10 ms·
Like modern democracies, ancient Greek democracy had an anger problem
- baxtr 9y agoQuite interesting read. However, I would refrain from drawing general conclusions about democracy out of this. I guess, we as a species tend to have anger problem, no matter which societal form we live in.
- walshemj 9y agoerr you don't the the Melian Dialogue and other examples from the Peloponnesian War are not relevant today?
- LoSboccacc 9y agoHardly. Our culture is still valuing the same values. After some thousand years we learned to articulate socioeconomical problems and talk about pretend scenario without actually enacting them, but the hierarchy of value is more or less the same: occudental world was still deeply christian/judaic as recently as two generations ago and while we advanced fast on certain topics (family structure, for example) we’ve grown up to about gen x with the same values as expressed by those myths proposed during our upbringing by school, tv shows, cartoons etc.
- Razengan 9y ago> I guess, we as a species tend to have anger problem, no matter which societal form we live in. I'm not so sure about that. I think it has a lot to do with how we are raised and what we are taught when we come into this world, and it can be changed. Recently I read some very nice fiction called the Green Sky Trilogy [0] (that has given rise to a video game which was far ahead of its time [1]), which depicts a pacifist society where there is a taboo on "unjoyful" behavior and activities, like anger and violence, but not on inherently "joyful" activities like sexual relations. It really raised something I have always found very odd about our own world. Why does almost every cultural on Earth, even relatively secular ones, repress activities that bring pleasure and life, but promote violence and death? It's just bizarre. Consider the infamous censorship of a TV show where they showed plenty of gore but not naked corpses, so they covered their buttocks with even more blood. [2] Like we are supposed to be OK with that, but not nudity. You have people beating each other up and show weapons and guns in children's cartoons, but shy away from showing anyone kissing someone. So if we can condition ourselves to accept violence and strife – the causing of pain and death – things that are downright contrary to our existence, then we can condition ourselves to reject them as well. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_(video_game) [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=Hannibal+censorship https://www.google.com/search?q=Hannibal+censorship
- scythe 9y agoI don't find such predictions at all utopian, and I'm surprised this thread of argument has persisted in culture so long. Sex is associated with pain and suffering, and that's why taboos exist. Whether it's unwanted children, unwanted contact, diseases, or unfulfillable desires, there's plenty of downside to sexual behavior. Violence is easier to understand correctly than sex: violence is always bad unless it's necessary, while the conditions which make sex good or bad are more complicated, and thus, less comprehensible to children. Every four-year-old knows you shouldn't actually drop anvils on people. Inappropriateness is an ingredient of slapstick comedy which is (partially) why characters in children's shows do bad things to each other. Note that Pepe le Pew nonetheless appears in children's shows; his attempts at romance are also obviously wrong and thus funny. On the other hand I do notice a positive correlation between people thinking the solutions to social problems are easy and people becoming angry about politics. This makes sense because it's natural to feel aggrieved when someone fails to solve an easy problem. But in reality the solutions to social problems are not so easy.
- Razengan 9y agoI edited the post a little to clarify the point I was trying to go for: If culture and upbringing can condition us to reject and feel awkward about our most basic instincts, then culture and upbringing can make us reject violence or causing grief to each other as well. By the way, the books I mentioned weren't "utopian predictions", in fact they have a dark side to them. For example, in that world even children are encouraged to take calming narcotics when they feel upset or agitated, which stifles them in different ways. Highly recommended reading in any case.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 9y ago> Why does almost every cultural on Earth, even relatively secular ones, repress activities that bring pleasure and life, but promote violence and death? In a pre-modern society, reproduction has to be controlled sociologically because it can’t be controlled technologically. And violence is how you do everything from get your food tonprotecting yourself from people trying to take your resources.
- eighthnate 9y agoIt's absurd to compare ancient greek "democracy" to modern day democracies. Ancient greece was a slave state which didn't have any notion of human rights. Not only did ancient greece own slaves, they also had votes to kill their own citizens. The most notorious being socrates drinking the hemlock. Ancient greece wasn't a democracy. It was an oligarchy of slave owners.
- woodandsteel 9y agoNo, it was a democracy for the relatively small portion of the population that were free males, and authoritarian with respect to the rest. And that example of limited democracy was crucial to leading to our far more general one.
- eighthnate 9y agoYes. That's why I called it more of an oligarchy than a democracy. Modern notions of democracy is so different from the ancient greek conception that it doesn't make much sense to claim they are both democracies.
- valuearb 9y agoIt was an example of the tyrant of pure democracy. Democracy can only work if it’s limited by strong individual rights. Your examples are good, but my favorite example was the battle of Arginusae, a massive Athenian victory which directly led to the fall of Athens. In the Peloponnesian War, Spartas army was supreme, but they could never defeat Athens navy. Finally they crushed it at Methymna, and blockaded the remainder, positionihg the Spartan navy to block trade with Athens and starve them. Athens was forced to build a new fleet manned by inexperienced sailors, and appointed 8 strategoi to lead it against the now vastly superior Spartan navy. Using innovative tactics they won a great victory at Arginusae. But immediately after, the Athenian commanders were unable to rescue survivors from their disabled/sink ships due to a sudden storm. The citizens of Athens, joyous at the amazing victory, now turned sour. The assembly voted to execute the generals. After they were executed, the war turned against Athens and many realized the mistake they made killing their best generals, so they brought similar charges against the instigators of the charges against the generals. Pure democracy is a mob at work.
- irrational 9y agoWe're just a step away from primates flinging feces at each other.
- abpavel 9y agoSometimes, it seems, even a step behind.
- zo1 9y agoWe're already there. E.g. Antifa throwing feces-filled concoctions at police: http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/06/23/portland-police-chief-says-antifa-protesters-used-slingshot-to-launch-urine-and-feces-filled-balloons-at-riot-cops/ http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/06/23/portland-police-ch...
- adrianratnapala 9y agoI never thought I would say this: but is this thing available as video or audio? It seems to be the transcript of a lecture, and I would like to listen to it as I clean my house. I found this thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZbQuqAQCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZbQuqAQCI, but that is an interview in the wake of the lecture, not the lecture itself.
- ouid 9y agotext to speech!! ^^
- def- 9y agohttps://www.neh.gov/content/2017-lecture-video https://www.neh.gov/content/2017-lecture-video
- adrianratnapala 9y agoThanks. And I gotta love America, where professorial lectures are accomapnied by the national anthem and a military flag ceremony!
- tr1ck5t3r 9y agoWhy? You are born into a system when you get to vote every few years but quite often change is only effected with violence of sorts. How is that a democracy? What laws have you agreed too, what laws have you changed and why? At least business contracts are more democratic as is capitalism because you can effect you vote by giving your business if in a position to make a choice not dictated by a lack of funds along with enough knowledge to make an informed decision. Considering fake news how can people even make an informed decision with what little time they have when not working to sustain the system which many can very as repressive some or all of the time?
- truxus 9y agoWell you don't become the largest democracy in the world by baking pies...
- QAPereo 9y agoTo be fair, it was passion in general they thought was base and animalistic, not just anger.
- pnathan 9y agoFascinating.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gt_ 9y agoHmmm... the Greek tragedy 'The Bacchae' addresses the fate of a society which suppresses "anger" as she suggests. Suspiciously, it was not mentioned in Nussbaum's presentation. In the play, Thebes suppresses the less civil realities of earthly life until they punch back. Dionysus and the Furies unleash madness on Thebes as a result. In this presentation, the furies are being distilled into little more than representations of anger which is quite simplistic and raises many contextual issues. In short, they are better contextually understood as representing earthly Dionysian vengeance, maybe we can say 'ugly truth' although I am uncomfortable with the tone this description has. The furies are 'chthonic' or 'of the earth.' They are associated with death and the more primordial makings of life itself. Interpretations of Greek mythology abound and on the surface, this seems like one of the less thoughtful ones I have come across. I am noting it, however, and am curious how she defends these angles throughout her works. Please share if anyone has an explanation. I am less than anxious to buy her books.
- visvavasu 9y agoThank you, that was a shallow article.
- KGIII 9y agoIf you google her name and add PDF to the search terms, you come up with stuff like this: https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the-fragility-of-goodness-luck-and-ethics-in-greek-tragedy-and-philosophy.pdf https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/t... I have no idea if that book is meant to be free or not. I also haven't read it. Like you, I was a bit curious about her writings and how she supported her views. So, I hit up Google and that's an example of one of the results. There are quite a few hits, often at .edu domains. Alas, it will be a little bit before I have time to read it.
- whipoodle 9y agoDo we have an anger problem? Or are we right to be angry at our shitty, do-nothing "leaders" who fail to actually make things better or pay attention to actual problems? If the idea is that anger often doesn't actually resolve things in a helpful manner, then sure, it doesn't. But let's be careful to separate proximate cause from ultimate. Also, the underlying assumption that anyone who is angry is always the one with the problem is troubling to me. I see it often, it's not good.
- briantakita 9y agoOne of the reasons why the American Founders implemented a Republic. James Madison writes his analysis in Federalist Paper #10. "The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations: In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice. In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters." http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
- akvadrako 9y agoInteresting and so naive. It's almost like the whole thing was an experiment designed by politicians.
- drawkbox 9y agoAnger can be a driving force, a possible dangerous one but one that definitely creates motivation. I think that mostly, progression/invention to make things better came out of real needs that were frustrating. Frustration creates movement, movement creates change, revenge is a means of propulsion. Only a democracy can diffuse this built up revenge that allows action, so in that essence anger is healthy in a democracy. In the end it can be frustrating on a team when the whole of it moves in the wrong direction, people want enough power to make sure things go right, if that is challenged, frustration/anger set in. If you can manage productive things out of frustration/anger, you will win at this game. David Simon stated that he is driven by a revenge type of motivation. In a talk that Simon gave to a live audience in April, 2007 at the Creative Alliance's storytelling series, Simon disclosed that he had started writing for revenge against John Carroll and Bill Marimow, the two most senior editors at The Baltimore Sun when Simon was a reporter at the paper. Simon said he had watched Carroll and Marimow "single-handedly destroy" the newspaper and that he spent over ten years trying to get back at them. Anything I've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been accomplished because I was going to show people that they were fucked up, wrong, and that I was the fucking center of the universe and the sooner they got hip to that, the happier they would all be. The ego has its reasons for being part of our evolution, it is a driving force that make you believe you can be better. That is probably closely related to anger, frustration, revenge and the most important part, productively using that fuel to burn your fire of propulsion to success. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Writing_process.2C_characteristics.2C_and_motivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Writing_process.2C...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- saaaa 9y agoSDSGSn/invention to make thin
- power 9y agoIt's worthwhile to remember that Athenian democracy was direct and not representative like nowadays. Individuals voted on bills rather than electing officials to vote in their place. Plato claimed this form of government led to bills passed by popularity contest and tyranny of the majority which sounds pretty modern to me. Still, I'd prefer democracy with all its problems to the Republic he proposed.
- amai 9y agoUnlike modern democracies, the ancient democracy was a real democracy, because they understood politics much better than us: "It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election. (Aristotle)" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- woodruffw 9y agoThat quote is easy to misinterpret because of our modern (rightful!) bias towards democracy. Along with tyranny, Aristotle considered democracy and oligarchy the three bad forms of government. He wrote his Politics with both the Athenian tyrants and Socrates' death (at the hand of the democracy) in mind.
- will_brown 9y agoTypical you are downvoted for accuracy because it doesn't conform to populist belief. What most people don't know is Aristotle's teacher, Socrates, was a military leader/hero and firmly believed the best form of government would be an authoritarian council of philosophers. Similarly contrary to popular belief Niccolò Machiavelli - despite what people know about his work most famous work The Prince - firmly believed democracy was the best form of government. Obviously these truths run counterintuitive to what people think.
- wdr1 9y agoAristotle was taught by Plato, not Socrates. Socrates died when Aristotle was still relatively young. It was Plato who believed the ideal ruler would be a philosopher-king, but he also explicitly stated it was not a realistic option because the same philosopher-king could also be a tyrant.
- louithethrid 9y agoI actually found there voting mechanisms interesting. Especially when they would draw by luck the ruling members from the ballot.
- amai 9y agoThis is a straw man article. We don't have an anger problem, neither had the ancient greek one. We have a problem with the distribution of wealth and this is where the anger comes from. Start taxing the rich a bit more, stop wasting the tax payers money on wars that cannot be won and the anger will go away. Anger always has a cause. Listen and find the cause for the anger. Then fix the cause, but don't point the finger at anger.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 9y agoOh, but we do have an anger problem these days. People are not angry because they carefully examined their situation and decided it's caused by deep wealth inequality. People are angry because a) things are bad, b) media feeds them outrage-inducing bullshit, and c) they don't even verify any of that, but get angry. That is, people's anger is often completely disconnected from reality.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoI think your (a) is due to wealth inequality. Even if people don’t know those two words, it’s not hard to see that $10 to $20 per hour jobs will get you nowhere. I think people do see the increasingly winner take all nature of business, that moving up to th next class is impossible if you aren’t able to achieve select professional routes. And worst of all, it’s so obvious that their children will be so far behind in terms of networking, signaling, and resources that their chances are also diminished.
- PeterisP 9y agoWe would have a wealth inequality problem if "things are bad, caused by wealth inequality" resulted in people fighting to make things better by fighting for things that would reduce wealth inequality. This is not what we're seeing. We do have an anger problem because "things are bad, possibly caused by wealth inequality" has resulted in people fighting to make things better by angrily striking at random directions, a lot of those actually increasing future wealth inequality - so if we want to solve the actual causes (for example, wealth inequality) we'd have to tackle the anger problem first.