Plato praising Darius and Cyrus, though going on to lament that their sons were not raised properly and therefore could not follow in their footsteps, from Laws, “he made laws upon the principle of introducing universal
equality in the order of the state, and he embodied in his laws the
settlement of the tribute which Cyrus promised,—thus creating a
feeling of friendship and community among all the Persians, and attaching
the people to him with money and gifts.”
and from Gorgias,
SOCRATES: Yes, indeed, Polus, that is my doctrine; the men and women who are
gentle and good are also happy, as I maintain, and the unjust and evil are
miserable.
Let’s not be too hasty to paint all Greeks with the same brush and to also remember that Maimonides was heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle.
I agree that not all Greeks should be painted with the same brush. But the Greeks you mention are not the liberals.
The liberals were included in what Bertrand Russell calls "The Great Generation." Their intellectual leader was Herodotus. These Greeks were a collection of thinkers who opposed slavery. But Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are not in that number. They were theorists of Greek fascism. Plato's "Republic" explains how to build a fascist state where the governed are lied to and treated and bred like cattle. And Aristotle's "Politics" contains his theory to justify the most brutal slavery because, according to him, slaves are not really human, but more like animals with speech. This was the dominant stream in Greek culture (Russell's "Great Generation" had no lasting effect).
If you are interested in this subject, I have an in-depth documentation of Greek ideology, and that of their "Great Generation" rivals, among other things, here:
I’ve read that paper and also have read your work Crux of History (long ago it was on hirhome) so I’m very familiar with your thinking on this matter. And to be fair, I initially agreed with you on these things. But further study of Greek History, and Plato’s writings, have led me to the conclusion that your criticism of the Greeks is anachronistic.
Were there not thinkers such as Alcidamas, who declared slavery as illegitimate? or Agathon? the painting of an entire society as either good or bad, especially one that existed thousands of years ago seems to me over simplistic.
And given that Plato’s dialogues are one of the great treasures of the world, the notion that he and Socrates are fascist or even fascist in their thinking is quite wide of the mark, even childish. Consider: was the Republic a blueprint as you say, or was it one possible train of thought on how a society might be organized given the porcine element of man? Perhaps you, like myself and many others, glossed over Plato’s true ideal in the Republic? it took Will Durant’s writing to point this out to me. In any event, it was never meant as a manual or blueprint.
So no, reading your work won’t help me to understand the Greeks or their society, nor contribution to the turning wheel of humanity, though reading your work has helped me to better understand your point of view on this topic, which I fundamentally disagree with. Your points of criticism about the Greeks are fair so far as they go, but the conclusion lacks a coherent synthesis.
If Plato was in favor of a system that bred people like cattle and lied to them to keep them down, then he was a fascist. If Aristotle defended war because it was "hunting for slaves" and declared that slaves were basically animals with speech so they could be oppressed with impunity, then he was fascist. Just because you were taught in school to admire Plato and Aristotle changes none of that.
Of course there were Greek thinkers that condemned slavery. But for a characterization of Greek civilization, one does not pick one humanitarian needle out of the Greek fascist haystack; one evaluates, to the contrary, the main trends: the haystack itself. The census of Demetrius of Phalerum, ruler of the Athenian Empire, counted 400,000 slaves and 20,000 citizens. We have abundant evidence of the routine and barbaric cruelty visited by the tiny minority of Greek citizens on their slaves. We have ample testimony that it was a normal Greek practice to exterminate all the adult male citizens of a conquered city, and to take the women and children as slaves (they naturally also took the slaves). All of this, and more, is in the scholarly article that I suggested above that you read.
You seem to think one can refute all that with "further study of Greek History, and Plato’s writings, [which] have led me to the conclusion that your criticism of the Greeks is anachronistic." You are welcome to make that case. But you don't make it by observing that "Plato’s dialogues are one of the great treasures of the world," a claim that I never contradicted. I agree: they are. Plato was a great philosopher. He was also a very bad guy. Plato's virtues as a philosopher when he speculates about mathematics, or meaning, etc., are undiminished by the fact that he was a moral monster, because such virtues have nothing to do with morality, just as Wagner's music remains beautiful to listen to despite the fact that he was an antisemite.
"Plato's true ideal in the Republic" was obviously a society modeled on Sparta, which was in some senses even worse than Athens. It is well known that Plato admired Sparta, and so did his circle.
I find it remarkable that you would consider judging the ancient Greeks, in moral terms, on anything other than the spectacular suffering they imposed on others. And since you point out yourself that at least some Greeks were offended by this, then there is nothing "anachronistic" in judging them as we judge our contemporaries when they inflict suffering on others. There was an entire civilization, next door in Mesopotamia, where ethics and the protection of ordinary folk were central ideals:
So there is no support for the claim that the Greeks were brutal because they were ancient. There are always brutal people, then and now. And there are always ethical people, then and now. The first should be condemned, the second praised. If brutal people produce great mathematics (or whatever) you can certainly recognize and celebrate that, but don't confuse that with applauding them for being "good." And there is little sense in taking offense if someone points out that they are brutal.
The problem in ancient Greece was not that compassion could not be imagined, as you seem to think, and as your professors have told you. The problem was that criminals ended up controlling the government, just as also happens in some modern societies. If two thousand years from now people begin complaining that a negative moral judgment on the German Nazis or the Muslim jihadis is "anachronistic" because, to the people of the future, these societies will be "ancient," they will be making the same mistake you are making now.
Great article, Francisco. It seems psychopathies are havinf a field day in this era not just in the highest spheres but also in societies at large Professor Gaad calls it the "mind virus". Maybe pathologies of the mind develop more quickly and more effectively when there is no moral compass, no shared values, no rules to guide us. And maybe so many decades of peace and prosperity have stultified the western brain. Humans should always walk on a rope above an abyss, only with a constant threat they would keep alert and possibly sane. When they walk a safe path for too long, they go beserk.
I don't think humans go berserk merely from walking a safe path for a long time. Babylonians kept to their ethical path for 2000 years. The problem we have in the modern West is that the power elites, the bosses, have always been psychopathic antisemites interested in enslaving everybody, and continue to be, so they have worked hard to destroy our modern peace. We can't let them succeed.
Plato praising Darius and Cyrus, though going on to lament that their sons were not raised properly and therefore could not follow in their footsteps, from Laws, “he made laws upon the principle of introducing universal
equality in the order of the state, and he embodied in his laws the
settlement of the tribute which Cyrus promised,—thus creating a
feeling of friendship and community among all the Persians, and attaching
the people to him with money and gifts.”
and from Gorgias,
SOCRATES: Yes, indeed, Polus, that is my doctrine; the men and women who are
gentle and good are also happy, as I maintain, and the unjust and evil are
miserable.
Let’s not be too hasty to paint all Greeks with the same brush and to also remember that Maimonides was heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle.
I agree that not all Greeks should be painted with the same brush. But the Greeks you mention are not the liberals.
The liberals were included in what Bertrand Russell calls "The Great Generation." Their intellectual leader was Herodotus. These Greeks were a collection of thinkers who opposed slavery. But Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are not in that number. They were theorists of Greek fascism. Plato's "Republic" explains how to build a fascist state where the governed are lied to and treated and bred like cattle. And Aristotle's "Politics" contains his theory to justify the most brutal slavery because, according to him, slaves are not really human, but more like animals with speech. This was the dominant stream in Greek culture (Russell's "Great Generation" had no lasting effect).
If you are interested in this subject, I have an in-depth documentation of Greek ideology, and that of their "Great Generation" rivals, among other things, here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3583957
This piece will also help you interpret properly what Greeks such as Socrates and Plato mean when they speak of such things as "equality" etc.
Thanks for your comment!
I’ve read that paper and also have read your work Crux of History (long ago it was on hirhome) so I’m very familiar with your thinking on this matter. And to be fair, I initially agreed with you on these things. But further study of Greek History, and Plato’s writings, have led me to the conclusion that your criticism of the Greeks is anachronistic.
Were there not thinkers such as Alcidamas, who declared slavery as illegitimate? or Agathon? the painting of an entire society as either good or bad, especially one that existed thousands of years ago seems to me over simplistic.
And given that Plato’s dialogues are one of the great treasures of the world, the notion that he and Socrates are fascist or even fascist in their thinking is quite wide of the mark, even childish. Consider: was the Republic a blueprint as you say, or was it one possible train of thought on how a society might be organized given the porcine element of man? Perhaps you, like myself and many others, glossed over Plato’s true ideal in the Republic? it took Will Durant’s writing to point this out to me. In any event, it was never meant as a manual or blueprint.
So no, reading your work won’t help me to understand the Greeks or their society, nor contribution to the turning wheel of humanity, though reading your work has helped me to better understand your point of view on this topic, which I fundamentally disagree with. Your points of criticism about the Greeks are fair so far as they go, but the conclusion lacks a coherent synthesis.
I have been unable to understand this reply.
If Plato was in favor of a system that bred people like cattle and lied to them to keep them down, then he was a fascist. If Aristotle defended war because it was "hunting for slaves" and declared that slaves were basically animals with speech so they could be oppressed with impunity, then he was fascist. Just because you were taught in school to admire Plato and Aristotle changes none of that.
Of course there were Greek thinkers that condemned slavery. But for a characterization of Greek civilization, one does not pick one humanitarian needle out of the Greek fascist haystack; one evaluates, to the contrary, the main trends: the haystack itself. The census of Demetrius of Phalerum, ruler of the Athenian Empire, counted 400,000 slaves and 20,000 citizens. We have abundant evidence of the routine and barbaric cruelty visited by the tiny minority of Greek citizens on their slaves. We have ample testimony that it was a normal Greek practice to exterminate all the adult male citizens of a conquered city, and to take the women and children as slaves (they naturally also took the slaves). All of this, and more, is in the scholarly article that I suggested above that you read.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3583957
You seem to think one can refute all that with "further study of Greek History, and Plato’s writings, [which] have led me to the conclusion that your criticism of the Greeks is anachronistic." You are welcome to make that case. But you don't make it by observing that "Plato’s dialogues are one of the great treasures of the world," a claim that I never contradicted. I agree: they are. Plato was a great philosopher. He was also a very bad guy. Plato's virtues as a philosopher when he speculates about mathematics, or meaning, etc., are undiminished by the fact that he was a moral monster, because such virtues have nothing to do with morality, just as Wagner's music remains beautiful to listen to despite the fact that he was an antisemite.
"Plato's true ideal in the Republic" was obviously a society modeled on Sparta, which was in some senses even worse than Athens. It is well known that Plato admired Sparta, and so did his circle.
I find it remarkable that you would consider judging the ancient Greeks, in moral terms, on anything other than the spectacular suffering they imposed on others. And since you point out yourself that at least some Greeks were offended by this, then there is nothing "anachronistic" in judging them as we judge our contemporaries when they inflict suffering on others. There was an entire civilization, next door in Mesopotamia, where ethics and the protection of ordinary folk were central ideals:
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/semitism-vs-antisemitism-structure-of-history
So there is no support for the claim that the Greeks were brutal because they were ancient. There are always brutal people, then and now. And there are always ethical people, then and now. The first should be condemned, the second praised. If brutal people produce great mathematics (or whatever) you can certainly recognize and celebrate that, but don't confuse that with applauding them for being "good." And there is little sense in taking offense if someone points out that they are brutal.
The problem in ancient Greece was not that compassion could not be imagined, as you seem to think, and as your professors have told you. The problem was that criminals ended up controlling the government, just as also happens in some modern societies. If two thousand years from now people begin complaining that a negative moral judgment on the German Nazis or the Muslim jihadis is "anachronistic" because, to the people of the future, these societies will be "ancient," they will be making the same mistake you are making now.
Great article, Francisco. It seems psychopathies are havinf a field day in this era not just in the highest spheres but also in societies at large Professor Gaad calls it the "mind virus". Maybe pathologies of the mind develop more quickly and more effectively when there is no moral compass, no shared values, no rules to guide us. And maybe so many decades of peace and prosperity have stultified the western brain. Humans should always walk on a rope above an abyss, only with a constant threat they would keep alert and possibly sane. When they walk a safe path for too long, they go beserk.
Thanks for your comment!
I don't think humans go berserk merely from walking a safe path for a long time. Babylonians kept to their ethical path for 2000 years. The problem we have in the modern West is that the power elites, the bosses, have always been psychopathic antisemites interested in enslaving everybody, and continue to be, so they have worked hard to destroy our modern peace. We can't let them succeed.