Well, I am not a philosopher, I'm an historian.
@Maggot is our resident philosopher. Really! Trained in it and rather capable, despite some points of view here on SH.
So as an historian, I deal in (as best as possible) facts and interpretations that can be supported, cited and justified. So when one examines any book or 'source' material, one should delve into the background research AND the predilictions of the author. Why did they write the book? What 'angle' are they coming from? Are they an historian with strongly-supported source materials? Or are they from the '60's "Revisionist" school? Is their book designed to make a political point? Or accurately record an event? Who funded the book (happens more than you think?) Who Published it. Who reviewed it and what did they say about it?
Those are just a handful of the many questions that one asks when examining the veracity of a book, paper, article, etc. There are many more.
It's no different than the intelligence game. What are your sources? What are their motivations. The acronym MICE is always used as part of evaluating a source (not that I'd know, I was in Marketing.) But Money, Ideology, Conscious and Ego are all motivations for people who betray their countries and provide intelligence. Really, the best sources are those motivated by Money and Conscience. They tend to be pretty reliable. Pay for play or... kept up at night. Those motivated by Ideology are a second. They may not believe in 'their' system. But do they believe in yours? Maybe... maybe not. Then there are the 'ego' types who betray their country, colleagues, service or whatever for ego. They think they are so important that they can change the world with their 'efforts.'
Authors (and historians) are no different. Are they looking to make a buck? Create some kind of basis for a political view? Thinking that they can change history? Influence future events? Why would the author write that book.
Once you have that 'analyzed' you can decide how much faith to put into that source.
So why not take a look at "Michael Walzer" and decide what his book 'Just and Unjust Wars' is really all about.
en.wikipedia.org
Read about his views. His education. Who hired him and where he works? Who has written papers based on his works... who he supports politically and who calls him in for congressional testimony to support their views? I won't say what I think of him or his book. Read his background and make up your own mind. Everyone here is smart enough to decide how valid his treatise is. Or not. Or, more likely, valid in the context of their own world view. Based on facts.
One does not work as a philosopher when it comes to history. Philosophy provides the basis for religions, political systems, how one lives their lives. It is an important and, these days, an overlooked field. But the great philosophers were just that... great! And they shaped a lot of history. But they didn't record or interpret it. That's for us mere mortals.
Cheers,
Sirhr
PS. Thanks for the label "Philosopher." It is actually rather a great compliment. But I never rose to that level. My degrees are as a technical writer, a futurist and an historian. So I am generally rather confused when it comes to everything. I'm merely an examiner of events past... and always trying to cipher out the future. And usually getting it wrong.
