[lit-ideas] Alcibiades, Nicias & aerie philosophy

In reading about the Peloponnesian War I am especially interested in practical 
applications.  What can we learn from the failures and successes of the various 
participants?  I am reading other things at the same time, Kagan's _On the 
Origins of War_ is one.  My concern about Alcibiades and Nicias is that the 
former was the best man for the job.  He was the Athenian leader who could have 
led his forces to victory.  But he did not have that opportunity.  Politicians 
back in Athens ruined him.  They did so for political reasons according to 
Thucydides.  They put their own political ambitions above the interests of 
their city-state.  

This sort of thing is not unique to that time and place.  We saw (depending 
upon where one looked) American politicians undermining the war effort in Iraq 
for political gain.  They seemed to be putting their own political ambitions 
above American success in Iraq.  This situation was different from the one 
facing Alcibiades because President Bush wanted the military operations in Iraq 
to succeed.  The Athenians in power apparently didn't have success against the 
Syracusans as their highest priority.  Thucydides implies that the Athenians 
would have won had the Athenian politicians left Alcibiades alone, but they 
didn't leave him alone.  They achieved their political goal by ruining him, and 
they didn't care if they ruined the Syracusan operation in the process.  

Which left the inept and unqualified Nicias in charge of the Syracusan 
operation in Alcibiades place.  He couldn't lead the Athenians to victory.  
They were defeated and he was executed.  The politicians back in Athens who 
caused this debacle by falsely accusing Alcibiades and causing his ruin 
succeeded in their petty political goals.  Alcibiades was removed as a 
political threat to them.  But thousands of Athenians were killed at Syracuse.  

What can be done about petty politicians who put their own ambitions above 
national interest?  Apparently nothing.  Bush's "surge" is apparently working 
in Iraq but do we see the politicians who lambasted Bush and his policies 
falling on their swords?  Did the politicians who lied about Alcibiades fall on 
their swords?  I haven't read all our newspapers or all of Thucydides, but I 
don't think so.

No penalty exists for putting political ambition above national interest, 
neither then nor now.


In another note, Walter O objected to my aside about philosophers.  The main 
intent of my note had to do with attacking the trite maxim "war doesn't solve 
anything."  Eric Dean responded to my note in a way but really didn't deal with 
the subject.  He moved into the realm of saying something he was interested in 
but didn't truly defend the maxim I was objecting to.  I objected to Dean's 
playing fast and loose with the meaning of "solve" and in an aside said that we 
ought to rely upon established definitions unless . . and here I introduced the 
exception that Walter O objected to.  Here is my aside and Walter's response: 

LKH: "A philosopher may say "whenever I use the term dasein I mean X
> by it."  Or if one is Martin Heidegger, he may leave the term poorly 
> defined so that all you know about it is that whatever it means to 
> Heidegger that meaning isn’t to be found in a dictionary."

WO:  "--------------> In fairness to philsophers, conceptual/transcendental 
--------------> analysis
is not a matter of looking things up in a dictionary, or any other text deemed 
by some individual or community to have such revelatory powers of truth and 
definition."


Sounds to me like Walter is saying philosophy, at least 
"conceptual/transcendental analysis" is above mere words.  Philosophers can 
escape the confines of the dictionary into an aerie esoteric world that only 
the initiated can inhabit.  But if they want to communicate with the rest of 
us, they are going to have to use words as they have been used in the past by 
others.  If they want to invest a word with some new meaning necessary to their 
theories then they are going to have to explain what they want that word to 
mean.  At least that is what ought to happen.  Heidegger as some have written 
created new meanings without adequately defining them.  Some apologists have 
suggested that he did this to evade discovery by his Nazi overlords.  If no one 
could understand what he meant, then the Nazis couldn't prosecute him for 
treason.  Of course there are countless others who say they understand 
precisely what Heidegger meant; so how can anyone be sure?   


I took another look at my inbox before posting this note and found Geary's note 
in which he writes,  "Oh bother!  Lawrence, when people say "war solves 
nothing" what they are saying is that war doesn't solve the problem of war -- 
in fact, it abets it.  Of all the evils facing mankind (evil meaning: mankind 
caused) war is the most evil.  Injustice -- especially as it is often a cause 
of war -- is a contender for most evil trophy, but it can't hold a candle to 
the evil that war is.  I don't know if the slogan "The War To End All Wars" was 
laughed at in its time, but it certainly should have been.  Only the rejection 
of all wars can end war.  Your -- and the culture's -- valorization of war and 
heroism and military honor seem to me to be guarantors of more war.  Get with 
the program, Lawrence, embrace peace."

Geary is clearly advancing some sort of opinion, but he hasn't addressed the 
expression that he is Oh bothering about.  He hasn't defined it.  Solving 
involves solving a problem.  In order to make sense of what Geary writes, I 
have to assume he means the expression "War solves nothing" means something 
other than "war solves nothing."  Instead of that it means . . . but here Geary 
confusingly uses the term "solve again, so he lapses into nonsense.  He says 
war doesn't solve the problem of war; which doesn't mean anything sensible.  
What is the problem of war?  We discussed the origins of war and saw that they 
originate, according to Thucydides for three reasons, fear, interest, or 
honour.  Geary may inhabit the aerie world above the meaning of words where the 
philosophers reside, but down here if he uses the word "solve" then he has to 
have a "problem."  

If he is saying "war" is the problem then he lapses into meaninglessness.  He 
can't say that and have it mean anything.  If war is the problem then anger, 
love, hate, envy can be "the problem," and this too is nonsense.  Anger at my 
wife can be described and analyzed and she and I can talk it over and make up.  
But anger, the abstract term anger isn't accessible in this way.  Neither is 
war.  

Kagan has subtitled his book "and the preservation of peace," but I'm not far 
enough into his book to know what he advocates.  I suspect he advocates limited 
steps that might be taken to preclude certain sorts of events that have led up 
to certain sorts of wars we have had in the past.  I am interested in that 
myself.  How could this or that war have been prevented?  I discussed that just 
today.  Perhaps World War One might have been prevented had Fisher been allowed 
to Copenhagen the German fleet in 1907.  Geary though wants to move up with the 
philosophers and embrace abstract peace without such means -- indeed without 
any means I can see.  

Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto






-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:10 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] An insignificant note to Lawrence who will ignore it

'When the Syracusans and Spartans finally defeated the Athenians on 
Sicily, Nicias was executed.  As far as I know the politicians who 
ruined the career of Alcibiades were never punished.'

Nicias was executed by the Spartans, at Syracuse, although initially 
Gylippus had wanted to take him back to Sparta as a captive. The 
'politicians' of whom you speak were Athenians.

Your wording leaves it unclear whether you think it odd that although 
Nicias was executed, Alcibiades opponents were not. As different poleis 
were involved there would seem to be nothing odd about it.

Robert Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: