War, Logical Singularity, and Oxymoron Syndrome

What we are talking about in this article has nothing to do with what was theorized in his time (1873) by that genius who was James Clerk Maxwell.

The term used in these pages is similar but conceptually and semantically different: singularity. In fact, the exact concept of which an analysis and description will be attempted here should be “logical singularity”.

We have to start from a question: can there be, as an object of logical science, a statement which is not subject to bivalent or polyvalent logic (see fuzzy logic, paraconsistent logic, etc.)? Can there be a statement which is a fixed point, absolute, neither true nor false, sufficient to itself and immediately perceivable by anyone in its value of truth? It is not the purpose of this article nor the style of its author to bore the reader with too specalistic arguments and unbearable technicalities. The purpose of this article is divulgative without losing the scientificity and correctness of its contents.

Therefore, an attempt is made below to explain why the above question was asked.

Just in these days in which humanity is once again plunged into the nightmare of war (I refer to the aggression of Russia against Ukraine) we hear from many quarters condemn the war as “unjust”. This statement implies the fact that there is a “just” war according to the binary and bivalent logic.

However, war is only death, destruction, atrocity, cruelty, cruelty: there is no “just” war. Even in relations between States as well as in relations between individuals there is the concept (mainly legal) of “self-defense”.

The Constitution of the Italian Republic deliberated in 1947 by the Constituent Assembly and entered into force on December 01, 1948 of the twentieth century, Article 11 states : “Italy repudiates war as an instrument of offence to the freedom of other peoples and as a means of settling international disputes(…)”. So it is understood that only to defend oneself one can use “weapons of war”. In Italy and in many nations the Ministry that oversees all the armed forces of the nation is called “Ministry of Defense”.

But there are wars, people die, entire populations are forced to take refugee status with other peoples that do not always give their best as guests, remaining in the balance between humanitarian aid and creeping racism; houses and cities are razed to the ground. And it is difficult to understand which of these wars is “just” or is for “self-defense” but never “just”. Wars, absolutely unjust by their nature, are “disguised” as “just” wars through the use of adjectives and epithets or linguistic manipulations that do not reflect the real nature of that outrage to humanity that is war.

Coming back to the “logical singularity” it is impossible not to analyze that particular rhetorical figure that is the “oxymoron”, that is the combination of two antithetical terms to express and define something that the two single terms could not define: “warm thrill”, “infinite moment”, “living dead” etc.

Well, if someone had not noticed, the concept of “war” is among the most abused to form oxymorons: “just war” and “unjust war” are among the most used, but for example someone uses “holy war”, others say “spiritual war”, mixing and confusing the rhetorical figure of the oxymoron with other rhetorical figures such as “litote” or “metonymy” or even “synecdoche”.

But fundamentally the basis is the oxymoron, which is used depending on the case by the losers or the winners, the attacked or the aggressors, the victims or the killers.

The “oxymoron syndrome” in these cases is indicative of a cultural, historical and sociological pathology that rejects “the other from himself” and sees him as an enemy (the great German political scientist Carl Schmitt wrote unforgettable words on the subject to which we refer).

This syndrome highlights that wars, all wars, are born first from misused words and concepts than from simple “physical” aggression.

History provides many examples: it begins with the “Book”, written by a dictator, by a God (perhaps), by a Saint, by a group of people linked by an all-encompassing vision of the world; it establishes who is the enemy to be defeated; it makes the “physical” war that brings death and destruction; it realizes that it is worse than before; it renews the accusations to the enemies…and so it enters in this growing conceptual spiral whose effects in the real world are deadly.

The oxymoron syndrome brings to the perception of History and events the disease of contradiction, the suspension of Aristotelian principles of thought, the death of logical reflections, of meaning: with the oxymoron we can accept everything and the opposite of everything… even that a war, which is a logical singularity, can be defined as “just” or “unjust” depending on who formulates this statement.

War is only war: it is a logical and conceptual singularity that no word approaching it can make “acceptable”. Self-defense is inevitable, perhaps acceptable, but never “just”: the Christian martyrs, for example, who renounced “self-defense” should remind you of something! War, any war, can only provoke outrage, horror, unconditional rejection.

Oxymoron syndrome must be treated, cured because it is more deadly than a virus.

What could be the cure ?

One of the greatest Italian singer-songwriters, Francesco De Gregori, a true poet and artist, wrote in the 80s of the twentieth century a beautiful song entitled “Cuore di cane” (Dog heart). In the words of the song there is a verse of the author that is beautiful and conceptually deep: “to learn the languages of the world is to learn to love”.

Print