While attending my course on “War and Literature”, and listening to the conversation, I found myself struck by an intellectual question presented by another student. This student asked, “When does paradox become hypocrisy?” Immediately afterwards I wrote the response, “A good war is a war that teaches it’s mistakes without one having to live with them.” At first I didn’t know if I had truly responded to the question. I analyzed both the question and response carefully through the literary devices and found myself satisfied with the responses standing.
When analyzing the response I first had to return to the question. “When does paradox become hypocrisy?” Referring to this question I had to ask if my response held a paradox. “A good war is a war that teaches it’s mistakes without one having to live with them.” Considering that a paradox is a statement that seems self-contradictory, and that “a good war” is the introduction to the response, suggested that “a good war” is a paradox. However, why is it that “a good war” is a paradox? War can best be defined as active hostility. Good can also be best defined as being well behaved. Considering these definitions and the response, “a good war” would certainly be a paradox because active hostility is contradictory to being well behaved. However, most would assume that “a good war” was the responses paradox, and to assume otherwise would be insulting to someone’s intellect. So then one has to ask how it is so commonly understood that “a good war” is a paradox? To conclude this question, one must consider that most of everyone was raised with the developmental understanding of good and bad. Most of everyone also would commonly agree that war is not good. So why do people still go, and why do we not learn from “it’s mistakes without someone having to live with them”? From statistics taken in the year two thousand fourteen, seven percent of America’s society is a veteran, and in that year there were near three hundred eighteen million citizens. That means that over twenty two million American citizens are veterans of foreign war. So how is it that we can convince over seven percent of our citizens to go risk their livelihood? We determined that war is wrong so how do we replace the ideas of good and bad? To better answer that question, it is better to replace the employment of a soldier with a painter. In order to make someone who is not a painter become a painter, one would have to go through a series of tasks. First, cut off access to other mediums. Do not allow that person to work with anything other then painting. If they want to write a letter home, they paint it. If they want to create something three dimensional, they paint it. If they want to tell a story, they again, will paint it. Now there is no difference between the painter with their paintbrush, and the recruit with their rifle. Second, apply influences to praise the ideals. The same recruited painter now needs to be surrounded with people who share the same ideals. The painter cannot have the influences of sculptors, graphic designers, or any other ambassador of other art form. The painter needs the overall support of peers with the subject matter. This again, is no different from the soldier and their peers. Third, discourage all other ideals. The facilitator, who is regulating the transition between non-painters to painters, needs to openly degrade the ideals of all other art forms. The facilitator needs to make sure that the recruits hear their passionate opinions about how other art forms are “wrong”. This will guide the recruits to also share the same ideals. This relationship resembles the relationship between Drill Instructors and their recruits. Fourthly, revival the title has a distinguished history of renowned individuals. For a painter, there are many distinguished individuals that made a dramatically difference within the realm of art. For some examples, there is Vincent Van Gough, Pablo Picasso, and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document