Logos vs. Pathos in the cause of the war

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am confused over the meanings you ascribe to "logic" and "emotion". Religions are as much rational and logical as are their believers; I doubt that any member of a religion would base their faith on some kind of Kierkegaardian leap of faith alone; rational justification based upon some kind of logical inference or theoretical structure is always part and parcel of the mix.

Religious beliefs may seem rational but they lead to actions based on commandments from non-human actors or benefits in the next life. I am not just talking about the current struggles with Muslim extremists but also much christian history. Therefore, it is possible that overwelming military force or advantage may not deter the believers from fighting and continuing that fight ad nausium. There are also the combination of religious and political activities as in the thirty year war. The emotional component blunts traditional military advantage unless you are willing to go as far as eliminating the true believers - something akin to genocide - or at least that is how I am seeing it.

Rational (or logical actors) actors often rationalise their emotions based upon pre-existing biases or social stocks of knowledge considered true discursively but which objectiviely may be false (of course, any objective criteria are suspect too, anthropocentrically speaking).

They may rationalize their emotions but it is the emotion that exists first and it is the heart of "why" they fight which is where I want to go. You either start with an emotional struggle, as in the first intifada, or you must entreat the passion of the people, as was done in the First World War. I doubt you would have found Palestinians and Israelis playing soccer on the Eid holiday. Where the conflict is based on emotions I would suggest that the settlement of the struggle must address that emotional basis - must satisfy it - or the struggle will just continue.

I also consider struggles of identity as emotional.