Like modern democracies, ancient Greek democracy had an anger problem
neh.gov
neh.gov
In this presentation, the furies are being distilled into little more than representations of anger which is quite simplistic and raises many contextual issues. In short, they are better contextually understood as representing earthly Dionysian vengeance, maybe we can say 'ugly truth' although I am uncomfortable with the tone this description has. The furies are 'chthonic' or 'of the earth.' They are associated with death and the more primordial makings of life itself.
Interpretations of Greek mythology abound and on the surface, this seems like one of the less thoughtful ones I have come across. I am noting it, however, and am curious how she defends these angles throughout her works. Please share if anyone has an explanation. I am less than anxious to buy her books.
https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/t...
I have no idea if that book is meant to be free or not. I also haven't read it. Like you, I was a bit curious about her writings and how she supported her views. So, I hit up Google and that's an example of one of the results. There are quite a few hits, often at .edu domains.
Alas, it will be a little bit before I have time to read it.
Start taxing the rich a bit more, stop wasting the tax payers money on wars that cannot be won and the anger will go away. Anger always has a cause. Listen and find the cause for the anger. Then fix the cause, but don't point the finger at anger.
That is, people's anger is often completely disconnected from reality.
We do have an anger problem because "things are bad, possibly caused by wealth inequality" has resulted in people fighting to make things better by angrily striking at random directions, a lot of those actually increasing future wealth inequality - so if we want to solve the actual causes (for example, wealth inequality) we'd have to tackle the anger problem first.
It isn't about my personal situation. Wealth inequality doesn't affect the people on HN in any real, substantial way if they work for a tech company because we (mostly) are in the 6 figure household income bracket where you can live a good life in America without being bothered by things.
I'm still angry about it because I see its effects in larger political campaign spends and a constant push for lower taxes on the rich rather than the poor.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-cuts-for-the-r...
> A growing body of research suggests that investments in children in low-income families not only reduce poverty and hardship in the near term, but can have long-lasting positive effects on their health, education, and earnings as adults. Cutting programs that support low-income families to fund tax cuts for the rich could therefore also have negative long-run economic impacts.
Tax cuts for the poor, not the rich. :p
Maybe in some cases. But not in others. Some of us are "secondhand smokers" of wealth inequality.
Myself, I'm the only techie in the family. My parents were not in tech. My siblings are not in tech. My SO is not in tech. Many of my friends aren't either. Supporting them in hardships caused by the income situation does affect me personally, and so does looking at the problems of people I know.
Your SO not being in tech + your income probably is $100k or more. Once you reach that point in the US, you are not materially impacted personally.
We all have friends/family/etc that are not in tech and we float them money sometimes when they are in a bind. That isn't the same thing as wealth inequality materially impacting you personally.
You see the larger impact it has on other people. And that bothers you, which is perfectly understandable. But that is a political problem rather than a personal thing at that point.
If we were to accept your argument that "anger isn't the problem, but the cause of the anger is the problem", then we would have to accept these angry people's solutions: immigrants should be returned to their homes (or killed), women who have abortions should be prosecuted for murder (or killed), blacks/Jews/queer folk/etc should be killed, and as for Conlin, well, that last solution solves that one, I guess.
Another problem with the "argument for anger" is the tacit assumption that problems can't be identified or changed without anger. I have found the opposite to be true. Anger can be a handy divining rod for injustice in the world, but it is an equally good divining rod for personal ignorance. In short, anger lies. Moreover, it makes solving big problems very difficult, since anger fogs the rational mind.
Ironically, it is impossible to know where the anger is leading you, to change yourself, or to change the world, until you give it up.
That simpletons think that the cause for their misery are even poorer people (like immigrants etc.) is because they are told so. Unfortunately anger doesn't help thinking deeply, but it is definitely a sign that there is a problem. An therefor anger shouldn't be dismissed. Anger is like an alarm siren. Something is wrong, but just switching of the alarm is probably not the right solution.
Angry about inequality? Blame the [Jews, Moslems, liberals, conservatives, blacks, wealthy, poor, women, social justice warriors,...]. It's both easier and more satisfying. Problems are hard to solve, after all.
>Start taxing the rich a bit more, stop wasting the tax payers money on wars that cannot be won
are allowed to exist and influence policy and culture in any way. The other half is, of course, based on the existence of the opposite point of view.
This is a tractable problem for a society that has the capacity for reasonable public discourse. This is a completely intractable problem for a society obsessed with hot takes.
"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election. (Aristotle)"
Along with tyranny, Aristotle considered democracy and oligarchy the three bad forms of government. He wrote his Politics with both the Athenian tyrants and Socrates' death (at the hand of the democracy) in mind.
What most people don't know is Aristotle's teacher, Socrates, was a military leader/hero and firmly believed the best form of government would be an authoritarian council of philosophers. Similarly contrary to popular belief Niccolò Machiavelli - despite what people know about his work most famous work The Prince - firmly believed democracy was the best form of government.
Obviously these truths run counterintuitive to what people think.
It was Plato who believed the ideal ruler would be a philosopher-king, but he also explicitly stated it was not a realistic option because the same philosopher-king could also be a tyrant.
I think that mostly, progression/invention to make things better came out of real needs that were frustrating. Frustration creates movement, movement creates change, revenge is a means of propulsion. Only a democracy can diffuse this built up revenge that allows action, so in that essence anger is healthy in a democracy.
In the end it can be frustrating on a team when the whole of it moves in the wrong direction, people want enough power to make sure things go right, if that is challenged, frustration/anger set in. If you can manage productive things out of frustration/anger, you will win at this game.
David Simon stated that he is driven by a revenge type of motivation.
In a talk that Simon gave to a live audience in April, 2007 at the Creative Alliance's storytelling series, Simon disclosed that he had started writing for revenge against John Carroll and Bill Marimow, the two most senior editors at The Baltimore Sun when Simon was a reporter at the paper. Simon said he had watched Carroll and Marimow "single-handedly destroy" the newspaper and that he spent over ten years trying to get back at them.
Anything I've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been accomplished because I was going to show people that they were fucked up, wrong, and that I was the fucking center of the universe and the sooner they got hip to that, the happier they would all be.
The ego has its reasons for being part of our evolution, it is a driving force that make you believe you can be better. That is probably closely related to anger, frustration, revenge and the most important part, productively using that fuel to burn your fire of propulsion to success.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Writing_process.2C...
I found this thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZbQuqAQCI, but that is an interview in the wake of the lecture, not the lecture itself.
And I gotta love America, where professorial lectures are accomapnied by the national anthem and a military flag ceremony!
By population EU is larger than US
It's not even the oldest, probably Iceland is, its parliament was formed in 930 by Vikings.
I digress. It seems that democracy has been hacked many times over history (thanks OPs for all the links). Honestly, what would be a feasible alternative?
PS: Please do not bring up transparency; more of it won't solve it, we're being socially engineered at large scale.
A big part of the "American Dream" is that you don't have to be of particular ethnicity; you have to play by some rules, and you have a chance to make it big.
A long meandering of thanking and praising various funding organizations and people. A great example of what's wrong with modern academia.
When I was an intern acting as an AV monkey we ran into all sorts of crazy stuff.
Sucking up to people who give you money is an art form present in all forms of business.
If this was Hollywood, instead of a ceremony, there'd be a "casting couch."
The only real issue is whether you can search for, and publish results that are the opposite of the hand that feeds. And as Google recently proved, that is a problem.
What seems like you're actually annoyed by, is having to wade through comments and content that were never intended for you. (Pro-tip: Skip ahead.) I mean, should we also get mad at PBS saying "this program was brought to you by the X, Y, Z, and Viewers Like You?"?
Is the issue one of "length" or "content?" Because as I've shown, PBS does the same content and nobody complains. And if it's length, yeah, it's annoying, but we're the most spoiled people in the history of the human race if we can't skip some video being beamed across the entire planet after previously being recorded on trillions of dollars of research, billions of dollars of industry, and tens of thousands of smart people all working together in harmony to bring us a video... that could have been clipped a little in the beginning.
It might actually get more attention that way. The scientist could show up and do doughnuts in the parking lot, squirt champagne on the crowd, and get a trophy. I'd watch the hell out of that.
"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters."
I'm not so sure about that. I think it has a lot to do with how we are raised and what we are taught when we come into this world, and it can be changed.
Recently I read some very nice fiction called the Green Sky Trilogy [0] (that has given rise to a video game which was far ahead of its time [1]), which depicts a pacifist society where there is a taboo on "unjoyful" behavior and activities, like anger and violence, but not on inherently "joyful" activities like sexual relations.
It really raised something I have always found very odd about our own world.
Why does almost every cultural on Earth, even relatively secular ones, repress activities that bring pleasure and life, but promote violence and death?
It's just bizarre.
Consider the infamous censorship of a TV show where they showed plenty of gore but not naked corpses, so they covered their buttocks with even more blood. [2]
Like we are supposed to be OK with that, but not nudity.
You have people beating each other up and show weapons and guns in children's cartoons, but shy away from showing anyone kissing someone.
So if we can condition ourselves to accept violence and strife – the causing of pain and death – things that are downright contrary to our existence, then we can condition ourselves to reject them as well.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_(video_game)
Sex is associated with pain and suffering, and that's why taboos exist. Whether it's unwanted children, unwanted contact, diseases, or unfulfillable desires, there's plenty of downside to sexual behavior. Violence is easier to understand correctly than sex: violence is always bad unless it's necessary, while the conditions which make sex good or bad are more complicated, and thus, less comprehensible to children. Every four-year-old knows you shouldn't actually drop anvils on people. Inappropriateness is an ingredient of slapstick comedy which is (partially) why characters in children's shows do bad things to each other. Note that Pepe le Pew nonetheless appears in children's shows; his attempts at romance are also obviously wrong and thus funny.
On the other hand I do notice a positive correlation between people thinking the solutions to social problems are easy and people becoming angry about politics. This makes sense because it's natural to feel aggrieved when someone fails to solve an easy problem. But in reality the solutions to social problems are not so easy.
If culture and upbringing can condition us to reject and feel awkward about our most basic instincts, then culture and upbringing can make us reject violence or causing grief to each other as well.
By the way, the books I mentioned weren't "utopian predictions", in fact they have a dark side to them. For example, in that world even children are encouraged to take calming narcotics when they feel upset or agitated, which stifles them in different ways. Highly recommended reading in any case.
In a pre-modern society, reproduction has to be controlled sociologically because it can’t be controlled technologically. And violence is how you do everything from get your food tonprotecting yourself from people trying to take your resources.
Technology also conveninetly obviates the need for violence to get food, even meat.
The whole control on sexuality is a pure human thing- we are the only species who hides when in heat the stimulus to the opposit sex. My personal conclusion was, that this allowed for more energy to be diverted to other "culture" practices - such as building houses and the likes..
Most of the world is not how you describe, it seems that you're talking about local problems mostly particular to (among some other places) USA.
Ancient greece wasn't a democracy. It was an oligarchy of slave owners.
Your examples are good, but my favorite example was the battle of Arginusae, a massive Athenian victory which directly led to the fall of Athens.
In the Peloponnesian War, Spartas army was supreme, but they could never defeat Athens navy. Finally they crushed it at Methymna, and blockaded the remainder, positionihg the Spartan navy to block trade with Athens and starve them.
Athens was forced to build a new fleet manned by inexperienced sailors, and appointed 8 strategoi to lead it against the now vastly superior Spartan navy. Using innovative tactics they won a great victory at Arginusae.
But immediately after, the Athenian commanders were unable to rescue survivors from their disabled/sink ships due to a sudden storm. The citizens of Athens, joyous at the amazing victory, now turned sour. The assembly voted to execute the generals. After they were executed, the war turned against Athens and many realized the mistake they made killing their best generals, so they brought similar charges against the instigators of the charges against the generals.
Pure democracy is a mob at work.
- If democracy is truly power to the people, then the people should have any power, including the power to subvert their own democracy. These democratic channels are currently (in Marcuse's 1960s and now) being blocked by use of mass media and the methods of presentation and prevailing orthodoxies in fields from literature to economics.
- When democratic means are blocked, they may require apparently un-democratic means to open, as a democracy would have to use those blocked routes in order to unblock them, an extra-democratic method is required.
1) It made use of ostracism - enemies of democracy were excluded from public life (for up to 10 years) in public referendum.
2) It was a direct democracy while modern democracies are representative democracies - which makes them de facto oligarchy of professional political class
3) It balanced citizens rights against duties ie. top tax bracket citizens served in hoplites during the war while lowest class was exempt from military service.
Yes Greek democracy excluded women and slaves but Athenians would be amused by the notion that women could be citizens and modern democracies also exclude non-citizens like low paid, migrant workers from democratic process.
My point - I am attempting to be sarcastic above - is that democracy is a moving target. Athens set certain imperfect model from which we draw upon for the last 2,4 thousand years. And that if you read detailed accounts of Athenian politics surprisingly a lot of their dilemmas could echo today - human nature I guess.
http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/06/23/portland-police-ch...
Still, I'd prefer democracy with all its problems to the Republic he proposed.
Also, the underlying assumption that anyone who is angry is always the one with the problem is troubling to me. I see it often, it's not good.