Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998
Greeks and Independence?
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
In August, we began a short thread on the virtue of
independence. I was going to respond more thoroughly to the
following, but I wanted to wait until I had a chance to do a
re-reading of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey. Also, once I thought of
all the implications and the facts necessary to answer Mr.
Johnson, I was a bit overwhelmed, since we have a different
understanding of the Ancient Greeks. With a special thanks to
Gary Hull's recent series of articles in *TIA*, "Ancient Greece:
Atlantis Found and Lost," I can now answer briefly, since Gary
has covered the facts (and I look forward to the conclusion).
>From Brian Johnson [clipped for brevity]
>
>I disagree with Mr. Miovas' characterization of ancient Greek culture on
>two fronts. (1) ...It may very well be that certain actions of
>Odysseus in Homer's _Odyssey_ are independent -- but this does not mean
>that the Greeks had an explicit *idea* of independence. In this way,
>examples from Greek culture do not directly answer Tara Smith's question:
>"when did the idea of independence as an admirable personal trait begin to
>win acceptance?"
While it is true that the Ancient Greeks had no explicit concept
of "independence," if one understands they were well on their
way to concretizing *rationality* (beginning with the _Iliad_
and _Odyssey_), and that the Objectivist virtues are all aspects
of rationality, then one can say they were at least on the verge
of discovering the more specific virtues. Their virtues were a
sub-set of rationality just as the Objectivist virtues are, they
simply sub-divided the primary virtue in a different way. As
Gary points out in his series, virtue is one, so to have
rationality is to have all the virtues, even if they are not
called by the same name.
>(2) ...In the case of Achilles, Homer's poetry clearly presses
>us with the fact that Achilles' anger about being cheated of his war prize
>is savage. The _Iliad_ dramatizes Achilles' decent into bloodthirsty wrath
>and his return to humanity at the close of the book (when Achilles meets
>with Priam).
I'm still not sure what to make of this. There is a sense in
which one can say Achilles was savage, if by that one means
"setting oneself apart from one's society" (a concept of
savagery the Ancient Greeks had). However, setting oneself apart
is required by the virtue of independence. I'd say the Ancient
Greeks were mixed on this point. In some respects, they
understood that a reasonable man had to make decisions on his
own (to the extent they understood free will), which would be
independence; on the other hand, the Ancient Greeks knew they
were the only civilized people at the time, so there was the
implication that "setting oneself apart" meant to reject a
cilvilized means of living -- i. e. to become a savage. Many
centuries after the _Iliad, Socrates was offered the choice of
death or exile. He chose death because he knew the alternative
was far worse. I think you'd have to give more particulars in
Achilles' case to show he was a savage in current terminology,
meaning one who rejects reason.
I think Achilles' "decent into blood thirsty wrath" is the
aspect of the _Iliad_ that makes it a tragedy. That is, by
Achilles taking his stance, he placed his best friend into a
position of having to fight the Trojans without his help,
leading to his death. In the story, this drama is presented as
the punishment of the gods for Achilles rejecting "Greek honor."
By this I mean he had a choice of fighting for the honor of the
Greeks in the Trojan War, or his own personal honor in his fight
to have his prize (his lover) returned to him. Implicitly, the
message is that independence can come at a high price, which in
this case leads to tragedy (the loss of a loved one). As with
all Greek tragedies, the hero is placed in a desperate
situation, and he must chose accordingly. Personally, I admire
Achilles' choice; for what is the use of upholding the honor of
one's society, if one's own personal honor must suffer as a
consequence? Note the reversal here compared to the modern
(Christian based) conception of honor, where sacrificing oneself
is held to be more honorable than upholding personal integrity.
And it helps to underscore the fact that the Ancient Greeks were
quite rational.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:52:02 -0400 (EDT)
Independence
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>from Tara Smith:
>
>I have a question of intellectual history, and would
>appreciate hearing from anyone with knowledge or leads
>on it: when did the idea of independence as
>an admirable personal trait begin to win acceptance?
Depending on exactly what you mean, I think the idea of
independence as an admirable personal character trait can be
traced all the way back to the Ancient Greeks -- especially
Achilles and Odysseus in _The Iliad_ and _The Odyssey. They may
not have called it that specifically, but both men exhibited the
trait of independence.
Achilles, the most revered of the Ancient Greek warriors,
refused to fight the Trojans until he was paid the price he was
promised (it was a slave girl, but that is another issue). Even
after being admonished, threatened, bribed, and otherwise
cajoled, he stood his ground against all other men (and some
gods, if you want to include them). I'd call that independence,
though the Ancient Greeks called it honor.
Odysseus acted on his own independent judgment practically all
of the time against Poseidon (if you want to include him), his
crew, and the people he met in other lands. They called it
courage, but it still involved acts of independence.
Both characters where greatly admired in the Ancient Greek culture.
I don't know when the term "independence" specifically as a
character trait came into usage.
