Asymmetrical Information

I did not find Ms. Hirshman's essay to be especially compelling, but it's interesting that she references Aristotle's view of the value of moderation, when I think she should have considered his repeated defense of the virtue of prudence.

I don't what kind of fancy philosopher circles she's running in though, we she says:

"The conventional wisdom of course is that Aristotle was a defender of slavery and women's inferiority and thus disabled from providing wisdom in these emancipated times,..."

You'd have pretty serious prudence deficit if you ruled out reading Aristotle on this basis.

Probably Aristotle's most famous aphorism on war is that:

"We make war that we may live in peace."

As is usually the case with a sound bite, however, I think George Bush could make a case that this is why the US invaded Iraq and Al Gore could make a case that this is why we should not have invaded Iraq.

A more detailed take on Aristotle's views on war is available in his book Politics.

Here are the relevant excerpts:

http://www.history.pomona.edu/kbw/violenceID1/Aristotle-war.htm

Aristotle's theory of ethics involves acting in harmony with a "Golden Mean" to achieve virtue (as described in his "Nicomachean Ethics"). The idea is that, for every action, there exist two vicious extremes and one virtuous mean between them. Eating temperately, for example, would be the mean between gluttony and anorexia.

Closer to this case would be bravery, which is bounded by cowardice and foolhardiness. Aristotle would have applauded the soldier who charges into battle when necessary to defend the polis, but he wouldn't have anything good to say about the man who needlessly involves himself in conflict or the man who enters battle without clearly knowing his goal and how best to achieve it.

I think that's what Hirshman is getting at: Bush has shown himself to be not only foolhardy, but arrogant (rather than properly humble) and a wishful thinker (rather than a practical idealist).

Weirdly, I also learned my Aristotle at Pomona, like the commenter above who just beat me...

... Not to mention that Aristotle's virtue ethics embodied many different aspects, any of which could be applied or said to be missing.

Andrew P. wrote: "I think that's what Hirshman is getting at: Bush has shown himself to be not only foolhardy, but arrogant (rather than properly humble) and a wishful thinker (rather than a practical idealist)."

I suspect that Aristotle would have agreed with Andrew's sentiments. He knew well how Athenian excesses had brought ruin in the Peloponnesian War and would have recognized some of the same arrogance, the same disdain for moderation in the current administration.

It is rather comical, though, to see peacenik liberals citing Aristotle as one of their inspirations. That great philosopher had disdain for the sort of egalitarianism that Democrats have embraced. Any sensible reader of his Politics or Ethics will know that his thinking was fundamentally aristocratic--indeed, it is hard to think of anyone in the history of philosophy, save perhaps Nietzsche, who would have despised modern democratic socialism more.

Ms. Hirschman wrote: "Lacking courage, Shorris continues, a person is unlikely to be able to demonstrate the other classical virtues, temperance, prudence, and justice, 'none of which can be found in either the Bush Administration or the majority of the Congress.'"

Hirschman ought to read her Aristotle more carefully. While it's true that he warned that the rash will consider the truly courageous over-cautious, he added that the cowardly will call the courageous rash. If the Bush, Cheney, etc... have been rash or reckless, those, like John Edwards, who wish to retreat whenever there is any bloodshed, perfectly fit Aristotle's definition of cowardice.

Oddly, the woman also cites Christopher Hitchens to make her case. But I don't know of anyone who supported the war in Iraq more forcefully (or persuasively) than Hitchens. Clearly Ms. Hirschman understands Hitchens about as well as she understands Aristotle.

There is no C in Hirshman.
Citing Hitchens hardly means I embrace everything he says. If you read the darn thing, you see I am using Hitchens for the point that the virtue ethics tradition is an alternative to revelation; Hitchens is talking about Socrates, not Aristotle, and not about war or anything else. Jeez.

But as to the rest, Jane opens sort of the kind of discussion I was hoping to generate. Both Plato and Aristotle can be read and are increasingly being read as resisting the Homeric war culture, Jane, contrary to the common belief that "it's all Greek," period, and the analysis is helpful in understanding where we went so terribly wrong. So there is good and interesting writing reclaiming them from the likes of Harvey Mansfield.If you are interested, Google and take a look at Stephen Salkever's work.

There is no C in Hirshman.
Citing Hitchens hardly means I embrace everything he says. If you read the darn thing, you see I am using Hitchens for the point that the virtue ethics tradition is an alternative to revelation; Hitchens is talking about Socrates, not Aristotle, and not about war or anything else. Jeez.

But as to the rest, Jane opens sort of the kind of discussion I was hoping to generate. Both Plato and Aristotle can be read and are increasingly being read as resisting the Homeric war culture, Jane, contrary to the common belief that "it's all Greek," period, and the analysis is helpful in understanding where we went so terribly wrong. So there is good and interesting writing reclaiming them from the likes of Harvey Mansfield.If you are interested, Google and take a look at Stephen Salkever's work.

The Use and Abuse of Aristotle

I give Ms. Hirshman credit for her willingness to engage critics, if not for her interpretations of Aristotle and Plato. She writes, "both Plato and Aristotle can be read and are increasingly being read as resisting the Homeric war culture..." That strikes me as very strange.

While Plato and Aristotle certainly believed the philosopher's way of life is superior to that of the Homeric warrior, that is far from a repudiation of Homer or of "war culture". Indeed, in Plato's dialogues Socrates frequently speaks of Odysseus and Achilles as great men (see the Shorter Hippias for example) and both Aristotle and Plato had great praise for the Spartan constitution--both prefered it to liberal Athens (though of course they recognized serious defects in both).

I haven't spent much time reading Harvey Mansfield, but I have spent a great deal of time reading Plato and Aristotle and, therefore, want to speak out against what seems to me a great intellectual error--that is, the appropriation, by the left, of great thinkers who would certainly have despised leftist thought if they were alive today. How could anyone read Plato and Aristotle and come away thinking them essentially modern liberal democrats? How could someone as intelligent as Ms. Hirshman conclude that Aristotle's great-souled man is--Rahm Emanuel?

In my view, Winston Churchill would have been a better pick. Unlike most politicians, he recognized the threat of aggressive totalitarianism abroad, but also the threat (of spiritual corrosion) posed from within by the modern liberal welfare state.

Above all else, Aritotle and Plato believe that the government ought to see the promotion of virtue as its chief aim. How, then, could they have been more different from modern liberals who say that government cannot "legislate morality" and who frequently doubt that any absolute standard of value exists at all?

While it would be a mistake to think of those great philosophers being aligned too closely with any modern party or movement, it should be clear to thoughful readers that they could not have supported the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. If leftists want inspiration, they should look to Keynes or Marx or Mill, not to Plato and Aristotle.

"If leftists want inspiration, they should look to Keynes or Marx or Mill, not to Plato and Aristotle."

You do not need to share Aristotle's archaic beliefs on politics and government to derive value from his writings on personal virtue.

The contribution of the ancient Greek philosophers on our political system is wildly exaggerated. We inherited much more from the Greek natural philosophers. The academy types just had better PR.

"If you read the darn thing, you see I am using Hitchens for the point that the virtue ethics tradition is an alternative to revelation; Hitchens is talking about Socrates, not Aristotle, and not about war or anything else. Jeez."

I read it. I just think it's strange that, in the course of an article excoriating the Bush administraton for its "disposition to evil" and arguing that "The war... is not an 'accident' or and 'error,' but an ethical failure, born of a lack of the classical virtue, courage, in face of the fearful attacks of 9/11," you would name as an ally Christopher Hitchens, who has wholeheartedly endorsed the invasion of Iraq as a noble enterprise.

Indeed, so different is Hithcens' view of ethics from yours, Ms. Hirshman, that he attacks opponents of the removing Saddam for their "moral idiocy" and has heaped praise upon Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the war. Indeed, Hitchens has frequently defended Bush and Wolfowitz against precisely the sort of arguments that you make. All of this makes me wonder whether you have understood him at all.

Weirdly, I also learned my Aristotle at Pomona

Hey, Pomona has a great Classics department! Though I managed to avoid it during my time there, lest my failure to learn any Latin in two years of prior study be exposed.

I don't have extensive knowledge of Aristotle or Plato, but what I have read of the Greek classics tells me their views will map poorly onto modern political controversies. Ms. Hirshman advances a reading of Aristotle that I find unpersuasive, though novel in its deliberate application to, say, healthcare reform. I really don't think the Aristotelian virtues have much to say about our domestic politics except in the blandest way, and even then they are readily appropriated by each side. "No, I'M hewing to the golden mean; my opponent is possessed of an excess of justice!" And there goes your immigration policy.

So now we have plugs in for the history, classics, and philosophy departments at Pomona. Guess it's an Aristotle-heavy school. Living in London has made me miss southern california.

"How could someone as intelligent as Ms. Hirshman conclude that Aristotle's great-souled man is -- Rahm Emanuel?"

Nothing to add -- I just had to read that again...

"Did I just miss the part where Aristotle was all "Hey, guys, this war thing is a bad idea except in very extreme circumstances?"

Yes as a matter of fact you did.

How'd that work out for the Greeks in the long run?

"How could someone as intelligent as Ms. Hirshman conclude that Aristotle's great-souled man is -- Rahm Emanuel?"

I dunno, when I see that someone was a professor of women’s studies, I generally hold them in low regard as it’s not a serious area of academia.

"The contribution of the ancient Greek philosophers on our political system is wildly exaggerated."

Perhaps. Certainly the tendancy of democracy in ancient Greece to turn into despotism was an influence in the structure of the current US Constitution. Republican Rome was probably a greater influence on our political system. Most of the founders were well acquainted with Cicero's writings as well as other primary sources on the SPQR and the Roman Empire.

Heck, we've even got two political factions that align somewhat with the late Republic's pseudo-parties - Optimates (Republicans) and Populares (Democrats)

Random maybe but a presidential scholar at Texas A&M was telling me about translating Latin authors in school. I asked her what the first words of the Aeneid are: Arma virumque cano. She had just been telling me that, in translating Spanish poets, it was interesting to see the 'political line' that the translators had taken. 'I sing of war and the man' she said 'is the usual translation.' To me Arma was better tranlsated as arms. 'War' is more something out there; something you are detached from, not representing the ideal man as 'Arma' user. Thus if you want to know the proper understanding of the classics, just know the current leftist acadmic certitudes, the curent BushHitlerisms, and you can't go wrong.

If tigers had gods, the gods would have stripes. And when academic philosophers read Aristotle, it proves that Bush is ee-vul. When academic historians study history, it proves that Bush is ee-vul. When Harper's writers examine current events, it proves that Bush is ee-vul. And so each one, in his or her encounter with the supposedly new and different, finds only confirmation of what he or she already knew.

"Hey, Alexander. Congratulations on completing your instruction under Aristotle. What are you going to do now?"

"One word: Plastics. No, seriously, I thought I'd go and conquer the known world."

I am assuming Ms. Hirshman agrees with Earl Shorris, whom she quotes as arguing that the classical virtue neglected by the Bush administration's decisionmakers is "courage." In this, they echo the common left-liberal theme that those who argue for a belligerent posture against radical Islamists are motivated by inordinate fear of terrorism. After all, even including 9/11, terrorism isn't that great a threat; unsafe left turns kill lots more of us every year.

They're missing the point. If the Iraq War resulted from the neglect of any particular virtue, it would be "wisdom." I happen to agree, up to a point: Nation-building is a hopeless enterprise in this age where civilization-destroying technologies are so much cheaper and survivable than civilization-enabling ones. We should have crushed Saddam, and then held Iraq's southern oil fields until whatever successor to his regime that arose agreed to an acceptable peace with us. (Leftists are going to accuse us of imperialism anyway; we might as well do it right.)

But are anti-jihadists motivated by "fear"? That's not my reading. After 9/11, most of us were less fearful than furious. We didn't just want to retaliate against the gang responsible for that particular attack -- we were fed up with the entire set of hostile Middle Easterners, including other terrorist groups as well as the hostile regimes in the neighborhood. Anyone who even cracked a smile on 9/11, I wanted dead. I wanted to see those streets full of cheering Palestinians cluster-bombed. I wanted to see every Middle Eastern regime that wasn't on friendly terms with the United States destroyed, including but not necessarily limited to Syria, Iran, and Iraq. I wanted the Bekaa Valley to be a parking lot.

In short, I had a serious attack of the vice of "wrath," which I'm (usually) now glad the official organs of the United States did not share. But "fear"? Not at all. I suspect most people who supported the Iraq war felt roughly the same way. We'd rather it had been Iran, and handled more smartly, but we weren't particularly afraid of Saddam.

Comments are Closed.