Language and Logic of War with Special Refrence to War on Terror in Afghanistan Appearance and Reality
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2010-08
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Department Of Philosophy, University Of Peshawar
Abstract
Philosophy attempts to differentiate appearance from reality and helps in
thinking clearly and critically. In the context of war, people at the helm ofaffairs
(leaders/politicians) make it difficult for public to differentiate appearance from
reality, using ambiguous and vague words, persuasive definitions, metaphors,
framing/reframing, and also by forwardingfallacious arguments. Employing language
and logic of war as tools of war they attempt to make peoplefeel, think, argue, and act
the way, they want them to. Moreover, language and logic of war also attempt to
block rational/critical and clear thinking, andsilence criticism.
Introduction of this work, comprising eight sections, discusses: language and
logic of war; specific aims of work; methodology; research questions; justifications,
plan of work and literature review.
Chapter two, comprising four sections, reveals the way language: shapes
judgments, perceptions and actions; block rational/critical thinking and silence
criticism. It briefly discusses: theories of language; role of context in language;
functions of language; intentions of speaker; ambiguity; vagueness; definitions;
emotive words and persuasive definitions. Fourth section of this chapter elaborates
Lakoff and Johnson’s methodology of analysis of metaphors. It focuses on framing
and reframing too, as explained by Lakoff and other scholars, to develop a
methodology to understand the way language can be instrumental in the context of
war.
Chapter three, comprising two sections, introduces key terms suchas: logic;
argument; fallacy; deductive and inductive arguments; formal and informal logic;
formal and informal fallacies. Explaining informal fallacies, it establishes that
fallacious arguments may shape judgment, blockrational/critical thinking andsilence
critics. It also establishes that an informal fallacy may be committed owingto its
content, context, or both. Some major fallacies and their types have been discussed.
This chapter delineates a methodology to detect informalfallacies in discourse.
Chapter four demonstrates that language used in the context of war i.<.,
language of war, is ambiguous, vague, metaphorical, frames and reframes war
discourse and forwards persuasive definitions. Leaders/politicians use this languageto
manipulate public judgments, perceptions, actions; to block rational thinking and
silencecritics. This chapter establishes that use of the word, ‘War’, has been incorrect
4
in the context of 9/11, since no war till 10/7 actually occurred. However, using
language of war, politicians/ leaders misled many people that terrorist acts of 9/11
were acts of war. Moreover, it demonstrates that using language of war
politicians/leaders evoke metaphors and frames such as: good versus evil; believers
versus infidel; hero versus villain; Faroon versus Musa (Pharaoh versus Muses) and
loss versus gain, to manipulate public opinion.
Chapter five establishes that logic of war used by leaders/politicians as a tool
of war, has been instrumental in blockingrational/critical and clear thinking, silencing
policy criticism and in shaping judgments, perceptions and behavior of people, in war
in general and War on Terrorin particular.
This work concludes that in the context of war, leaders/politicians use
language and logic of war as tools of war making it difficult for public to differentiate
appearance of war from reality. Using language and logic of war, they attempt to
make people think, argue, and act the way, they want them to. Moreover, they use
language and logic of war to block rational thinking and silence criticism.