Reading SPQR right now. I didn't really know much about the Roman empire but I know a lot more now. I was introduced to the Mycenean world as an under graduate at Ohio State by a wonderful teacher, scholar, and person, Dr. Jack Balcer, and I was hooked on ancient history. I love it all: ANE, classical Greece and Rome, Byzantine, the steppe empires, China, etc. Looking forward to her newest book, which I have.
I think one can argue with the ancients and still “revere” and admire them, albeit not from afar. But yes, one of the great things about the ancients is they cause us to question our own beliefs. And we should.
A key aspect of (studying) Classics is that they have been the object of analysis by smarter people over millennia.
That conversation gives even the newest and youngest modern readers a huge well of context to dip into, submerge themselves, and parse for nuance and semantic themes—at their own pace.
The greatest tragedy of the latter C20th was the academic vandalism of regressive "progressives" who have kept this conversation—a civilizational diary—from a generation or more of people. People who might otherwise have a little more purchase on the complexity of our world and the cosmos in tries to make sense of, rather than the bereft masses resorting to nihilism out of seeming desperation for meaning or even a strategy to find their own way with these established historical way-pointers.
Are you talking about the fact that they don’t teach the Classics as a standard in schools anymore? I guess you have a point there but thankfully, both the Classics and the historical analyses are easily available online now, if today’s vapid masses take the time to read them. Hell, there’s even audiobooks in case reading is too hard for people. But who knows, even if they were still taught in schools, people might not care either way.
Someone else here mentioned that the “progressives” actually distorted the meaning of the Classics or otherwise tried to portray Rome and Greece in a different light but I haven’t seen any proof of that except the example I mentioned. See below.
I noticed that she and others often used the few powerful women in Rome and mythological figures as examples of “feminists” but haven’t seen any other “progressive” revisionism. Could you point me to a few examples?
As for them being pluralist or fascistic, that depends on the period. Men could vote in the Republic (even if the influence of votes were based on which assembly they were part of) so I’d call that kind of pluralistic and not that fascistic. At the very least, they allowed different opinions. Regarding the Empire, I’ll agree that was pretty fascist.
So while the Republic wasn’t a “liberal democracy” by today’s standards, they were better than some fascist nations today like China.
If Boomer “pseudo-academics” like her are bad, I wonder what that says about many Millennial and Gen X academics.
Communism and fascism are much the same thing, at least in practice.
By “a gang of armed men” are you referring to the military or the general public? Either way, I think there’s very few instances of leaders being killed simply for displeasing the public.
I had an older friend who loved deeply history. He was Hungarian and so he knew what for me was an awfully lot about European history. He said once that the past held the same kind of deep mystery as the future - mysterious and fascinating.
The past is hard to keep intact, even in symbolic form.
The Argentine philosopher, Mario Bunge (1979, pp.19–23), claimed (I think cogently) that (context-sensitive) wisdom is an emergent system-level organizational capacity. Bunge (1977, 1979) asserted that system properties exist independently of their measurement; proxies therefore constitute selective ontological reductions rather than exhaustive representations.
It was Barwise & Perry (1983) who argued that information is inherently partial and context-bound, and Wittgenstein (1953/2009) who first emphasized that meaning is constituted by its use—sc., semantics through relationships, like the contrast that enhances our vision—within context-dependent “language games”.
It's not that the Classical period is more meaningful, per se, nor that it is better or more complex or whatever, but the extended discussion that has occurred since. That conversation gives each new generation extra context and more purchase to advance our meagre understanding of human struggles to control and, perhaps eventually, understand our cosmos.
________
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). “Situations and attitudes”. MIT Press. ISBN: 978-026252457.
Bunge, M. (1977). “Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 3—Ontology I: The Furniture of the world”. D. Reidel.
________ (1979) “Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 4—Ontology II: A world of systems”. D. Reidel.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). “Philosophical Investigations” (4th ed., G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953).
"The Shock of the Old." What a great phrase to understand how prescient ancient wisdom is in our lives. In my substack, Feed the Soul, I just wrote about loneliness and Aristotle's tips for combatting it. What he says is echoed by our last US surgeon general: Spend time with friends!
The classics by the nature of creating a history is aristocratic.
How to engage a wider audience is a problem of relationships with the canon and other universal expressions like poetry, music, the arts and the sciences. Politics will ultimately take care of itself if we believe in the human stock. Medicine has a built-in belief in or understanding of human nature. Our wider culture needs to note and ask questions.
An excellent program Anya! Thanks
🙌💯🕊️
Good conversation
Mary Beard is no fan of Marcus Aurelius though. I’m not sure why exactly but she seems quite scathing about him. Not a fan of Stoicism.
Reading SPQR right now. I didn't really know much about the Roman empire but I know a lot more now. I was introduced to the Mycenean world as an under graduate at Ohio State by a wonderful teacher, scholar, and person, Dr. Jack Balcer, and I was hooked on ancient history. I love it all: ANE, classical Greece and Rome, Byzantine, the steppe empires, China, etc. Looking forward to her newest book, which I have.
I think one can argue with the ancients and still “revere” and admire them, albeit not from afar. But yes, one of the great things about the ancients is they cause us to question our own beliefs. And we should.
A key aspect of (studying) Classics is that they have been the object of analysis by smarter people over millennia.
That conversation gives even the newest and youngest modern readers a huge well of context to dip into, submerge themselves, and parse for nuance and semantic themes—at their own pace.
The greatest tragedy of the latter C20th was the academic vandalism of regressive "progressives" who have kept this conversation—a civilizational diary—from a generation or more of people. People who might otherwise have a little more purchase on the complexity of our world and the cosmos in tries to make sense of, rather than the bereft masses resorting to nihilism out of seeming desperation for meaning or even a strategy to find their own way with these established historical way-pointers.
Are you talking about the fact that they don’t teach the Classics as a standard in schools anymore? I guess you have a point there but thankfully, both the Classics and the historical analyses are easily available online now, if today’s vapid masses take the time to read them. Hell, there’s even audiobooks in case reading is too hard for people. But who knows, even if they were still taught in schools, people might not care either way.
Someone else here mentioned that the “progressives” actually distorted the meaning of the Classics or otherwise tried to portray Rome and Greece in a different light but I haven’t seen any proof of that except the example I mentioned. See below.
I don’t know if one should use that word in a more…refined place like this, heh. But how is she retarded?
I noticed that she and others often used the few powerful women in Rome and mythological figures as examples of “feminists” but haven’t seen any other “progressive” revisionism. Could you point me to a few examples?
As for them being pluralist or fascistic, that depends on the period. Men could vote in the Republic (even if the influence of votes were based on which assembly they were part of) so I’d call that kind of pluralistic and not that fascistic. At the very least, they allowed different opinions. Regarding the Empire, I’ll agree that was pretty fascist.
So while the Republic wasn’t a “liberal democracy” by today’s standards, they were better than some fascist nations today like China.
If Boomer “pseudo-academics” like her are bad, I wonder what that says about many Millennial and Gen X academics.
Communism and fascism are much the same thing, at least in practice.
By “a gang of armed men” are you referring to the military or the general public? Either way, I think there’s very few instances of leaders being killed simply for displeasing the public.
This was amazing! Thanks for sharing! Can’t wait to see Mary in May at Northwestern!
I had an older friend who loved deeply history. He was Hungarian and so he knew what for me was an awfully lot about European history. He said once that the past held the same kind of deep mystery as the future - mysterious and fascinating.
The past is hard to keep intact, even in symbolic form.
The Argentine philosopher, Mario Bunge (1979, pp.19–23), claimed (I think cogently) that (context-sensitive) wisdom is an emergent system-level organizational capacity. Bunge (1977, 1979) asserted that system properties exist independently of their measurement; proxies therefore constitute selective ontological reductions rather than exhaustive representations.
It was Barwise & Perry (1983) who argued that information is inherently partial and context-bound, and Wittgenstein (1953/2009) who first emphasized that meaning is constituted by its use—sc., semantics through relationships, like the contrast that enhances our vision—within context-dependent “language games”.
It's not that the Classical period is more meaningful, per se, nor that it is better or more complex or whatever, but the extended discussion that has occurred since. That conversation gives each new generation extra context and more purchase to advance our meagre understanding of human struggles to control and, perhaps eventually, understand our cosmos.
________
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). “Situations and attitudes”. MIT Press. ISBN: 978-026252457.
Bunge, M. (1977). “Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 3—Ontology I: The Furniture of the world”. D. Reidel.
________ (1979) “Treatise on basic philosophy: Volume 4—Ontology II: A world of systems”. D. Reidel.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). “Philosophical Investigations” (4th ed., G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953).
"The Shock of the Old." What a great phrase to understand how prescient ancient wisdom is in our lives. In my substack, Feed the Soul, I just wrote about loneliness and Aristotle's tips for combatting it. What he says is echoed by our last US surgeon general: Spend time with friends!
The classics by the nature of creating a history is aristocratic.
How to engage a wider audience is a problem of relationships with the canon and other universal expressions like poetry, music, the arts and the sciences. Politics will ultimately take care of itself if we believe in the human stock. Medicine has a built-in belief in or understanding of human nature. Our wider culture needs to note and ask questions.
Really enjoyed this! Thanks for sharing. I had the opportunity to meet Mary Beard. Such a wonderful person and teacher