Ludwig Wittgenstein and Logical Empiricism

I found the topic of Wittgenstein and his Logical Empiricism one of interest. His greatest work, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", written much like Machiavelli's work "The Prince", is one of great insight, and is something I hope to be able to not only read but understand one day. I find Wittgenstein's views on the world fascinating, and I actually feel that they make more sense than society's current beliefs.
For example, I find it easier to believe that the world is based upon facts rather than chance, karma, a superior being, etc. I also find it easy to believe that all objects are inherently designed to be with other certain objects. In other words, if someone (or something) is meant to be with someone (or something) else, they will be, and what happens, happens. This specific belief reminds me, in a strictly superficial sense, of how people talk about love, and how if one is meant to be with someone else, it will just happen. Perhaps this is where that idea originated.
On the other hand, the idea of objects inherently having their "partners" already seems almost too easy, like all the work and thought put into life are just wasted because no matter how hard one tries to determine one's own course, they will not avail. In this sense, I find Wittgenstein's ideas similar to that of the Ancient Greeks' beliefs in fate. The contrast between the two interpretations of this idea is really what drew me to Wittgenstein's works.
Other ideas of Wittgenstein's also hold interest for me. His belief that philosophy can be used as therapy rather than research, for example. Here, his one simple idea has evolved into an entire career that one must attend numerous years of schooling to achieve... making it almost an art form. Also, Wittgenstein's separation between thought and language is something that I find both ingeneous and extremely simple. When one really thinks about it, there is an obvious separation between thought and language. Otherwise, people would not have the same thoughts even though they cannot speak the same languages. However, who really thinks about these kinds of things? This is what makes Wittgenstein so special in my mind - the fact that he was willing to take on these seemingly impossible questions and answer them in the simplest way possible. One other example of this being his 7th proposition in "Tractatus" which states, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". An impossibly simple answer to an apparently obvious question that, when one tries to answer it themselves, cannot find the words to do so, that question being What does one do when one cannot speak?

World War I Propaganda - Then and Now

World War I Poster
Illustrating Total War

This poster is a perfect example of the propaganda spread by the different governments during World War I. "Total War" became an important part of World War I because the war itself depended on it. The people ultimately determined how the war went... they could make it easy or hard for the government. Therefore, the government would distribute posters, such as this one, to try and gain the support of the people.
This poster in particular really caught my attention. For one, the slogan "Sow the Seeds of Victory" is a great example of total war propaganda. It's not only attention-grabbing, but it targets the citizen's sense of patriotism. The beautiful "Lady Liberty" in her flowing patriotic dress is meant to stir any patriot's heart and move them to help with the cause, just as she is doing. As she sows her seeds for the war, she expects all other good, patriotic citizens to do the same so that they too may fulfill their duty to their country.
This is the definition of Total War, and World War I was really the first war to present itself as a total war. Since then, many have tried to gain the support of the people both prior to and during a war. World War II was probably the most effective at doing this, especially in America. Other wars, be they in Europe, the Americas, or the Middle East, also try to follow this same principle of total war. Generally, the more support a government has, the better their soldiers fare. Applying this same principle to today, perhaps America's current War on Terror would not only be more popular, but would have a more positive and quicker outcome.

Dogfights

Squadron over the Brenta 1917
Max Edler von Poosch

World War I was the first war where planes were used not only in battle, but in any aspect of war period. At first, planes, along with zeppelins on the side of Germany, were used to carry cargo and to spy on enemy territory. It was quickly realized that zeppelins were inefficient and dangerous, so they quickly became outdated. It was also found that planes could also serve a perhaps better purpose in other areas of the war. Airplanes were soon outfitted with all sorts of guns and ammunition, and the fighting took to the skies.
Dogfights, as they came to be called, are what define the Great War. Pilots became something of legend, and the more "kills" you had as a pilot, the more legendary you became.
A pilot needed five kills to become an Ace, and there were no two better aces than Eddie Rickenbacker, from America, and his German equivalent, the Red Baron. These two legends only added to the rapidly growing romantic view of dogfights during World War I, which this painting by Max Edler von Poosch depicts perfectly.
In this painting, dogfighting takes on an almost enchanting notion, where one is free from everything but the fight, and is in total control. The pilot is one with the sky, shown through this painting by the almost blending of the fighter planes with the clouds against the bright blue sky. The bright yellow time in the middle displays a majestic quality as it passes over the snow-capped mountains.
This painting is a perfect example of how dogfighting was viewed during World War I. It was seen as a romantic, courageous, valiant event to be a part of, and it was sorely misrepresented. In reality, dogfights were scary, bloody, and deadly. However, if the majority of the public felt that way, they would be less likely to support the war effort. By portraying dogfighting as a valiant war effort, this contributed to the total war, and created war heroes.

The Shot That Rang Throughout Europe - Connection Across Time

What I find most fascinating about World War I has nothing to do with the fighting, with alliances, or even with the faulty Treaty of Versailles. What I feel is the most unbelievable thing about World War I is the way it began: with one small, misguided bomb and two bullets from a single pistol. As if this doesn't seem insignificant enough to spark a global war, consider the fact that these were the doings of 5 college students, 3 of whom were too scared to do anything, and one of whom wasn't even intelligent enough to successfully commit suicide.
On one hand, this event could easily be named the single greatest event of the 20th century... which I'm certain it has before. Just imagine, the one fatal gunshot that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand is what not only set off World War I, but is also the origin of just about every war since then. For example, World War II was a direct result of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. Also, the wars that have taken place in the Middle East, (i.e. the Gulf War and the current War on Terror), are all results of the Treaty of Versailles, and the mess that it created. If not for the actions of those five college boys, Gavrilo Princip in particular, our world today would not be the same. Perhaps it would even be a better world.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure this event should ever be associated with the word "great". This assassination could be at best described as a complete and utter mess. All things considered, it really should not take more than one grown man to assassinate the Archduke and his wife, let alone five grown men. This was a poorly planned, and even more poorly executed assassination, and it was sheer luck that Princip was able to shoot Ferdinand and his wife. As if the fact that three of the men chickened out isn't enough of an insult to the assassination and all those associated with it, Cabrinovic's bombing attempt was atrocious, as was his failed suicide. If anyone should be given credit for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, it should be the driver of their car, for taking the wrong route to the hospital.
However, whether the assassination is viewed as the most influential moment of the 20th century or as a lucky break matters not. All that matters is that this is the event that sparked the Great War, that this is the event that all other wars since then can be traced back to, and that this event is in more than one way both historic and fascinating.

Art From the Front Lines - Paul Nash

"We are Making a New World" (1918)
Paul Nash - Official War Artist

Here is a painting by Paul Nash that represents "no man's land". "No man's land" was the area between enemy trenches in World War I. Oftentimes, this was the scariest part of the war because there was literally no protection from enemy fire. Therefore, most of the deaths occurred here when using trench warfare.
From this painting, one can see that this was a dismal, depressing place straight out of a horror movie. Nash was obviously influenced by this as he experienced the trenches for himself in 1917 after he enlisted in the Artists' Rifles, a volunteer regiment of the British Army. A few months later, Nash fell into one of the trenches and broke a rib, needing to return home to heal. It was during this recuperating period that he worked on his pieces from the front lines, including this piece.
This piece represents the horrors of trench warfare on the front lines of the Western front where he was deployed. The entire landscape is barren and dead, with nothing but what appear to be stumps of trees and a pock-marked field, a result of countless hours of fire on each side. One can see the sun peeking through the clouds and smoke over the mountains, symbolizing a few things.
The sun can represent a beacon of hope, lighting the way to the end of war. It shines over "no man's land", shedding light over a shadowy wasteland. But as this sun can represent hope for a brighter future, it shows the ugliness of the war at the same time. It lights up "no man's land" so everyone can see what destruction has taken place there. While previously in shadow, the shockingly corpse-like trees are now visible, and the evils of the Great War are now illuminated. All of humanity can now see the dead trees grasping at the air like a dead man's fingers, and they can see war for what it really is: death and destruction, not glory and heroism.
After returning home from the war, Nash made it his mission to educate the citizens of the world on what the war really was like. He did this through his paintings from the front lines, doing a great service to the world.

WWI - Treaty of Versailles

In my opinion, the Treaty of Versailles the biggest mistake ever made. It was a global mess, and resulted in not only a second world war, but also in the ultimate destruction of President Woodrow Wilson. Though it was created with the best of intentions, in reality it was one of the biggest blunders in history.
One of the many problems included the massive difference in opinion between the Big Four: President Woodrow Wilson of the US, Premier Georges Clemenceau of France, David Lloyd George of GB, and Vittorio Orlando of Italy. Virtually the only thing these four agreed on was that Germany was the "bad guy", and all others should be considered victorious. Wilson and Clemenceau especially butted heads more than a few times, due mostly to their literally opposite personalities. Where Clemenceau was liberal and science-oriented, Wilson was conservative and was deeply rooted in his faith. My favorite quote describing the two comes from Lloyd George when asked how the Paris Peace Conference went. He replied with "Not badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon".
"Jesus" and "Napoleon", while both agreed that Germany should bear at least some responsiblility for the Great War, each had his own personal opinion on how to make Germany shoulder this responsibility. Clemenceau demanded revenge, retribution, and harsh punishments. Wilson, on the other hand, was more level-headed, and proposed self-determination along with his Fourteen Points. These various disagreements resulted in more time spent arguing and less time spent actually finding ways to end the hostility peacefully.
Another huge problem with the Treaty was the little, or even no, thought given to the people that lived in the Balkans when dividing up the area into random territories. These were areas that were volitile to begin with due to racial and ethnic differences - the very reason World War I started. Dividing this area up even more, with no regard toward people's families and heritage only added fuel to the constantly burning fire. From this treaty, virtually every war since can be traced back to either the hacking up of the Balkan region, or to the hostility toward Germany - another major issue.
Blaming the war solely on Germany may have seemed like an easy out at the time, but it has come back to haunt those who did so. Germany was bitter about the entire treaty, which demanded they pay 6,600 million pounds, demanded that they cut back drastically on their armed forces, and made them take full responsibility for the war. Personally, I do not think this was fair either. There were plenty of other countries that were involved. Why were those who started the entire thing, those in the Balkans, not punished? Would that not be the fair thing to do? And isn't "fair" what the Big Four, especially Wilson, aiming for? I myself do not understand what the reason was for this huge wrong-doing, when there was the perfect opportunity for peace right there in front of them. If this had been handled correctly, the world could have been spared a second world war, and probably most of our wars since then.