Hegel by necessity

I am not sure Hegel is stating war is based on necessity. Why. Because that is a fallacy. My belief is that Hegel simply states a blueprint from what is war and to the benefit of identifying what is the cause. The root of the problem is not that conflict is a good. But that conflict as an end requires action. It is how I believe conflict originates. The object (as per Hegel) is to war what to is to war is to circumvent itself.

Note: although logic dictates argument my argument is that although Hegel uses necessity as fallacy. HE is committing the fallacy from necessity used to seed his point. That conflict abets war.

- Marco

=================

Tosin Olufeyimi

*Is Conflict the Engine of Human Survival? Hegel Says Yes.

Most people treat peace as the highest political ideal. Hegel thought that was a dangerous illusion.

In Philosophy of Right (1820), §324, Hegel argues that war is not merely a political tragedy to be avoided. It is an ethical necessity. A nation that grows too comfortable, too reluctant to face opposition, too settled in its contentment, begins to die from within. Civic virtue, national identity, and collective purpose all require the pressure of conflict to remain alive.

His logic follows directly from his broader dialectical framework. Nothing evolves without opposition. Thesis meets antithesis before any synthesis becomes possible. Remove the antithesis and you do not get peace. You get stagnation dressed as stability.

This is why Hegel was deeply skeptical of Kant's vision of perpetual peace among states. To Hegel, a world without war between nations was not a utopia. It was a graveyard of ambition, identity, and historical movement.

The argument extends beyond nations. Men who become too contented with their environment stop growing. Nations reluctant to wage war stop mattering. History, for Hegel, has no patience for the comfortable.

The debate question is this:

Was Hegel right? Is conflict genuinely necessary for human and civilizational evolution, or is this philosophy simply intellectual cover for glorifying violence and domination?

And if he is right, what does that mean for a generation that increasingly treats comfort and safety as the supreme human values?

=======================