Держава і війна: історико-філософська рефлексія відносин

Abstract

Зазначено, що з давньогрецького філософа Геракліта відслідковується думка, що війна, як найхарактерніший вияв «боротьби» в її діалектичному розумінні, є рушійною силою розвитку історії та держави, законом буття. Війна – це підтримка існування та змісту держави. Війна створює держави і водночас здатна зруйнувати їх. Війна загартовує державність, примушує до концентрації ресурсів заради перемоги в руках влади, що разом з тим несе небезпеку, бо держава стає надто сильною.

Defining a person as “Zoon politikon”, Aristotle actually indicated the factor of existence and survival of humanity: a person must be and function in a social group – that is the state, and, accordingly, it must look for relatively acceptable options for his interaction within various situations. However, despite such an unwritten law, humanity unleashes and engages in wars continuously. Based on this fact, the determination of war and the initiation of active participation in it by certain groups of people, as well as the legitimacy of their actions, is reproduced in public opinion and social practice throughout the history of mankind and is a useful basis for considering views on the relationship between the state and war. The purpose of the article is to present a concise analysis of the opinions of the wise men of the past on the essence of the relationship between the state and war. From the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, we can trace the idea that war, as the most characteristic manifestation of “fight” in its dialectical sense, is the driving force of the development of history and the state, a means of knowledge, a law of existence. The majority of liberals express the opinion that war creates and conditions law, especially positive law, which is the result of the activity of the state and power, therefore, through war, states are also created, and therefore, no nation has developed without war (M. Revon). It is noted that war, on the one hand, is welcome and necessary for the state, on the other, it kills the state and brings disaster, no matter what “scientific tools” are used to conduct it. It is concluded that war as one of the politics means is a function of the state and a conflict of interests, primarily due to the essence of state power itself in all its manifestations. War is support for the existence and content of the state.