The Gordian Knot
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Numenorean
To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla
Alexander // 9:19 PM
______________________
|
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Scrap metal sells for $23.8 million.
Beauty is Truth, and Truth Beauty.
We have rejected both, and necessarily so, because the two are inseparable. When the Greeks first began to see the beauty in the world, they were making a powerful statement. They appreciated and loved the human form, poetic meter, musical scales, mathematics, etc.
They found an order in the universe, a reasonable understructure, that gave men hope. As Edith Hamilton correctly pointed out, we have only to look at the mythology the Greeks produced to understand just how radical their way of thinking was.
Man, they discovered, is the measure of all things, in that he is a representation of this great universe that was created for him and his sake. He is ordered, rational, beautiful, an object of love. The Greeks perceived beauty and found a way to God (an incomplete one, naturally, which was made whole by Revelation; the Greeks moved way from a terrible world where hideous and malevolent gods demanded human sacrifice for fair weather and good crops; Christ gave us a world wherea Loving God was willing to be sacrificed for our sake).
"To the people who told these stories all the universe was alive with the same kind of life they knew in themselves. They were individual persons, so they personified everything which had the obvious marks of life, everything which moved and changed...[W]hen they told of the coming of love and light the early storytellers were setting the scene for the appearance of mankind..."
We have begun to love the world's ugliness. Is that progress?
Alexander // 8:34 PM
______________________
|
I can't help but look at world and feel depressed most of the time. What a cruel fate has been apportioned us, we who live in such a banal and corrupt age.
And yet, what a glorious fate has been apportioned us, we who live in such a banal and corrupt age. A world in turmoil, a world that is spiritually and culturally and intellectually bankrupt, is a world that cries out for great deeds and great men. When has the world been better positioned to embrace noble character? Perhaps we can understand the stunning life and career of Pope John Paul II in this way, as a refreshing splash of water on a parched and dying bit of earth.
In his youth, Alexander worried and complained when his father proved victorious. "What opportunities for great and noble deeds will be left to me and my friends, if my father keeps this up?" For better and worse, we of the twenty first century have many such opportunities.
Who among us can rise to the challenge? I wonder.
Alexander // 7:56 PM
______________________
|
Friday, November 04, 2005
Read this, and understand the chaos in Paris a little better.
Alexander // 1:29 PM
______________________
|
One often hears the words "leader" or "leadership" tossed around when people are talking about politicians.
When is the last time a politician actually led another human being?
But let's back up. What is leadership? Is it trading political favors to pass a new law? Is it ordering one's bureaucratic underlings to implement a new regulation?
No.
Leadership has always been about results, that's true. However, what makes leadership so special is the emphasis on character. A leader doesn't just want people to accept certain principles or act in a certain way. He wants them to be a great and noble as they possibly can, and then come to see the world as he does.
Do I want others to accept Christianity? Of course. Do I want to trick or manipulate them into doing so? No. Do I want slavish nincompoops, who have never had an original thought in their lives, to accept Christianity? No. I value God too much to make his worship the subject of propaganda.
Many men and women have led me. Authors, musicians, and the good people I am privileged to count among my family and friends. But a politician? I'm afraid not.
And that's precisely the problem. Our "leaders" are, in fact, our rulers. Is it a coincidence that public discourse is so thin and empty? Is it a coincidence that more and more people are willing to turn over more of their lives to government direction?
We need real leaders, men who seek to cultivate the human spirit and embrace the delightful chaos of decentralized action rather than subject the human person to centralized rule and order; men who can appreciate the beauty of the Shire before rules were posted on every door "for the common good."
And we need them now.
Alexander // 1:14 PM
______________________
|
Thursday, November 03, 2005
President Bush's recent bungling of a Supreme Court pick (which has since been corrected) prompted some to question Bush's commitment to conservatism. I think that was the wrong question to act, since the appointment of new justices to the Supreme Court is a question of law and not politics; we seriously undermine the independence and competence of the judicial branch if we decide on candidates based on the policy outcomes of their opinions, and not the opinions themselves.
Of course, it would be wise to not only pick intellectually honest and talented judges, but intellectually honest and talented judges that just so happen to agree with one's idea of proper jurisprudence. But I digress...
The episode was another episode that has prompted me to judge my own commitment to conservative. The short answer? I no longer think I have one. I remain a man of the Right. I remain a man deeply immersed in tradition. I remain, above all, a committed Christian.
But a conservative? It recently hit me: I am prepared to fight and die for a world I have never seen or felt. I seek to conserve nothing. Rather, I seek to overturn the established social order, which has only served to grind down the human soul and make it an unispired and libidinous cog in the mechanisms of the state.
I have never been led by a politician. More broadly, I have never been led by a man of the twentieth (or twenty-first) century. I dwell in the agoras of ancient Greece. I walk in the fields of Narnia. I will take Middle Earth over the Earth I have inherited, Sauron and all.
Some hardnosed "realists" may scoff. I live in a dream, they will argue. What of it? Alexander himself slept with the Illiad under his pillow. Herakles and Achilles were as real to him as his own parents. Yet, for all his "dreams," he was surprisingly good at understanding the world around him and conquering it at every turn, whether he dealt with the hearts of his men or the enemies on the battlefield.
When did realism become uninspired? When did those who drew strength from literature and music first become dismissed as unscientific fools who fail to appreciate reality?
For centuries now, the world has scoffed at those things that I hold dearest. What am I to conserve? I come with flame, to melt the cold iron fetters that have imprisoned the human imagination for so long.
Alexander // 7:28 PM
______________________
|
Friday, October 28, 2005
Eve Tushnet provides a quote about Alexander the Great.
Wow, that is thoroughly off the mark. Quite a few points desperately need to be made; as she's well aware, I can't just sit idly by while a great man is slandered.
"[E]nnoble savagery in the name of glory"? Hardly. One of Alexander's orders was to not plunder the lands of the conquered. Conquered people were also treated very well, and even raised to important positions in the Empire. Some simply chalk this up to self-interest (he's quoted as saying that the Macedonians should not despoil what belongs to them), but such a read must be tempered in light of the rest of his life.
Let's first look at the decades before Alexander. Cyrus the Great created an empire that stretched to Asia Minor. According to Herodotus, this was the first time Greeks had ever been enslaved. Athens intervened to help her fellow Ionians, and that provoked the wrath of Persia and two Persian Wars. The result of Persia's aggression? Among other things, the entire Athenian Acropolis (temples and all) was razed to the ground, and all the people who were taking refuge there against the advice of Themistocles were butchered.
And what if Persia had won? Say goodbye to Western civilization, particularly the freedom of speech that allows scholars to make such ridiculous comments.
So let's first understand that the war against Persia had a strong religious motivation, as it was to avenge the plundering and razing of many temples (modern secularists should try to understand just how important this motivation was). It was also built on a theory of liberty. Alexander was freeing his fellow Greeks, which is why he dealt so harshly with Greek mercenaries that were fighting for the Persians. The campaign also had important cultural elements; everywhere he went Alexander planted the seeds of a culture that, uniquely in the ancient world, respected the individual and encouraged both independent thought and artistic achievement.
Keegan asserts that Alexander "created little or nothing" and laments that he tore down the Persian Empire. First, let's not forget that Cyrus built his empire, and his heirs maintained it, through some severe acts of brutality which Alexander never even came close to equaling (prisoners routinely had their noses, ears, and hands chopped off; before one battle with Alexander, Darius raided the Greek camp and then maimed and butchered all the wounded soldiers he found). Second, the historian N.G.L. Hammond, author of The Genius of Alexander, makes Alexander's contribution to the East very clear. He spread Hellenic urbanization; later Chinese invaders in what was the eastern portion of Alexander's Empire remarked that the landscape was dotted by an astounding number of well-ordered and well-fortified cities. He established the trade routes that were subsequently the foundation of Roman/Byzantine wealth, and of the improvement of the lives of countless people. He established centers of learning that helped spread Hellenic culture to people that desperately needed art and philosophy in their lives. Alexandria in Egypt is only the most well-known example. There were dozens of Alexandrias all over the Empire that brought literature, philosophy, drama, and the ideals of liberty to people who had been under the thumb of culturally bankrupt and petty tyrants for centuries.
In fact, the great tragedy surrounding Alexander is that he did not live long enough to adequately Hellenize his new subjects and create the Greco-Persian ruling class he longed for. He selected thousands of young Persians to enroll in schools that spread the Greek language and education (along with military techniques). However the roots of this new culture were never properly laid, because that would have taken at least a generation or two. It would have been quite a struggle, though well worth the effort, to topple the Persian system of a corrupt and lavish Great King who ruled over an ignorant and servile populace. Alexander's trade policies, as well as his establishment of new cities, were precisely the right steps to take. Can you imagine how different history would have been if he had succeeded? The East had to wait for the brief flowering of Hellenic learning in the time of Averoes and Avicenna to even have a taste of the civilization Alexander was creating.
Alexander consistently appointed locals to administer his Empire. He married Persian women. Was this savagery? He was the first king to ever hand administration over to his subjects. He loved the best men, regardless of their race. If later conquerors had the noble spirit of Alexander, many unnecessary deaths would have been avoided.
He maintained discipline and morale by never asking his men to shoulder burdens that he did not take up. He was always in the front lines, and always starved when his men went hungry. He was very generous with his money. Persian kings had amassed enormous stockpiles of gold, which Alexander paid out lavishly to his soldiers. They in turn fed local economies from Greece to India, improving the lives of untold numbers of people. You know, Alexander had plans to conquer the western Mediterranean, and had an eye out for both Carthage and Rome. Alexander would have ended Carthaginian brutality, though in a much less savage, and much more effective, way than Rome did. Alexander was also never guilty of the despicable brutality that characterized Rome (like the practice of decimation, for starters).
It's true, Alexander was at times brutal, under certain specific situations. I'll deal with them in chronological order (this is from memory, so apologies if it's a little inaccurate).
1. He razed Thebes to the ground. Had he not done so, the city-states would have revolted as soon as Alexander left for Asia. Keep in mind that Alexander did not touch Athens, even though Demosthenes did more to provoke him than most men.
2. He dealt very harshly with Greek mercenaries that fought for Persia. Not only were they traitors to their independence by fighting against their fellow free Greeks, they were defending an empire that had insulted the gods. There are powerful and legitimate reasons for Alexander's anger.
3. He burned the Persian palace at (I think) Persepolis. This was clearly revenge for the razing of the Athenian acropolis. And it was a carefully planned act. Most of the artifacts in the palace were removed before the fire, which was meant to be symbolic, and was not just a wanton act of cruelty and destruction.
4. He dealt very harshly with peoples that did not fight honorably. Many tribes in the eastern Persian Empire employed guerrilla tactics against Alexander's men. Alexander was unwilling to let brave men die in cowardly raids, so he dealt with these tribes very severely. It's important to realize that such brutality was probably the only way to actually put an end to the guerrilla warfare. And, Alexander always treated the enemies that faced him in open battle with grace and honor. He wished to reappoint the Persian King Darius as ruler of the Persians (under Alexander's larger Empire), and did reappoint the Indian King Porus to an important position of administration, even increasing the old king's lands.
5. He dealt very harshly with the Indian tribes that continued to fight him. The situation was analogous to the guerrilla fighters he faced earlier during his conquests. Avoiding the cruel necessity of harsh conduct would have resulted in perpetual war and rebellion. This isn't to say that the ends justify the means. Alexander lived at a time when land was won by the sword and spear. Further, he desired subjects so that he could spread civilization and trade, not to exploit. Also, some of the most egregious episodes of cruelty in India were actually not directed by Alexander. The army flipped out on a few occasions because Alexander had been wounded and thought dead, which threw the army into a murderous rage (the siege of Mallia is a prime example).
6. He dealt very harshly with those who maladministered his Empire. Governors that stole money from the people or abused their power were invariably tried and, if guilty, executed (yes, Alexander respected the then-established procedures of criminal justice). He desired peace, prosperity, and justice for his subjects, and took action when would be tyrants exploited their position.
This has already turned into an inexcusably long post. Bottom line: Alexander had his faults, but gave much more than he took. It's really too bad he didn't live to see his plans through to the end, and that he didn't do a better job of leaving an undisputed heir behind.
Finally, The Genius of Alexander and The Nature of Alexander are both well worth the read. These books address both Alexander's triumphs and shortcomings (some of which were probably distortions drafted by partisans) and make a compelling case that he truly was a great man worthy of our admiration.
Alexander // 1:24 PM
______________________
|
Thursday, October 27, 2005
When we look back at the Persian War--or, more accurately, wars--we (those of us who are glad that the Greeks, ie the Defenders of Truth and Civilization, won the fight) are glad that a man like Themistocles was on the scene. Had he not been wise enough to realize that the "wooden wall" meant an Athenian navy, all would have been lost. Salamis would be just another island...
The Persian War was not the first major clash between East and West. Herodotus looks back to the famous Trojan War as being the first major clash, though he believed it went back further than that (Paris's abduction of Helen was just one in a series of such rapes).
However, the Trojan War was the first time when the difference between East and West was starkly on display. The stakes were never clearer: a Greek victory meant that a strange group of people would live another day, and give the world priceless gifts. Philosophy, politics, literature, history...I could go on. These poor farmers and soldiers defined humanity. It's no coincidence that all subsequent cultural and intellectual flowerings worth a damn (whether in Rome, Vienna, or Persia) appealed to the Greeks.
Subsequent leaders understood the stakes. Alexander the Great, for instance, was a pupil of Aristotle's (though the world is fortunate that he did not share Aristotle's contempt for "barbarians"). He carved out an empire stretching from Greece to India. He opened up channels of trade and established centers of learning that benefited the people of his empire for centuries and would, for instance, become the backbone of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.
(Those who wish to read some excellent books on Alexander should read this and this, though that's material for another post altogether.)
So here we are, living out yet another chapter in the war between East and West. Unfortunately, the men of East are but shadows of their predecessors. Cyrus the Great carved out a great empire, and was much admired by Greeks like Xenophon (who even wrote a book about Cyrus). Even after the Muslim conquest, the East produced thinkers of the caliber of Averoes.
Today's East is a vicious place that raises poor and ignorant children into suicide bombers that viciously and callously take the lives of innocent women and children. Thought is a crime. Women are reduced to the level or property "for their own good."
But what of the West? The man who is "leading" this war, President George Bush, is an intelligent but proudly uneducated and uncultivated man (as mentioned, Alexander studied under Aristotle and had a lifelong appreciation for literature, philosophy, the natural sciences, and learning generally; Pericles is said to have engaged in debates about poetry on the eve of battle). When Western soldiers celebrate victories today, they humiliate their enemies rather than attempt to treat them with honor and, perhaps, pity (contrast this with Alexander's men, who held athletic and literary contests to celebrate their victories).
Perhaps this post has gone on long enough. I close with a few questions:
What happened to civlization? And why are contemptible men at the helm of such an important struggle, when they know neither what they're fighting for or how to fight for it?
Alexander // 6:42 PM
______________________
|
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
I've been reading a lot of history lately; specifically, a lot of biographies of Alexander the Great (figures, eh?). I tend to pepper my conversation with anecdotes of this or that fascinating historical figure. Many people find that tiresome.
Why? A knowledge of and appreciation for history is probably the single most important scholarly impulse that a person can have. History allows one to step out of his narrow and ignorant age and experience the great civilizations of the past. Nothing forces a man to stand at attention like stories of the great men of the past, particularly when he has the misfortune of living during a thoroughly uninspiring (and even depressing) time such as hours.
We are not civilized. We produce no heroes. It's good for us to remember a time that was better than our own. It gives us a proper perspective on our own strengths, and makes us acutely aware of our own weaknesses.
Alexander // 12:31 PM
______________________
|
