Nothing Ever Changes

by rrusczyk, Sep 24, 2010, 3:31 AM

Here's a long paragraph from Thucydides, excerpted from this excerpt of his work. Ostensibly writing about a civil war, I think a lot of it could be used to describe the state of politics in the US today (or, perhaps, any other day), or about nearly any war:
Thucydides wrote:
So bloody was the march of the revolution, and the impression which it made was the greater as it was one of the first to occur. Later on, one may say, the whole Hellenic world was convulsed; struggles being every, where made by the popular chiefs to bring in the Athenians, and by the oligarchs to introduce the Lacedaemonians. In peace there would have been neither the pretext nor the wish to make such an invitation; but in war, with an alliance always at the command of either faction for the hurt of their adversaries and their own corresponding advantage, opportunities for bringing in the foreigner were never wanting to the revolutionary parties. The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same; though in a severer or milder form, and varying in their symptoms, according to the variety of the particular cases. In peace and prosperity, states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men’s characters to a level with their fortunes. Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places which it arrived at last, from having heard what had been done before, carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions, as manifested in the cunning of their enterprises and the atrocity of their reprisals. Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

Seeing that so little has changed in so long makes me wonder why people get so invested in the idea that their team winning the upcoming election will really make the world a different or better place (as opposed, of course, to their going out and doing something real themselves to make the world a little better place).
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by rrusczyk, Sep 24, 2010, 3:32 AM

Comment

7 Comments

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Sigh. History repeats itself, they say. People think they are far removed from their ancestors, and keeping that haughty attitude, they commit exactly the same mistakes.

by QuantumTiger, Sep 24, 2010, 5:28 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Lol, that's one of my own quotes I'm proud of, "History is remembered so that it is again repeated."

by phiReKaLk6781, Sep 25, 2010, 6:12 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Quote:
(as opposed, of course, to their going out and doing something real themselves to make the world a little better place)

For the younger readers who might (I hope) be inspired by this suggestion, I was going to add, "Just don't get yourself into crazy debt on the way to preparing yourself to do some good in the world." But I see that was the subject of your last post.

Blue Morpho

by Blue Morpho, Sep 25, 2010, 6:12 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
What brings you to read Thucydides? He is amazing, but can be mind-blowingly hard in Greek. :P

by Osud, Sep 27, 2010, 5:37 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
I probably stumbled on this from another blog I read. Certainly wasn't brushing up on my Greek!

Blue Morpho -- I just don't know where I stand on this question. I think a lot of it depends on where the student is headed. Unfortunately, most students really don't know.

by rrusczyk, Sep 27, 2010, 5:16 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

by djcordeiro, Sep 28, 2010, 1:57 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Richard --

On college debt: If a student knows where he or she is headed, taking on high debt with a reasonable plan to repay it may not be crazy at all. But I've seen people end up in lawsuits over debt (because practicing medicine in rural Alabama instead of pursuing specialty training didn't look so attractive after seven years of med school and residency) or cynical (because they found that working on the "other" side of environmental law is the only way you can really make enough money to pay for your school loans and your house and your car . . . ) or whatnot.

If your vision of doing good doesn't happen to pay well, don't borrow heavily to get there. If you don't want to spend four years in the military after school, don't accept a military scholarship.

On the other hand if you are willing to work hard for a while doing what someone else wants/needs you to do in order to pay for schooling -- then go for it, especially if doing so allows you to attend a better college or to focus on studies rather than a low-paying student job. The work experience could easily be as educational as formal schooling if you approach the work with your eyes open and without resentment.

I graduated from an Ivy League college in the 1982 recession with no debt, thanks to generous parents, scholarships, and comparatively low college costs. I was able to work and travel a couple of years on close to a break-even budget, then attend graduate school in the humanities essentially free, and finally to attend a state medical school while only taking on easily-manageable debt. Obviously I didn't have much sense of where I was headed when I started college, or even when I graduated. Perhaps having manageable debts to pay when I graduated would have been a good thing, even. But the post-college years in ones twenties are often life-shaping -- especially for people who didn't know where they were headed when they were 18. I think on the whole it's better to be able to enter those years with the flexibility to do what you want, however well or poorly it pays, rather than what you're obligated to do. Second best is to appreciate the benefits one has accrued by taking on debt in the first place -- and not to resent the world when it comes time to pay up.

by Blue Morpho, Sep 30, 2010, 3:39 PM

Come Search With Me

avatar

rrusczyk
Archives
+ December 2011
+ September 2011
+ August 2011
+ March 2011
+ June 2006
AMC
Tags
About Owner
  • Posts: 16194
  • Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Blog Stats
  • Blog created: Jan 28, 2005
  • Total entries: 940
  • Total visits: 3312863
  • Total comments: 3882
Search Blog
a