Victor Davis Hanson: Who Killed Homer?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- Have we killed Homer for good? Stephen Blackwood and historian-farmer Victor Davis Hanson examine the state of the contemporary West by returning to its ancient Greek origins. They explore the richness of its first principles, including self-critique, the elevation of rational understanding, the democratization of learning, and the unification of thought and action. They also bring to light our current cultural crisis: the uncritical rejection of the inherited past, an intellectualism divorced from reality, and a surrender to relativism at the cost of true self-reflection. They close by reflecting on the lateness of the hour, and offer a vital call to seek and speak truth, to ignite the fire of independence of mind, and to remember that while we may know more than those who came before, they are, as T.S. Eliot said, that which we know.
Links of possible interest
Who Killed Homer
www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Hom...
Victor Davis Hanson's website
victorhanson.com/wordpress/
Ralston College
ralston.ac
Ralston College Short Courses
www.ralston.ac/humanities-sho...
Stephen Blackwood
www.stephenjblackwood.com/
0:00 - Introduction
4:52 - Core values of Western civilization as inherited from the Greeks
8:29 - The ways in which these values have been preserved across history
15:17 - The role of conservatism in society
22:28 - How to better transmit these values to the next generations
28:38 - Highest realities accessible to everyone; reading from Homer
35:38 - Advice for young people to live lives of freedom, depth, and courage
#RalstonCollege
Applications for Ralston College's MA in the Humanities for 2023 are now open: www.ralston.ac/humanities-ma
Victor Davis Hanson is brilliant.His analytical and empirical approach reveals a clear and insightful Historian that is rare these days.
The introduction from Stephen Blackwood is excellent. Thanks.
exactly what I was thinking - superb.
I discovered Nietzsche later in life. In "The Birth of Tragedy", he addresses the reality of human nature as revealed through their attitudes to Apollo and Dionysus. Nietzsche was a philosopher, but more important to his thought, he was a classicist. As a young man, I do not think I could have understood his analysis of the ancient Greek world and how it could be so relevant to the present. It takes a certain minimum amount of actual life experience to appreciate the Dionysian and Apollonian sides of human nature. The desire for order and control, but the randomness and chaos of the demons of reality from without and within. I never understood Homer until I came to see this underlying theme. Victor Davis Hanson echoed many of these concepts.
To return to the teachings of these classic Greek concepts are the greatest contribution we could make to modern society. Human nature does not change.
You should not only study Homer but the whole intellectual World of the Greeks because they had all the answers.
'Only the valiant', western movie title, reveals that Greek knowledge is not meant for the many. It takes above the basis of intellectualism, and 'will to power'
There is nothing new under the sun . . .
Nietszche revealed to me that the roots of modern science grew out of a medieval search for god's truth. I also realised by reading other things that the greeks established all major branches of science 2500 years ago. I had a first class science education but remained uninformed about the true origins of what we call 'science'. What we call christianity is a tiny fragment of a much larger world of knowledge and thinking. Today Christianity [Platonism for the People] is a 'book club' - like a Harry Potter fan - but there are other books which are as valuable as the bible; Iliad, odyssey, orestia, aychselus, Sophocles, Euripides etc - but these stories are still 'greek' to us - yet we consider ourselves educated - the greeks would laugh their socks off.
Best advice I've ever heard! Long time follow/ fan of Victor Davis Hanson.
Thx VICTOR
Mr. Blackwood’s intros are, in a word, epic! I think Homer would agree.
Show starts at 4:55
Excellent talk, the embodiment of knowing is a much undervalued proces.
One of the best conversations ever. Truly enlightening.
This explains why our founders were so prescient & we, as a culture have become so juvenile
Poignant conversation- interesting questions prepared by Stephen Blackwood and VDH with responding with realistic solutions to some of society's ills.
Blackwood & Hanson
Both Brilliant, Both HONORABLE.
Thank You Gentlemen.
Your intoduction was the most salient definition of our country's leadership I have ever heard. For that alone, I thank you. Pat
VDH is awesome. Oh and Mr. Blackwood's speech is the embodiment of class.
The final scene of the meeting between King Priam and Achilles is very moving.
Thanks Mr Blackwood,
As my Thermodynamics professor at the Naval Academy said in 1969, "It doesn't matter what your philosophy is if you don't know how to do anything."
*_Only he whose soul is in turmoil, forced to live in an epoch where war, violence and ideological tyranny threaten the life of every individual, and the most precious substance in that life, the freedom of the soul, can know how much courage, sincerity and resolve are required to remain faithful to his inner self in these times of the herd's rampancy. Only he knows that no task on earth is more burdensome and difficult than to maintain one's intellectual and moral independence and preserve it unsullied through a mass cataclysm. Only once he has endured the necessary doubt and despair within himself can the individual play an exemplary role in standing firm amidst the world's pandemonium._*
~ Stefan Zweig, _Montaigne_
*_Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher._*
~ Thomas Paine
*_Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us ~ and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along._*
~ Carl Sagan
*_People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take._*
~ Emma Goldman
*_A very popular error - having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions._*
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
*_[The average man] is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty,... and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_Those who won our independence believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty._*
~ Louis D. Brandeis
*_Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others._*
~ Aristotle
That’s so great. I suffered depression since teenager bout it was alienation from world which I struggled. At 60 things seem clear best of all my names old English. Our family came to Maryland in late 1600 s As teen I took German. My English name’s Stephen Twigg but German is Stefan Zweig. That’s just seeet Grace of God for me.
I finally became Orthodox Christian in my 40s. I’m sure if Zweig had made that carro. He would have been fulfilled in his soul
Thank you🙏
As Orwell said (or something very much like it), if an idea cannot be expressed in terms understood by an intelligent 12 year old it is likely to be false.
I will ask the same question I asked to Stephen Chavura on john Anderson's channel:
Just before the enlightenment, there is a conversation that happened in the 17th amongst scholars, which had an important impact on enlightenment, and in fact, was needed to make it happen. The opposition between ancients and moderns. That conversation happened mostly in France (A dominant country back then), which seems to explain why other countries and the English world didn’t keep track of it or consider it as a pivotal moment. In a nutshell, the ancients claimed that we couldn’t do better than what the Greek and Roman civilizations did and we should continue their tradition. The moderns claimed that we need to move from those old rules and make our own. The moderns win and the Enlightenment followed. I would be happy to hear what a modern English scholar has to say about it. A personal take is that we didn’t see something that is taking shape for the last several decades that in the moderns there were two types. One who wants better rules and another who wanted to have no rules a return to our instincts. One wants the evolution of civilization, the other the end of it, but both collaborate to move away from the ancients Greek and Roman tradition.
Any thoughts?
What follows may seem to be a non-sequitur to your point,.. but on further reflection should reveal itself to be fundamental to it.
Politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. While there are many things free people *should* do,... what *must* free people do,... as in literally do this or you will be forced to do so with the proviso that if you resist you may be killed.
Consider the following as a starting social contract between free people that is a work in progress.
*The Anarchist's Constitution*
1. *_There is no Sovereign Immunity._* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. *_The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule._* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.
Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply.
Is the only positive duty that of _if you break it, you must fix it_ sufficient,... or might there need to be more such positive duties. I am basically asking what unchosen, positive duties would all free people *have to observe* always,... even in an anarcho-capitalist libertopia. Rather than considering a contract between the government and a free people,... I am considering a contract between all free peoples with each other and regardless of individual consent. How can it be a contract,... regardless of individual consent,... you may ask? I think of it as the political equivalent of the necessity of all mathematics having to rely upon the use of axioms,... statements that are taken as self-evidently true requiring no further effort to prove. Anarcho-capitalists talk of rules without rulers. Okay,... so I am asking, what are these rules,.. how do we arrive at a consensus of what these rules are,... and what happens to those who dissent from these rules?
I am trying to start projects where anyone participating can submit a peer to peer social contract,.. similar to the way the internet itself works so well. Forget governments for a moment. Think specifically in terms of what positive, affirmative duties do we have towards each other. While there are many things free people *_should_* do, what *_must_* free people do,... literally,... or risk being killed for not doing so.
I understand Anarcho-Capitalists as believing there should be no unchosen, positive, affirmative duty,... other than everyone has to fix what they break, i.e., restitution. That unless it's consensual, it ain't moral. Minarchists aren't so sure that that is enough.
Do people consent to having to make restitution for the damages they cause others?
What is to be done with those people who refuse to make restitution for their injurious actions to others?
What is to be done with a serial killer, and how is this paid for?
Is it okay not to help an abandoned infant who will otherwise die?
Would it be okay for a mother to just leave a newborn infant?
What do you think should be done about international trafficking in children as sex toys.
What do you want done with adults who do this? Is restitution really enough? Is it satisfying?
At what point should a child be forcibly taken away from their present guardians/custodians?
What positive duties are such guardians/custodians necessarily agreeing to by taking a child from it's biological parents?
What is to be done with someone who is very wealthy and regards paying restitution as merely an inconvenience with no qualms about the injuries he does to others?
Can no violent response be made to those who gratuitously mistreat and harm animals?
Can someone who owns the last breeding pair of an endangered species destroy them at will?
Would it be okay for entrepreneurs to create limited liability corporations in which costs from debts and pollution are socialized and profits are held privately?
Is it just that such shareholders are liable only for the money they have invested, with no liability for any costs that corporation may have involuntarily imposed on innocent third parties?
A very practical question is what duty would citizens have in libertopia to cooperate with those trying to enforce what rules are to exist upon everyone,... even without everyone's individual consent?
How would court orders be issued opening up private information/property to criminal investigators?
Is justice always satisfied simply by paying restitution,... even when someone has violently violated your daughters?
This list is in no sense exhaustive. I consider all of this to comprise various works in progress. What are the minimum set of rules (these rules without rulers ) that even anarcho-capitalists seem to recognize as necessary? How do we arrive at such a consensus? What happens to those who dissent?
Again, politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. This is unavoidable, even in libertopia. Just curious, but would you hold that *The Anarchist's Constitution* is sufficient for a functioning free society. Can you really not think of various instances where even free people would have to submit, regardless of their individual wishes?
And please remember, I would be just as happy to learn more from this debate, but where Libertarians only see violence as a means to protect value and not as a means to create value, I am now asking, in all good will,... is this really necessarily so? *Because certainly we are alone in believing this to the extent that we do.*
Does the truth derive from authority or
Does authority derive from the truth?
Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear?
Is it easier to effectively organize people using voluntary association or threats of violence?
If it is wrong for the strong to exploit the weak,... how is it not wrong for the weak to exploit the strong also?
*_I wish men to be free, as much from mobs as kings, from you as me._*
~ Lord Byron, 1788-1824
I recently submitted the above to Walter Block, author of *_Defending the Undefendable,_* and he responded with...
*Dear David:*
*In my humble opinion, there are NO positive duties, only negative ones.*
*You ask: Is the only positive duty that of if you break it, you must fix it sufficient.*
*I think that’s a NEGATIVE duty. It’s part and parcel of the negative duty not to violate the non aggression principle.*
*Once we let the cloven hoof of positive duties into the tent, there’s no stopping them. Soon, we’ll have a positive duty to feed other people, not discriminate against them, who knows what else.*
*Best regards,*
*Walter*
Before I tell you how I responded, I would appreciate your thoughts and comments. I am worried that I may have been guilty of falling into the following error.
*_[W]hen a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds._*
~ Jonathan Haidt, _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion_
By my love of Liberty, I don't want to be either binded nor blinded by that love. But I want to know if it is possible to come up with a fairly universal set of rules for how socially sanctioned initiatory violence is to be used and restrained. I hope I will eventually succeed. I fear I may instead be painfully missing my objective. Consider also,...
*_If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself._*
~ James Madison
*_I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it._*
~ Judge Learned Hand
*_In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written._*
~ Ron Paul
Consider the life & death (literally) importance of having these questions answered, whatever those answers may be. This reminds me somewhat of how mixed the reception was when Kurt Gödel delivered his _Essential Incompleteness Theorem_ to the somewhat bewildered and bemused mathematical community in 1931. I hope (but know I must not insist) that answers can be found to such questions,.. or else I fear the worse for the world at large. Perhaps that fear is where I make my greatest error.
To anyone who is interested,.. leave your thoughts and comments, *please.*
_While Liberty is never _*_Utopian,_*_ it is always _*_Melioristic,_* but that can *never* be good enough for the _left,_ and so the world *_burns!!?_*
@@davidhunt7427 This is a hell of an answer, but I will take some time to see if there some material for me. See you later
Victor is exactly right
Podcast begins at 4:50. Don't get me wrong...the introduction is nice...just a bit long. Enjoy!
For those interested, if you click "SHOW MORE", you can see the index for this podcast, and each section by topic.
"Without the correction of reality..." expresses the quality of a lot of things anymore.
Does anyone know the opening piano piece ? My guess is Bach / Glenn Gould.
@36:00 Blackwood's observation about people searching for knowledge and something to believe in, reminded me of the quote, attributed sometimes to G. K. Chesterton, that "When men cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything."
I just sold my home which overlooked Ralston Mansion in Belmont CA who made came to California in 1800s. Is this school related or refer it’s naming to the California magnate
22:00 Isocrates does not say that about being Greeks is not racial and in that specific speech to the Athenians is being fully racial .
The meaning is different
In his attempt to persuade the Athenians after he failed with other cities and tyrants to unite the Greeks against the barbarians he is saying to them that they (the Athenians) are so great that being Greek is not anymore like originated from Thebes of Sparta etc but having the Athenian culture among Greeks because Athenians were at the peak of Greek culture .
And he called them in a fight against barbarians who sees them as not capable of being free citizens
5:55 interview starts
The degree of arrogance equals the degree of ignorance.
Dunning Kruger
Where is the cover image from?
I think it's a statue of the Trojan Priest Laocoon being strangled by sea serpents. If memory serves, his response to the big wooden horse was "Thiiiis seems suspicious" and Poseidon, who was pulling for the Greeks, sent sea serpents to keep him quiet.
Can someone tell me the name of the song in the intro?
Thank you, It’s a very catchy piece, that I have endeavoured to find, to no avail, I’ll try again. At 4(
The 'l' in 'almond' is silent.
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7: 13-14, Revised Geneva Translation.
VDH is the wisest man in the world.
You're forgetting one very key contribution academics haven't made to society: starting or maintaining a family... The most basic core experience a member of society can have, these elite academics want no part of it and in fact want to dismantle.
Well, there are those of us who continue to circulate our cheaply printed pamphlets and recite Homer, with no help from VDH. Also, I grow a lot more different KINDS of grapes than VDH.
Journey ,Taxes and Death are Certain .
At 22'06" you misinterpret Isocrates, who actually had a very nationalistic, if not localist, point of view regarding Hellenism (or even Athenaism). One who is fluent in ancient and modern Greek can pick out the tone of irony in his hyperbole. The Greeks at that time really did consider one outside the Greek lineage (not only language) barbaric.
In a sense, even today, one who does not have a deep connection with and understanding of the didactics of the Greek language, ranging from its classical past to its literary present, still is a barbarian. The fact that the West hast deviated from the study of Greek makes it a barbaric world in dire need of Hellenization, if it is to save itself...
Definitely not visible in the foreseeable future.
How'd i get here?
Oh well.
D'OH!
The Ancient Greek would say "we Hellenes are free men; Barbarians are slaves". It means being ruled by a public Law which respects your rights. You are the member of a state and not the subject of an individual despot/emperor like Putin or Xi Jinping.
[Taken from Kitto's 'The Greeks']
"The death of western civilisation itself" - VDH talks about 'rule of law' which is the received wisdom. I'd say it is more basic than that. We forgot the value of history itself. We no longer see the point of history ; preferring to live in an endless present. For example at school in the 1970s, Classical Greek and latin were referred to as 'dead' languages [ie. no-longer relevant]. This became a self-fulfilling prophesy - unless you explain the relevance of history people will quite rightly say there are far more important things to teach children than all this ancient nonsense. The relevance of the classics was taken for granted. It is not just greek ideas that have been forgotten about - astrology for example is older than classical thinking and we still observe the equinoxes and the solstices for very good reason today - but I never learned this at school - I've kind of figured it out + visiting Persepolis in Iran helped me understand.
Would that be Homer as in Homer Simpson? Then that would be Mr. Burns who worked Homer to death.
Lisa with her constant whinging
homer?* who killed...
Who gave it one thumb down? Joe Biden?
It's clearly Homerphobia!
;)
@@dupplinmuir113 Clever. I like it. Send it to Hanson. Seriously.Brilliant.
VDH is the epitome of an oxymoron. American academic .
Today's conservative is just yesterdays liberal
VDH is as pedestrian as it gets.
What fugue is that?
humans should mentor the coming artificial super intelligence ASI
The sophist vh is the rick steves of history...
VDH has never served his country.