4 ms·
In Athens, an "idiotes" was a citizen who focused only on private matters rather than participating in the polis (city-state). Because civic participation was c
by ihaveajob 8mo ago
In Athens, an "idiotes" was a citizen who focused only on private matters rather than participating in the polis (city-state). Because civic participation was considered a duty, this term carried a negative connotation of being socially irresponsible or uninvolved.
This term evolved into the modern "idiot" which we are familiar with.
- MichaelZuo 8mo agoWell wasnt that a good thing? After the extermination of Melos they could credibly say they were less responsible for the actions of the polis. And had a higher chance of deflecting the inevitable revenge on to the non idiotes Athenians.
- landryraccoon 8mo agoIf one civilization is taking revenge on another I don’t think they would show that much nuance. For one thing, wouldn’t everyone claim they were against their old polis? How would the invaders have any idea who was an idiote? I just don’t believe it’s at all easy to avoid the fate of your nation , and I especially doubt that the politically ignorant have a better chance of avoiding that fate than the well informed.
- MichaelZuo 8mo agoI did say higher chance, not guaranteed to avoid it. The counter extermination was only 5% of Athens total population, or so historians say, so it seems like a lot of nuance was shown.
- landryraccoon 8mo ago> The counter extermination was only 5% of Athens total population, or so historians say, so it seems like a lot of nuance was shown. That fact alone doesn't demonstrate nuance. It's possible that 5% of the population was innocent and treated as scapegoats, or chosen randomly, or that anyone high profile regardless of guilt was chosen to die. Unless there's data on who was actually innocent or guilty, the mere fact that extermination was selective doesn't mean it was in any way accurate.
- MichaelZuo 8mo agoAnd your point…? Of course nobody can prove either way beyond a reasonable doubt for something that happened so long ago.
- janderson215 8mo agoFunny seeing people pushing for other people becoming more active in politics with the assumption that “being more involved” means with their political fights, then get worried when the other side grows or intensifies.
- esafak 8mo agoAnd as a fellow Greek man said, "Just because you do not take an interest in politics, it does not mean politics won't take an interest in you".
- IncreasePosts 8mo agoYou could equally say "just because you take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics will take an interest in you".
- overfeed 8mo agoWhat does this even mean?
- IncreasePosts 8mo agoIt means just because you now have an interest in politics, it doesn't mean you will be able to convince anyone of your points of view, or have any impact in whatever level of politics you're joining.
- danielheath 8mo agoNeither does baking a cake mean you'll get to eat any - but it's clearly a better cake-obtaining strategy than deciding not to bake a cake.
- ileonichwiesz 8mo agoThe thing is that taking an interest in baking a cake doesn’t actually feed anyone. If you’re not going to spend your time baking (i.e. actually get involved in politics, to drop the metaphor), then what’s the point?
- overfeed 8mo ago"taking an interest" =/= winning. My interpretation of the statement is that you can't ignore forces that affect you, even if they bore you. However loudly or frequently you declare or think "I don't care for gravity" matters not as it exists outside of your awareness or acknowledgement of it.