The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Histories
ANCIENT HISTORY
>
ARCHIVE - 1. HERODOTUS - THE HISTORIES~BOOK I/SECTIONS 1-110 (09/04/08 - 09/21/08) ~ No spoilers, please
This sounds more logical, doesn't it? And explains why that artist painted Gyges as a satyr.
Thanks Bentley I had no idea where "pride before a fall" came from. As a prof once said to me, even if you've never read the bible, you know the bible.
So true Bentley. I hear this all of the time, how women are the temptresses who lead men to ruin. People seem to forget that G-d sent both Adam and Eve out of the garden even though Adam tried to blame Eve for his behavior.
I'm not sure the Medes knew what they were getting into when they agreed to make Deiokes their King. When he was administering things before he was king he was not tyrannical, but as soon as he is King he orders the building of a city and a palace and makes himself an awesome figure. The Medes go along with all this. It's not what Locke had in mind, though Hobbes would say that if that is how the sovereign acts when he is given sovereignty, his subjects must obey. But there seems to be some ancient notion at work here that says that a King, even if he has just been elevated from among a group of people, must immediately make of himself a figure that is utterly unlike them.
This is so fascinating. I just completed a course at the Oriental Institute on the first cities. There have been, throughout the ages, many theories as to why the first cities arose. Economic specialization, irrigation, agriculture, writing, etc. After several weeks of exploring all the possibilities the professor (director of the institute) gave his hunch. To settle conflicts. I thought this was brilliant. Whether it's a site on the internet or a business deal or a friendship or a marriage, the one constant is conflict. The prof said that he may be influenced, in part by observing how the sheikhs operate in Syria, where he supervises a dig. The shiekh sits at one end of a reception room and presides over a feast. Then, one by one, people come to him to settle disputes.
The last time I was in Greece was in l972, during the junta. There were soldiers all over the place and people were thrown into jail without trial. In the US we had heard about the horrors of the junta and many Greeks were protesting on behalf of their countrymen. What a surprise we had once we were there. We met a Greek Cypriot and comiserated on the difficulty of living in a fascist state. He disagreed. He explained that the Greeks "needed" a strongman to keep order. Life was unbearable before. Now all was orderly. Believe it or not, at the age of 22, I was convinced that fascism wasn't so bad after all! I was living in New York at the time. Crime was rampant, the city was on the verge of bankruptcy. Everyone I knew had been attacked multiple times and we were afraid to be on the streets. At a family dinner one night, I explained to my father in law that fascism wasn't so bad afterall. Greece was safe and people were out on the streets all night long! He looked at me in disbelief. His parents had been killed by the Nazis! He said "and one day someone can point to you and say put her in jail and you'll never be heard of again!" That's about as dumb as I've ever felt. But I can understand the mind=set of wanted a nice safe cage, sacrificing freedom for security.
When I think of Locke I think of property and ownership. He believed that we owned ourselves. That the government got power once we gave it to them. Hobbes, it seems, was more willing to give ownership to the sovreign. I've never understood Hobbes because he basically had a very low opinion of humanity and yet he wanted to give power over all of us to a man. Why wouldn't that one man be just as corrupt as the rest of us? Locke seemed to be saying that we had some inalienable rights that were derived from nature and that no one could take that away. Hasn't the East always had tyrants? I was just listening to a tape about Mesopotamia and the entire history is a history of one tyrant after another. Sadaam Hussein idolized Nebuchannezer and wanted to build a copy of his palace and have his name (Sadaam) imprinted on every brick, just as Nebuchannezer had. Absolutely nothing had changed, as far as I could see.
This prof also mentioned Herodotus' basic POV was that each and every Eastern king was a bit of a dolt. Something I'll have to look for as I read on.
This prof also mentioned Herodotus' basic POV was that each and every Eastern king was a bit of a dolt. Something I'll have to look for as I read on.
Can someone tell me what am i doing wrong? Shouldn't my posts follow what I'm replying to? This way it's impossible to follow.
Mod
This is so fascinating. I just completed a course at the Oriental Institute on the first cities. There have been, throughout the ages, many theories as to why the first cities arose. Economic specialization, irrigation, agriculture, writing, etc. After several weeks of exploring all the possibilities the professor (director of the institute) gave his hunch. To settle conflicts. I thought this was brilliant. Whether it's a site on the internet or a business deal or a friendship or a marriage, the one constant is conflict. The prof said that he may be influenced, in part by observing how the sheikhs operate in Syria, where he supervises a dig. The shiekh sits at one end of a reception room and presides over a feast. Then, one by one, people come to him to settle disputes.
Bentley responded:
That is fascinating Vanessa. What an interesting story.
Mod
Can someone tell me what am i doing wrong? Shouldn't my posts follow what I'm replying to? This way it's impossible to follow.
I do not think you are doing anything wrong. Whenever you respond it goes to the end. It is not a phb based site; but it works. I wish we could do a quote automatically but it does not work that way. Actually all sites add the post to the end.
I just put the quote at the top if necessary with a cut and paste.
I think your comments have been fascinating. You are not doing anything wrong.
Bentley
Mod
The last time I was in Greece was in l972, during the junta. There were soldiers all over the place and people were thrown into jail without trial. In the US we had heard about the horrors of the junta and many Greeks were protesting on behalf of their countrymen. What a surprise we had once we were there. We met a Greek Cypriot and comiserated on the difficulty of living in a fascist state. He disagreed. He explained that the Greeks "needed" a strongman to keep order. Life was unbearable before. Now all was orderly. Believe it or not, at the age of 22, I was convinced that fascism wasn't so bad after all! I was living in New York at the time. Crime was rampant, the city was on the verge of bankruptcy. Everyone I knew had been attacked multiple times and we were afraid to be on the streets. At a family dinner one night, I explained to my father in law that fascism wasn't so bad afterall. Greece was safe and people were out on the streets all night long! He looked at me in disbelief. His parents had been killed by the Nazis! He said "and one day someone can point to you and say put her in jail and you'll never be heard of again!" That's about as dumb as I've ever felt. But I can understand the mind=set of wanted a nice safe cage, sacrificing freedom for security.
Bentley responded:
What a fascinating story. I can see your dilemma at the time. How powerful was your father in law's response.
Mod
When I think of Locke I think of property and ownership. He believed that we owned ourselves. That the government got power once we gave it to them. Hobbes, it seems, was more willing to give ownership to the sovreign. I've never understood Hobbes because he basically had a very low opinion of humanity and yet he wanted to give power over all of us to a man. Why wouldn't that one man be just as corrupt as the rest of us? Locke seemed to be saying that we had some inalienable rights that were derived from nature and that no one could take that away. Hasn't the East always had tyrants? I was just listening to a tape about Mesopotamia and the entire history is a history of one tyrant after another. Sadaam Hussein idolized Nebuchannezer and wanted to build a copy of his palace and have his name (Sadaam) imprinted on every brick, just as Nebuchannezer had. Absolutely nothing had changed, as far as I could see.
This prof also mentioned Herodotus' basic POV was that each and every Eastern king was a bit of a dolt. Something I'll have to look for as I read on.
Bentley responded:
You know Vanessa I think you are right.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
-- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Mod
You could easily say that you are responding to so and so's post message 72. That might help but every engine that I have seen always places the notes at the end within a thread. Although some have threads within threads which I think are really confusing.
Mod
I'm not sure the Medes knew what they were getting into when they agreed to make Deiokes their King. When he was administering things before he was king he was not tyrannical, but as soon as he is King he orders the building of a city and a palace and makes himself an awesome figure. The Medes go along with all this. It's not what Locke had in mind, though Hobbes would say that if that is how the sovereign acts when he is given sovereignty, his subjects must obey. But there seems to be some ancient notion at work here that says that a King, even if he has just been elevated from among a group of people, must immediately make of himself a figure that is utterly unlike them.
Bentley responded:
I think you are right BC; Deiokes manifested into something else. I was thinking of the quotation:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Then I was trying to figure out who said this.
What I found:
This arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Another English politician with no shortage of names - William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, is sometimes wrongly attributed as the source. He did say something similar, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.
I think that is what happened to Deiokes as it has happened time and time again to other leaders. I do not think the Medes counted on this either. They got more than they bargained for.
I do not agree with Hobbes; but you are right in saying that this is what Hobbes would say; he would say that he is King no less so he is more than any of the others. I think they also make themselves not only unlike others but unlikeable.
Response to message 77.
Yes Bentley, I think I can do this. Cut and paste is something I still don't feel comfortable with but I know I must conquer!
Yes Bentley, I think I can do this. Cut and paste is something I still don't feel comfortable with but I know I must conquer!
#67 Vanessa Wrote:
So true Bentley. I hear this all of the time, how women are the temptresses who lead men to ruin. People seem to forget that G-d sent both Adam and Eve out of the garden even though Adam tried to blame Eve for his behavior.
Thanks, Vanessa for pointing this out; sorry, men, but I see that nothing EVER changes!
#80 Oldesq Wrote:
1) If one adopts a kind of "Lord of the Flies" mentality, a dictator will eventually emerge and it might be worse than we think and there might be a lot of sorrow and death on the road to that selection- so choose a dictator as the devil you know;
It can be said that our elections today accomplish the same purpose - at least we know, up to a point, what we are getting for a leader.
Mod
"The major problem- one of the major problems, for there are several- one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of whom manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
— Douglas Adams (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Anyway I smiled.
Bentley
Hey, that's Plato! He said anyone who really wants to be king shouldn't be.
My Rabbi gave a talk once about leadership. Why oil was used to annoint a king. He said that oil floats to the top but it also seeps in and is absorbed. That's what a good leader must do. He must rise to the top and lead but he must also be one of the people. He must be in touch and be able to be amongst those he leads. I think there's a lot of truth in that. It's why democracy works best, because the leaders are from the people.
My Rabbi gave a talk once about leadership. Why oil was used to annoint a king. He said that oil floats to the top but it also seeps in and is absorbed. That's what a good leader must do. He must rise to the top and lead but he must also be one of the people. He must be in touch and be able to be amongst those he leads. I think there's a lot of truth in that. It's why democracy works best, because the leaders are from the people.
Mod
Vanessa, you have the most interesting stories in your repertoire (I mean it). I am also beginning to believe that all of these folks have borrowed from the ancients.
Yes, democracy is good for me; but are the leaders really for the people...of course we know the kings were for themselves.
Bentley
Weren't there good kings too? I think a wise king would be for his people. The philosopher-king? I thought that was part of what Herodotus was explaining in a way, how Eastern kings were foolishly self-indulgent.
I agree that everyone borrowed from the ancients. Andrew North Whitehead said that all of Western philosophy was a footnote to Plato. I think he was exactly right. In fact, I discovered through my classes with my rabbi that much of the religion was shaped by Plato. I already knew that the Catholic church was largely influenced by Plato, I hadn't realized that Judaism was as well. The mind boggles at the influence that man had.
I agree that everyone borrowed from the ancients. Andrew North Whitehead said that all of Western philosophy was a footnote to Plato. I think he was exactly right. In fact, I discovered through my classes with my rabbi that much of the religion was shaped by Plato. I already knew that the Catholic church was largely influenced by Plato, I hadn't realized that Judaism was as well. The mind boggles at the influence that man had.
Mod
It could be the language has changed like in the case of the word barbarian which really meant foreigner or non Greek. There are those who speak Greek and then those who do not.
Of course, there have been wise kings; very true about Plato.
I think the word "tyrant" when Herodotus used it just meant a king who gained power not through inheritance but through force. It's not supposed to be a judgment about the harshness of his reign, the way it is today. Still, when you think of someone staging a coup, it does indicate that he might be a bit power hungry, doesn't it?
Mod
Staging a coup and being a part of it does have a lot to do with "grabbing power".
H does make that distinction between ascension and forcing your way in.
Is anyone else having a struggle with all of these names? I can't keep it all straight.
The Landmark Herodotus says that to Herodotus Asia=Turkey. But Colchis is Georgia, Syria(cappadocia) and Persia are not in Turkey. Are the editors just wrong? Also, it seems odd to me that Croesus would think that capturing Cappadocia would mean that he would depose Cyrus when Cyrus still had Persia. Is it just the oracle that makes him think this? But then doesn't Herodotus refer to all of Asia as Persia? Are you guys getting this or should I just stop trying to make sense of it. It is a translation of a 2500 year old text, after all. Maybe I should try outlining or something. How are you handling all of this?
The Landmark Herodotus says that to Herodotus Asia=Turkey. But Colchis is Georgia, Syria(cappadocia) and Persia are not in Turkey. Are the editors just wrong? Also, it seems odd to me that Croesus would think that capturing Cappadocia would mean that he would depose Cyrus when Cyrus still had Persia. Is it just the oracle that makes him think this? But then doesn't Herodotus refer to all of Asia as Persia? Are you guys getting this or should I just stop trying to make sense of it. It is a translation of a 2500 year old text, after all. Maybe I should try outlining or something. How are you handling all of this?
Mod
Vanessa, I am dealing with the same things. Maybe I should set up a Geography thread.
#2 - That is why I have left enough time for Book One: it is the most complex to understand in terms or locations, mixture of mythology with alleged reports. I am planning to reread these first fifty pages etc; I have figured some but not all. But you can read this at many different levels; it depends upon how deep you want to go (I am one that has to get in and get mud all over me - but that does not suit or have to suit everyone). I felt that all of you were going a lot faster than I was. But I am not in any rush; I plan to get through this and I plan to investigate and research all that I can along the way. Who knows maybe I will end up buying more books to investigate this; it wouldn't surprise me (lol).
#3 - I think the outlining is a great idea.
Bentley
Mod
You should have seen me when I was reading War and Peace; you would think I was a Russian scholar. Like I said to Vanessa, whatever approach works best for you. I am planning to reread these fifty pages and dig right in and enjoying the process
Bentley
Mod
Don't know: but all the generations from Abraham to David (are) fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Transmigration fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian Transmigration to Christ fourteen generations. It must mean something to someone. Asians in general consider 4 and 14 unlucky numbers. I have found nothing in the notes or any glossary or footnotes I found that 19 was a sacred number with the Persians. Other than that nothing.
Response to 9l
thanks for the "confession" Oldesq. I think it's the only way to go.
thanks for the "confession" Oldesq. I think it's the only way to go.
response to 94
Thanks Bentley! I was beginning to feel really, really DUMB!
When I first read this in class, I hated it because we were rushed and I had that same feeling of being lost. I like to read the way you do. But my classmates who LOVED the book said they read it like Oldesq, like a Russian novel (which btw is difficult for me too!) Oldesq has confidence that it will all come together at some point but I fear it will all fall apart in a page or two if I don't get it NOW!
Thanks Bentley! I was beginning to feel really, really DUMB!
When I first read this in class, I hated it because we were rushed and I had that same feeling of being lost. I like to read the way you do. But my classmates who LOVED the book said they read it like Oldesq, like a Russian novel (which btw is difficult for me too!) Oldesq has confidence that it will all come together at some point but I fear it will all fall apart in a page or two if I don't get it NOW!
response to 96
That's interesting Bentley. Never heard about l4 before.
I wonder if there's some tie to two 7's? Seven days of the week, 7th son of the 7th son, 7 dwarfs?
That's interesting Bentley. Never heard about l4 before.
I wonder if there's some tie to two 7's? Seven days of the week, 7th son of the 7th son, 7 dwarfs?
Mod
No, it is a great story so at a high level you could just read it and love the nuances and the flow through history (like a travel log of sorts);
Or you can learn about the Greeks the myths and everything else along the way (geography, ancient history, etc.)
I prefer the latter but anybody can read it the way that they want; however, for me the discussion is moving along too fast; we have until the 21st and I think I will be very busy until then digging down and seeing the relationships.
But to each his own. You are not dumb; I think it is a sign of intelligence to realize all that you do not know and look for answers to your questions. I loved Tolstoy when I read him, I loved the characters and all of the details; but still I did my research.
I like Oldesq feel that it will come together at some point but we are just beginning and all of us can have our own reading experience. Even after completing this one book; none of us will be Classical scholars. But that is not the point.
Bentley
Mod
The hoplite armor was linked to the city states; all of the city states increased conflict; the rise and fall of the hoplite armor was linked to the rise and fall of the city state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite
I agree with you that it helped make the side who had the hoplite armor stronger.
message l0l
Yes, wasn't that a hoot? The discovery of iron must have been like the discovery of the Atom bomb.
Yes, wasn't that a hoot? The discovery of iron must have been like the discovery of the Atom bomb.
Whew! I thought we had to finish book l by the 2lst. Now I can relax!
Mod
I was thinking the same thing Oldesq. It reminds me of mediums who say that they're channeling loved ones and come out with vague, ambiguous statements that the person who knew the dead person can interpret. How about fortune cookies? Horoscopes? Best of all, therapists. Have you ever seen "What about Bob?" It's a great movie about a man in therapy. The therapist just wants to get rid of him and be left alone but he interprets everything the therapist says as therapeutic and wise.
I just thought of something. Socratic questioning is a lot like therapy. I can see how Socratic questioning could have evolved from the riddles of the oracles. He believed that we all knew the truth but we'd just forgotten it. If we search for it, we'll find it, in ourselves. So he asked leading questions and people had to come to their own answers. Socrates himself went to the oracle and was told he was the wisest man in the world. Then he went about testing that prophecy.
When a therapist asks an open-ended question and we supply our own answer/interpretation, isn't it a bit like the oracle? Then we take our own answer as the "truth" and act on it with confidence as it has authority behind it. Yes, I will go to war, get a divorce, quit my job, etc. because the oracle/therapist has told me to!
I just thought of something. Socratic questioning is a lot like therapy. I can see how Socratic questioning could have evolved from the riddles of the oracles. He believed that we all knew the truth but we'd just forgotten it. If we search for it, we'll find it, in ourselves. So he asked leading questions and people had to come to their own answers. Socrates himself went to the oracle and was told he was the wisest man in the world. Then he went about testing that prophecy.
When a therapist asks an open-ended question and we supply our own answer/interpretation, isn't it a bit like the oracle? Then we take our own answer as the "truth" and act on it with confidence as it has authority behind it. Yes, I will go to war, get a divorce, quit my job, etc. because the oracle/therapist has told me to!
I think people are always looking for guidance. Have you ever noticed how people open fortune cookies and for a moment act as though there's truth in it? I'm not sure why that happens. But tha† was their religion. They felt they were getting it straight from Apollo, right? If the message was clear and direct, it could easily be discovered a fraud.
The ultimate instruction was "know thyself". That must underlie what was going on but it is hard to understand.
BTW, I got up to the part about the lion cub and the number l4 and I agree, very strange! There must be some religious association that we don't know. The Pythagoreans believed that numbers had mystical powers. The lion cub...I don't know.
The whole story reminded me of the Joshua and the battle of Jericho. "The walls came tumbling down", "I've been told, was an idioma†ic expression for surrender.
The ultimate instruction was "know thyself". That must underlie what was going on but it is hard to understand.
BTW, I got up to the part about the lion cub and the number l4 and I agree, very strange! There must be some religious association that we don't know. The Pythagoreans believed that numbers had mystical powers. The lion cub...I don't know.
The whole story reminded me of the Joshua and the battle of Jericho. "The walls came tumbling down", "I've been told, was an idioma†ic expression for surrender.
reply to l09
I think a better question is why was Croesus listening to "the god of the Hellenes"? He blames his decision to go to war and his defeat on "their" god. Strange. Of course the oracle didn't say what he thought it said. Is this another case of Herodotus making a fool of a barbarian king? The entire episode is proof of his foolishness. He misinterprets the oracle out of hubris. Then he blames Apollo for his mistake.
Cyrus, OTH, comes off "great". I know the Israelites love him because he returned them to their homeland and allowed them to re-build the temple. Here again, although he's afraid of retribution, he comes off as reasonable and magnanimous. Nice of Herodotus to give him his due. Apparently some barbarians were good and wise.
I know a Persian woman who tells me that Cyrus (Khouresh) is the big man in their history books. All I know about him is in this little post but now I'm curious about what else he did.
I think a better question is why was Croesus listening to "the god of the Hellenes"? He blames his decision to go to war and his defeat on "their" god. Strange. Of course the oracle didn't say what he thought it said. Is this another case of Herodotus making a fool of a barbarian king? The entire episode is proof of his foolishness. He misinterprets the oracle out of hubris. Then he blames Apollo for his mistake.
Cyrus, OTH, comes off "great". I know the Israelites love him because he returned them to their homeland and allowed them to re-build the temple. Here again, although he's afraid of retribution, he comes off as reasonable and magnanimous. Nice of Herodotus to give him his due. Apparently some barbarians were good and wise.
I know a Persian woman who tells me that Cyrus (Khouresh) is the big man in their history books. All I know about him is in this little post but now I'm curious about what else he did.
I just finished page 50 and I was wondering if anyone else saw how the gods are used as scapegoats? Croesus advises Cyrus to have his men give l0% of their plunder to the gods and in that way they will not hate Cyrus. They will feel pious and be reminded of their duties. Actually, that's a little odd as he says that Persians are by nature rapacious and why would he think that Greek religious ideals are the same as Persian? But then, that's human nature, isn't it, to project your own ideas on others.
Anyway, the point is, he advises Cyrus to get his men to give responsiblity to the gods, just as he gives responsiblity for his mistakes to the oracle. I wonder if that is part of the purpose of the oracle? Croesus does not hate or blame himself for his mistakes, he does not blame Cyrus, he forgives both himself and Cyrus by blaming the oracle/gods. It's an interesting way of coping. It's still with us, of course. When I've made mistakes or things have not gone well I've often thought that it would be nice to be able to believe that "it was meant to be" or that it was all in G-d's hands. Usually, I feel tha† way when things go well. But when things go badly, I usually blame myself! LOL!
Anyway, the point is, he advises Cyrus to get his men to give responsiblity to the gods, just as he gives responsiblity for his mistakes to the oracle. I wonder if that is part of the purpose of the oracle? Croesus does not hate or blame himself for his mistakes, he does not blame Cyrus, he forgives both himself and Cyrus by blaming the oracle/gods. It's an interesting way of coping. It's still with us, of course. When I've made mistakes or things have not gone well I've often thought that it would be nice to be able to believe that "it was meant to be" or that it was all in G-d's hands. Usually, I feel tha† way when things go well. But when things go badly, I usually blame myself! LOL!
I missed the part about stripping the men of all plunder, I'llhave to read it again.
Thanks! I misunderstood that. Gosh, I wonder how much I'm misunderstanding? Tricky guy, Croesus. And smarter than anyone thought. I was reading in the intro that Herodotus, having lived amongst the Persians (in Halicarnasis) was more even-handed with them. Most of the Greek writings stereotyped the Persians because people on the mainland hadn't met any.
A footnote in the Landmark H. says that gold dust is still there in that river.
message 96:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 13, 2008 06:30PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Not much out there but I found this:
14 Number of pieces into which Osiris's body was cut by Set; Gematria of Zahav. Temperance or Art, it is, the physical means by which one is able to manipulate and balance the world.
INTERESTING ARTICLE ON NUMBERS:
http://threes.com/cms/index.php?optio...
I always thought there was a difference between an oracle and a god. The oracle would answer questions, give guidance, in whatever method the receiver reflected. The god, whichever it was, gave orders via being the instrument of fate - whatever happened, the god controlled it. Am I off the line here with this?
I think the gods could not change fate. When Croesus blames the oracle she explains that Apollo delayed his fate for 3 days, he tried his best, but because of Gyges Croesus' fate was sealed. I think of the oracle as sort of a "medium" for the god. She's the mouthpiece.
BTW, I went to the library and got 4 books on H., including Travel With Herodotus. Don't ask me when I'll read all of these!
BTW, I went to the library and got 4 books on H., including Travel With Herodotus. Don't ask me when I'll read all of these!
Mod
BCKnowlton posted an interesting article on oracles in the glossary; I was wondering if folks got a chance to look at it.
http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/no...
Mod
Perhaps Solon's admonition, "look to the end", best applies to those who are wont to confuse the extravagant external with an internal worth. Surely those who count themselves blessed are not completely aware of their situation. Croesus thought he was the most blessed of all, given his wealth and importance, yet he was deluded and delusional. But when Adrastus "knows within himself" that he was "the heaviest-stricken with calamity", he was smitten with perfect clarity and self-knowledge. Alas, those who think they're God's gift often have misfortune coming to them, but depressed people usually have good reason to be so. Adrastus shows us that there can be a piercingly specific, terribly non-delusional, and altogether internal clarity about one's random and yet genuine misfortune.
http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/no...
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Road (other topics)The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (other topics)
The Histories (other topics)
The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories (other topics)
Although Hobbes too felt that a true society is a population beneath a sovereign authority. However, I cannot say that I agree with his "having used the social contract method to arrive at the conclusion that we ought to submit to the authority of an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power." I doubt the Medes felt that way either; but you can see the later signs of Locke and Hobbes maybe having read Herodotus (who knows). Hobbes felt that the state of nature was a state of war. He also felt that a group establishes setting up a sovereignty out of fear.
I can see possibly that Hobbes and Locke were influenced in a way by the ancients; but I am not sure about this either. Did the Medes want to set up their sovereignty out of fear or because their life would be better with a social contract; I think it is the latter than the former. I can't say that the Medes liked anarchy either. There is a lot to contemplate here and some of you are going gangbusters. Glad to see that. I am still thinking about Croesus and watching Vandiver discuss that again.
Bentley