Comments on: Clausewitz, On War, Book 2: Chapter 1 Comments http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6682.html Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago boys including those pictured above. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:14:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: seydlitz89 http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6682.html/comment-page-1#comment-292544 seydlitz89 Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:43:04 +0000 http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6682#comment-292544 Lexington Green- Definitely the gold standard with the next best theory yet to be written . . . which explains a lot. Not of course that we cannot expand upon Clausewitz's general theory by combining compatible concepts from Max Weber and/or Hans Morgenthau to approach a general theory of politics. As to the "fixed point of view", this comes up again in Book 8, Chapter 6B . . . has to do once again with seeing the general theory as a whole. As I mentioned in an initial communication when we were planning this roundtable the pagination is different in the Princeton and Knopf (Everyman's Library) editions of the Paret/Howard translation. Using the latter, my including page numbers would only confuse. Lexington Green-

Definitely the gold standard with the next best theory yet to be written . . . which explains a lot. Not of course that we cannot expand upon Clausewitz’s general theory by combining compatible concepts from Max Weber and/or Hans Morgenthau to approach a general theory of politics.

As to the “fixed point of view”, this comes up again in Book 8, Chapter 6B . . . has to do once again with seeing the general theory as a whole.

As I mentioned in an initial communication when we were planning this roundtable the pagination is different in the Princeton and Knopf (Everyman’s Library) editions of the Paret/Howard translation. Using the latter, my including page numbers would only confuse.

]]> By: Lexington Green http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6682.html/comment-page-1#comment-292368 Lexington Green Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:07:47 +0000 http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6682#comment-292368 Variations in weapons may or may not require the addition of another "layer". Clausewitz's referring to adversaries being stronger or weaker may also include quantity and quality of weapons. The weaker has to use means suited to his weakness, such as protracting the war, making attacks that have a directly political effect, and others that Clausewitz refers to. As we have seen, a party possessing more and better weapons may also fall into various errors, such at thinking the weapons allow him to shortchange other factors, such as maintaining popular support, or possessing a coherent and workable strategy. But, in any case, the basic framework can remain in place even with rapidly changing technology, or gread disparities in technology. You are right that the standard for assessing a theory in the "human sciences" as opposed to those dealing with inanimate nature, must be different. A postulate in physics must always and everywhere be true. All carbon atoms, all electrons, for the purposes of scientific measurement and scientific theory, are identical. The type of theory Clausewitz offers just has to (1) capture some large number of cases, and (2) be better than the next best theory. So far, he has been the gold standard in the West, anyway. I think you are correct that Clausewitz has anticipated the operational level of war, where he says that campaigns are where engagements are tied together in a series to obtain a strategic result. I am not sure what the "fixed point of view" is that he refers to in the last paragraph of Book II, Chap. 1. This is one of those places where I wonder if the translation is nots good. Variations in weapons may or may not require the addition of another “layer”. Clausewitz’s referring to adversaries being stronger or weaker may also include quantity and quality of weapons. The weaker has to use means suited to his weakness, such as protracting the war, making attacks that have a directly political effect, and others that Clausewitz refers to. As we have seen, a party possessing more and better weapons may also fall into various errors, such at thinking the weapons allow him to shortchange other factors, such as maintaining popular support, or possessing a coherent and workable strategy. But, in any case, the basic framework can remain in place even with rapidly changing technology, or gread disparities in technology.

You are right that the standard for assessing a theory in the “human sciences” as opposed to those dealing with inanimate nature, must be different. A postulate in physics must always and everywhere be true. All carbon atoms, all electrons, for the purposes of scientific measurement and scientific theory, are identical. The type of theory Clausewitz offers just has to (1) capture some large number of cases, and (2) be better than the next best theory. So far, he has been the gold standard in the West, anyway.

I think you are correct that Clausewitz has anticipated the operational level of war, where he says that campaigns are where engagements are tied together in a series to obtain a strategic result.

I am not sure what the “fixed point of view” is that he refers to in the last paragraph of Book II, Chap. 1. This is one of those places where I wonder if the translation is nots good.

]]>