I attempted to post this at 4:45 as you can see. Why it hasn't appeared on
Lit-Ideas is but one more problem to solve.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm [mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 4:45 PM
To: 'lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: 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
