The Great Books Of The Western World

Whew, I think I felt every year of that war...

Finally finished Thucydides.

Observations: I can see why he is considered so relevant by the likes of Donald Kagan in their analysis of his work. There's no doubt that there are many lessons about geopolitics, war and realpolitik in there.

In terms of being a work of literature, Thucydides' writing style is notoriously eccentric (though not difficult, really). Although there are occasionally brilliant bits of prose probably the most engaging pieces of writing are the speeches. If you only read the speeches you'd get most of the social and political observations that are perennial gold.

Couldn't help but consider contemporary parallels with the U.S today in how Thucydides described 'party politics' and the strife between supporters of democracy and oligarchy in Athens and, in some cases, other cities. Absolutely brutal cultural conflict that eventually spilled over into assassination and civil warfare.

To be explicit, it's plain to me that 'red' and 'blue' states in the United States are not just divided by a cultural gulf, for the most part, but also by differing economic outlooks, and that these two factors can only continue to drive them towards conflict. I'm not saying civil war, but certainly years more low intensity civil unrest and cultural warfare that will poison the well of goodwill in American public life and likely yield continued chipping away at long standing institutions, which become nothing more than political footballs.

Anyway.

Now, on to Plato.

Haven't read him since 1999, when the first dialogue I seem to remember reading was the Symposium. That's not up this time. I am starting with Euthyphro.

What is piety? What is holiness?

And so on.

Finished the APOLOGY and now onto the CRITO.

Although I am probably less forgiving of Socrates' position in my last post than is entirely fair, I have to give him credit in this one for making profoundly comforting remarks about death and mortality at the end of the APOLOGY.

He presents death as an unknown which is either annihilation of the consciousness or a migration of the soul to immortality. For Socrates, it is win win because he likens the former - the extinguishing of personhood and consciousness forever - to a dreamless sleep. And who doesn't like a deep, dreamless sleep?

I have thought for a long time that when we fear death there are a few things actually in play, none of which have to do with whether or not there is survival after the grave. It's usually that we fear:-

1. The manner of our death - will there be pain, lingering discomfort, agony, embarrassment... Or worst of all, will it be pointless chance, a fluke, choking on a piece of steak in a café?

2. Leaving loved ones behind. Who among us with young children does not dread the idea of leaving them unready for our deaths.

But I agree with Socrates that I find it hard to fear the objective idea of my complete end. As he says, it will happen anyway, if we fear an event that is our death then really we are fearing a specific date for an event that is certainly going to happen sometime. If you are told the day of your death (for the sake of argument, a bad medical diagnosis) then I think his point is that we should frame that bad news with the awareness that we might reach the end of our natural lifespan in a further fifteen years in any case... It's not like we're going to live forever.

As I said, however, there are real concerns around the fate of our families and friends that cannot be dismissed by philosophical argument so easily. I think this is where maybe my appreciation of Socrates flags slightly again. He mentions, in the APOLOGY, that he will not beg the jury for mercy because it is demeaning. He talks about having three sons, all of whom are still children (by our standards AND his). I think there I find it difficult to really praise the unyielding, rigid nature of Socrates' insistence that he will not compromise even slightly in his position. It's painfully obvious, considering he was convicted only by a margin of 30-40 votes, that if he could have just tugged his forelock even slightly to the jury that he would have been acquitted. Instead, he is glib and the margin of voters confirming his death sentence actually increases on the second vote when he has offered only paltry alternative punishments in lieu of the death sentence.

About halfway through the REPUBLIC.

Quite interesting comments on the permissibility of different kinds of speech (even in terms of the arts... In music and poetry), considering our contemporary battles in the cultural sphere.

For a man with such a low opinion of his fellow men - in terms of their wisdom - Plato / Socrates is very statist. He wants to give tremendous powers to the State. I suppose depending on your perspective that means either putting tremendous power in the hands of stupid men or creating a bulwark of laws that impedes the impact of their stupidity. I suspect the former would have been the more likely outcome.

Interesting comments from Aristotle on the nature of happiness. For him happiness is goodness, and he says that as a single swallow does not make a summer, in order to say that a man is good (and thus happy) his whole life must be considered. The example of a man who suffered in this regard is given as Priam, who had everything and saw his city, his sons and his life taken from him at the end.

For the same reason as the above, Artistotle might say that children cannot be considered happy.

He certainly says they cannot be called happy because they cannot engage in the highest form of goodness... Which he sees as action for the good of not just oneself but for one's city or for all men... That is, political activity(!).

Finished THE NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS.

Interesting final chapters on the nature of friendship. Aristotle posits that friendships can be based on utility or pleasure, but that only in cases where friendship is based on mutual goodness and genuinely wishing for the betterment of your friend will the friendship survived.

Friendships based on utility are predicated on gain and transactions in an obvious way, and disparities are possible when friends are of different stations or are presented with different needs. Friendships based on pleasure are problematic for fairly obvious reasons.

Aristotle does make the interesting point that the Greeks have a folk saying that silence will cut even the best friendship, and he believes this is true even of perfect friendships. He observes as true the fact that long absences or periods of non interaction cause people to forget a friendship. I think we all know that is the case.

The big takeaway for me was that Aristotle, like Plato, believes that judgment (having good judgement, or what he calls prudence, the ability to know the good) is a vital path to virtue. But Aristotle cautions that it is just a faculty, that although it is essential to knowing the good, it won't help you actually make the decision needed to be good. Again, something a lot of us can probably identify with.

However, I do think that that master faculty of prudence is amazing. Imagine the ability to know what the correct thing to do is in every conceivable situation. Everything. If that's not a super power worth having, I don't know what it is. But Aristotle is probably correct that without having the cleverness or capability to actually then achieve the good end then it is not in itself going to solve all your problems.

- - -

Was due to read Xenophon's A HISTORY OF MY TIMES next, which is kind of a follow on from Thucydides, but to be honest it looks pretty turgid and was an 'extra' I was considering injecting into my reading list. Instead I have opted for the prescribed (and much more interesting) THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION, which am a few chapters into and enjoying. A military history classic and I believe quite readable.

Cyrus is trying to topple his brother from the head of the Persian Empire and brings an army containing Ten Thousand Greek Hoplites (including Xenophon) inland to do it. Cyrus is killed in battle and the Greeks must elect their own military leaders and then fight their way home.

Still chipping away at Xenophon and enjoying it.

Opened a new front on this Great Books project...

For some time now I've been trying to use audio books to supplement, as a way of getting through texts more speedily. The problem is that a lot of narrators are just dreadful when it comes to some of these works... Reading them with no care as to the meaning of the words, so that you are listening to (basically) gibberish in terms of tone and emphasis.

I've been trying to find options on Audible that are better than that, however, and have got a few queued up that I am going to start going at during my commutes.

A fair way into Virgil's THE AENID, which is quite wonderful. In some ways it's nice to go back to Troy and Virgil really has a deft touch for action and high drama.

Finished THE AENEID and also THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION.

THE ANEID is genuinely an interesting work, I can see why it is considered one of the core latin texts. Shame I have no Greek or Latin, I could never be a real classicist as a consequence.

THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION is highly readable and interesting from a leadership point of view. I gather there is a questionmark over the extent to which it is a kind of apologia where Xenophon is talking himself up and trying to shore up his legacy, following contemporary attacks upon it, but either way the story of the Ten Thousand is quite remarkable. They begin with their backs to the wall, looking certain to be killed or enslaved, and by the end they are effectively a Greek polity on the move, a powerful, experienced and professional mercenary army being courted by all and sundry.

Listening to Ovid's METAMORPHOSES and reading Aristotle's THE POLITICS.

Aristotle is just explaining what slavery is and why it may be natural. Oh well.

Still making my way through THE POLITICS. I continue to be of the belief that it is more accessible than THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS but who am I to turn traditional reading order on its head.

Finished THE METAMORPHOSES and - despite the listening length it is very accessible (if gruesome at times).

I really wanted to find a good abridged versions of Livy's histories, but for the moment I have settled for a pretty short read which captures only the period during which Rome had Hannibal at its gates. Remarkable, in terms of the tactical gambits and acumen related on both sides. Also I was surprised how long Hannibal was actually in Italy for after crossing the alps... Over twelve years so far... Remarkable!

I think I will have to try to read an overview of Roman history sometime, whether it is via Livy or a contemporary author at some point. The political system - the Senate, the appointment of consuls and so on - is truly remarkable and you really get a sense of the civic strength.

Perhaps halfway through Plutarch at this stage (The LIVES I have selected). I have finished 6-7 Greek lives and 2-3 Roman lives. On Caesar now.

What strikes me about Caesar is that he was prevented from attempting a dictatorship, as was his slightly more sluggish rival Pompei, by the third powerful potential threat in the State - the wealthy Crassus. When Crassus was killed in battle, the triad was destabilised and Caeser and Pompei were now in a position where either could act against the other without worrying that their opponent would make common cause with Crassus to finish them off.

Interesting to be listening to how Caesar made such ingenious use of the common folk in his effective usurpation of the machinery of the State. He played to the crowd, and subverted existing laws and institutions to his way, and trampled on them with the consent of the masses when it was necessary.

This is more or less in perfect alignment with what Aristotle says in THE POLITICS in relation to how democracies fail. He doesn't just say that populism overturns them, he is specific that it's the potential for a prospective tyrant to give the populace what they think they want ... And the populace will cast down any check and balance, and law, which stands in the way. Aristotle talks about the extreme worst case for a democracy, when the people's desires become sovereign over the law. This is, ultimately, what the risk of any populism is - whether left or right. Caesar is a decent example I think, although he is also a 'tyrant' that Aristotle would have approved of, as he follows many of the tips that Aristotle observes that long-lasting tyrants follow ... He seems relatively benign towards punishing people (for the most part), does not sexually abuse people in a rampant way, and he gives the illusion at times that he is still subordinate to courts and the senate. It's interesting that when he chased Pompei out of Rome and made himself dictator he only held it for about 7 days before resigning it and just appointing himself consul. It may be that he resigned dictatorship in name only, and in fact he was still de facto the ruler, but interesting nonetheless, the optics of the thing.

Almost finished THE POLITICS. I've been slow, looking forward to something new. I think it's Cicero next, but I'm not certain. Funnily enough, a man who features in the rivalry between Caeser and Pompei (Trying to reconcile the two).

Listened to a podcast of Mervyn Peake and guests talking about Roman Slavery.

Then listened to a further episode about Frederick Douglas and the American slave industry.

Interested to compare and contrast.

Experts in Roman slavery acknowledge that they are working from fragmentary sources but there does seem to be this idea, despite the undeniable brutality used on slaves (The whip and the threat of crucifixion) there is at least some evidence indicating a paucity of slaves over the age of 35... Which bears out an idea that a large number of Roman slaves were able to buy their freedom by that age (There's a speech in the Senate that supports this idea also, where the figure of six years is mentioned, if the person is frugal and industrious).

Roman slaveowners did breed slaves and this was the normal means of acquiring new slave stock (not conquest).

American slavery does seem to be a 'worse' institution by far in that there was no prospect of manumission.

Not too much long left with Epicurus, a quick read. Slightly eccentric feel to him, I suspect that he was something of a guru in his day. His philosophy was heavily influenced by Buddhism, which sounds remarkable but appears to be true.

I have a couple of audio downloads I have been listening to in the car. I tried Plotinus' THE ENNEADS. Plotinus is usually called a Neo Platonist although I gather he actually is slightly after. I began and get a sense of how he's an important pre-Christian philosopher (has this key concept of The One that is important), but honestly it was like watching paint dry and I have moved on to Epictetus, who is an absolute gem.

Epictitus is in the books.

Technically I'm due to now move into Seneca and then Marcus Aurelius before finally (mercifully?) being done with the Greeks and Romans and moving on...

However, I realised I've omitted Horace. I have a collection of his satires and epistles to get through before - as mentioned above - doing the last couple of stoics.

Seneca's LETTERS FROM A STOIC. I had quite the essay written about Seneca but lost it all due to pressing the wrong button on this damnable machine.:pac:

Seneca = stoicism lite.

That shall have to suffice.

I'm listening to THE NEW TESTAMENT on audible.

It's very jarring to listen to it while you're also on a diet of the Stoics, and have preceded them with other Greek and Roman authors. Frankly, when you start listening to the Gospels, they sound absolutely addled. Not so much the content but rather the delivery... Took me ages to get my head around Jesus' choice of parables as a teaching tool I was like "Speak clearly man, would it kill you to construct an argument in a transparent way!".

Anyway, got to Corinthians 1.22 and what's interesting to me is that the early Church were obviously well aware of the nature of the people they were preaching to on both sides, and the inherent challenges in terms of what disparate camps from different cultural backgrounds expected...

"Jews demand signs, and Greeks search for wisdom"

He goes on to basically say that the Church is kind of screwed both ways, because they preach the resurrection of Christ, and for the Jews that's a big stumbling block...And to the Greeks / gentiles it sounds like nonsense.

"we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles…"

At least, that was my interpretation. Though the self awareness was interesting, and also a kind of wry humour to it.