长期以来，国内外学者忽略了与启蒙运动相伴的军事启蒙，而这一时期最为重要的战略家克劳塞维茨的战争论述便是以批判军事领域的启蒙与反启蒙作为出发点。围绕“战争是什么”，启蒙者与反启蒙者皆使用了结构性的战争隐喻。前者借用“钟表”的隐喻，强调战争行为存在法则，物质实力占据主导地位；后者借助“戏剧”的隐喻，凸显偶然性和精神观念的力量。克劳塞维茨对这两者都进行了批评，他认为“钟表”隐喻忽略了观念性和不确定性在战争中的地位，“戏剧”隐喻贬低了理性的作用。在此基础上，克劳塞维茨提出战争是理性、情感和决断的三位一体，并以实践为本体的论述，为理解战争和启蒙的复杂关系提供了新视野，为当代战争研究提供了灵感。

The military enlightenment occurred along with the Enlightenment has been overlooked for a long time. The debate between enlightenment and anti-enlightenment in the military field at that time formed the intellectual background and starting point of Clausewitz's war discourse. Both sides of the debate useda structural metaphor to answer "What is war?". The affirmative side applied the metaphor of "clock" to stress that there were laws for war and material force played a dominant role in war. On the contrary, the opposition side used the metaphor of "drama" to highlight contingency and spiritual power. For Clausewitz, the clock metaphor neglected the roles of ideas and uncertain factors in war, while the drama metaphor underestimated the role of reason. Clausewitz argued that war is a complex trinity of reason, emotions and decisions based on practice. Providing a new understanding of the complex relationship between war, Clausewitz's idea brings insights for contemporary war and the Enlightenment study.