Fantastic. Amazing summery of previous work on Ancient Greece while providing new data on how median incomes of Greek citizens. Ober does a great job Fantastic. Amazing summery of previous work on Ancient Greece while providing new data on how median incomes of Greek citizens. Ober does a great job of explaining the rise of classical Greece by emphasizing its geopolitical position as well as the development of key institutions which low transaction costs of trade thereby enabling rational agents to specialize in certain trades. An average Athenian citizen during the heyday of democracy had the same median income as a citizen in 1600's Holland. Imagine that! The data provide details which allow one to better understand the period. I didn't know that there were so many Greek poleis (over 1000) and that there were even more democracies after the fall of Athens during the postclassical period (3rd to 1st Century BC).
Did Athens really exert tyranny over other poleis through the Delian league? According to Ober the tax paid to Athens for mainting their navy (and thereby peace) was roughly 2-3% of the GDP of the that poleis. This league was also started in a join venture with Sparta in order to ensure that Persia wouldn't attack individual city-states. Athens also standardized currency which also lowered the transaction cost of doing trade. Athens had however no way of monitoring each poleis which meant that trade was also done outside of the mediteranean, with Egypt and Persia. Compare that to the type of force with which Sparta controlled its subjects!
The only drawback is that the tone is somewhat academic and therefore the author tends - on occasion - get into a lot of data from the period. I was more interested in the outline of what this new data says about the Greeks and the inferences the author was able to draw from them. Other than that it's a great read.
This book covers 8 core ideas (democracy, sovereignty, justice, constitution, virtue, citizenship, republic, cosmopolitanism), all of which we share wThis book covers 8 core ideas (democracy, sovereignty, justice, constitution, virtue, citizenship, republic, cosmopolitanism), all of which we share with the ancient Greeks and Romans. I thought it would draw more parallells between the ancients and us moderns but, unfortunately, it is more of a history lesson in how these essential concept came about. I found that the author sometimes generalized a tad too much (such as when writing how Athens also had an empire even though its focus was clearly on trade in comparison with how Spartans colonized their surrounding poleis).
I enjoyed Lane's discussion around hubris and how the Greeks tried to circumvent it. The Greeks (and later Romans) experimented with statesmanscraft and for them there existed three models: monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. I found the development of Athens to be most interesting (although to be fair Syracuse also had a large poleis which later developed into a democracy). The question is: how should power be distributed? What is just? The culture seems to be bubbling with discussions of this sort and the theatre of the period is but one example of how key issues were explored. In this sense, theatre was a political as well as social and philosophical activity which citizens of the Ancient world enjoyed. But to get back to my main point: the Greeks asked themselves how one could tame (or civilize) hubris by distributing power in a more egalitarian way. Leaders should be held accountable for their actions (this was key). Athenian democracy often developed as a consequence of inner turmoil and the leaders (Solon, Cleisthenes, Pericles) thought of innovative methods for minimizing conflict in society. The Greeks knew the risks of too much polarization (which they called 'stasis') and the democratic reforms was often a way of avoiding turmoil.
One example of this is Cleisthenes redrawing of the citizen map of Athens. The reform meant that a citizen belonged to a local demos but one was also a part of a larger "tribe". To put this into modern perspective: it would be as if innercity poor democrats nad to mix with country republicans. Cleisthenes thus created a tribe by fusing together demos scattered all over Athens. A citizen therefore belonged to his demos, his tribe and lastly, of course the city of Athens. In later stages Athenians chose to elect leaders based on voting (generals and experts were elected in this way). But aside from those leaders most people who ran the city were elected by lottery. The person who then was elected had to be held accountable after his tenure. If a citizen was deemed a threat to the system they could be exiled for 10 years (which was only done 110 times in roughly 600 years). All these methods combined to combat hubris. Oh and it goes without saying that they didn't have any political parties. Those were the days!
Lane does a good job in explaining the pros and cons of this system but for further understanding of what made the Greeks thrive I would recommend reading "The rise and fall of Classical Greece" by Joshiah Ober. ...more
"The Greeks had got it right, he said. Their drama was a communal act, a sacred event, in which the ancient stories of the tribe were played out, enab"The Greeks had got it right, he said. Their drama was a communal act, a sacred event, in which the ancient stories of the tribe were played out, enabling the audience to confront the deepest, most sublime and most terrible truths of human life, producing a profound, an overwhelming, release - a catharsis - which was the whole point of the drama"
Simon Callow has managed to write an entertaining and often surreal portrait of Wagner as a man. It doesn't go as deep as the work by Magee or Scruton but if you are looking for a brief book which provides an overview of his life, you've come to the right place. Callow has a tendency to believe Wagner too much though since this biography heavily relies on Wagners own biography, My life. Having said that it is incredible what a dramatic life he lead and what he managed to accomplish. He was an inveterate gambler who took enormous risks and somehow managed to come out winning in the end. I wouldn't say he was a particularly likeable person. He seems more to attract people to him by his sheer force of personality and use them ruthlessly to accomplish his own goals.
Callow focuses on Wagner the dramatist and therefore gives a shallower account of what he actually read. I suppose that you can read Bryan Magee if you want to know more about that. Seeing as how I was interested in how Wagner managed to dramatise his ideas, this was a rewarding read. I do think it is hard to understand Wagner without understanding the music as the two often go hand in hand. All in all, an entertaining read. ...more
I've always had a soft spot for outcasts and true individualists. I was drawn early in life to writer/philosopher EM Cioran, the vagabond-writer GorkyI've always had a soft spot for outcasts and true individualists. I was drawn early in life to writer/philosopher EM Cioran, the vagabond-writer Gorky and of course, Hermann Hesse (who isn't?). Diogenes comes across as one of the first modern sociologist who attempts to invert norms in societies by actively practicing a different lifestyle. He - alledgedly - began his life as a bankers son but was but had to flee his home city once his father was tried for counterfeiting (if only they could do that with today's central bankers!).
He proceeds to live a life as a mendicant philosopher, famously portrayed as living in a jar. His purpose was to show how societal norms are artificial and the dire need for people to return to some sort of state of nature. Although he lived an ascetic lifestyle, he was not against pleasure (unlike his teacher Anthisthenes). The chief goal of the cynic is to be psychologically free from detachment, ergo the life of a begger. To be completely free of the need for possessions is to be virtuous, which is the highest good according to the cynics.
I often found myself comparing Diogenes lifestyle to that of the Buddha and of the stoics but found that there is a greater deal of conceit here. Diogenes is more like a modern day standup comedian with an eccentric Weltanschuung which he proceeds to point out to other people at every time possible. Anecdotes from his life almost always contain a strong punchline. One of his disciples, Crates, used to open peoples door in order to pontificate on the virtues of the cynic life. This is perhaps also which I found the biography so funny. I was also drawn to the fact that Diogenes philosophy is all about living life and he therefore has a disdain for those thinkers who approach philosophy from a more academic perspective. How can you not love a person who Plato called "Socrates gone mad"?
The biography also manages to capture some of the culture of ancient Greece. This period in history really marks a turning point which one can see with the advent of philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as well as the founding of different schools of thought. The citizens of Athens must have liked Diogenes (or at least thought he was funny) given the fact that they paid to rebuild his jar once some kid broke it. I oftened wondered whether it would make an interesting film given how many of the anecdotes are almost zen-like. I mean: who manages to keep their equanimity while being captured by pirates to be sold as a slave and then have the audacity to point a person at the market and say: this man needs a master!
There are many, many anecdotes about his life which seem apocraphyl but which this author claims to be true. Given how long ago he lived it is hard to tell. It was certainly a entertaining read (as well as a short one)....more
Ulf Danielsson is a Professor of Physics at Uppsala University and he has written this thought provoking book in opposition to Max Tegmark's more famoUlf Danielsson is a Professor of Physics at Uppsala University and he has written this thought provoking book in opposition to Max Tegmark's more famous book "Our mathematical universe". Danielsson writes in a lucid style and often manages to succintly summarize different philosophical points in an easy-going way. His main points are that models are not reality, our body is an essential part of our "ego" or "I", and that artificial intelligence will never be conscious. I am inclined to agree with him but I do not know enough to really have a firm opinion on the subject. Perhaps I will read Tegmarks book next in order to get the platonic response to Danielssons physicalism. ...more
I did not at all agree with the authors view that the 'culture wars' started 1989 and that they were somehow linked to the rise of nationalism followiI did not at all agree with the authors view that the 'culture wars' started 1989 and that they were somehow linked to the rise of nationalism following the fall of the Soviet empire. There is certainly a correlation but I think the author overemphasized the fact and also repeatedly only mentioned the negative aspects of nationalism.
"[For] Kissinger history is more like one damned thing after another, unpredictable and uncontrollable: the basis of foreign policy has to be a pursui"[For] Kissinger history is more like one damned thing after another, unpredictable and uncontrollable: the basis of foreign policy has to be a pursuit of the national interest because, in an uncertain world, that is the anchor of stability" (xv). Realpolitik often gets a bad rep as it goes against a certain idealism but what this book explores is the consequences of pursuing ideology over realpolitik and how this effects world order.
Order is not something which is easily achieved and it is something which is constantly being challenged. Tragedy is the consequence of failure to grasp with this insight and therefore the inability to stop chaos or tyranny from erupting. Democracy is no safeguard against tyranny (Hitler was democratically elected). Neville Chamberlain thought he achieved "peace in our time" by appeasing Hitler and therefore failed to see the potential threat he had to national security and the world order.
Gewens provides the reader with a philosophical background of Kissingers thought (giving outlines of the thought of Arendt, Leo Strauss and Morgenthau) while the second part of the book provides the reader with something closer to a biography of the man. Kissingers thought can be traced to his early experience of having lost all freedom in Germany and his seeing the limitless possibility of tragedy everywhere. No order is fixed but rather politics is the art of evolutionary stability; great statesmen prevent revolutions by gradually implementing changes and often the choice is between two negative outcomes. It is safe to say that this is as far from the cheery and optimistic mindset most Americans have historically had. There's no problem which can't be fixed, right?
Kissingers key influence stems from Hans Morgenthau - a German Jew who is the father of realism in international relations. Morgenthaus experience from Nazi Germany as well as his reading of Nietzsche led him to believe that the main driving force for people is power. One needs an insane amount of will power and drive in order to reach the pinnacle of the political hierarchy and once there the politician continues to pursue powerful goals for his or her own country. Power is a part of human nature (according to Morgenthau) and to ignore this fact will lead to appeasement of tyrants or tragedy. ('If you want peace, prepare for war' as the protorealist Thucydides put it).
Foreign policy is however not only about balancing power through diplomacy and war but (according to Morgenthau) can be summed up in the the struggle for the mind of man. If one can convince people of an idea then that significantly changes the likelihood of long term influence. "Winning of hearts and minds" is a catch phrase which is these days looked upon with cynicism because of its overuse during the Vietnam war but it is nevertheless key to foreign policy. It is also important when it comes to 'public opinion'. In a democracy one needs to be able to convince the public of the necessity of a certain kind of cynical foreign agenda. Kissinger stresses the need for the statesman to be a an educator, otherwise the people might lose sight of the long term goal.
Democracy itself can cause problems when elected officials say what the people want to hear and not what the republic needs to survive. Hitler again is an example of this. The appeal of Nazism was based on the fact that the charismatic demagogue said what the people wanted to hear and thereby managed to draw crowds his rallies (people actually had to pay to hear Hitler speak!). One of the reasons that these German Jews were sometimes labeled as undemocratic was for this specific reason. Statistical models of how rational agents behave cannot save the world from the possibility of tragedy (nor from our own human nature). Luckily the US has a constitution which provides a limit to what a politician can do.
Unlike Foucault, they believe that power and authority are not the same thing. Authority stems from the consensual acceptance of an order. Morgenthau is not against international guidelines for nations provided that one realizes that sovereign states should still have national interest as their main goal in foreign policy. Disbelief in authority of traditional institution (such as the supreme court) paves the way for demagogues to take hold of the public imagination (something which Arendt is particular worried about). When man is deprived of reason, all that is left is the fuel of the passions.
I found myself very much in agreement with the argument Leo Strauss laid out for the necessity of common sense. To the liberal rationalist, common sense is extremely malleable term which therefore doesn't bear close scrutiny. Strauss, however, stressed the importance of a common derived interpretation of reality which no rationality can provide (something more akin to a starting point for rationality). The rationalist attempt to eradicate the passions ultimately leads to tragedy - that is why the emergence and reemergence of nationalism, religious fanaticism and general belief in the meaning of life continues. To use modern terminology: societies that are WEIRD (western educated industrialized rich and democratic) seem to have a hard time understanding any other perspective than the 'enlightened rationalist' one. When we lose our common interest then all we have left is special interest and fraction (which again is great source of disorder). I found strong similarities between this view and the strain of thought within the Austrian school of economics (von mises, Hayek) which emphasizes the fact that rationality is a mere method, not a goal in itself. Rationality is used to achieve goals made by the individuals subjective preferences.
Perhaps what all these thinkers stress is the need for a certain autonomy. There is a tendency for society to streamline thought and get people to conform with a certain way of operating in the world. What is viewed as science and enlightened values provide ready-made ideologies for people to follow. Strauss, Arendt, Morgenthau and Kissinger all viewed thinking as something the individual does (a contributing reason why Kissinger fears AI so much). Thinking is a subversive act (according to Arendt) and can therefore be seen as dangerous by the majority. It is nonetheless important in order to be able to distill clarity amid such fleeting times as our own.
This is the most interesting book I've read this year as it managed to articulate thoughts which until now have been hunches och instinctual reactions to foreign policy....more
Ayn Rands essays are published for the first time in Swedish and what a treat it is to read them. They are organized in five parts: the foundations ofAyn Rands essays are published for the first time in Swedish and what a treat it is to read them. They are organized in five parts: the foundations of philosophy, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and social criticism. The basics of objectivism are summarized in Anne C. Hellers book on Rand as the follows: "metaphysics (that reality is objective and cannot be altered by wishes or emotions), epistemology (that knowledge comes through reason and never though feeling), morality (rational self-interest), politics (individual rights), economics (free-market capitalism), and sex (the erotic response to intellectual values)." (p. 260)
There is so much to say about her worldview. I find it enthralling, riveting and challenging. There is too much to digest so I think I will try to summarize my views on this at a later date. I am still confounded by many questions (for example: how can free will exist given that the nature is objective and uncaused by us? If we are part of the universe then surely our free will is just a perspective that we conscious beings have?). I am very thankful to Timbro for trying to spread her ideas to meandering intellectuals in Sweden. I have managed to understand her much better (even though I think she is her own worst enemy at times).
The one thing that is most clear from reading these essays is that objectivism is about a practical reality, and not really about abstract ideas. Perhaps Rand would respond in the following way regarding the issue of free will: what society do we get if we assume that humans don't have a free will? And what kind of society do we get if we do?...more
Loading...
