Conservatives are not satisfied with the world as it now is. What to do about it? There is currently a debate between Rufoism, which is the idea that we should trace the influence of pernicious ideas over centuries, and Hananianity, which posits that we should really focus on what the EEOC was up to in 1968.
Conservatives are not satisfied with the world as it now is. What to do about it? There is currently a debate between Rufoism, which is the idea that we should trace the influence of pernicious ideas over centuries, and Hananianity, which posits that we should really focus on what the EEOC was up to in 1968.
It is more than passing strange, then, to see Hanania put forward Costin Almariu’s esoteric reading of a 2,400 year old scrap of Greek philosophy as a foundation for modern conservatism. The Gorgias dialogue has traditionally been understood as standing for the primacy of justice and right over mere power. Almariu now argues that this is all wrong, Plato really agrees with the might-makes-right philosophy of Callicles, but merely wishes this argument to be better concealed. I’m pretty sure that Almariu’s interpretation of the dialogue is wrong, but what I am absolutely certain of is that if Almariu is right, and Plato had been read correctly to endorse Callicles’ point of view, the consequence would not be that we would now be living in a Nietschian world of supermen. The consequence would be that Plato would now be completely forgotten. That is because the philosophy of Callicles cannot satisfy even those whom it most exalts.
To see this, consider the Iliad. Achilles isn’t merely stronger and faster and a much greater warrior than everyone else. He’s also better looking. His sexuality probably doesn’t correspond to any of our modern categories, but it’s clear that his beloved is another warrior, Patroclus. Achilles is, in short, the ultimate Bronze Age Pervert. But as the Iliad shows, all that is not enough. Achilles’ superhuman strength and beauty can’t save him from being dishonored by Agamemnon (backed by the whole Greek army). It can’t keep Patroclus alive. All it’s good for, ultimately, is slaughtering Trojans. Which Achilles does magnificently, when he returns to battle; but in a sort of frenzy of despair. To a Trojan begging for mercy, he says: Patroclus is dead; I’ll be dead soon; you die too. He calls himself a useless burden on the earth. He finally achieves transcendence at the end when he forgoes violence and returns Hector’s body to his aged father Priam, saying sadly as he does so that he is doing nothing to help his own aged father; instead he sits in Troy, afflicting Priam and his children. And he agrees to hold the Greek army back for two weeks so that the Trojans can give Hector a proper burial.
It is quite impossible to imagine Achilles fighting the Trojans again after his interview with Priam, though the story of the Trojan war requires it; for that reason, I think, Homer ends the Iliad with Hector’s burial, with the truce still in effect.
Some critics have argued that there was an earlier poem, an Achillead, in which Achilles’ killing of Hector and mutilation of his body in revenge for Patroclus was presented as a fully satisfactory conclusion, both to Achilles and to the poem’s audience. The later bits of Achilles’ despair and his mercy, in this account, were bolted on later. As with Almariu’s account of the correct reading of the Gorgias, I have no idea if the Achillead ever existed, but I do know that if it did, the poem would be forgotten today. Whereas with the Iliad we do have, major translations are still being produced, most recently this very year. The common lesson of the Iliad, Hamlet, and for that matter Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven is that revenge is never fully satisfactory.
It’s ironic that Hanania says that the chivalric epics owe more to Homer than they do to Christianity. It would be more correct to say that the epics complete the Iliad. Achilles comes to see his own supreme excellence in combat as pointless and futile. Lancelot and Galahad and Gawain don’t feel that way about their own prowess. But why not? Because they use their excellence in the service of goals a Calliclean would despise: protecting the weak and defenseless, delivering the land from ancient evils, finding the Holy Grail. If Achilles could be transported to the world of the chivalric epics, he would be much happier and more fulfilled than he was in his own world.
Of course, if BAP’s philosophy cannot satisfy even Achilles, it cannot possibly satisfy anyone else. See Mrs. Psmith’s bemused review of the book. https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-bronze-age-mindset-by-bronze In her own way she rejects modernity as thoroughly as BAP does; but she is also the married mother of young children. What does this have to do with me?, she asks. What does this have to do with the real business of life?
A philosophy that doesn’t speak to probably 95% of women, and 80% of men, and is ultimately unsatisfactory even to Achilles himself, does not seem like a good foundation for conservatism.
Conservatives are not satisfied with the world as it now is. What to do about it? There is currently a debate between Rufoism, which is the idea that we should trace the influence of pernicious ideas over centuries, and Hananianity, which posits that we should really focus on what the EEOC was up to in 1968.
It is more than passing strange, then, to see Hanania put forward Costin Almariu’s esoteric reading of a 2,400 year old scrap of Greek philosophy as a foundation for modern conservatism. The Gorgias dialogue has traditionally been understood as standing for the primacy of justice and right over mere power. Almariu now argues that this is all wrong, Plato really agrees with the might-makes-right philosophy of Callicles, but merely wishes this argument to be better concealed. I’m pretty sure that Almariu’s interpretation of the dialogue is wrong, but what I am absolutely certain of is that if Almariu is right, and Plato had been read correctly to endorse Callicles’ point of view, the consequence would not be that we would now be living in a Nietschian world of supermen. The consequence would be that Plato would now be completely forgotten. That is because the philosophy of Callicles cannot satisfy even those whom it most exalts.
To see this, consider the Iliad. Achilles isn’t merely stronger and faster and a much greater warrior than everyone else. He’s also better looking. His sexuality probably doesn’t correspond to any of our modern categories, but it’s clear that his beloved is another warrior, Patroclus. Achilles is, in short, the ultimate Bronze Age Pervert. But as the Iliad shows, all that is not enough. Achilles’ superhuman strength and beauty can’t save him from being dishonored by Agamemnon (backed by the whole Greek army). It can’t keep Patroclus alive. All it’s good for, ultimately, is slaughtering Trojans. Which Achilles does magnificently, when he returns to battle; but in a sort of frenzy of despair. To a Trojan begging for mercy, he says: Patroclus is dead; I’ll be dead soon; you die too. He calls himself a useless burden on the earth. He finally achieves transcendence at the end when he forgoes violence and returns Hector’s body to his aged father Priam, saying sadly as he does so that he is doing nothing to help his own aged father; instead he sits in Troy, afflicting Priam and his children. And he agrees to hold the Greek army back for two weeks so that the Trojans can give Hector a proper burial.
It is quite impossible to imagine Achilles fighting the Trojans again after his interview with Priam, though the story of the Trojan war requires it; for that reason, I think, Homer ends the Iliad with Hector’s burial, with the truce still in effect.
Some critics have argued that there was an earlier poem, an Achillead, in which Achilles’ killing of Hector and mutilation of his body in revenge for Patroclus was presented as a fully satisfactory conclusion, both to Achilles and to the poem’s audience. The later bits of Achilles’ despair and his mercy, in this account, were bolted on later. As with Almariu’s account of the correct reading of the Gorgias, I have no idea if the Achillead ever existed, but I do know that if it did, the poem would be forgotten today. Whereas with the Iliad we do have, major translations are still being produced, most recently this very year. The common lesson of the Iliad, Hamlet, and for that matter Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven is that revenge is never fully satisfactory.
It’s ironic that Hanania says that the chivalric epics owe more to Homer than they do to Christianity. It would be more correct to say that the epics complete the Iliad. Achilles comes to see his own supreme excellence in combat as pointless and futile. Lancelot and Galahad and Gawain don’t feel that way about their own prowess. But why not? Because they use their excellence in the service of goals a Calliclean would despise: protecting the weak and defenseless, delivering the land from ancient evils, finding the Holy Grail. If Achilles could be transported to the world of the chivalric epics, he would be much happier and more fulfilled than he was in his own world.
Of course, if BAP’s philosophy cannot satisfy even Achilles, it cannot possibly satisfy anyone else. See Mrs. Psmith’s bemused review of the book. https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-bronze-age-mindset-by-bronze In her own way she rejects modernity as thoroughly as BAP does; but she is also the married mother of young children. What does this have to do with me?, she asks. What does this have to do with the real business of life?
A philosophy that doesn’t speak to probably 95% of women, and 80% of men, and is ultimately unsatisfactory even to Achilles himself, does not seem like a good foundation for conservatism.