> but all the while it has remained a totemic language—attractive to religious schools, nationalists, and traditionalists alike for its implicit cultural but all the while it has remained a totemic language—attractive to religious schools, nationalists, and traditionalists alike for its implicit cultural authority, its tradition of exclusivity, power, and prestige.authority, its tradition of exclusivity, power, and prestige.
There is an author who has never spent a minute in any of these schools or talked with anyone in them. What ignorant trash.
Joel is a family friend. I personally don't know him very well but I remember a great demonstration of his encyclopedic knowledge of the classics at my bar mitzvah. Great to see him getting published.
What I don't understand is this binary, black/white view of the oppressed Vs oppressor, where the powerful are always wrong. Classical civilization is amazing for its achievements in a world that was filled with oppression, rape, cruelty, horror, etc. It did not invent these things. It showed a way out.
This freedom, initially for the few, has grown measurably to encompass nearly the entire globe. Never before in all of history has there been such real support for the plight of the underprivileged. Far from being in opposition to classical civilization, it is the extension of its ideas, to create a more beautiful and harmonious world. Beauty is not unity or totalitarian, but, in a classical sense, diversity in unity.
That's not the issue I'm referring to. While I agree that prejudice against white men exists, it's not really a terrible burden and doesn't really matter in my view.
But, if we believe that the philosophical ideals underlying modern society are fundamentally evil or rejectable -- that is a serious deal to me.
I reject the idea we should be born with shame for the whole of western human civilization as an evil upon the earth. We need to appreciate what we've all come from.
When we know that we come from societies that are thousands of years old, we can better prepare for a positive future, thousands of years in the future.
Taking white dudes down a notch, I have no issue with that. But I take issue with associating the classics with fascism -- and promoting the idea that reading and loving the classics is a sort of fascist act. No way. For instance, I think that if more people read Plato and understand his role in history, they would be happier -- and happier about the world they live in.
What I find a bit problematic is this emphasis we see on "classical civilization" as somehow more exceptional or 'amazing' than anything else from ancient history, when it's simply the ancient culture that we happen to know the most about. There were plenty of other cultures back then that could be just as "classical" to us, if only they were better studied.
Knowledge of the past is key. If we don't know anything, how can we appreciate it? But this isn't a racial thing about white europe. The classical nature is present in China, Egypt, India, Europe and in the new world.
HOWEVER. It isn't just an appreciation for being old and powerful. I assert that there are specific moral/ethical/philosophical ideas -- shared between some but not all cultural forms -- that are more better. Yes!
This isn't black and white, but there are better values and worse values. For instance, in China, Europe and India, the idea of harmony is expressed as diversity in unity -- and this serves as a kind of foundational value in classical civilization. Harmony was not MA'AT or perfect uniformity, as it was in Egypt. And I don't know what the new world believed, but I don't dig the human sacrifice. Does that mean I reject the civilization of Egypt and the new world? No. But I appreciate that we have certain classical ideals at the heart of our modern societies.
sorry, i don't mean to be rude, but this is absolute whiggish nonsense. even setting aside your representation of "classical ideas" and your assumption that history is driven by ideas, to posit a "march towards liberty" rooted in some teleological process beginning with "classical civilisation" (a term historians generally try to avoid using uncritically these days) is completely ahistorical, because, well, it actually prevents you from having a nuanced, complex view of history, leading to you to try to position historical events in a grand chain of progress rather than understanding them in their own right. our world is not an extension of "classical ideals". this is exactly the kind of attitude professors make sure to beat out of you in your first year if you ever study history.
18 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 53.2 ms ] threadThere is an author who has never spent a minute in any of these schools or talked with anyone in them. What ignorant trash.
I can't imagine feeling this way and being a classicist. Like, why even bother?
> Brexit
> Trump
> Boris Johnson
> Nazis
Ugh. It's like bingo at this point.
More recently, though, I owe a lot to Abercrombie and Stover. Who also write like that.
This freedom, initially for the few, has grown measurably to encompass nearly the entire globe. Never before in all of history has there been such real support for the plight of the underprivileged. Far from being in opposition to classical civilization, it is the extension of its ideas, to create a more beautiful and harmonious world. Beauty is not unity or totalitarian, but, in a classical sense, diversity in unity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
But, if we believe that the philosophical ideals underlying modern society are fundamentally evil or rejectable -- that is a serious deal to me.
I reject the idea we should be born with shame for the whole of western human civilization as an evil upon the earth. We need to appreciate what we've all come from.
When we know that we come from societies that are thousands of years old, we can better prepare for a positive future, thousands of years in the future.
Taking white dudes down a notch, I have no issue with that. But I take issue with associating the classics with fascism -- and promoting the idea that reading and loving the classics is a sort of fascist act. No way. For instance, I think that if more people read Plato and understand his role in history, they would be happier -- and happier about the world they live in.
Then you should have no problem dismissing the author and the content of his essay.
Now, it's the left that says it, to promote the idea that they are just, and no one is else, ever, even 2000 years ago.
HOWEVER. It isn't just an appreciation for being old and powerful. I assert that there are specific moral/ethical/philosophical ideas -- shared between some but not all cultural forms -- that are more better. Yes!
This isn't black and white, but there are better values and worse values. For instance, in China, Europe and India, the idea of harmony is expressed as diversity in unity -- and this serves as a kind of foundational value in classical civilization. Harmony was not MA'AT or perfect uniformity, as it was in Egypt. And I don't know what the new world believed, but I don't dig the human sacrifice. Does that mean I reject the civilization of Egypt and the new world? No. But I appreciate that we have certain classical ideals at the heart of our modern societies.