Why is does the American public seem less vocal in foreign affairs than they did in Vietnam? How does this relate to Thucydides? During the Vietnam War, there were massive protests from the American public against the government. Many people were vocal that the United States had no business going to war in Vietnam. Today, there are still a large number of people who are vehemently opposed to the foreign policy of the United States such as the invasion of Iraq and the use of drone strikes. However, Americans seem less vehement and vocal in their opposition against the government then they did in the 1960’s and 70’s. I think that one reason for this is because of how modern wars are censored in the news. During the Vietnam War, the news showed gruesome footage of the horrors of war. It is extremely rare for one to see actual combat footage on the news today. Casualties are reported but it eventually became an everyday occurrence that perhaps the American public has gotten used to. The same goes for other elements of foreign intervention such as the use of drone strike. Hundreds of civilian casualties go unnoticed. Another reason that I believe the American public seems to care less about foreign policy today is that the draft is not active. During Vietnam, conscription letters were publicly burned; people were not willing to go war for reasons that they saw as unjust and ridiculous. No Americans are forced to join to military today and it makes sense that there is less protest. If we relate this to Thucydides, I think this represents a “realist” attitude. With no draft instated, people can largely ignore what is going on overseas because their own self-interest is not affected. Acting on self-interest was an integral component of “The History” and it can be applied to modern times quite easily.
How does the Athens and Melos story related to the Cold War? The Melian debate can be applied to more contemporary times in order to see similarities. The argument of the Athenians was that they were the stronger force so the Melians should yield to them. Essentially, the Athenian Empire was flexing and showing off its strength. This reminded me of the arms race and the space race between the United States and The Soviet Union in the Cold War. Both superpowers were racing to develop the most powerful weapons with the sole intention of proving that they could destroy the other quicker in the case of nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis showed that fear can be very persuasive in times of tension and war. Although the US and Soviet Union never officially fought, their flexing and showing off their power is an interesting parallel to the Melian debate.
What are some views taken after reading Thucydides? After reading the sections of this book, I had a hard time trying to fully understand what Thucydides is talking about as being a scientific historian. Before this class I knew of the Peloponnesian War but seeing an objective view point of the war can be hard to follow and truly understand. Thucydides shows different viewpoints of the War which is one thing that I did like. It shows that even though the wars did happen that people really did not always agree with what was happening during their time. This is also similar to what can be seen today around the world not just in the United States. If someone is to go and ask if they agree with the Iraq War you will hear people say they do not just as people did during Thucydides time. I also think the title On Justice, Power and Human Nature does fit what Thucydides is talking about. Justice and power are closely related to war. The Athenians went to war because they felt it was right and they want to maintain their status as a higher ranking power in the Greek city-states. Sparta did not agree with the power of Athens. For what I know about ancient Greek history Athens and Sparta were always warring and power was always the center of this. Justice can be seen as taking control of what is happening and taking control similar to power. Human nature is also important in that humans always want to feel on top and warring can in a way fill that want. Human nature also shows that humans always want the power and be on top. During the speeches that Thucydides talk about this can be shown. Both sides have different points and both want the citizens to follow them but in reality due to human nature humans will do what they themselves think is far. Listening to other viewpoints can help but in reality the issue of war is a self-influence answer of want they want to do. I think after reading this it does again show many ties to today. People agree and disagree with things that happen here in the United States. People have the right to vote and show what they believe in similar to what happened in Athens but the government makes the finally decision on what they will do just as Athens did to accept war with Sparta over power.
Wars in other countries have never particularly interested me and one so far removed from modern times is definitely not in my area of interests, but it was somewhat interesting trying to compare this war and Athens to modern times. Something that really wasn't brought up in class I don't think was how Athens could compare to the United States in its means of showing off. Athens attacked and massacred people of Melos maybe to prove a point to other city-states and maybe other countries that they weren't to be messed with. It was a point of "look what I can do." This is similar to the United States and even other countries due to what some of them have done. When the bombs were dropped in Japan after Pearl Harbor's attack, not only were we trying to wipe out Japan's desire to attack us anymore but we also had an excuse to show what powerful weapons we had. The Japanese got to see first-hand what the US was capable of and the rest of the world got a taste of it too. Another thing I thought of when reading this was how the Athenian attitude compares to Machiavellian ideals. Machiavelli pointed out that a strong leader needed to only look at the end goal and not to worry about how he got there in between. "The end justifies the means" was the slogan that he brought out and that's exactly what the Athenians are doing. Also, it is an interesting point that they make when it said, "If we have been overcome by three of the strongest motives--ambition, fear, and our own advantage--we have not been the first to do this" (Thucydides 23). Any country that feels threatened is going to do what they can to not go under especially if they are a strong nation to begin with.
Jessica Bourdage Week 5 On Strength, Bias, and Truth
Do the stronger have the right to take over the weaker? One of the points that is continually made is that the Athenian believe that the stronger must take over the weaker and keep them in control. “It has always been established that the weaker are held down by the stronger.” (pg.23) They feel that they must treat those under them harshly in order to keep them in control and stop any rebelling that may occur. “People are apparently more passionate over injustice than violence, because then they feel that someone who is their equal has taken an unfair advantage, while they accept violence from someone stronger as a matter of necessity.” (pg. 24) If you treat someone as your equal and then do something to them that they don’t agree with, they will feel more cheated than if you were always seen as the bad/ stronger one. In order to not have them take it as hard it would be simpler to just treat them as inferior at the beginning. That way they expect to be treated that way.
Was Thucydides bias? Is it possible to write without bias? I feel that Thucydides did a good job in trying to show both sides. He was trying to be as objective as possible and portray the History with as much historical accuracy as he could. In chapter 2 he first tells one side with the Speech of the Corinthians and then after that he tells the other side with the Speech of the Athenians. Then you have the speech of Cleon where he wants to kill the Mytileneans which Thucydides follows with the speech of Diodotus who is against putting the Mytileneans to death. And finally in the last part we read it alternates between the Athenians and the Melians point of view. So he definitely tried to show both opposing views. His writing may contain subtle bias but I think it be close to impossible to write with absolutely no bias. After being exiled from Athens I feel it would be hard to be without any bias against the city.
How can you tell what is the truth or best? Throughout the book people make speeches on what they believe to be true and what is best given the situation. How can you tell which side to take? I don’t think you can ever know what the truth or best is and it’s all based on your own opinion and self- interest. In Cleon’s speech he proposes that the people can be persuaded by a good orator. “You consider proposals for the future on the basis of fine speeches, as if what they proposed were actually possible; and as for action in the past, you think that what has been done in front of your own eyes is less certain than what you have heard in the speeches of clever fault-finders.” (pg. 68) He believes that they are “so overcome with the delight of the ear that they are more like an audience for the sophist than an assembly deliberating for the good of the city.” (pg. 68) The people get caught up in the speech that they don’t actually give any of their own thought to it and make decisions on how well someone has conveyed the information. In a way the orator is kind of like a salesman trying to convince someone what’s better. Trying to find what the truth is can be hard. “The search for truth strains the patience of most people, who would rather believe the first things that come to hand.” (pg. 12) Thucydides was trying to convey as close to the truth as he could find in The History.
1. Why are figures like Thucydides so revered in today’s classrooms when invoking antiquity, even when we know he wasn’t the perfect historian?
The history recorded by Thucydides represents one of the first attempts at objective reflection in recorded history -- as a species that places so much emphasis on what happened to it previously, this is understandably a big deal. Unlike the almost legendary accounts previous, Thucydides stepped back from the fantastic embellishments of the oratory, and simply reported history as it he saw it happen. Most recognize that he had his biases, and that keeps it from being taken without condition, but that isn’t unique for the field. The step of treating the other belligerent group as something besides rapacious barbarians can be seen as one of the greatest, if fundamental, steps taken in the history of historiography.
2. Why are the arguments of the Sophists appealed to so thoroughly by Thucydides?
Well, it is clear that Thucydides thought that the Sophists had some decent ideas. In a time where there was not much international goodwill and compassion, the dominant way to ensure safety was to express force towards those who were more susceptible. As an Athenian, he doubtlessly felt more comfortable with the idea of democracy - and when democracy was being spread by these sophomoric appeals to authority, it would make sense to put faith in that line of reasoning. Positive feelings towards Athenian life probably colored his outlook on the postulations of the sophists.
3. How can the Athenian reaction to revolt be related to America today?
The only event that I can possibly relate to revolt that lead to the bloody and rash action taken by the Athenians is what occurred in the United States on and after September 11th, 2001. The complete loss of decorum and humanity towards an otherized outgroup - in this case, the Mytilenians and Arabs - lead to the endangerment of countless innocent lives for no other reason than punitive vengeance to restore honor. Cathartic foreign policy is seldom sound policy, and often leads to unqualified disaster. Unfortunately for us, the Athenians were able to correct their mistake relatively quickly. As we trudge through the second decade of our Afghanistan quagmire, we can only wonder what it would be like if we could take it all back.
What is Thucydides’ relationship with the Gods? That is, how does he understand matters through the lens of religion, and how does this compare to the society of the time? Thucydides is unique for his time (as far as we know) in that he is not so much focused on the actions of the Gods and therefore does not try to explain phenomena through myth or legend. Instead Thucydides’ focus is on humans, both our actions and human nature in general. For example Thucydides explains events by looking at the past actions of the people involved, understanding their motives, and interpreting how they affect a current circumstance. In Thucydides’ opinion, history is shaped by humans and not by gods. As far as the beliefs of his time, Thucydides lived in a pagan society that placed an emphasis on honoring the gods with ritualistic ceremonies. In this respect, Thucydides was hundreds if not at least a thousand years ahead of his time. The concept of understanding inexplicable events as works of a god or gods would be the only answer, more or less in Europe, until the Renaissance. As far as we know today Thucydides was the first author to put this emphasis on human action and human nature, in a time 500 plus years before the Bible was even written.
Is there a difference between realism, justification, and rationalization? While this isn’t an explicit theme, I feel this is something that Thucydides is discussing throughout the assigned readings. Thucydides is described as a realist, someone who sees things as they are and understands events from a practical perspective; a pragmatic individual who observes cause and effect relationships and tends to see things in black and white, rarely considering a grey area. I never considered the relationship between these terms, but after this reading I’m beginning to think it is not as simple as I once believed. In my opinion realism can be explained by justification but not rationalization, and rationalization seems to be a concept of the Sophists (from whom Thucydides was taught). Justification implies a sense of right and wrong, as something is justified if it is generally beneficial. But there has to be a judging party involved to determine benevolence or malevolence, and there is almost always a cost associated with this progress i.e. someone or something is compromised. Realism can then be explained in that event A is beneficial therefore the actions a group commit to achieve event A are logical. Rationalization, on the other hand, is completely different. Rationalization takes right and wrong out of the picture, as anything can be rationalized. Every individual is different and every individual has a completely unique set of experiences; because of this, any individual can rationalize a decision based on their unique perspective. This is similar to the Sophists, who held language and verbal exposition in the highest regard. As long as an argument was presented well and with logic, the Sophists accepted it. While this is close to rationalization, I still hold them separate. Some things will always be rational to some people, even if no one else will accept it as rational. Justification must answer to the higher power of right and wrong where as rationalization only has to make sense to the particular individual.
Alec Wolsiefer Hum 1 2/19/2012 Blog #5- Thucydides
The History was definitely more difficult to read because of the linguistic style it was written in. That being said it was fairly interesting and very detailed which I enjoyed. Thucydides attempts to provide an unbiased recount of the events of the Peloponnesian War, but there are undertones of his discontent with Athens. I do not think this discredits the whole work since it was a huge advancement for written history at that point, cutting out all the mythic and religious factors of Ancient Greece.
In the introduction and much of the first and second chapter we learn about the background of the two big players in the Peloponnesian War. Athens is the democratic state that accepts new idealogies and technologies always attempting to move forward and have considerable naval power. Sparta, or Lacedaemonians, was an aristocratic state that stuck to old customs and had the best land military at the time. Both of these states gathered allies and formed the Delian League (Athens and allies) and Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies). The way they both treated their allies seemed to be only in self-interest, there are examples of Sparta leaving allies high and dry.
Thucydides tells the story of the Melos and Mytilene which show two different faces of Athens. In Melos the viscious unforgiving side of Athens is shown while in Mytilene it is the more merciful side, although the reasons may not be the most kind. The Athens came and demanded that Melos submit to them because they were more powerful. The Athenians are portrayed as the villains as Melos is described as neutral and uninterested in getting involved in the Peloponnesian War. Athenians unprovoked come to Melos with this ultimatum and when are refused, lay siege to the city and eventually brutally massacre and enslave the entire population. In the Mytilene story however, Mytilene rebels against the Athens and is not punished as harshly. One of the main reasons is the fact that they provide resources for the Athenians, although afterwards they are kept under a very watchful eye.
How is Thucydides different from the rest of the books previously read? This book seems to be more of an account of events from the history of Greece than a religious or literary text. Compared to the selected reading from Genesis or the Qur’an this text is directed more towards actual events and people from history. The first chapter describes how the city-states of Greece gained power and the events of conflict with outside powers like Persia and Troy. Instead of writing about how gods told a man that he is favored over everyone else in the world or that an evil spirit made of fire secretly hurts people this book deals with reality in a way that informs the reader about the world. The speeches are also important in that they show the two sides of an argument and neither of which is obviously correct. This shows that true nature of political conflict, it is largely based on disagreements about how to handle a situation, and often both sides have valid points about how to resolve it. Although, Thucydides is not completely objective this text is more reliable and historically important than the previous texts read.
Is reading Thucydides important for a western civilization course? Personally I think this is a very important book for looking at Western civilization. In the first chapter when Thucydides states that “It is evident that what is now called ‘Hellas’ was not permanently settled in former times, but that there were many migrations, and people were ready to leave their land whenever they met the force of superior numbers.”(2), clearly this shows a critical view of the history of Greece. This is an early example showing that much of society and culture is arbitrary and largely based on socio-economic or military actions, as opposed to religious texts that attribute these things to gods or spirits. Writing about how nations gain power and the actual foundations of civilizations is extremely important, which is what Thucydides does with this text. It seems that this book resembles an early version of the social sciences, examining the people and political situations that came before the author was alive to give insight and knowledge about the condition that the society is currently in.
Is Thucydides against or for war? The way Thucydides writes makes me believe that he is against war, but believes it is necessary. He writes that it is human nature for the strong to control the weak. Thucydides' uses speeches to show that people always want more of something and that this generally ends in violence.
Did Thucydides actually interview other people? This is an unknown, but I believe that he took the general ideas of what a group of people thought and then twisted these ideas to better match his themes and preconceptions of what these people were like. He writes Athenians decently, but knowing that he was exiled from this city makes most of what he says questionable. He is said to be a scientific historian, but all humans have bias.
Does the dispassionate, objective style of Thucydides' writing make The History more difficult to read?
Yes.
...At least that was the case for me. It's not so much the objectivity of Thucydides' writing that makes it so hard to digest; I understand and appreciate that Thucydides needed to record the events of the Peloponnesian War from both the Athenian and Spartan perspectives in order to obtain a full, even-handed account of the war. It’s the dispassionate, disengaged part of Thucyidides’ style that hampers the effectiveness of the text. Thucydides’ writing, to me, reads like the worst kind of dry, colorless history textbook, crammed with so many facts that aren’t especially relevant that it dilutes the power of whatever nuggets of information are pertinent. I know Thucydides obviously cares about the subject of the Peloponnesian War and wants to convey the information he’s chronicled about it to other people, otherwise he wouldn’t have written the text, but his writing’s so disengaged it makes it incredibly difficult for a reader (or at least me) to feel engaged. That’s the most fundamental purpose of an author: to engage an audience, to make people care about whatever topic they’re discussing. I honestly think Thucydides doesn’t succeed in that respect, and in doing so, despite all his objectivity and rigorous sourcing and detailing, makes The History and ineffective document of the Peloponnesian War. Whatever, though, obviously Thucydides’ doesn’t care about my review of his millennia old book, he’s dead, he’s not revising anything. And there are obviously quite a lot of educated people and experts on the humanities who seem to think, and who have thought for a very long time, that The History is an essential text for humanities students or I wouldn’t be reading it right now. So…
Why is The History part of the Western Humanities canon?
How’d The History get up on the Western Humanities pedestal? What makes it so special that it’s one of a handful of books we’re required to read? In class, we discussed the possible parallels between the over-reaching, imperial, yet still democratic Athens presented in The History and the present day United States. These parallels are interesting and very real, but based on what we read in Allardyce’s “Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course,” the Western Civilization/Humanities course was initially designed with a much more optimistic view of “Western” civilization and the United States as a part of that tradition, so I doubt emphasizing the negative aspects of the United States’ foreign policy was the original reason for The History’s canonization. On a basic level, The History might’ve been included because the shapers of the Western civ. course considered ancient Greece the starting point of Western civilization and wanted to include a text that discussed it’s history and it’s rise and fall to show a proper continuum, as they saw it, of western civilization, and also wanted to include ancient Greek texts. But of course there are quite a lot of books written about the rise and fall of ancient Greek society and a decent number of ancient Greek texts, presumably some of which have to be less relentlessly dull and inaccessible as Thucydides’ work. It probably comes down to a combination of the text’s ancient-Greekness, as well as perhaps Thucydides’ objective approach, the most groundbreaking feature of his writing, making it one of the more reliable surviving historical documents of the time period. To be honest, I’m still a little unsure of The History’s usefulness.
Why is does the American public seem less vocal in foreign affairs than they did in Vietnam? How does this relate to Thucydides?
ReplyDeleteDuring the Vietnam War, there were massive protests from the American public against the government. Many people were vocal that the United States had no business going to war in Vietnam. Today, there are still a large number of people who are vehemently opposed to the foreign policy of the United States such as the invasion of Iraq and the use of drone strikes. However, Americans seem less vehement and vocal in their opposition against the government then they did in the 1960’s and 70’s. I think that one reason for this is because of how modern wars are censored in the news. During the Vietnam War, the news showed gruesome footage of the horrors of war. It is extremely rare for one to see actual combat footage on the news today. Casualties are reported but it eventually became an everyday occurrence that perhaps the American public has gotten used to. The same goes for other elements of foreign intervention such as the use of drone strike. Hundreds of civilian casualties go unnoticed.
Another reason that I believe the American public seems to care less about foreign policy today is that the draft is not active. During Vietnam, conscription letters were publicly burned; people were not willing to go war for reasons that they saw as unjust and ridiculous. No Americans are forced to join to military today and it makes sense that there is less protest. If we relate this to Thucydides, I think this represents a “realist” attitude. With no draft instated, people can largely ignore what is going on overseas because their own self-interest is not affected. Acting on self-interest was an integral component of “The History” and it can be applied to modern times quite easily.
How does the Athens and Melos story related to the Cold War?
The Melian debate can be applied to more contemporary times in order to see similarities. The argument of the Athenians was that they were the stronger force so the Melians should yield to them. Essentially, the Athenian Empire was flexing and showing off its strength. This reminded me of the arms race and the space race between the United States and The Soviet Union in the Cold War. Both superpowers were racing to develop the most powerful weapons with the sole intention of proving that they could destroy the other quicker in the case of nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis showed that fear can be very persuasive in times of tension and war. Although the US and Soviet Union never officially fought, their flexing and showing off their power is an interesting parallel to the Melian debate.
What are some views taken after reading Thucydides?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the sections of this book, I had a hard time trying to fully understand what Thucydides is talking about as being a scientific historian. Before this class I knew of the Peloponnesian War but seeing an objective view point of the war can be hard to follow and truly understand. Thucydides shows different viewpoints of the War which is one thing that I did like. It shows that even though the wars did happen that people really did not always agree with what was happening during their time. This is also similar to what can be seen today around the world not just in the United States. If someone is to go and ask if they agree with the Iraq War you will hear people say they do not just as people did during Thucydides time. I also think the title On Justice, Power and Human Nature does fit what Thucydides is talking about. Justice and power are closely related to war. The Athenians went to war because they felt it was right and they want to maintain their status as a higher ranking power in the Greek city-states. Sparta did not agree with the power of Athens. For what I know about ancient Greek history Athens and Sparta were always warring and power was always the center of this. Justice can be seen as taking control of what is happening and taking control similar to power. Human nature is also important in that humans always want to feel on top and warring can in a way fill that want. Human nature also shows that humans always want the power and be on top. During the speeches that Thucydides talk about this can be shown. Both sides have different points and both want the citizens to follow them but in reality due to human nature humans will do what they themselves think is far. Listening to other viewpoints can help but in reality the issue of war is a self-influence answer of want they want to do. I think after reading this it does again show many ties to today. People agree and disagree with things that happen here in the United States. People have the right to vote and show what they believe in similar to what happened in Athens but the government makes the finally decision on what they will do just as Athens did to accept war with Sparta over power.
Wars in other countries have never particularly interested me and one so far removed from modern times is definitely not in my area of interests, but it was somewhat interesting trying to compare this war and Athens to modern times. Something that really wasn't brought up in class I don't think was how Athens could compare to the United States in its means of showing off. Athens attacked and massacred people of Melos maybe to prove a point to other city-states and maybe other countries that they weren't to be messed with. It was a point of "look what I can do." This is similar to the United States and even other countries due to what some of them have done. When the bombs were dropped in Japan after Pearl Harbor's attack, not only were we trying to wipe out Japan's desire to attack us anymore but we also had an excuse to show what powerful weapons we had. The Japanese got to see first-hand what the US was capable of and the rest of the world got a taste of it too.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I thought of when reading this was how the Athenian attitude compares to Machiavellian ideals. Machiavelli pointed out that a strong leader needed to only look at the end goal and not to worry about how he got there in between. "The end justifies the means" was the slogan that he brought out and that's exactly what the Athenians are doing. Also, it is an interesting point that they make when it said, "If we have been overcome by three of the strongest motives--ambition, fear, and our own advantage--we have not been the first to do this" (Thucydides 23). Any country that feels threatened is going to do what they can to not go under especially if they are a strong nation to begin with.
Jessica Bourdage Week 5
ReplyDeleteOn Strength, Bias, and Truth
Do the stronger have the right to take over the weaker?
One of the points that is continually made is that the Athenian believe that the stronger must take over the weaker and keep them in control. “It has always been established that the weaker are held down by the stronger.” (pg.23) They feel that they must treat those under them harshly in order to keep them in control and stop any rebelling that may occur. “People are apparently more passionate over injustice than violence, because then they feel that someone who is their equal has taken an unfair advantage, while they accept violence from someone stronger as a matter of necessity.” (pg. 24) If you treat someone as your equal and then do something to them that they don’t agree with, they will feel more cheated than if you were always seen as the bad/ stronger one. In order to not have them take it as hard it would be simpler to just treat them as inferior at the beginning. That way they expect to be treated that way.
Was Thucydides bias? Is it possible to write without bias?
I feel that Thucydides did a good job in trying to show both sides. He was trying to be as objective as possible and portray the History with as much historical accuracy as he could. In chapter 2 he first tells one side with the Speech of the Corinthians and then after that he tells the other side with the Speech of the Athenians. Then you have the speech of Cleon where he wants to kill the Mytileneans which Thucydides follows with the speech of Diodotus who is against putting the Mytileneans to death. And finally in the last part we read it alternates between the Athenians and the Melians point of view. So he definitely tried to show both opposing views. His writing may contain subtle bias but I think it be close to impossible to write with absolutely no bias. After being exiled from Athens I feel it would be hard to be without any bias against the city.
How can you tell what is the truth or best?
Throughout the book people make speeches on what they believe to be true and what is best given the situation. How can you tell which side to take? I don’t think you can ever know what the truth or best is and it’s all based on your own opinion and self- interest. In Cleon’s speech he proposes that the people can be persuaded by a good orator. “You consider proposals for the future on the basis of fine speeches, as if what they proposed were actually possible; and as for action in the past, you think that what has been done in front of your own eyes is less certain than what you have heard in the speeches of clever fault-finders.” (pg. 68) He believes that they are “so overcome with the delight of the ear that they are more like an audience for the sophist than an assembly deliberating for the good of the city.” (pg. 68) The people get caught up in the speech that they don’t actually give any of their own thought to it and make decisions on how well someone has conveyed the information. In a way the orator is kind of like a salesman trying to convince someone what’s better. Trying to find what the truth is can be hard. “The search for truth strains the patience of most people, who would rather believe the first things that come to hand.” (pg. 12) Thucydides was trying to convey as close to the truth as he could find in The History.
1. Why are figures like Thucydides so revered in today’s classrooms when invoking antiquity, even when we know he wasn’t the perfect historian?
ReplyDeleteThe history recorded by Thucydides represents one of the first attempts at objective reflection in recorded history -- as a species that places so much emphasis on what happened to it previously, this is understandably a big deal. Unlike the almost legendary accounts previous, Thucydides stepped back from the fantastic embellishments of the oratory, and simply reported history as it he saw it happen. Most recognize that he had his biases, and that keeps it from being taken without condition, but that isn’t unique for the field. The step of treating the other belligerent group as something besides rapacious barbarians can be seen as one of the greatest, if fundamental, steps taken in the history of historiography.
2. Why are the arguments of the Sophists appealed to so thoroughly by Thucydides?
Well, it is clear that Thucydides thought that the Sophists had some decent ideas. In a time where there was not much international goodwill and compassion, the dominant way to ensure safety was to express force towards those who were more susceptible. As an Athenian, he doubtlessly felt more comfortable with the idea of democracy - and when democracy was being spread by these sophomoric appeals to authority, it would make sense to put faith in that line of reasoning. Positive feelings towards Athenian life probably colored his outlook on the postulations of the sophists.
3. How can the Athenian reaction to revolt be related to America today?
The only event that I can possibly relate to revolt that lead to the bloody and rash action taken by the Athenians is what occurred in the United States on and after September 11th, 2001. The complete loss of decorum and humanity towards an otherized outgroup - in this case, the Mytilenians and Arabs - lead to the endangerment of countless innocent lives for no other reason than punitive vengeance to restore honor. Cathartic foreign policy is seldom sound policy, and often leads to unqualified disaster. Unfortunately for us, the Athenians were able to correct their mistake relatively quickly. As we trudge through the second decade of our Afghanistan quagmire, we can only wonder what it would be like if we could take it all back.
Austin Stone
ReplyDeleteHumanities 1
Dr. Akman
Week 4
What is Thucydides’ relationship with the Gods? That is, how does he understand matters through the lens of religion, and how does this compare to the society of the time?
Thucydides is unique for his time (as far as we know) in that he is not so much focused on the actions of the Gods and therefore does not try to explain phenomena through myth or legend. Instead Thucydides’ focus is on humans, both our actions and human nature in general. For example Thucydides explains events by looking at the past actions of the people involved, understanding their motives, and interpreting how they affect a current circumstance. In Thucydides’ opinion, history is shaped by humans and not by gods. As far as the beliefs of his time, Thucydides lived in a pagan society that placed an emphasis on honoring the gods with ritualistic ceremonies. In this respect, Thucydides was hundreds if not at least a thousand years ahead of his time. The concept of understanding inexplicable events as works of a god or gods would be the only answer, more or less in Europe, until the Renaissance. As far as we know today Thucydides was the first author to put this emphasis on human action and human nature, in a time 500 plus years before the Bible was even written.
Is there a difference between realism, justification, and rationalization?
While this isn’t an explicit theme, I feel this is something that Thucydides is discussing throughout the assigned readings. Thucydides is described as a realist, someone who sees things as they are and understands events from a practical perspective; a pragmatic individual who observes cause and effect relationships and tends to see things in black and white, rarely considering a grey area. I never considered the relationship between these terms, but after this reading I’m beginning to think it is not as simple as I once believed. In my opinion realism can be explained by justification but not rationalization, and rationalization seems to be a concept of the Sophists (from whom Thucydides was taught). Justification implies a sense of right and wrong, as something is justified if it is generally beneficial. But there has to be a judging party involved to determine benevolence or malevolence, and there is almost always a cost associated with this progress i.e. someone or something is compromised. Realism can then be explained in that event A is beneficial therefore the actions a group commit to achieve event A are logical. Rationalization, on the other hand, is completely different. Rationalization takes right and wrong out of the picture, as anything can be rationalized. Every individual is different and every individual has a completely unique set of experiences; because of this, any individual can rationalize a decision based on their unique perspective. This is similar to the Sophists, who held language and verbal exposition in the highest regard. As long as an argument was presented well and with logic, the Sophists accepted it. While this is close to rationalization, I still hold them separate. Some things will always be rational to some people, even if no one else will accept it as rational. Justification must answer to the higher power of right and wrong where as rationalization only has to make sense to the particular individual.
Alec Wolsiefer
ReplyDeleteHum 1
2/19/2012
Blog #5- Thucydides
The History was definitely more difficult to read because of the linguistic style it was written in. That being said it was fairly interesting and very detailed which I enjoyed. Thucydides attempts to provide an unbiased recount of the events of the Peloponnesian War, but there are undertones of his discontent with Athens. I do not think this discredits the whole work since it was a huge advancement for written history at that point, cutting out all the mythic and religious factors of Ancient Greece.
In the introduction and much of the first and second chapter we learn about the background of the two big players in the Peloponnesian War. Athens is the democratic state that accepts new idealogies and technologies always attempting to move forward and have considerable naval power. Sparta, or Lacedaemonians, was an aristocratic state that stuck to old customs and had the best land military at the time. Both of these states gathered allies and formed the Delian League (Athens and allies) and Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies). The way they both treated their allies seemed to be only in self-interest, there are examples of Sparta leaving allies high and dry.
Thucydides tells the story of the Melos and Mytilene which show two different faces of Athens. In Melos the viscious unforgiving side of Athens is shown while in Mytilene it is the more merciful side, although the reasons may not be the most kind. The Athens came and demanded that Melos submit to them because they were more powerful. The Athenians are portrayed as the villains as Melos is described as neutral and uninterested in getting involved in the Peloponnesian War. Athenians unprovoked come to Melos with this ultimatum and when are refused, lay siege to the city and eventually brutally massacre and enslave the entire population. In the Mytilene story however, Mytilene rebels against the Athens and is not punished as harshly. One of the main reasons is the fact that they provide resources for the Athenians, although afterwards they are kept under a very watchful eye.
How is Thucydides different from the rest of the books previously read?
ReplyDeleteThis book seems to be more of an account of events from the history of Greece than a religious or literary text. Compared to the selected reading from Genesis or the Qur’an this text is directed more towards actual events and people from history. The first chapter describes how the city-states of Greece gained power and the events of conflict with outside powers like Persia and Troy. Instead of writing about how gods told a man that he is favored over everyone else in the world or that an evil spirit made of fire secretly hurts people this book deals with reality in a way that informs the reader about the world. The speeches are also important in that they show the two sides of an argument and neither of which is obviously correct. This shows that true nature of political conflict, it is largely based on disagreements about how to handle a situation, and often both sides have valid points about how to resolve it. Although, Thucydides is not completely objective this text is more reliable and historically important than the previous texts read.
Is reading Thucydides important for a western civilization course?
Personally I think this is a very important book for looking at Western civilization. In the first chapter when Thucydides states that “It is evident that what is now called ‘Hellas’ was not permanently settled in former times, but that there were many migrations, and people were ready to leave their land whenever they met the force of superior numbers.”(2), clearly this shows a critical view of the history of Greece. This is an early example showing that much of society and culture is arbitrary and largely based on socio-economic or military actions, as opposed to religious texts that attribute these things to gods or spirits. Writing about how nations gain power and the actual foundations of civilizations is extremely important, which is what Thucydides does with this text. It seems that this book resembles an early version of the social sciences, examining the people and political situations that came before the author was alive to give insight and knowledge about the condition that the society is currently in.
Is Thucydides against or for war?
ReplyDeleteThe way Thucydides writes makes me believe that he is against war, but believes it is necessary. He writes that it is human nature for the strong to control the weak. Thucydides' uses speeches to show that people always want more of something and that this generally ends in violence.
Did Thucydides actually interview other people?
This is an unknown, but I believe that he took the general ideas of what a group of people thought and then twisted these ideas to better match his themes and preconceptions of what these people were like. He writes Athenians decently, but knowing that he was exiled from this city makes most of what he says questionable. He is said to be a scientific historian, but all humans have bias.
Does the dispassionate, objective style of Thucydides' writing make The History more difficult to read?
ReplyDeleteYes.
...At least that was the case for me. It's not so much the objectivity of Thucydides' writing that makes it so hard to digest; I understand and appreciate that Thucydides needed to record the events of the Peloponnesian War from both the Athenian and Spartan perspectives in order to obtain a full, even-handed account of the war. It’s the dispassionate, disengaged part of Thucyidides’ style that hampers the effectiveness of the text. Thucydides’ writing, to me, reads like the worst kind of dry, colorless history textbook, crammed with so many facts that aren’t especially relevant that it dilutes the power of whatever nuggets of information are pertinent. I know Thucydides obviously cares about the subject of the Peloponnesian War and wants to convey the information he’s chronicled about it to other people, otherwise he wouldn’t have written the text, but his writing’s so disengaged it makes it incredibly difficult for a reader (or at least me) to feel engaged. That’s the most fundamental purpose of an author: to engage an audience, to make people care about whatever topic they’re discussing. I honestly think Thucydides doesn’t succeed in that respect, and in doing so, despite all his objectivity and rigorous sourcing and detailing, makes The History and ineffective document of the Peloponnesian War. Whatever, though, obviously Thucydides’ doesn’t care about my review of his millennia old book, he’s dead, he’s not revising anything. And there are obviously quite a lot of educated people and experts on the humanities who seem to think, and who have thought for a very long time, that The History is an essential text for humanities students or I wouldn’t be reading it right now. So…
Why is The History part of the Western Humanities canon?
How’d The History get up on the Western Humanities pedestal? What makes it so special that it’s one of a handful of books we’re required to read? In class, we discussed the possible parallels between the over-reaching, imperial, yet still democratic Athens presented in The History and the present day United States. These parallels are interesting and very real, but based on what we read in Allardyce’s “Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course,” the Western Civilization/Humanities course was initially designed with a much more optimistic view of “Western” civilization and the United States as a part of that tradition, so I doubt emphasizing the negative aspects of the United States’ foreign policy was the original reason for The History’s canonization. On a basic level, The History might’ve been included because the shapers of the Western civ. course considered ancient Greece the starting point of Western civilization and wanted to include a text that discussed it’s history and it’s rise and fall to show a proper continuum, as they saw it, of western civilization, and also wanted to include ancient Greek texts. But of course there are quite a lot of books written about the rise and fall of ancient Greek society and a decent number of ancient Greek texts, presumably some of which have to be less relentlessly dull and inaccessible as Thucydides’ work. It probably comes down to a combination of the text’s ancient-Greekness, as well as perhaps Thucydides’ objective approach, the most groundbreaking feature of his writing, making it one of the more reliable surviving historical documents of the time period. To be honest, I’m still a little unsure of The History’s usefulness.