Examination of Property

Locke – Reflective Post

For this post, I would like to discuss Locke’s whole foundation of property. For Locke, a person can properly remove things through nature as long as it does not go to waste. Locke asks: “But how far has [God] given it us” (paragraph 31)? To which he replies “To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils; so much he may by his labor fix a Property in. Whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy” (par. 31). “…And the ground which produces the materials, is scarce to be reckon’d in, as any, or at most, but a very small, part of it; so little, that even amongst us, Land that is left wholly to Nature, that hath no improvement of Pasturage, Tillage, or Planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste; and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing” (par 42). So in essence, Locke believes that any land that is not being used for mans gain is wasteful.

Locke then describes the introduction of money into the equation, that of things we can hoard, as much as we like that would not go to waste. “Again, if he would give his Nuts for a piece of Metal, pleased with its colour; or exchange his Sheep for Shells, or Wool for a sparkling Pebble or a Diamond, and keep those by him all his Life, he invaded not the Right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just Property not lying in the largeness of his Possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it” (par. 46).

The question I pose is, does concept of money and property have legitimacy, especially in an era when man recognizes the limit of resources? Locke speaks quite freely about the hoarding of your labor into such durable minerals but when examined closer, the mining of these materials wastes the land that they are mined from and lays wreckage to whole communities and villages. The process of gaining the durable items to trade with is in fact wasteful. It is destroying the environment so that it will no longer be useful to man after it is ravaged for “that little piece of yellow metal.” Does Locke not say that: “He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more then his share, and robb’d others” (par.46). From this observation, I gather that Locke’s conception of property no longer can be deemed as legitimate. Man needs to reverse his use of land for the acquisition of property and instead leave and create untouched lands that can be wholly left to nature. Only then can man have an environment to which their property can continue to be protected.

Hobbes and Locke and Looting.

In class, we did some Hobbes and Locke comparison: whose State of Nature was better, what Reason meant to both of their arguments, how nice or not nice each one’s god was.  I think that, in most ways, Locke’s observations were much more appealing than Hobbes.  I mean, I would prefer a friendly God (because, I think one really must have one for either of their grand schemes to work), it would be nice if government could be dissolved back to a livable state of nature (rather than complete anarchy), and it’s much more comforting to not think of yourself as just the sum of many equations but rather having a mind/reason inspired by God (again, I’m beginning to think that God is a need for Lockean government/social structure).  

However, being a person who distrusts the nice shiny view of society, as sometimes the most appealing option is not the best, I wonder which of these two philosophers are really most onto society and its needs.  I understand that they are on the same, liberal team, but they have such different fundamental understandings upon which they base their propositions (fictional and for modeling purposes only, as I am also learning).  

Hobbes is concerned mostly with society having a way to get out of the state of warre (p. 93).  This is about the worst thing ever, and Hobbes models it as the anarchy we have seen in places like post-Katrina New Orleans, where the structure of society has failed to function and people are in a constant state of survival (and not sleeping).  People have no way to even think about possessions until the social contract to a sovereign (see page 70: “In such a condition [of warre], there is no place for industry” and because they sleep).  His Sovereign keeps people in line because they all agree that they need to be kept in line for the good of the whole.  Since people are secure, they should be happy under the sovereign, and, of course, have no way out.

Locke, on the other hand, is mostly focused on property.  Although property does involve self (as Locke is just as keen as Hobbes to define everything), it is also possible BEFORE official social-government contracts.  Unlike Hobbes, there is the pre-existing social structure we talked about in class, one that has money and the possibility of trade, just no way to preserve ownership. So this social contract is designed purely for the preservation of possession (again, including self).  The ego-centricity of people under Locke’s system is intriguing: they have to fully give themselves to their supreme leader, but they also have ways out; their entire agreement is kind of for the good of the community, but is mostly for the good of themselves; everyone is specifically given reign over their own property, even little children.  I have a feeling that the Rousseauean idea of the state of nature being entirely anti-social stems from Locke’s creation of an enforced social structure based upon every man/woman having individual possessions and undisputed right to them.  Locke’s shiny description of State of Nature is very much like Hobbes’s, except people have figured out how to be possessive of themselves and their apple trees.  

In his state of nature (if state of nature is applied to post-Katrina New Orleans), though, I think the looting would be slightly less, mostly because Locke’s people would be reasoning whereas Hobbes’s people would be trying to get everything they could hold until they fell asleep.  I still think Locke’s people might not even take more than one pair of shoes from the flooded shoe store, whereas Hobbes’s would probably take many.  Although both would be looting, Locke’s people might reason more that everyone was entitled to just what they need, but Hobbes’s would be very pro taking everything they wanted.

That said, I was watching Miracle on 34th Street (probably WAY too early in the fall season), and it made me smile when Mara Wilson’s character (yes, the remake), brought the judge a card in which there was a dollar bill with the words “In God We Trust” circled in a festive red.  It reminded me that we are SO Lockean (excepting that children having rights to their own property, which seems to be a big problem for those children who actually have property independent of their parents (ie. Child stars) who are seemingly always in lawsuits over their rightful belongings – to make the parenthetical longer, I will cite “Paternal Power is where minority makes the child incapable to manage his property” (Locke, 384).  Very interesting that he chooses to use the active verb “to make,” even after he says specifically that “The Power of the Father doth not reach at all to the Property of the Child, which is only in his own disposing” (Locke, 381).), and also made me think about the topic of money that we touched upon in class.  Money (or shiny rocks) is not a possession according to Locke, because it requires no energy (labor) to acquire, and yet we agree that it has great worth.  I don’t think that money (or shiny rocks) would work for atheists if they were to seriously consider the implication of money as purely a representation of something else.  The words on our dollar remind us that we, as a country (a Lockean one) believe in something of which we have no evidence, just as we believe that money (a piece of paper or a shiny rock, even a business card sized piece of plastic) exists.  The fact that I can hand someone a dollar bill conveys to them the idea that I have labored at something, and the bill is a representation of that I posess (from my labor).  However, my ownership of the bill itself could be disputed – but thanks to Locke and his tremendous influence on our fair government, that dispute (or war) would have a fathomable end.

Locke and God, Locke and Money - Syllogism or not?

I have to say, Locke could have used less words in his treatise. He said the same thing about every fifth page. I suppose that was to drive the point home and to increase reader comprehension, but man…

One of the questions ProfPTJ brought up in class last week was about how dependent Locke’s system is/was on universal faith in God (a benevolent one.) God is integral to Locke’s treatise II because he bases the creation of Civil Society on the premise of equality, a God-given trait. With this assumed (faith-based) equality, in the state of nature, every man has everything he needs. All is joyous. However, with the (not evil) entry of money, resources can be unequally distributed and people have the capacity to possess more than they need without it rotting, thus the need for rules about property. As this is the fundamental force behind Locke’s argument, I wonder what role faith plays, and which specific parts of faith are most important (as it is obviously important). I think that the only part of God that is necessary for Locke (by part of God I mean specific extent of faith in God) is the part that pertains to relationships between people and the source of natural resources.

If all relationships are based on God-given equality, then Locke’s argument holds. However, what if there was another way to believe that, yes, everyone else was equal, or at least had equal rights to everything unworked by human hands, then Locke’s Civil Society could apply without God. However, it needs some unifying device – for Locke this is God.

Money introduced an interesting twist in Locke’s history of property. In fact, the idea of representing wealth with a relatively indestructible item was the turning point, and was what gave people reason to have possessions, thus leading to Locke’s treatise (well, many years in between). What would Locke’s God say about money? Locke seemed kind of perturbed by it and how it meant that there would not be equal distribution of goods to people (as people could suddenly possess more than they needed – see p. 301). Perhaps an extension of the faith in God necessary is a faith in Money. Taking that a little further, perhaps Locke’s society (and, by the many associations I tried not to make that ProfPTJ warned us about, ours) could be founded on a faith in Money, as a replacement of the God so called for. Money means the same thing to everybody, and is therefore a unifying device…the only problem is that money is not made readily available to everyone…then again, neither are possessions….

Adapting Locke

Locke – initial response

While reading Locke, I kept reminding myself of the advice Professor Jackson gave in class, that we must distance ourselves from the text, and remember that Locke is making an argument.

This reminds me of an earlier post I made about Hobbes’ use of language in comparison to Machiavelli <http://masterworktheory.blogspot.com/2005/09/hobbes-interpretation-of-language.html>. The reason this text is so commonsensical is because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States is flooded in Lockean references. The Second Treatise is not one of these documents. Locke did not sit down with the founders of our nation and discuss how to “form a more perfect union.” Instead, the founders applied a lot of Locke’s ideas to their own works. And not every word or intention of the Founders is exactly that of Locke. Changes and adaptations have been made. In addition to Hobbes not agreeing with Locke’s perspectives on the sovereign among other things, Hobbes would not agree that a document should be interpreted and have its meaning changed to serve the purpose of another. Going back to my initial discussion about the relevance of ambiguity and interpretation, in the previous comment, does the original document lose all relevance and importance if interpreted? To this I will reaffirm that interpretation and reinterpretation remain important in the place of a dynamic society.

Locke speaks at length about how the exercise of arbitrary power over man is a continuation of the state of war, which is slavery (24). I will note that this does not apply to slaves in the context of slaves, as we know. In the chapter on political society Locke talks about slaves in the sense that we are familiar with.

But there is another sort of Servants, which by a peculiar Name we call Slaves, who being Captives taken in a just War, are by the right of Nature subjected to the Absolute Dominion and Arbitrary Power of their Masters. These Men having, as I say, forfeited their Lives, and with it their Liberties, and lost their Estates; and being in the State of Slavery, not capable of any Property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of Civil Society; the chief end whereof is the preservation of Property (323).

Although Locke does serve to outline many principles that have served for the creation of the United States, this point is completely outrageous and was fostered in the minds of many of our Founding Fathers. My point is that the Constitution written in the 18th century should adapt to changing times. Slavery should not continue to exist even though men thought it justified in the 18th century.

Possiblities continued

I thought that the idea that came at the very end of the class discussion of Hobbes was very interesting: the point that the sovereign speaks as the people. In essence, he is the people, he is Leviathan. So if we magnify that idea to the world, how many people can agree with each other to give up their individual rights? How big can Leviathan be? Is there a limit on how many people one person can trust?

Owen suggested that Hobbes wrote Leviathan to scare people out of the English civil war, so was Hobbes suggesting that Leviathan’s ideal size would be approximately the size of England? With the communications systems of the time, that is about the maximum geographical area that could be reached in a week by the sovereign? A month? Would the ability to communicate effectively with the masses that have made a commitment to a sovereign be the limiting factor on the size of a Leviathan? Hobbes does not discuss the communication methods between the sovereign and the subjects, but implies that such communication would be necessary. For example, one of the rights of the sovereign is the right of judicature. How can one man hear all conflicts and judge them in a sovereign country the size even of England? Is that logistically possible even with today’s communication facilities?

So, say this is expanded to the whole world. Are there many sovereigns with one sovereign sovereign, or is there one sovereign for the whole world? In Hobbes’s time, this would be impossible, but now, as long as he never slept, one sovereign could, hypothetically, rule the world. But what of cultural differences? Would these also have to be erased? To universally escape Hobbes’s State of Nature (if, as one could argue, we were in it), would every person, in addition to committing to the same social contract, have to commit to a uniform type of living and culture?

Or, if this was expanded to the whole world, would it be sovereign versus sovereign, therefore creating a state of nature on a larger scale (since a sovereign is really a representation of a bunch of people, then sovereign v. sovereign would be state of nature all over again – I think ProfPTJ mentioned this in class)? The very inclusion of exile as a punishment (160) implies that there is world outside of the commonwealth – what does this world look like? How does the commonwealth interact with its surroundings? I think it would strive for expansion, but, as with physics and insects, at some point you get too big to support your weight and your exoskeleton breaks.

I bring this up not out of facetiousness but rather as an examination of the viability of Hobbes’ ideal. The concept of social contracts makes ever more sense as I read Locke, but perhaps it is my Lockean upbringing that makes it difficult to see reality in Hobbes’s Leviathan.

A Just Sovereign

Hobbes – The Leviathan – Reflective Post


Once the foundations for the social contract are laid down, and man transfers his liberty to the sovereign who bares our person civil laws are created.  Justice is following these laws and keeping to the contract.  “Breaking the covenant is unjust, everything else is just” (79) and hence no law can be unjust (176).  This is such a fundamental principle that Hobbes observes it to be the third law of nature, once you have made the contract, you must keep it and keeping the contract is justice (79).  From this sense of justice and keeping the stability and the peace of the commonwealth, one may ponder why Hobbes never proposed that a sovereign should govern in a just way?  As I have already mentioned, justice is not a matter of morality, but a matter of obedience of the laws that are protecting the commonwealth and all of the privileges such as industry that have flourished under it.  On page 164 Hobbes addresses the opinion of subjecting the Sovereign power to civil laws:  

To those Lawes which the Soveraign himselfe, that is, which the Common-wealth maketh, he is not subject.  For to be subject to Lawes, is to be subject to the Common-wealth, that is to the Soveraign Representative, that is to himselfe; which is not subjection, but freedome from the Lawes.  Which errour, because it setteth the Lawes above the Soveraign, setteth also a Judge above him, and a Power to punish him; which is to make a new Soveraign; and again for the same reason a third, to punish the second; and so continually without end, to the Confusion, and Dissolution of the Commonwealth (164).

Thus to speak of such things as a Just Sovereign are absurd and restrictive to your own protection, since restricting the sovereign is restricting the Commonwealth.  It also goes much further, as mentioned in the quote from page 164, to the dissolution or transfer of the Commonwealth to subjection under another Sovereign who then cannot be just unless they are following the laws of another Sovereign, etc.  

     Hobbes does do a good job with explaining his rational but perhaps his definition of justice just doesn’t hold any weight.  Doesn’t justice imply a moral undertone?  Laws alone cannot account for a code of morality.           

Common-Wealth: Possible or Just a Good Idea?

Hobbes presents the idea that a common-wealth with ONE (and onely one) sovereign is the ideal way to ensure peace and common defense of a people. There are few rules for having a sovereign – basically the populace, individually, must give up their natural rights (to kill other people and work for their own gain and dominance, excepting only their right to self-defense) and trust that everyone else will do the same. Each person must agree that the majority will rule in all matters, and they must also pledge allegiance to the sovereign, who, amongst other things, is responsible for law-making, settling affairs, and equally and fairly distributing everything to his people. Simply put, everyone must buy into the idea of one all-powerful (and feared) leader, and must not, under any circumstances, try to dethrone him, try him under the law, or undermine him in any way. But can people truely be this uniform in their beliefs and actions?

What does this sound like? Everyone treated equally, one uncontestable person with all the power and means of justice (because, although Hobbes does define the sovereign as a person or several people working for one cause, he specifically recommends leader – on his list of common-wealth deal breakers, he lists: “That the sovraign Power may be divided” (165)), “common/shared” wealth…sounds an awful lot like the skewed notion of communism/totalitarianism that dominated parts of the world throughout the Twentieth Century. To use a comparison that Hobbes would have HATED, creating a common-wealth, or a communistic nation, requires that every person buy into the ideals presented or it will fail, in the same way that, when making fudge, only when every single grain of sugar is melted will the fudge set with perfect fudgieness: one unmelted crystal will create a lattice throughout all the other crystals and the fudge will be ruined, just as one person not committing himself to the common good creates doubt and destroys the trust upon which the common-wealth is founded. Hobbes leaves no room for the real idea of revolution. The only solution that Hobbes has to this problem is fear of the power of the sovereign, who is in place just to ensure that men will keep their social contracts, the promises that keep men out of warre. This one leader, completely unbiased and not power-hungry (like the communist leaders of yore), would make it worthwhile for men to buy into the common-wealth by making sure they all had just what they needed - peace, food, shared rivers, etc.

How practical is it, though, to imagine this one person, so selfless and invested in his subjects, when the only examples of common-wealth sovereignty in recent history have so quickly fallen into corruption? Perhaps isolation of the common-wealth is the necessity for such a Hobbesian sovereign. That would ensure limited education of the subjects (whose minds are "like clean paper, fit to recieve whatsoever by Publique Authority shall be imprinted in them (171)"), which would prevent the introduction of new ideas, thus preventing the threat of revolt. With our current state of borderless communications, I think the ideals such a society would have to uphold would be absolutely unattainable because there would be so many exterior inspirations for revolution. Hobbes presents an unarguable ideal that, I’m sure, would be nice to be a part of, but completely impossible to maintain unless it was in complete isolation (read: not so much an applicable form of government).

Hobbes - interpretation of language

Thomas Hobbes:  The Leviathan  - Initial Post

Why does Thomas Hobbes start the Leviathan, a political discourse on social contracts, with a discussion about language?  The plethora of words, in the English language alone, is enough to boggle the mind with wonder.  The variance does not stop at the scope of words but is also apparent within the definition of words.  “Men give different names, to one and the same thing, from the difference of their own passions” (58).  Hobbes believes that words and their meanings are so diverse that without reasoning a single particular meaning of a word we have nothing to base claims about these words because we could be disputing an entirely different meaning of the same word.  As Hobbes notes, “in reasoning, a man must take heed of words” (25).  Through speech we can come to a deliberation of a particular meaning, or at least explain what we mean by the word and then we can continue to make statements about that word.  We must rationalize the meanings and not take them at face value.  Hobbes also notes that “ignorance of the signification of words; which is, want of understanding, disposeth man to trust, not only the they know not, but also the errors; and which is more, the non-sense of them they trust:  for neither error nor non-sense, can without perfect understanding of words, be detected” (58).

Machiavelli, by contrast, had a tendency of not defining words in the context of his texts, thus leaving them ambiguous and absurd, according to Thomas Hobbes.  But should ambiguity always be construed as absurdity?  Yes, it is important to know what context one is speaking in but it is a bit enthusiastic to believe that a conversation can exist on a level where every meaning is sufficiently defined.  For even in definitions of words, the defining words may be misperceived.  What exactly is the definition of is?  To a certain degree, ambiguity may leave an air of healthy interpretation into a dynamic world.  The world 200 years from today will clearly have different priorities than the year 2005, as the year 2005 has different priorities than the year 1805.  As this diversity is apparent chronologically, it can also be seen on the horizontal international level.  In an ever-increasing globalized society, intercultural communication is important and it must be noted that some words don’t interpret into another language.  My point is that ambiguity is necessary for interpretation as time and circumstances change.

Blog Groups

Class Blog Groups, for future reference

Bookish Affair http://academictryst.blogspot.com/
Fight Blog http://masterworksfightblog.blogspot.com/
H.M.S. Blogty http://www.thousandmonkeys.org/wordpress/
Masterworks http://www.livejournal.com/community/masterworksblog/
Prof PTJ http://profptj.blogspot.com

Machiavelli is everywhere

Since reading all that Machiavelli for class, I seem to see things that relate to our readings everywhere I look. For example, in the book Propaganda by Jacques Ellul:

“But the people were given the immense satisfaction of having been consulted, of having been given a chance to debate, of having - so it seemed to them - their opinions solicited and weighed. (131)”

ProfPTJ pointed out, at the beginning of the semester, that rarely are ideas or philosophies new. In this section of the text, Ellul seems to be describing an event similar to Mach’s allowance of populace accusation (Mach, 102). Ellul is referring to mid-twentieth century Soviet government, wherein the populace was “fed” comfortable chunks of political opinion which they would regurgitate when given the opportunity to participate in government. He points out that this was beneficial to both the government (who got everything they wanted) and the populace (who didn’t have to spend too much time formulating opinions). On a side note, Ellul referenced part of the above quote to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda director under Hitler.

It seems to me that this snippet of analysis is in fact reflecting a way in which Mach’s ideas, in both The Prince and The Discourses, have been applied. Although they were both written with different intent and both support differing forms of government, it seems that these governments used the Going-to-extremes-to-keep-power sentiment of The Prince but maintained a Keep-everybody-happy-and-a-willing-army-at-hand public attitude (of The Discourses). Though Mach was pro-Republic and anti-Principality (poor Sparta and Venice got the short straw every time he mentioned them), it seems that, by combining these seemingly different (not opposing) forms of rule and government structure/priority/ethic, one might make a rather successful totalitarian rule (until the rest of the world decided you were violating ALL forms of human rights…)

How Things Really Are

     In my reflection of Machiavelli, I want to stress a point that many people seem to confuse.  This is the thin line in the sand between what people believe to be personal opinions and directions of how a ruler should act and observations of how rulers are successful and how they hold on to power.  I’m not sure if Machiavelli takes his own words to heart but I am sure that many of his points, especially in The Prince, are observatory reflections of gaining and maintaining power.  Machiavelli never says that men should act ruthlessly and kill off the populace as advice, he As a pre-eminent thinker in the school of thought that later came to be known as realism, Machiavelli is providing insight on things with a realistic view, things the way they are.  

Fast forward a few hundred years, more like 400 years, and Hans Morgenthau in his Politics Among Nations describes the use of morals and ideologies in realism.  He believes that morals and ideologies are only a mask for the true policy of a state, to maintain or increase power.  When ideas are stripped the world can be seen for how it really operates.  This is what Machiavelli is trying to convey.  He is not immoral but amoral.

Standing on the shoulders of...Ancient Rome?

Initial Response - Machiavelli

I think that Machiavelli’s work is most like ProfPTJ’s political science:  he looked at how to create “ideal republic” by seeing how other republics failed or succeeded and offers this advice as a guide to rulers and would-be rulers.  He looked at regimes that had taken over nations successfully and gives his interpretation of why they succeeded as a crib sheet for creating the perfect, developing, generally happy, expanding nation.  These he gave with the hope that some ruler/regime would not have to learn from mistakes and most efficiently gain power and most expediently create a constitution that lead to full armies and politically liberated populace.

Yes, he gives very brutal ways to acquire such power (kill everyone in power, learn to do bad well, don’t be overly generous, always keep someone on hand to blame for things and publicly behead), but I think the ideal (that he says he doesn’t have) is a cycle of rulers who:

have a selection of good advisors (who he takes care of and picks himself, not adopting the previous ruler’s) (70, 131),
are feared (but not hated) (51),
are not overly generous (but ensure that all of the populace has food) (49),
re-evaluate and adapt the principles of the government (to prevent corruption)(189),
train a strong army(45),
and provide a venue for the populace to voice complaints without fear (105).  

Basically, Ancient Rome, which strikes me as funny when he discoursed about how men look at the past and admire it, yet they weren’t there nor do they have jealousy or fear of anything from 2000 years ago, so they don’t know the bad things about it.  I think his idealization of Rome is probably errant; nonetheless, his suggestions seem to remain pertinent.

In an age when we can watch the president talk whenever we want and when gossip spreads like wildfire, perhaps the theatricality of a beheading is over the top when placing blame on someone else.  Just removing them from a task force may move the blame far enough away from you to completely rid yourself of it (as with the FEMA director, although according to BBC, Bush is taking full blame now).  I think, and not to be sacrilegious, an updated version of Machiavelli’s tips might map to present day like modernized versions of the Bible do (by toning down the somewhat exaggerated-for-effect ideas he presents). With The Prince and Discourses, Machiavelli does go quite over the top with regards to his statements about human nature being wicked (entirely self-absorbed, but nicely contrasted with the idea that masses are very concerned with the common good (158)), and religion as a mind-control device (but we have media prevalence now, which may very well replace the institution which Machiavelli suggested religion filled), but he still seems, to naïve me, make valid observations about things like starting new countries.  

I wondered once or twice while I was reading if this text was on the required reading list for presidents: the situation in Iraq seems to most directly apply to Machiavelli’s discourses.  If one person were to have written their constitution, maybe it would be easier (108).  What about the argument that people who have been under a tyranny are not fully equipped to have liberty (121-126)?  Is the US making itself into a modern day Machiavellian Rome – a crib sheet for newly independent nations in the 21st century?  Is it in our interests to create more “Romes” and not more “Spartas” and “Venices”?

Are we all Machiavellian now?  I could go either way, but, considering the purely capitalist nature of the powers that be (both politically and economically), I’d say that most people are just looking out for their own interests.  One has to look only as far as a campaign ad to find slander, overwhelming shows of generosity...  

Practical Ideals

Machiavelli – initial post

Machiavelli believes that life is not always in black in white, meaning that things cannot always be categorized as good or bad, or at least he does not emphasize virtue or morality in his writing. He is not saying that cruelty should be the dictate of rulers. “One ought to be both loved and feared; but, since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved, if you have to do without one of the two” (52). Fear is an emotion that can be controlled unlike love. “Men do not understand how to be either entirely wicked or completely good” (132). “It is impossible to find a balance between weakness and strength; impossible to find a middle way successfully” (101). If men were all good then idealized societies could exist. “One cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world” (48). Machiavelli wants to paint a picture of how life truly is and talk about “practical realities” (48). In a way, I believe that in the sample of Machiavellian writings that we have studied, Machiavelli is in fact constructing an ideal of what men SHOULD do through the mistakes and success of past and present examples. It is practical advice on a level for the minority of people who are policymakers and rulers but where in the text is an example of a republic or a principality that has existed through the ages on account of the advice Machiavelli gives? Perhaps what Machiavelli may be suggesting is that if one follows this advice then they will succeed, but bits and pieces of success stories from leaders and governments scattered across the world is just that…fragments. Hindsight tends to be very clear but in the here and now decisions are not as astute and no amount of calculation and planning can set the course of the future.

Many authors [i.e. Aquinas and Plato] have constructed imaginary republics and principalities that have never existed in practice an never could; for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself (48).

I too believe that the course of everyday reality should not be ignored; people cannot mimic the ideal in any sense of practicality. It is true that human nature is fallible; people are cruel, deceitful and greedy. But the ideal often sets the bar to be achieved in life. A world where people have no reason to strive to be good is not a world that I would like to live in. Ideals perhaps create a pseudo morality, a reason to restrain human behavior. In many ways this is what Machiavelli is creating, probably much to his dissatisfaction. If there is such a thing, Machiavelli seems to be emphasizing a practical ideal.
I do not think that he wants people to be cruel all the time or the world should live under an evil destructive dictator or that the unbridled masses with insatiable appetites should do whatever is necessary to quench those appetites, but he does realize that certain ends can only be achieved through unmoral means. If one were to study transitional democratic nations, that is, newly democratic countries that are in the process of transition from another form of government, such as an authoritarian regime, all the data would point to a decrease in human rights and an actual rise in government authoritarian control. How could a democracy be justified in these increased restrictions and atrocities on the population? Well, to look to Machiavelli for the answer, the heightened control harsh methods are necessary to create a constraint on the population in order to create a regime of law and order. It is in the nature of man to be reluctant to change, even under a selfish destructive regime. Eventually the country in transition will begin to regain order and respect of the populace through the harsh methods and the country will abide be the artificial restraint of the laws. The trend with transitional democracies is that they become less repressive and democracy begins to take hold.

Hubris vs. Humility

I suppose I will continue with my thoughts from my previous entry, but with the expansion of the idea of Thucydides’ recognition of patterns in human nature.  

The pattern I saw throughout the book was Thucydides noting various balances between hubris and humility of various groups of people, and explicating what became of said people.  For example, the Athenians began with humility – they knew that, in order to win the Persian war, they had to give up all they had to become a stronger power – and ended up with tremendous hubris that lead to their fall.  That sacrifice of material wealth, rather than protection of it, shows that they knew they were capable of victory (why destroy buildings if losing would mean living in rubble under the Persian power), but that they knew that they would have to give up their pride in their monuments and buildings to win (88).  Under Pericles, the Athenians had a similar show of humility: moving into the city walls from the surrounding areas when the Spartans attacked.  “It was sadly and reluctantly that they now abandoned their homes and the temples time-honored from their patriot past, that they prepared to change their whole way of life, leaving behind they what each man regarded as his own city (135).”  These people gave up their pride and slept in shrines or temples, but all for the greater good of Athens.  Athens sat in a balance between “Pericles’ Funeral Oration” and “The Policy of Pericles.”  Pericles knew that the Athenians should not overestimate their power or become too confident in their abilities, and while he was their leader, they didn’t (see page 163: “[Pericles] appears to have accurately extimated what the power of Athens was…[she] would be victorious if she bided her time and took care of her navy, if she avoided trying to add to the empire during the course of the war…”).  However, after his death, they became over-confident, tried to fight battles they could not win (Sicily), and put themselves in the position to be greatly hated (feigning equality with the Melians by engaging in dialogue, then expressing that their power was inherent to them and that nothing would change it…over-confidence to the extreme).  This over-confidence, lack of humility, or hubris, lead to their demise.

Conversely, the Spartans were cautious and never seemed to reach beyond their means in battle.  They did not rise to ultimate power, but they did defeat Athens by knowing both their strengths and their weaknesses.

This pattern – humility leading to success leading to confidence leading to hubris leading to downfall – seems to be a universal warning as well as an outline for the rise and fall of most major empires.  Inherent loyalty, the kind Pericles spoke of in his funeral oration, is great as long as it is somewhat humble.  The overwhelming patriotism seems to have blinded the Athenians as they took on stronger and stronger foe.  As the last (reputed) empire, the US could heed to Thucydides recognition of this fall from power.  As we become an increasingly patriotic nation, we stop realizing our faults and open ourselves up to attack on the weaknesses we forgot we had.

On an entirely different note, I noticed that we talked a little of the women’s role in the war – how they were mostly subservient and “didn’t count” in the politics of Athens.  It reminded me of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, which is a satire about the Peloponnesian war and has the women of the cities cause the war to end.  Although entirely fictional, the work was written around the same time, and the characterizations of the women from the various cities mirrors the ones we discussed in class (the Athenian women are strong and in charge of the situation, the Spartan woman is a tough country bumpkin…).

Debating the Powerful - Melian Dialogue

Thucydides – Reflective Post

For this post, I will build off of a question posed by Professor Jackson in class: Why do the Athenians debate the Melians to begin with if they are so powerful? Initially, Athens wanted to speak to the multitudes to invoke fear into them to join, but the Melians insisted upon the Athenians presenting their cause to a few. “So we are not to speak before the people, no doubt in case the mass of the people should hear once and for all and without interruption an argument from us which is both persuasive and incontrovertible, and should so be led astray” (401). The rulers of Melos knew what the Athenians wanted control over Melos, who were dead set against being slaves. “We see that you have come prepared to judge the argument yourselves, and that the likely end of it all will be either war, if we prove that we are in the right, and so refuse to surrender, or else slavery” (401). Perhaps they thought that they could rationalize with the great democracy of Athens. As for Athens, debating with the Melians was the most rational route to take in order to preserve a future tributary. The Melians ask the Athenians: “And how could it be just as good for us to be the slaves as for you to be the masters?” and the Athenian response is: “You, by giving in, would save yourselves from disaster; we, by not destroying you, would be able to profit from you” (402). Thus by destroying the Melians, the Athenians act out of passion and anger and against what is in their own interest. Melos was worth a lot more without everyone being slaughtered and the city destroyed. Acting out of passion and not using reason and rational, may be on account of the Athenian anger toward their own injustice. Perhaps the democratic society that Pericles had bolstered in his speech turned into something more ruthless then he could have imagined; and perhaps the Athenians realized that might was not always right.

Thucydides - Pericles and Percieved Power

Thucydides - Substantial post

“Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils (243).” In Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian war, it was this lust for power that lead to conflict (through power struggles mentioned in Holly’s post), and misperceptions of power that lead to demise. The greed took two forms: successfully when the greed was that of a nation and made honestly; unsuccessfully when made a personal goal, in haste and ignorance. Through all this, Thucydides’ saving grace was Pericles, in whom he saw the right balance of greed and restraint.

Thucydides really liked Pericles, and wanted everyone who read his history to know the wisdom, justice, and power of this statesman. However much the Athenians blamed him for the failures that befell them, he was able to make statements that appeased their concerns and won him greater power and respect. For example, after two invasions by the Peloponnesians, the Athenians blamed Pericles, to which he responded that they should not seek individual gains in hard times, but rather, should be patriotic. He mentioned their previous, lavish, way of life, and reminded them that they were defending that which their country(city? Empire?) had provided for them (It seems a certain Kennedy in an inauguration speech surrounded by the fear of atomic war uttered a quite similar morale-booster…)(158-163). Pericles knew exactly what Athens was capable of, and knew how to appease Athenians so they would follow his strategy. Thucydides foreshadowed this fall of Athens because they saw power that wasn’t there: “If [Athens were to be left in ruins], one would conjecture from what met the eye that the city had been twice as powerful as in fact it was (41).”

Pericles, according to Thucydides, had the right strategy, and suggested that, had it been followed, the Athenians would have been victorious. He thought Athens needed to be patient and intelligent – not to attack en masse with ignorance, lacking strategy or planning (161). After his death, however, Athens did not heed his guidance, and stopped respecting its power and started expecting it. This is evident in Cleon’s speech in the Mytilenian Debate (when he wants to kill the Mytilenians because they don’t know their place and want to, gasp, be treated as equals, not as a subservient mass) (213-222). Diodotus responds with Perecles’ ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ theme, which saves the Mytilenians from massacre. The same idea of place in society and power by right leads the Melian Dialogue to end with Athenian massacre (408).

The general themes of power in the book fall into these categories: wanting it, getting it, keeping it, losing it. The twist that Thucydides brings to it is the idea of gauging power. The Spartans and their allies initially nudged Athens into war (see paragraph 126 on page 108 for a comical method) because they saw that the Athenian empire was growing, physically and in terms of power, military and otherwise. Sparta (and allies) accurately eyed its resources and power, and was ultimately successful in its attempts against Athens. They did fall short, but only when they had expected more power than was actually there (see page 202 in their support of the revolt of Mytilene). In terms of states, success came from accurate perception of power.


For smaller groups (ungoverned), Thucydides notes the same kind of power perception. In the section about the plague, when Athens fell into a lawless state, he attributed its demise to sudden individual wealth and an ephemeral perception of life – that if one had power, even if only for a short time, it could be abused (155). On a more specific note, Pausanias, a Spartan commander in chief, saw himself with power beyond his means, and ended up wanted on claims of unauthorized tyrannical behavior. Although noted as a great man by Thucydides, upon his death, was nearly disposed of as a criminal(109-110).

The perpetual message that the book sends, and perhaps what Thucydides intended to convey, is that success comes from an accurate judgment of capabilities and a full knowledge of one’s place in the power structure. Had Pericles not died, Athens may have placated Sparta. Although the wars are similar and the statements familiar, the book cannot be used as a parallel to current events, or even later wars, as the complexities of the inter-state political structure would be nearly impossible to recreate. Rather, the outcomes of various speeches or actions can be used to examine themes throughout wars, past and present, and as tools to examine international power structure and power play.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Thucydides - Power Politics in the Truce

Thucydides - Post 1 – Initial Response

Thucydides made several references to the “truce” between Athens and Sparta. At first it seemed that both polis’ were trying to find ways to avoid breaking the truce. As the story progressed though, suspicion and fear ensued and both Athens and Sparta attempted to appear to avoid breaking the truce while making ready for war (Ref: The Spartan Ultimatum). “The general belief [of Athens] was that, whatever happened, war with the Peloponnese was bound to come”(62). Both sides eventually blamed each other for initially breaking the truce. Athens had fought against Corinth with Corcyra although the peace treaty was still in force (67) and the Peloponnesians had supported the revolt of a city that paid tribute to Athens and had joined the Potidaeans in fighting against Athens (73). “What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta” (49)(87); “Sparta is frightened of you and wants war” (55). When examined closer, this situation can be seen to parallel modern interpretations of international relations, in particular that of realism. The play of power politics is evinced throughout the History of the Peloponnesian War. Be it an oligarchy, be it a democracy, behind the veil of ideology, power was turning the wheels of this war. Sparta was threatened by rapidly progressing Athenian empire and wished to keep the Status Quo and prevent Athens from taking over the whole of Hellas, which included preventing the Spartans from eventually being slaves to Athenian rule (106). Athens, virtually flaunting its imperialistic goal, wished to expand its empire and power sphere farther. And as Pericles points out: “Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it: it is certainly dangerous to let it go” (161). Furthermore, Athens became suspicious of Sparta and of losing its own power, so in the spirit of heightening security, it prepared in advance for the eventual war.

Of Course, the History of the Peloponnesian War should not be construed as a handbook for a realist argument in favor of international relations. There are many points in which Thucydides does not coincide with realism. The section dealing with Civil War in Corcyra, for example, explains a break down of societies on account of the war. Different camps of government began to appear within the state, which tore the country apart. Corcyra could not speak as a single entity when dealing with its national interest. There was no national interest, it became every man for himself. The state was not a logical entity, the people in power were hungry for power in greed, ambition, and “ungovernable passions” (245). Corcyra seemed to fall into a Hobbesian state of nature.

The first post.