun, Tzu. The Art of War: translated by Samuel Griffith. New York And Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Print.

Yamamoto, Tsunetomo. Hagakure The Book of the Samurai: translated by William Scot
Wilson. USA. Print.

Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics: translated by W.D Ross. Botoche Books. USA. 1999.Print

Internet Source:

Miyamoto, Musashi. The Book of Five Rings. 2002. Blackmask Online
http://www.uvm.edu/~asnider/IDAS_2011_CD/Teachers/Steve%20Llano's%20Materials/Strateg
y%20Books/Book%20of%20Five%20Rings%20-%20Musashi.pdf

Vikings Belief and Stories. BBC. 2013.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/vikings/beliefs_and_stories/