[lit-ideas] Mike, The Aberrant Platonist
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:58:37 -0800
I've concluded that Mike is very an aberrant Platonist. There is an
abstract form called "War," but Mike doesn't merely want to understand it as
a real Platonist might. He wants to put a stop to it. Wait, I told him.
"War" is an abstract entity, if it is an entity at all, and you don't have
direct access to it. You can affect, if you have the power, this war or
that one but not the form War. But Mike was too full of his vision and
continued on as though I had said nothing: "The problem is war itself. War
is the number one problem facing humankind. It is the scourge, the plague,
the EVIL. WAR is the problem. We must solve THAT problem. NO MORE WAR.
Get it? The way to solve that problem is to stop the fucking WARS. How?
By stopping. Stop the military. Stop the fucking politicians who support
war. Get it? Stop the execrable manufacturers of munitions. Stop the
whole goddam war industry. Get it? Stop telling young boys it's honorable
to kill and die for the economic benefit of rich fucks. Get it? Stop
erecting statues to mass murderers. Get it? Stop glorifying mass murder.
Get it? Stop it. Stop it. Start marketing compromise as the most
honorable course. Get it? Start telling the truth about our agenda, let
the people decided if their sons are daughters are worth sacrificing to that
god. That's the first part of my solution. You're not ready for the rest,
not by a long shot. Work on what I've told you so far and we'll talk more
later."
Mike posted this at 1;40 AM Sunday, and I don't know whether this is San
Jacinto or Memphis time, so he may have been well into his cups, but I can
sympathize. I've ranted on and on about people saying stupid things. They
go on and on stupidly and I say. Look. Here's an expert on this subject.
Look. Here's his book. Get it! But they don't. They just go on stupidly
as before.
While Mike is sobering up, we might ask if there is any practical value to
anything Mike said in his rant? Not that I can see. If one were to engage
in his program one would be engaging in unilateral disarmament. No one who
proposed such a suicidal approach to foreign affairs would be allowed
anywhere near the presidency - at least I hope they wouldn't.
But actually, we do have some evidence that Mike's approach was approached.
After World War One the French and British weren't interested in any more
war and did nothing to prepare for seriously for another. So Hitler looked
about him and saw chickens for the picking. Britain, France & the U.S. used
a modified Mike approach. We were the most extreme in throwing away our
weapons. Did the Japanese say, look at those nice Americans, disarming
themselves? Let's be nice to them? No, that isn't what they said. They
said, quick. Let's attack them before they come to their senses.
No, the Geary-Platonic form War is not directly accessible, but if we would
abandon our stupidity and read about the wars of the past we might be able
to eliminate or abbreviate some future wars.
In many cases the best way to stop a big war is to nip it in the bud with a
little one. We saw this in the case of the Peloponnesian War. Had the
Athenians taken action early on they could have deterred the Spartans from
their adventure. Thousands could have been saved and Greece would not have
been destroyed as a civilization . . . or taken down a peg as JL says.
Maybe we should merely say that thousands of lives could have been saved and
perhaps Philip wouldn't have been encouraged by all those weakened Greek
chickens to rush down and pluck them.
That is also true of our war with Japan. Were the Japanese impressed that
we were so weak militarily? Not at all. Look at those weak foolish
American chickens they said. Let's go pluck them.
And what about the war I was in, the Korean War. Did it help that we hadn't
really tooled up to fight any more wars after WWII? Not at all. Kim
Il-Sung looked about him at the weakness of the chickens confronting him and
said to himself. I'm going to go pluck them. Actually he checked with
Stalin first but Stalin okayed the plucking.
No, no, no, Geary may very well say after he sobers up this morning - or
even if he doesn't. Geary may not want to dirty his hands with preventing
this war or lessening that one. He may want to go directly to the big
Kahuna, the abstract Geary-Platonic form War itself. Well when you Get your
hands on it (Get it?) let us know.
In another note, Robert mistakes my concern and writes "I don't see how it
can be argued that they [Alcibiades' enemies] were responsible for the
Sicilian debacle. The Sicilian Expedition was entirely Alcibiades' show.
He argued for it, he argued for his being the leader, and his rhetoric won."
But of course that wasn't my concern. The reasons why it was agreed that it
would be a good thing to defeat Syracuse is shrouded in mystery. I forget
whether it was Hanson or Kagan who thought that the only idea that made any
sense was that Sparta got much of its food from Syracuse and by cutting off
that supply it might cut off some of Sparta's appetite for war. But I was
never talking about the origin of the war with Syracuse. I was talking
about the campaign. Athens put troops in the field. They had a good
commander in Alcibiades, but politicians back in Athens undermined him for
political reasons. Had Athens defeated Syracuse, which they probably
would have done had they left Alcibiades in charge, they might very well
have accomplished their goal. They probably would have defeated Syracuse.
But because the campaign was undermined by politicians, Alcibiades was
chased off and Nicias proceeded on to defeat and death - and not just his
death.
And in regard to Iraq, once again I was not talking about the origins of the
Iraq war. I spoke of having a campaign in progress and of that campaign
being undermined by politicians for political reasons. Perhaps these
politicians don't think we have very much at stake. What difference does it
make if the U.S. is defeated in Iraq and the Islamists become victorious?
Perhaps the Athenian politicians said something similar to each other. What
difference does it make if we lose at Syracuse? It is way off there anyway
and has nothing to do with us. Except the Athenians, if they reasoned in
that manner, were wrong. The defeat at Syracuse resulted in the ultimate
defeat of Athens itself.
The Spartans were capable of being demoralized. A victory pepped them up
and a loss depressed them. A loss at Syracuse would have depressed them,
but since they won, especially since they got in on the tail end of that war
and administered the coup de grace, they were elated. The Athenians on the
other hand were devastated and not just militarily. The loss at Syracuse
took the heart right out of them.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Mike, The Aberrant Platonist
