Did Thucydides Believe in Progress?
As soon as I have a minute I will weigh in on Iraq and Dan K's very thoughtful response to my last post. But meantime, I consulted my wonderful classicist colleague Josiah Ober (who writes and consults on the lessons of ancient democracy for the present) on the Greek view of history -- not just to further my debate with David Rieff but more generally on the alignment of our classical heritage with liberal political and normative theory. He writes:
"It is always interesting to see the Greeks brought into real-world debates. In this case, I think David Rieff's citation is a red herring, in that I would not agree that there is a standard "cyclical" view of history among the Greeks. Some Greek views of change were linear and degenerative (Hesiod's "ages of man" beginning with gold and ending in his present, with iron). Others seem inherently progressive (Aristotle's teleological approach, which sees forms of government seeking and, in his own time, achieving, their telos). Plato does suggest, in some passages, a cyclical view, although elsewhere (the Atlantis narrative) he seems to opt for a degenerative view. Rieff's notion that the Greek view of history is cyclical perhaps comes from Thucydides' famous comment (1.22.4)
The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content.
This sense that the future will be relevantly similar to the past can be read as supporting a cyclical view, but need not be read as rejecting the possibility of progress. I have a forthcoming piece on Thucydides and political science which argues that Thucydides does in fact assume the potential for historical progress, and that he regarded his own text as didactic in a specifically progressive sense. It is worth pointing out, anyway, that there was in fact substantial progressive change in Greek political history: democracy was much more prevalent as a form of city-state government in the later fourth century B.C. than it had been in the fifth or sixth centuries. And surely no one today really believes in a robust form of cyclical history - or does David Rieff actually suppose that some time in the future chattel slavery will once again be common and generally regarded as morally unproblematic?
Josh's article, entitled Thucydides and Political Science, is forthcoming in the Brill Companion to Thucydides.
"And surely no one today really believes in a robust form of cyclical history..."
Although it'd be kinda cool if we had the US Army Corp of Engineers build a necropolis.
I bet they could build a pyramid the size of Kansas.
November 7, 2005 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"or does David Rieff actually suppose that some time in the future chattel slavery will once again be common and generally regarded as morally unproblematic?"
This sort of posturing is just silly. I really hope you can do better than this.
November 7, 2005 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And surely no one today really believes in a robust form of cyclical history - or does David Rieff actually suppose that some time in the future chattel slavery will once again be common and generally regarded as morally unproblematic?
As a biologist, I would like to point out that progress and evolution are not the same thing. Evolution implies a permanent state of change, while progress is invariably accompanied by backsliding. I am by no means a scholar of Greek civilization but I believe the Greeks experienced a dark age around the 10th century BC after the fall of the Mycenaens and lost their ability to write. It's arrogance to believe that such a thing is no longer possible today. Another ice age or polar magnetic shift in the future is certain.
My personal belief is that progress is made by a sort of forward moving daisy-chain. Two steps forward, one step back.
November 7, 2005 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the few truly cyclical views of history is found in Nietzsche's idea of the eternal return, although I don't really know what he meant by that. (Anyone care to explain?)
November 7, 2005 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is saying that it isn't possible today? I take AM's point to be not that backsliding isn't possible, but that (contra the cyclical theory) that repetition isn't inevitable. This is what a true cyclical theory posits, that everything in history is repeated, and that's why she thinks that nobody today holds such a theory of history.
November 7, 2005 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe you believe that man can continually progress with only minor setbacks until the end of time? But of course if time ends then we're back to where we started before time began, aren't we?
November 7, 2005 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nietzsche's idea of the eternal return, although I don't really know what he meant by that. (Anyone care to explain?)"
You will post that comment an infinite number of times, so you best take responsibility for it. But apparently you will not remember all those other times you posted it. Like "Groundhog Day" with no memory, so get it right. To me it is very close to the existential "once and only once" in emotional effect, but Nietzsche got real excited about it.
...
As far I as remember Thucydides, he was didactic but very conservative, and at least on the surface attracted to the Spartan model. Tho they were his patrons. I am not sure he would recognize a valuable form of "progress."
November 7, 2005 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think it's all pretty random, that our civilization will die, that we'll relearn some things, re-practice some barbarities, but that nothing about this implies that history is cyclical. History is random.
November 7, 2005 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping we cycle back to the age of the Cult of Dionysus. I'm told there's nothing women like more in spring than to go out in the woods and tear people limb from limb and devour the flesh.
November 7, 2005 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be instructive that plutocracy (and the end of economic redistribution) and cultural fragmention (following the collapse of social and cultural cohesion in the late 5th century BC) as much as the exploitation of direct democracy by demagogues was responsible for the demise of Athenian democracy.
Perhaps the Robert Kaplanites are right, that as the primacy of nation states declines, and along with it cultural cohesion and a widespread appetite for redistribution the End of History and the Triumph of Democracy will be fleeting.
Some historical theorists believe that civilizations on the decline tend to revert to their original incarnations, and for us it is not the modern nation state but the city state. City states, corporatocracy, weak central governments, and the collapse of national cultures may be our future in the coming decades and over the next several centuries.
November 7, 2005 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Ober ignores the obvious with regard to Aristotle's theory of constitutions -- that the entire schema is explicitly cyclical. He describes in detail how constitutions are undermined and transformed into the next constitution.
I would not agree that there is a standard "cyclical" view of history among the Greeks.
The cyclical view of history is so well represented in ancient Greek authors that I am astounded by this claim. Whether or not Thucydides shares that view is more uncertain. On the other hand, it is very difficult to sustain the view that Thucydides has a theory of historical progress in the normal sense (as, e.g., the rise of democracies). In the opening paragraphs of his work (his "Archaeology"), Thucydides does however sketch an idiosyncratic history of progress in the Greek world. It is progress only in the most narrow terms--progress in the ability of Greeks to fight bigger wars.
Yet his overall view of the Peloponnesian War is starkly pessimistic. He views it as a plague upon the Greeks, causing debilitation and terrible degeneration in society.
In my reading of scholarship on Thucydides, the argument that he had a theory of progress tends to be made by political scientists far more than by Classicists. Perhaps that is because Thucydides' Greek is starkly ironic, cynical, and sardonic--which is rather hard to convey in translation.
November 7, 2005 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.philosophyclassics.com/essays/955/
cool thanks, interesting read. after getting de-programmed at Landmark (formerly est) 8 years ago, i struggled with such a fast food course in philosophy which is yet powerful, struggled with the emptiness of nihilism I think.
but now I have come up with my own outlook which isn't a truth, just a way, similar to eternal return, and for the same supposed reason. which is the "jacket" of earth is heaven, that we have all already made it to heaven. (so there is nothing to argue about, and so that we can act heavenly now rather than wait until the afterlife. thus approximating heaven more so than if such a jacket is not worn.
i think eternal return is similar to reincarnation isn't it? and certainly my jacket does not excluse buddhism nor any other positive religion out there i don't think. no need for holy war when you are already in heaven.
but my "jacket" is dependent on an acceptance that heaven isn't perfect nor was ever intended to be.
("jacket" being something you try on or wear, not a truth. And i think from the analysis on the Web of Nietzsche's eternal return, Nietzsche didn't mean for eternal return to be a truth either.)
November 7, 2005 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft767nb497&brand=esch
ol
A free online book by a classics professor at Tufts, Gregory Crane, 1998. I don't know if it is on topic (maybe more epistemology and ethics), and of course only one book of hundreds about Thucydides that I haven't read. But I enjoyed it and found it stimulating again tonight.
Francis Cornford also is online at Tufts. 1907 classic
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Thucydides/Cornford/CTOC.html
November 7, 2005 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to note that a similar conversation- on the nature of progress and development- is happening on a student blog at Harvard College. The guest writers there are having a fascinating conversation that, while I am of course biased, I would highly recommend.
November 7, 2005 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progress is a term for various concepts. Progress can mean improvement. Progress can mean advancement toward a goal. Progress can mean development or growth.
The common notion -- and it is common among historians -- that Thucydides had a notion of progress, can rest on the idea of progress as development, without embracing the ideas that history progresses toward some goal or is a chronicle of steady improvement. Thucydides is no mere chronicler. He clear believes that later events and outcomes are an enfolding of earlier choices, policies and trends.
That history should narrate how things came to be the way that they are, is to see history as a story of progress, in the narrow sense of development.
The notions of Hegel or Marx, regarding a telos or goal for history, implies a different kind of progress, from progress as development.
In biology, whether evolution encompasses development is a matter of some dispute. But, biology does show us that a distinction between cyclicality, developmental progress and random evolution is really a distinction between frames of analysis. We can easily place individual human development in the context of a human lifecycle -- even talk of development over the lifecycle -- without feeling that we are opposing ideas.
Thucydides may not have "believed in progress" so much as he had a specific frame of reference and analysis, suitable for discussing how things developed.
November 8, 2005 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can’t believe this discussion. It seems we’ve established progress may be possible, but not necessarily certain, and perhaps may include regression, the old three steps forward two back routine.
Gee, what earth shattering news.
What a complete waste of time. I’m of the opinion that anyone who needs help figuring out such things probably isn’t worth the effort and shouldn’t be encouraged. It’s the epitome of pseudo-intellectual wankery even most postmodernists would find embarrassing. I suggest a bit of regression is in order, and we simply lure out those who would discuss such matters, so as to more easily beat upon them heads with thigh bones; which is I believe the proper traditional response.
November 8, 2005 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
While NickDoe's response may have been slightly condescending, I have to say I sympathize somewhat with his view, and fail to see how this 'wankery' really applies to foreign policy discussions. I hope this branch of discussion doesen't exist solely to flatter the cockeyed arguments of one perversely cynical contributor.
November 8, 2005 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a complete waste of time. I'm of the opinion that anyone who needs help figuring out such things probably isn't worth the effort and shouldn't be encouraged.
So, you've anointed yourself the smartest person here and the only one who knows what's going on. Thanks for sharing. Er ... so what? One of the joys of liberty is that we may freely indulge our desires for discussion ... even discussion of those questions that geniuses like yourself already have all the answers to.
People argue about progress and the notion of progress because it's a concept central to the formation of political philosophy. In fact, one's beliefs regarding progress can determine whether one becomes liberal or conservative, and shape the nature of the expression of that belief in political affairs.
It can be, and frequently is, useful to air out exactly what one's beliefs are. This has the salutary effect of revealing internal inconsistencies that we may not have been aware of. In addition, we may learn something new, factually or conceptually. Other times, we just want to pull our puds because ... well, it's fun!
An example of the learning that can take place is that, by adding your voice to this discussion, you've revealed yourself as an arrogant elitist (some would say "ass," but I'm more polite), one who ridicules those who don't share his stratospheric IQ and complete, God-like comprehension of the world around him. As (your mentor?) Rush Limbaugh used to say on his show, "I've done all the thinking for you," so have you done all the thinking for us. If only we would stop wanking around and receive the gospel of your wisdom, the world yet might be saved. (Hey, that's progress!)
Philosophically, you would be more at home with the National Review or Reason, places where most of the conversation is subsumed by those same assumptions, giving rise to the same mean-spirited and egregious behaviors as you have evidenced here. And, as a bonus, all the conversation is among self-described geniuses like yourself, so there's no "pseudo-intellectual wankery" to irritate your highly developed but still tender sensibilities.
Those who discuss, progress. Those who don't, stagnate.
Thanks for your time.
mp
November 8, 2005 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Naugie, but more to the point, Nick, why did you stop to read this? There's plenty of other discussions going on; some of them might even strike you as important. If you're at a party and find yourself in a discussion that doesn't strike you as interesting, do you berate the participants or do you just move on?
For my part, I've been stuck in the torture threads for a day; questions about Thucydides and the nature of history attracted me as a way to stop thinking about waterboarding. A waste of time, if you want to call it that, is sometimes a great thing.
November 8, 2005 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It’s the epitome of pseudo-intellectual wankery even most postmodernists would find embarrassing."
Ok, not my own beliefs, but a thought-experiment. I've read a little Thucydides, looked around, and decided progress in the science and understanding international relations is impossible.
The Athenians summed it all up in the discussion at Melos. Might makes right, and it is the moral duty of weaker nations is to submit to the stronger. It is the moral duty of stronger nations to dominate, and sometimes when it is in their interest to defend their vassal nations.
I will include some language about pre-emption in my upcoming paper, work out some details, and entitle it:"The Bush Doctrine Revisited:Was Cheney Right?"
November 8, 2005 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should have included another important "discovery" the Athenians made. That their new "realism" in international power relations proved that it was dishonest to even make claims that morality and tradition, laws or rules of behavior, were possible or useful between nations.
Sound familar to anyone?
November 8, 2005 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
But actually I meant that, since I did struggle with a nihilistic feeling 6 years ago or so, came up with my own philosophy which is parallel to nietsche's as it turns out.
And I only had one philosophy class in college, where I dont' believe we covered nietsche at all being as introductory as it was. And in a mediocre college at that.
The only trouble with philosophy in politics is everyone else in the world has to think the same way you do in order for it to work, and the chances of that happening are slim and none.
So we end up with a world less perfect than it could be compared to a world where everyone was in agreement.
I went against my own jacket this morning, when I questioned someone's post regarding eliminating poverty entirely in America if the wealth was redistributed, questioning what happens next? Will we have so many illegal immigrants who become legal by becoming pregnant that we would end up with as much or more poverty anyways in the end, and a lower quality of life from the overpopulation to boot? This goes against the "earth is heaven" jacket since i wouldn't be acting very heavenly if I believed this. So if it weren't for my philosophy I wouldn't be left to question my own questions of whether a little poverty is a good thing or not.
November 8, 2005 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But of course if time ends then we're back to where we started before time began, aren't we?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
True enough. And if you have tuned in to any of the astronomers who do the SETI research, because of the vast distance of space, the distances of other planets so far that the number of light years behind you are when you are viewing something, they realize that some civilizations if there are or were any out there, very possibily may have destroyed themselves. Even if they find a planet like Earth, it might be too late at the time they are listening, as the inhabitants may have WMD's themselves out of existence.
Which isn't too hard to fathom happening on our own planet.
November 8, 2005 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink