Letters From An Enthusiast

Good and Evil

I wrote this on the Forum For Ayn Rand Fans and liked it so much that I figured I would share it here:

Plato, via Socrates, believed that knowledge dictated action. So for him, what is most important is to know what something is, ie. to be able to have a (Socratic) definition of a virtue, and thus from having a definition, the proper action would follow. So, when an individual is able to properly define what Good is, Good will reside within him, making him unable to do anything else.

However, this gets much more intricate when you delve more deeply into Platonic Psychology. For having a knowledge of the Good is similar to being a mechanic, where the Good is an automobile as a whole. Thus it is impossible to have a knowledge of the Good without having a knowledge of all of the parts which constitute the Good. This is where Plato's concept of the Tripartite Soul comes into play (if you are interested, I wrote extensively on the Tripartite Soul previously in this blog). It is only when one has the virtue of Temperance (all parts of the soul acting properly and in harmony) that the Soul, combined with a knowledge of the Good, allows an individual to act accordingly.

Aristotle, and similarly Objectivism, rejects this because neither believe in a world of Forms and in the related epistemology. Aristotle said that for one to live the Good life, one must act accordingly by developing the proper habits conducive to a good life. Most importantly, this process is not a deductive process via the world of Forms, but is an inductive process from the world of reality. To observe reality, one must "Gnothi S'auton", or "Know Thyself". This means one must introspect and understand who you are as an individual, what it means to be a human, and how you should properly act in order to be true to a human's nature. Philosophy is only a guide-it cannot do this for you because, unlike Plato's false belief, knowledge does NOT dictate proper corresponding action...or even proper understanding. Proper knowledge comes from living and experiencing life, and as such, philosophy acts as a guide to interpret the world around you and to, from properly understanding the experiences you and (through history) others have gone through, properly project how you ought to act in the future. Repetition of this process leads to the development of proper habits, thus endowing within the individual a proper framework correlative to the good life.

This brings up the question, then, on what really is evil. The Greek word for evil is "hamartano", which originally meant "to miss the mark" (though later on, the Christians took this word and used it to mean sin). The Greeks and the Romans did not actually believe in a metaphysical evil-Satan, Demons, and a 'Fallen Nature' did not exist to them. To commit hamartano was simply to "slip up" on one's path to moral perfection. If a child who is learning how to ride a bike falls off the bike, you do not chide him for being evil! Rather, you understand that the child should get back on the bike, learn from the mistake, and will eventually become a master of bike riding. Similarly, an individual who attempts to become moral might slip up here and there, but these slip ups are not evil. Rather, they are just "missing the mark"-aiming at the bull’s-eye but landing two inches away. The verdict? Try again! Eventually the individual will reach such a state that to hit the bull’s-eye is natural, just as is riding a bike to many people.

There is another type of evil, though, and the Greeks and the Romans were well aware of this. This evil was to volitionally act contrary to one's nature. They called this barbarism and did not view such individuals as human (for really, they are not). Barbarians who lived within the borders of civilization were allowed to wallow in their own misery until they committed a crime, in which case they were imprisoned and, if the crime were serious enough, executed. Barbarians who lived outside the borders of civilization were also generally ignored unless they encroached upon the borders, in which case they were dealt with as one would deal with a nest of wasps. When the barbaric Iberians began attacking Roman allies in Spain, the Romans responded by conquering all of Spain, executing the leaders, and forcing peace upon the region by strict military rule. When the time came that these barbarians were willing to accept civilization and began to act accordingly, they were incorporated into the Roman state as citizens with rights protected by law.

Ultimately, the Classical world viewed morality in two parts: volition and habits. Those who made the choice to act in accordance with nature were civilized, and thus their journey towards the good life was reinforced by habits until they reached the point that the good life was seemingly natural. Those who made the choice to act contrary to nature were barbarians, and thus their journey to satiate their barbaric needs instilled habits within them that could only be met with proper correlative force.

In the Classical world, Plato was ignored. His view on how to live ethically was not taken seriously until around 250-300 A.D. ...almost 1000 years later! For most of the Classical world, it was the ethical system of Aristotle and the Stoics (such as Seneca, who had very similar views to Aristotle) that guided these men to act in such a way that, 2000 years later, we still live under their shadow.

Song of the Exposition

Here is an amazing (though long) poem by Walt Whitman.

1 AFTER all, not to create only, or found only,
But to bring, perhaps from afar, what is already founded,
To give it our own identity, average, limitless, free;
To fill the gross, the torpid bulk with vital religious fire;
Not to repel or destroy, so much as accept, fuse, rehabilitate;	5
To obey, as well as command—to follow, more than to lead;
These also are the lessons of our New World;
—While how little the New, after all—how much the Old, Old World!
Long, long, long, has the grass been growing,
Long and long has the rain been falling,	10
Long has the globe been rolling round.
2 Come, Muse, migrate from Greece and Ionia;
Cross out, please, those immensely overpaid accounts,
That matter of Troy, and Achilles’ wrath, and Eneas’, Odysseus’ wanderings;
Placard “Removed” and “To Let” on the rocks of your snowy Parnassus;	15
Repeat at Jerusalem—place the notice high on Jaffa’s gate, and on Mount Moriah;
The same on the walls of your Gothic European Cathedrals, and German, French and Spanish Castles;
For know a better, fresher, busier sphere—a wide, untried domain awaits, demands you.
3 Responsive to our summons,
Or rather to her long-nurs’d inclination,	20
Join’d with an irresistible, natural gravitation,
She comes! this famous Female—as was indeed to be expected;
(For who, so-ever youthful, ’cute and handsome, would wish to stay in mansions such as those,
When offer’d quarters with all the modern improvements,
With all the fun that ’s going—and all the best society?)	25
She comes! I hear the rustling of her gown;
I scent the odor of her breath’s delicious fragrance;
I mark her step divine—her curious eyes a-turning, rolling,
Upon this very scene.
The Dame of Dames! can I believe, then,	30
Those ancient temples classic, and castles strong and feudalistic,
could none of them restrain her?
Nor shades of Virgil and Dante—nor myriad memories, poems, old associations, magnetize and hold on to her?
But that she ’s left them all—and here?
Yes, if you will allow me to say so,	35
I, my friends, if you do not, can plainly see Her,
The same Undying Soul of Earth’s, activity’s, beauty’s, heroism’s Expression,
Out from her evolutions hither come—submerged the strata of her former themes,
Hidden and cover’d by to-day’s—foundation of to-day’s;
Ended, deceas’d, through time, her voice by Castaly’s fountain;	40
Silent through time the broken-lipp’d Sphynx in Egypt—silent those century-baffling tombs;
Closed for aye the epics of Asia’s, Europe’s helmeted warriors;
Calliope’s call for ever closed—Clio, Melpomene, Thalia closed and dead;
Seal’d the stately rhythmus of Una and Oriana—ended the quest of the Holy Graal;
Jerusalem a handful of ashes blown by the wind—extinct;	45
The Crusaders’ streams of shadowy, midnight troops, sped with the sunrise;
Amadis, Tancred, utterly gone—Charlemagne, Roland, Oliver gone,
Palmerin, ogre, departed—vanish’d the turrets that Usk reflected,
Arthur vanish’d with all his knights—Merlin and Lancelot and Galahad—all gone—dissolv’d utterly, like an exhalation;
Pass’d! pass’d! for us, for ever pass’d! that once so mighty World—now void, inanimate, phantom World!	50
Embroider’d, dazzling World! with all its gorgeous legends, myths,
Its kings and barons proud—its priests, and warlike lords, and courtly dames;
Pass’d to its charnel vault—laid on the shelf—coffin’d, with Crown and Armor on,
Blazon’d with Shakspeare’s purple page,
And dirged by Tennyson’s sweet sad rhyme.	55
I say I see, my friends, if you do not, the Animus of all that World,
Escaped, bequeath’d, vital, fugacious as ever, leaving those dead remains, and now this spot approaching, filling;
—And I can hear what maybe you do not—a terrible aesthetical commotion,
With howling, desperate gulp of “flower” and “bower,”
With “Sonnet to Matilda’s Eyebrow” quite, quite frantic;	60
With gushing, sentimental reading circles turn’d to ice or stone;
With many a squeak, (in metre choice,) from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, London;
As she, the illustrious Emigré, (having, it is true, in her day, although the same, changed, journey’d considerable,)
Making directly for this rendezvous—vigorously clearing a path for herself—striding through the confusion,
By thud of machinery and shrill steam-whistle undismay’d,	65
Bluff’d not a bit by drain-pipe, gasometers, artificial fertilizers,
Smiling and pleased, with palpable intent to stay,
She ’s here, install’d amid the kitchen ware!
4 But hold—don’t I forget my manners?
To introduce the Stranger (what else indeed have I come for?) to thee, Columbia:	70
In Liberty’s name, welcome, Immortal! clasp hands,
And ever henceforth Sisters dear be both.
Fear not, O Muse! truly new ways and days receive, surround you,
(I candidly confess, a queer, queer race, of novel fashion,)
And yet the same old human race—the same within, without,	75
Faces and hearts the same—feelings the same—yearnings the same,
The same old love—beauty and use the same.
5 We do not blame thee, Elder World—nor separate ourselves from thee:
(Would the Son separate himself from the Father?)
Looking back on thee—seeing thee to thy duties, grandeurs, through past ages bending, building,	80
We build to ours to-day.
Mightier than Egypt’s tombs,
Fairer than Grecia’s, Roma’s temples,
Prouder than Milan’s statued, spired Cathedral,
More picturesque than Rhenish castle-keeps,	85
We plan, even now, to raise, beyond them all,
Thy great Cathedral, sacred Industry—no tomb,
A Keep for life for practical Invention.
As in a waking vision,
E’en while I chant, I see it rise—I scan and prophesy outside and in,	90
Its manifold ensemble.
6 Around a Palace,
Loftier, fairer, ampler than any yet,
Earth’s modern Wonder, History’s Seven outstripping,
High rising tier on tier, with glass and iron façades.	95
Gladdening the sun and sky—enhued in cheerfulest hues,
Bronze, lilac, robin’s-egg, marine and crimson,
Over whose golden roof shall flaunt, beneath thy banner, Freedom,
The banners of The States, the flags of every land,
A brood of lofty, fair, but lesser Palaces shall cluster.	100
Somewhere within the walls of all,
Shall all that forwards perfect human life be started,
Tried, taught, advanced, visibly exhibited.
Here shall you trace in flowing operation,
In every state of practical, busy movement,	105
The rills of Civilization.
Materials here, under your eye, shall change their shape, as if by magic;
The cotton shall be pick’d almost in the very field,
Shall be dried, clean’d, ginn’d, baled, spun into thread and cloth, before you:
You shall see hands at work at all the old processes, and all the new ones;	110
You shall see the various grains, and how flour is made, and then bread baked by the bakers;
You shall see the crude ores of California and Nevada passing on and on till they become bullion;
You shall watch how the printer sets type, and learn what a composing stick is;
You shall mark, in amazement, the Hoe press whirling its cylinders, shedding the printed leaves steady and fast:
The photograph, model, watch, pin, nail, shall be created before you.	115
In large calm halls, a stately Museum shall teach you the infinite, solemn lessons of Minerals;
In another, woods, plants, Vegetation shall be illustrated—in another Animals, animal life and development.
One stately house shall be the Music House;
Others for other Arts—Learning, the Sciences, shall all be here;
None shall be slighted—none but shall here be honor’d, help’d, exampled.	120
7 This, this and these, America, shall be your Pyramids and Obelisks,
Your Alexandrian Pharos, gardens of Babylon,
Your temple at Olympia.
The male and female many laboring not,
Shall ever here confront the laboring many,	125
With precious benefits to both—glory to all,
To thee, America—and thee, Eternal Muse.
And here shall ye inhabit, Powerful Matrons!
In your vast state, vaster than all the old;
Echoed through long, long centuries to come,	130
To sound of different, prouder songs, with stronger themes,
Practical, peaceful life—the people’s life—the People themselves,
Lifted, illumin’d, bathed in peace—elate, secure in peace.
8 Away with themes of war! away with War itself!
Hence from my shuddering sight, to never more return, that show of blacken’d, mutilated corpses!	135
That hell unpent, and raid of blood—fit for wild tigers, or for lop-tongued wolves—not reasoning men!
And in its stead speed Industry’s campaigns!
With thy undaunted armies, Engineering!
Thy pennants, Labor, loosen’d to the breeze!
Thy bugles sounding loud and clear!	140
Away with old romance!
Away with novels, plots, and plays of foreign courts!
Away with love-verses, sugar’d in rhyme—the intrigues, amours of idlers,
Fitted for only banquets of the night, where dancers to late music slide;
The unhealthy pleasures, extravagant dissipations of the few,	145
With perfumes, heat and wine, beneath the dazzling chandeliers.
9 To you, ye Reverent, sane Sisters,
To this resplendent day, the present scene,
These eyes and ears that like some broad parterre bloom up around, before me,
I raise a voice for far superber themes for poets and for Art,	150
To exalt the present and the real,
To teach the average man the glory of his daily walk and trade,
To sing, in songs, how exercise and chemical life are never to be baffled;
Boldly to thee, America, to-day! and thee, Immortal Muse!
To practical, manual work, for each and all—to plough, hoe, dig,	155
To plant and tend the tree, the berry, the vegetables, flowers,
For every man to see to it that he really do something—for every woman too;
To use the hammer, and the saw, (rip or cross-cut,)
To cultivate a turn for carpentering, plastering, painting,
To work as tailor, tailoress, nurse, hostler, porter,	160
To invent a little—something ingenious—to aid the washing, cooking, cleaning,
And hold it no disgrace to take a hand at them themselves.
I say I bring thee, Muse, to-day and here,
All occupations, duties broad and close,
Toil, healthy toil and sweat, endless, without cessation,	165
The old, old general burdens, interests, joys,
The family, parentage, childhood, husband and wife,
The house-comforts—the house itself, and all its belongings,
Food and its preservations—chemistry applied to it;
Whatever forms the average, strong, complete, sweet-blooded Man or Woman—the perfect, longeve Personality,	170
And helps its present life to health and happiness—and shapes its Soul,
For the eternal Real Life to come.
With latest materials, works,
Steam-power, the great Express lines, gas, petroleum,
These triumphs of our time, the Atlantic’s delicate cable,	175
The Pacific Railroad, the Suez canal, the Mont Cenis tunnel;
Science advanced, in grandeur and reality, analyzing every thing,
This world all spann’d with iron rails—with lines of steamships
threading every sea,
Our own Rondure, the current globe I bring.	180
10 And thou, high-towering One—America!
Thy swarm of offspring towering high—yet higher thee, above all towering,
With Victory on thy left, and at thy right hand Law;
Thou Union, holding all—fusing, absorbing, tolerating all,
Thee, ever thee, I bring.	185
Thou—also thou, a world!
With all thy wide geographies, manifold, different, distant,
Rounding by thee in One—one common orbic language,
One common indivisible destiny and Union.
11 And by the spells which ye vouchsafe,	190
To those, your ministers in earnest,
I here personify and call my themes,
To make them pass before ye.
Behold, America! (And thou, ineffable Guest and Sister!)
For thee come trooping up thy waters and thy lands:	195
Behold! thy fields and farms, thy far-off woods and mountains,
As in procession coming.
Behold! the sea itself!
And on its limitless, heaving breast, thy ships:
See! where their white sails, bellying in the wind, speckle the green and blue!	200
See! thy steamers coming and going, steaming in or out of port!
See! dusky and undulating, their long pennants of smoke!
Behold, in Oregon, far in the north and west,
Or in Maine, far in the north and east, thy cheerful axemen,
Wielding all day their axes!	205
Behold, on the lakes, thy pilots at their wheels—thy oarsmen!
Behold how the ash writhes under those muscular arms!
There by the furnace, and there by the anvil,
Behold thy sturdy blacksmiths, swinging their sledges;
Overhand so steady—overhand they turn and fall, with joyous clank,	210
Like a tumult of laughter.
Behold! (for still the procession moves,)
Behold, Mother of All, thy countless sailors, boatmen, coasters!
The myriads of thy young and old mechanics!
Mark—mark the spirit of invention everywhere—thy rapid patents,	215
Thy continual workshops, foundries, risen or rising;
See, from their chimneys, how the tall flame-fires stream!
Mark, thy interminable farms, North, South,
Thy wealthy Daughter-States, Eastern, and Western,
The varied products of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Georgia, Texas, and the rest;	220
Thy limitless crops—grass, wheat, sugar, corn, rice, hemp, hops,
Thy barns all fill’d—thy endless freight-trains, and thy bulging store-houses,
The grapes that ripen on thy vines—the apples in thy orchards,
Thy incalculable lumber, beef, pork, potatoes—thy coal—thy gold and silver,
The inexhaustible iron in thy mines.	225
12 All thine, O sacred Union!
Ship, farm, shop, barns, factories, mines,
City and State—North, South, item and aggregate,
We dedicate, dread Mother, all to thee!
Protectress absolute, thou! Bulwark of all!	230
For well we know that while thou givest each and all, (generous as God,)
Without thee, neither all nor each, nor land, home,
Ship, nor mine—nor any here, this day, secure,
Nor aught, nor any day secure.
13 And thou, thy Emblem, waving over all!	235
Delicate beauty! a word to thee, (it may be salutary;)
Remember, thou hast not always been, as here to-day, so comfortably ensovereign’d;
In other scenes than these have I observ’d thee, flag;
Not quite so trim and whole, and freshly blooming, in folds of stainless silk;
But I have seen thee, bunting, to tatters torn, upon thy splinter’d staff,	240
Or clutch’d to some young color-bearer’s breast, with desperate hands,
Savagely struggled for, for life or death—fought over long,
’Mid cannon’s thunder-crash, and many a curse, and groan and yell—and rifle-volleys cracking sharp,
And moving masses, as wild demons surging—and lives as nothing risk’d,
For thy mere remnant, grimed with dirt and smoke, and sopp’d in blood;	245
For sake of that, my beauty—and that thou might’st dally, as now, secure up there,
Many a good man have I seen go under.
14 Now here, and these, and hence, in peace all thine, O Flag!
And here, and hence, for thee, O universal Muse! and thou for them!
And here and hence, O Union, all the work and workmen thine!	250
The poets, women, sailors, soldiers, farmers, miners, students thine!
None separate from Thee—henceforth one only, we and Thou;
(For the blood of the children—what is it only the blood Maternal?
And lives and works—what are they all at last except the roads to Faith and Death?)
While we rehearse our measureless wealth, it is for thee, dear Mother!	255
We own it all and several to-day indissoluble in Thee;
—Think not our chant, our show, merely for products gross, or lucre—it is for Thee, the Soul, electric, spiritual!
Our farms, inventions, crops, we own in Thee! Cities and States in Thee!
Our freedom all in Thee! our very lives in Thee!

Aristotle and Hedonism

 In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle has two primary discussions of pleasure: the first at VII.xi-xiv and the second at X.i-v. The nature of the relationship between these two discussions and the subsequent debate amongst scholars serves no purpose here. Thus, what is required is a brief explanation of Aristotle’s views in both sections.

 Aristotle begins, in VII.xi, by examining three critical views of pleasure. Having just finished his discussion of continence and incontinence, Aristotle characteristically beings his discussion of a new topic by examining popular views and conceptions of that topic. The purpose of studying pleasure, he states, is because:

   “The study of pleasure and pain is the task of the political philosopher,     because he is the master  craftsman who decides the end which is the standard by which we call any given thing good or  bad without qualification. Besides, the examination of pleasure and pain is one of our necessary  tasks, because we have established that moral virtue and vice are concerned with pains and  pleasures; and the great majority of people maintain that happiness involves pleasure (whish is  why the word for ‘blessed’ is derived from a word meaning ‘to rejoice’).”[1]

After stating his purpose, Aristotle delves straight away into three common criticisms. The three arguments can be summarized as such: (1) Pleasure is not a good at all, (2) Not all pleasures are good, and (3) Pleasure is not the supreme good. In response to (1), Aristotle states that there are two types of good: absolute (objective) and relative (subjective). A good also can either be an activity (walking) or a state (contemplation). As such, some pleasures have an opposite pain or deficiency while other pleasures exist in a natural state containing no deficiency and as such are pleasurable in relation to the individual and the situation. Also, Aristotle makes the claim that pleasure is not a process[2] but an activity, and thus are an end in themselves. Aristotle prefers to call pleasures ‘an activity of our natural state’, and ‘unimpeded’. Aristotle continues to state that pleasure, when in its proper state, cannot hinder any other activity and thought because proper pleasure actually encourage proper activities and thoughts. Aristotle finally concludes his refutation of point (1) by stating that pleasure is not a product of any kind of art because an art never produces an activity. Thus, in relation to his other refutations, pleasure is not found in certain products in and of themselves but in relation to the individual and the product. As to argument (2), Aristotle answers this argument through a synthesis of his replies to (1) and (3). Thus he continues directly from his response to argument (1) to his response to argument (3) by stating that argument (2) does not necessarily disprove argument (3)-meaning that, if not all pleasures were bad, then there is no justification for why pleasure is not the Supreme Good. He then states that, if the unimpeded exercise of a faculty is a pleasure, then pleasure must be the supreme good because the good or virtuous man will exercise his proper faculties in an unimpeded manner. Thus, because happiness is perfect, the exercise of an unimpeded faculty is pleasurable, and an unimpeded activity is perfect, it is reasonable to assume then that pleasure following perfection is supremely good alongside happiness (though of course, Aristotle is careful to stress that this must indeed be the proper exercise of a faculty in order to achieve a proper pleasure). Aristotle then surveys nature, stating that because all animals and human beings desire pleasure and shun pain, pleasure must be the supreme good. This leads him to state that the reason pleasure is commonly understood only in relation to bodily pleasures is because this type of pleasure is the most common amongst all humans.  Aristotle finishes his criticism of the three arguments by stating that pleasure must be a good because the life of the happy man must be pleasant, and the happy life is good. If the happy man’s life were not pleasant, then pleasure would not be a good, and the happy life would not be what everyone seeks.

 After examining the different arguments against pleasure, Aristotle seeks to classify the different types or kinds of pleasure. Aristotle essentially portrays two major categories of pleasure: bodily and noble. He then begins to describe the nature of bodily actions, defending why they are not, as many other philosophers had said, bad or immoral in and of themselves. Using the principle of opposites, he states that because the opposite of pleasure is pain, and because pain is bad, it stands to reason that pleasure then is good. Moreover, the good and moral/virtuous man does not have to worry about bodily pleasures turning into licentious excess because his habits are good in such a way that correlationally his pursuit of bodily pleasures will be proper. He continues on to give two major points as two why bodily pleasures are so desirable. The first is that pleasures drive out pain; the more intense the pain, the more intense the pleasure. Thus bodily pleasures act, in once sense remedially to cure pain. Secondly, bodily pleasures being intense, people pursue these pleasures because of this intensity. If the pleasure is harmless, then Aristotle does not view this pursuit of intensity as a bad thing. However, if the pleasure entails some sort of harm, then Aristotle views this pursuit as bad. Thus Aristotle states that licentiousness and viciousness arrive when people do not have the moral fortitude to properly gain pleasure out of the proper things, instead substituting pleasure for other sources of enjoyment. Aristotle concludes his discussion of pleasure in VII.xiv by reiterating the point that pleasures which do not contain an accompanying pain do not contain or do not admit to excess.

 Aristotle picks back up his discussion of pleasure at X.i, after a lengthy discussion of friendship, by stating that:

 “After this our next task is presumably to discuss pleasure; for it is generally agreed that pleasure  is very closely bound up with human nature; which is why those who are educating the young  keep them straight by the use of pleasure and pain. It is also thought to be most important for the  forming of a virtuous character to like and dislike the right things; because pleasure and pain  permeate the whole of life, and have a powerful influence upon virtue and the happy life, since  people choose what is pleasant and avoid what is painful. It would seem most improper, then, to  neglect such important factors, especially since they admit of a great deal of controversy.”[3]

Akin to VII.xi, Aristotle begins by analyzing different views of pleasure. The three main arguments that he analyses are: (1) Pleasure is the Supreme Good, (2) Pleasure is wholly bad, and (3) Some pleasures are bad. In argument (1), he directly addresses the view of the philosopher Eudoxus. Similar to what Aristotle himself previously stated, Eudoxus believed that pleasure is the Supreme Good because every animal, rational and irrational, is drawn to it and seeks it above other things, and thus it must be the Supreme Good. Because pleasure, in this view, is not sought after as a means to something else, but is sought after in and of itself, pleasure must then be the Supreme Good. To this first point Aristotle seems to be in agreement. However, his disagreement with Eudoxus comes later on when Eudoxus states that the addition of pleasure to any good thing makes that thing more desirable. Aristotle states that this views stands in contradiction to the first statement because, if pleasure added to a good makes the good more desirable, then pleasure couldn’t be the Supreme Good because the good which was enhanced by pleasure would be a higher good than pleasure. Aristotle then begins his examination of argument (2) by calling this argument “nonsense”. If every animal, both rational and irrational, sought pleasure, Aristotle states that this argument does not make sense because there is no reason why all animals would strive for the bad. He then goes into a lengthy discussion about pleasure and degree or processes, defending his view that pleasure is not a process but an activity (as explained above; he will also, soon, magnify this distinction). Finally, he examines the view that some pleasures are bad by stating that those “bad pleasures” are not even really pleasures at all because what is pleasant to a bad person, who is not natural, is not the same as what is pleasant to a good person, who is natural. He continues by reiterating his point that some pleasures are good in and of themselves, because they do not have a deficiency, while other pleasures contain a deficiency, and thus must be handled with caution. Aristotle then begins a lengthy discussion as to why he believes that pleasure is not a process (this has been described above). What is most important from this lengthy discussion is that pleasure is whole or complete. He then relates pleasure to activity by stating that, in effect, pleasure is the proper functioning of an activity. Pleasure, if you will, is the gasoline of a car: the gasoline (pleasure) allows the proper activity of the car (to drive) to occur. Different than a car, though, is the fact that pleasure does not start or is not the cause of an activity, but rather is the essence of an activity which maximizes the potential of that activity. To the question of why people do not constantly feel pleasure, Aristotle replies with the answer of fatigue.  Continued use of anything for a prolonged period of time fatigues that something due to the large volume of energy expended, and thus energy must be restored before that something is able to properly function again. Ultimately, Aristotle states that pleasure is essential to life because life itself is an activity, and an activity separated from a pleasure does not function properly at all-thus life devoid of pleasure is not a properly functioning life. Aristotle concludes his treatment of pleasure by pointing out the fact that, so as there are many different kinds of activities, so too are there many different kinds of pleasures. Thus the better pleasures are those that accompany the better activities. The result of this, then, is that the good man will live the most pleasant life because the activities of the good men are the best.

 Though Aristotle has a tendency to fall into complicated digressions, his main view (if it is possible to synthesize the two treatments of pleasure) is that pleasure and an activity are so closely related that they could be viewed as one and the same thing, even though in a certain way they are distinct, and because life requires activity, and the good life requires good activity, the good life will necessarily be pleasurable. A very important distinction must be made, though, between Aristotle’s view of pleasure as the Supreme Good and hedonism, for unlike Aristotle’s view, hedonism is a malady upon mankind which serves no purpose but the destruction of those who faithfully adhere to it.

 Completely antithetical to both Stoicism/Christian Asceticism and Aristotelian ethical theories concerning pleasure is Hedonism. Hedonism, by placing pleasure itself as the Supreme Good, acts as a cancer upon any ethical framework built up either by tradition, religion, parentage, or conscious philosophical adoption by invalidating the need for a framework at all. Akin to pure nihilism, hedonism has no need for ethical guidelines because the only guideline is the maximization of bodily pleasures (whereas in nihilism, the guideline isn’t anything at all). Thus the end, pleasure, is achieved by pursuing anything which brings about a temporary state of the end; sex, alcohol, drugs, and food themselves are the substitutes for virtues such as courage, temperance, magnanimity, or justice. This is due to the fact that, since virtues are the means by which humans mold and guide their lives so that they might achieve their end goal (the good and happy life), no form of molding is needed by the hedonist because the supreme end is almost immediately achievable. Epistemologically speaking, sensation and perception replace reason as primary epistemological tools, sensation and perception being directly correlative to taste and touch (what Aristotle views as inferior sense due to their reliance upon something else, or contact-sight, to Aristotle, requires nothing but the opening of the eyes to actualize the sense, whereas taste and touch require a foreign entity in order to actualize them). Reason and more intellectual pleasures are shunned in favor of bodily pleasures. In discussing temperance at III.xi-xii, Aristotle explains how the licentious man pursues bodily pleasures as opposed to intellectual pleasures because these bodily pleasures are readily available (especially amongst opulent societies) and plentiful. Thus the hedonist approaches and evaluates the world not based upon reason, but based upon animalistic or brutish scales of pleasure-maximization/pain-minimization[4]. Reason then is almost viewed as an enemy, it being the “agent of destruction” which, combined with the inner-voice of traditional morality (a person’s conscious), seeks to destroy hedonism by returning the individual to more normal levels.   

 Even proper states or conceptions of pleasure are destroyed by hedonism, being replaced by range-of-the-moment, whim-based pursuits. In effect, the intellectual is shunned in favor of the physical. To obtain pleasure via the hedonistic virtue of sex, notions of love or meaning (intellectual pursuits) are thrown out in favor of physical pursuits; the aim in the encounter being which partner (or partners) can maximize the amount of pleasure gained. Repetitive encounters with the same pleasure results in diminishing returns, thus making it necessary for the hedonist to seek even greater and more lavish instances of an encounter in order to reach the same level of pleasure as had been previously gained. Thus what once was one sexual partner a month turns into one sexual partner a week; even then, as the pleasure returns from this repetition become diminished, an even larger number of encounters are sought. Eventually, a point will be reached where norm itself is not sufficient (traditional sexual encounters), and thus a new or more obscure encounter is sought (sexual fetishes). This degeneration is not peculiar to sex; in the same way, the glutton increases their normal food intake to the point to where even normal food is insufficient, and thus for different or more rare types of food (eating McDonald’s everyday turns into eating McDonald’s everyday, plus a bag of cookies). Hedonism in this way even works to destroy itself because what once was required to obtain the appropriate level of pleasure is now insufficient to meet the ever-expanding demands of the hedonistic drive. A more proper definition of hedonism might thus be a degenerative motion towards ever-expanding physical pleasures achieved through the sacrifice of the mind to the body.

 The effects of hedonism, of course, are first shown physically as the body is the first area of attack by the cancer. Physical effects of hedonism commonly include such modern day pandemics as obesity and STD’s, though with prolonged continuation, more immediate and serious physical maladies such as liver failure occur[5]. However, as these bodily encounters transform from occasional binge encounters into ingrained habits, the cancer of hedonism begins to spread from the body to the soul or the mind. In regards to sex, the actual meaning of sex itself is destroyed. As a consequence, the sexual hedonist finds himself increasingly unable to have meaningful or long-lasting romantic relationships as he is unable to grasp the principles behind sex and love, instead being able to only view the relationships through the lens of sexual gratification. Other important activities to a romantic relationship, such as deep conversations, cuddling, or spending quality time with one another are viewed as impediments to the actualization of the goal. Where the romantic partner might try and engage in a romantic evening by having a quiet dinner, a glass of wine, and lighting some candles while listening to soft jazz music being played in the background, the hedonist will (not being able to appreciate these details or the higher meaning behind them) become antsy and bored, trying to rush through the “mundane” in order to “get to the good stuff”. Similarly, the hedonist of alcohol tends to ignore drinks of lower alcohol content or more flavorful, expensive drinks in favor of cheaper, more pure alcoholic beverages (the shot of course being a favorite; short and simple, the alcoholic content of one beer is consumed in less than five seconds). Drunkenness is elevated onto a platform, especially when hedonists socialize their “virtues”, creating an arena of competition amongst one another to see who can become the most intoxicated (or who can sleep with the most number of people, in the case of the sexual hedonist). Due to the establishment of these habits within the psyche, the hedonist begins a perilous spiral, racing down the track away from the depression and loneliness within at ever increasing speeds blindly towards the perceived saving grace of greater pleasure. 

 The depression comes about due to the fact that the hedonist never actually achieves anything of value. Since man was endowed by nature with a basic blueprint for proper functioning, though of course volition allows him to discover and follow this blueprint or not, the abdication of this blueprint results in a contradiction between what is and what ought to be, a sort of inner turmoil (the degree to which this turmoil takes place within other systems which, though they do not fully follow nature’s blueprint, maintain a basic level of happiness and success within their life is achieved incidentally to the degree in which the system’s virtues correspond to those set forth by nature). Using modern psychological terms, the hedonist at this point almost gives off the impression of being bipolar due to the rapid fluctuation of emotional/mental states. Having no higher moral basis or intellectual understanding, the hedonist is a slave to whim. Due to the fact that bodily pleasures requires almost no need for teleology, the Supreme Good as bodily pleasure inhibits the growth and development of the psyche, brutishly focusing on the moment-to-moment struggle for gratification. Thus, not only does hedonism replace epistemology and ethics, but it destroys the very framework upon which such a system could be built. Popular hedonists phrases such as, “Live in the moment” and “Live from day to day” exemplify this teleological suicide. Where Christianity places ethics as the ladder to God and Aristotelianism places ethics as the ladder to happiness (each ring of the ladder corresponding to a virtue-though of course, I am not implying that all virtues are equally hierarchical), hedonism does away with the ladder all together, rashly claiming that the end (pleasure) can be found instantly. To the hedonist, the concept of enduring through a trial to achieve better results in the future does not exist because the hedonist has no concept of future. This explains the historical inverse relationship between higher degrees of hedonism and lower production yields or shorter work schedules; the hedonist does not want to work! The problem with the abandonment of teleology all together is that, when the hedonist reaches a stage where he wishes to rise out of his own cesspool, he timidly looks at the ladder of another system, vaguely and childishly attempting to climb seldom tread ground or forgetting how to tread it all together. Thus hedonism entails another danger in that the act of getting out of it is a painful and arduous task. Indeed, unless a Supreme Good has ingrained itself within this individuals mind, allowing them to draw upon the minute yet ever-increasing pleasure gained from striving for said Good, it is very typical that the hedonist either falls back into hedonism or slides into a state of deep depression and turmoil. 

 Very typically, hedonism is not an isolated case within an individual, but exists or comes about in a larger social sphere. In many cases, the hedonist and his friends or social groups resemble a symbiotic mutualism or commensalism. Friendship takes on a new sense as hedonistic individuals aid one another in their quest for ever-greater feats of pleasure. Once traditional acts of friendship, such as bonding time, are redefined in relation to pure pleasure. Though a group of friends might drink such an excessive amount of alcohol that they do not specifically remember what happened or what was said, the event was considered a successful time of bonding (and thus they feel closer to one another) due to the fact that validation (in and of itself a form of pleasure) is received from the other hedonist. This occurrence can even cross over into sibling relationships, where what once was considered bonding between siblings (such as playing a board game, swimming, or drinking coffee and talking late into the night) is transformed into similar hedonistic activities as friends. Indeed, this can even cause strain or damage relationships between a hedonistic sibling or friend and a non-hedonistic sibling or friend due to the hedonistic sibling or friend believing that the non-hedonistic sibling or friend has no desire to bond, and to the non-hedonistic sibling or friend despairing the physical and psychic demise of their loved one. Social stratification then occurs between the hedonist and non-hedonist, possibly explaining the existence of “red-light districts” within larger, wealthier cities; hedonists prefer to associate with other hedonists and tend to despise non-hedonists.

 When one then takes a larger look at the world as a whole, it is apparent that hedonism is more prevalent amongst wealthy and opulent nations or societies, or the wealthy in a nation, than more poor or middle classed nations or people. This is due to the fact that in order to be hedonistic, enough “material” must exist with which the hedonist can indulge. More poor (and even middle class) individuals within a society, or more poor (and middle class) societies themselves occupy a predominant amount of time pursuing the basic requirements of life, leaving very little time to form hedonistic habits and lifestyles. The man who works all day to provide enough to feed his family for that day does not have the time or resources to then indulge himself on the finer things of life. Wealthy nations or individuals, on the other hand, have the resources available to “buy” time and materials. While this is not in and of itself bad, and in many cases it can be a very good thing, the problem lies when the wealthy or opulent individual or society does not have the moral framework to withstand the flashy appeal of hedonism. For indeed, few individuals will deny that if given the choice between a nice cake or a stick of celery, the celery will appear more pleasing. Thus the individual who can afford to buy a scrumptious cake will have little reason not to do so. This brings about a very interesting dilemma: due to the fact that a wealthier society is in ways better for the individual (in terms of abundant food supplies, exceptional health care, technology to allow time for loftier pursuits, etc.) and in ways worse, as has been previously described, it stands to reason then that as the wealth or opulence of an individual or society increases, so too must the strength of and adherence to a proper moral system. This is historically proven by the fact that the fall of some of the greatest empires or societies in the world, from Egypt to Greece, Rome to Venice, France to Victorian England, all witnessed at the moment before their fall an abdication of traditional moral standards or ways of living in favor of hedonism, brought about by the opulence of said societies.

 In summation then, it can be said that hedonism infects all major branches of philosophy. In metaphysics, hedonism replaces God or reality with delusional worldliness; in epistemology, reason or faith is replaced by pure sensation or perception; in ethics, a moral code or teleology is replaced by whim-worship; and in politics (or social ethics), friendships or proper relationships based upon the good or some value are replaced by hedonistic parties of indulgence. If not cured, hedonism in fact will eventually destroy any philosophy at all within an individual, making the adoption of a new philosophy seemingly impossible. The ultimate question, then, is what philosophy is best suited to prevent or cure hedonism?

 Many different philosophies have tried to offer their cure for hedonism. The problem with most philosophies, however, is that their solution to hedonism is to move to the opposite extreme: asceticism or stoicism of some degree. In these philosophies, the individual tends to view the body or world as evil, and thus pleasure as evil. Abstinence from pleasure, or at least the minimalization of pleasure, is the best course of action because it separates the individual from the source of corruption. The problem with these philosophies is that, by going to the opposite extreme, two important things are left out. First, though Aristotle in Book II stated that it is good to shoot for the opposite extreme so that we may properly land in the mean, in actuality shooting to the opposite extreme usually also misses the mark. In addition, by glorifying the opposite extreme, the individual who was not a hedonist tends to fall more easily into hedonism through his natural curiosity at pleasure and thus, being sheltered from it, this individual has no concept of how to properly deal with this pleasure. Secondly, as Aristotle states in Book VII and especially in Book X, pleasure is actually a good thing-it makes life worth living!

 The proper alternative, or cure, is then clear. The proper way to both treat an individual who is a hedonist or to prevent other individuals from becoming hedonist is to adopt the Aristotelian ethical system, especially in regards to Aristotle’s views of pleasure. The individual who properly adopts Aristotle’s ethics will live such a good (moral) life that the “bad” pleasures are not actually pleasures to them, and thus the pleasures that are not bad are relished as an essential aspect to the enjoyment of life.  This transformation not only applies to the noble or intellectual pleasures, but also to the bodily pleasures as well; the man of proper virtue will properly engage in and enjoy alcohol, food, and sex. Thus his life will not display any of the repressive curiosities of asceticism, or the destructive consequences of hedonism, but rather-by properly combining both to reach the mean, lead to a life where both happiness and pleasure coexist in harmony.

---

[1] NE 1152b1-4

[2] To Aristotle, a process is a type of change which spans a duration of time, changes from something to something else, ie. a it has a starting point and a finishing point, and thus due to the change, the process is never complete in one moment of time but is only complete when finished. An activity, on the other hand, is always complete at any selected moment in time because it has neither a starting nor a finishing point, and it does not require any stretch of time. See Metaphysics Θ.6,1048b18-23.

[3] NE 1172a19-21.

[4] It is worth noting here that very rarely does a person become fully hedonistic, and thus the degree to which they are hedonistic is the degree to which they shun or abandon reason. Similarly, the degree to which the person becomes hedonistic is the degree to which they shun or abandon traditional morality. Very often this process of degeneration takes a considerable amount of time and is usually found within older hedonist. Many people will delve a certain level into hedonism before returning to a normal state due to the strong influence or pull of their traditional morality. Aristotle states that this is especially true within children or youth, who being “young and lusty” will reach levels comparable to a hedonist, yet as they mature grow out of these levels.

[5] These physical problems of course can exist within individuals who are not hedonistic. However, these maladies are more common to or prevalent amongst hedonists due to the excessive exposure of the hedonist to the items or states within which these maladies occur (excessive eating, sex, and drinking).

Fall of Rome, Fall of America? I. America: An Empire to Rival Rome

    Just like the Roman Empire fell, so too are we living in an age of darkness where soon we will see the demise of the American Empire.  It's a popular belief, at least amongst non-academics, journalist, non ancient historian academics, or pretty much any liberal (and rarely conservatives) who foam at the mouth at the thought of America crumbling.  So of course, why not smear America by comparing it to an Empire which, though once renowned throughout the world, eventually crumbled to barbarians?  The biggest problem, however, is that these comparisons can not be made!  In fact, I would challenge anybody to find a single, credible, ancient historian who has written a book about the subject (an ancient historian being an academic whose job it is to study ancient Greece or Rome).  Thus I have taken up a new task: the task to examine any article I can find which tries to compare the fall of Rome to the "fall" of America, and show through historical proof why this comparison is invalid.

    The first article I found came from a special six-part series from the BBC entitled, "The Age of Empire". Part one of the series, entitled "America: An Empire to Rival Rome?"  was written by  Jonathan Marcus.  It was difficult to find out any information on Mr. Marcus, except that he is simply either a BBC News Correspondent, a Defense Correspondent, or a Diplomatic Correspondent.  His list of articles include such liberal slurticles as, "A Small Matter of Crusader History" (an attempt at, by semi-reviewing the film Kingdom of Heaven, showing how Islam is justified in its current war with the West because, of course, we started it all), "The Long Shadow of Vietnam" (an attempt to show how the Iraq War is like the Vietnam war, and thus dangerous, wrong, and impossible to win), "The Politics of Missile Defense"   (an attempt to show how the current desire by the US, Britain, and other Western nations to develop a missile defense shield is wrong), and many other articles of such a nature.  With an understanding of his point-of-view, or bias, what exactly does he say about America and Rome?

    After a quote by President Bush, Mr. Marcus states, "But despite his insistence that the US has no imperial ambitions, the word "empire" is increasingly used by academics and pundits alike when talking about America's role in the world."  What academics is he talking about?  If he is talking about Philosophers, English Professors, Sociologist, Political Scientist, or Cultural Anthropologist-of course they would say something like that.  But what about Ancient Historians?  Thus my challenge.  And the pundits, of course, are those to whom I am offering a criticism.  Notice the "weight" he places upon the rest of his article by stating that "academics and pundits" are backing him.

    He continues, "The young British historian Niall Ferguson, for example, had no doubts.'The United States,' he said, 'is an empire in every sense but one, and that one sense is that it doesn't recognise itself as such.' He called it 'an empire in denial.' "  Niall Ferguson-a historian.  Now he cites a source!  But who is Niall Ferguson?  From his own website, Niall states that his, "...research is principally focused on nineteenth- and twentieth-century subjects, with an emphasis on economic and especially financial history. He has subsidiary interests in international relations and military conflict. He continues to be interested in the use of counterfactuals in historical explanation."  Not an ancient historian.  What has he written?  His publications includes works such as "Virtual History" , a hypothetical look at "what if?" scenarios,  "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power", a work which tries to compare the rise and fall of the British Empire with that of America, "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire", an attempt to show that America has always been an imperial power "in denial", and "The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West", an attempt to redefine the Twentieth-Century based upon ethnic conflict (The New Yorker even claims: "Unfortunately, the book as a whole is marred by sweeping judgments and jarring contradictions."). Two things are clear from this: the author has a history of trying to discredit America and the West, and he has never written about Rome. Thus Mr. Marcus conveniently wedged this "distinguished" historian in to lend some kind of "credence" to his article.  Let's completely ignore his opinion and move on.

    How could a liberal slurticle be complete without some kind of reference to the Clinton Utopia?  It's funny how Mr. Marcus's next "expert", the "dissenting" voice, still finds a way to slur America.  "Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, found the notion of the US as an empire 'grotesque, bizarre or laughable, depending upon what mood I'm in and who says it'. He said that, if anything, it was an anti-empire. 'There is no interest among American people to set themselves up as an imperial power.'"  It is possible to even gloss over this "counter-example" as well; this "authority" says nothing of value (but hey, he is being fair by offering a "different perspective"...right?).

    Mr. Marcus continues, of course, to "qualify" the authority of both himself and his position by throwing around "experts" who really don't say anything.  Mr. Marcus states, "For others, like Michael Mandelbaum of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, America's current position is unique - there simply is not an adequate word to describe it. As he put it: 'Empire is not quite right but it seems to be closer than anything else we have in common usage, so we employ it.' "  Translation? "This guy works at the John Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, and even though he doesn't say anything definite, the sheer weight of his authority will convince you that I know what I am talking about".

    Thus, with his "credence" established, Mr. Marcus actually begins to get to the meat of his argument.  His first topic?  Globalization. In this section he tries to prove how and why America is an empire; indeed, his arguments make sense.  After the fall of the Soviet Union, with no other superpower in the world, American Capitalism was spread to all corners of the globe.  However, this hardly qualifies America as an "Empire" in the same way that the Late Roman Empire was (we do not own or govern most of the world; the spread of McDonald's and Starbucks does not equate to the spread of Centurions, Chinese consumers are free to go to Wal-Mart or their local competitor, and French youth have a choice to watch an American or French movie).  So yes, this is a fact that everyone can agree on-American culture is spreading to the rest of the world; Zimbabwean culture is not.  Yet in true liberal fashion, Mr. Marcus takes an established fact and then creates a straw man; the evils of President Bush and the Iraq War.  He "calms" our emotions with his statement, "But it was the tragedy of 11 September which presented America's position in a stark new light.", but then totally disregards this statement by proclaiming, "Many people believe that it was from the rubble of the towers that a more assertive and ideological foreign policy emerged. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded. President Bush proclaimed a new doctrine of pre-emptive military action".  9-11 was a tragedy-destroying those responsible is pre-emptive military action?  Of course a new ideology arose.  Post 9-11, America abandoned the horrendous insanity of Clinton-era appeasement and began to defend herself against our enemies.  But I forget; to the liberals, we must sit in a corner and beg for mercy while taking as many blows as possible...to defend ourselves is "imperialism" (Interestingly enough, some modern historians cite the rise of Rome, when it was a Republic, due to the exact same means.  The only difference?  Rome kept the land of her enemies while America returned it.  Both, however, sought peace, but defended themselves against any barbarian or semi-civilized society who threatened their way of life).

    And now comes the comparison.  How exactly is America like Rome?  Continuing on from globalization, he states, "The Romans with their language, currency and the spread of Roman citizenship perhaps foreshadowed an early form of globalisation."  Of course it did.  What's wrong with that?  Rome brought peace, stability, sanitation, medicine, technology, philosophy, literature, roads, citizenship, rights, representation in government, and an overall better standard of living to people who once sat around campfires skinning deer and dancing to their mystical deities (in fact, as Thomas Sowell states in his excellent book, "Conquests and Cultures: An International History", it took well over 1000 years or more for Europe to return to the standard of living it enjoyed under Rome's form of globalization).  Similarly, areas which once were the hallowed grounds of Native American tribes who had not even approached the technology or standard of living of ancient Egypt, 5000 years before them, America transformed into highly successful, clean areas to live; in effect, transporting these areas 5000 years into the future.  Ultimately, I buy this comparison, yet still do not see any evidence for the demise of America.

   Finally, at the end of his slurticle, does the bad news appear.  What spells the doom for America?  Unilateralism.  Here he brings up another "expert", Joseph Nye of the Kennedy School of Government.  Who is Joseph Nye?  A liberal foreign policy "expert".  Wikipedia even states that he worked for both the Carter and Clinton Administrations.  His bias then, of course, is to slur and destroy America.  Mr. Marcus states, concerning Dr. Nye, "He argues that in terms of issues like countering transnational terrorism, dealing with the spread of infectious diseases, global climate change, international financial stability, none can be managed by any one country. The message for US policy-makers, he says, is simple. 'We are the strongest nation the world has seen for some two millennia and yet we can't get what we want by acting alone'".  And now we have come full circle.  America is an "empire", leader of the new globalized world, comparable to ancient Rome in her influence, yet must enslave herself to the whims of petty dictators and fading liberal powers.  Yet as any serious historian knows, it was not unilateralism which destroyed Rome, but (among many other factors) appeasement to the "others".  At the end of the Roman Empire, by not following her own best interests, Rome caved in and appeased the marauding barbarian tribes, even allowing them to live within her very borders in exchange for peace (hmm Israel...)! 

  Reaching the end, I was struck with the most bizarre feeling that Mr. Marcus did not say anything at all.  He throws around big-named "experts", briefly speaks of subjects expecting his (assumed) liberal audience to understand, and then comforts them at the end by showing that the liberal position is the only cure for our impending doom. In all fairness to him, though, this is only one article out of a six-part series comparing the demise of Rome to the "end" of America.  So far, however, a few things are clear: his bias is obviously hyper-liberal anti-Americanism, not a single one of his "authorities" are experts in Roman history, the true comparisons are good things (globalization, the spread of freedom and representative government, capitalism), and his solution(s) is a ludicrous call for self-destruction.  Indeed, if one truly were to ring the alarmist bell of comparison between Rome and America, the comparison would not lie with the current trend of American foreign policy or economics, but the self-destructive wishes of the effete liberals.  Yet even then, I have the confidence that the American people and their optimistic, benevolent sense of life, will not crumble under the leadership of the liberals, but will continue to prosper for hundreds of years to come.

Creationist "Museum"

I know that this has nothing to do with the Classics, but it definately has something to do with the modern world.  I warn you-heed caution when observing these pictures.  The groups logic is so overwhelming that it may cause you to rethink your position on evolution.

I'm joking.

Pictures of the museum

And here is the museum website.

Enjoy!