Letters From An Enthusiast

A Debate Involving Wafa Sultan and some Commentary

There is an excellent new debate between Wafa Sultan and an Egyptian Islamist, where she verbally abuses this insolent and ignorant man.

In this debate between Wafa Sultan and Tal'at Rmeih, the latter claimed that he was "defending a magnificent past of a magnificent nation, which was the cradle of knowledge and civilization, at a time when the most that people in the West could do was to catch a rabbit and scurry back to their caves. This nation has made the greatest contribution to civilization and humanity.” Does he know that Thales, the first natural philosopher, lived eleven-hundred years before his Islamic “nation” was born or that Aristotle systematized philosophy and logic nine-hundred years prior to the same? The west is superior both in antiquity, which is not a just measure of a civilization at any rate, as well as in fact. I doubt it would be a stretch to say that anything good in the Islamic golden age was taken from the ancient West since nearly all the great Arabic philosophers of that time were Aristotelian or Platonic. Aristotle was referred to as the “wise man”, just as he was called “the master of those who know” by Dante or "the philosopher" by Thomas Aquinas.

--Jeffrey Luebcke

An Anecdote Concerning Cassius

Cassius was a friend of Brutus who died at the same battle after which Brutus ended his own life. Brutus called him "the last of the Romans". He was more enthusiastic in the removal of Caesar then even Brutus himself, though it is reported that this zeal had more to do with private enmity than a principled defense of liberty; this fact renders him less noble then a Cicero or a Brutus but the sentiment in this extract, taken from Plutarch's Life of Marcus Brutus, still ought to be appealing.

For Cassius had from his youth a natural hatred and rancor against the whole race of tyrants, which he showed when he was but a boy, and went to the same school with Faustus, the son of Sylla; for, on his boasting himself among the boys, and extolling the sovereign power of his father, Cassius rose up and struck him two or three boxes on the ear; which when the guardians and relations of Faustus designed to inquire into and to prosecute, Pompey forbade them, and, sending for both the boys together, examined the matter himself. And Cassius is then reported to have said thus, "Come, then, Faustus, dare to speak here those words that provoked me, that I may strike you again as I did before." Such was the disposition of Cassius.
-Plutarch's Lives Volume II, the Modern Library Edition, Translated by John Dryden on page 577-578

In a somewhat related strain, we have a quote from Thomas Gordon in his defense of Brutus for having slain Caesar. It was written in the begining of the 18th century in that elegant style which helps to render pleasant the conclusions of reason. In addition to being a passionate defense of Brutus it strikes against that ridiculous notion of Christianity which renders the mere act of existing as a duty turning suffering into an act of virtue. Happiness, it is rightly concluded, is the sole end of life, that object for which everything else ought to be done, and thus when it is no longer possible, life is no longer a positive value.

It was a Roman spirit; and those who possessed it, did as much disdain to be tyrants, as to submit to tyranny, a spirit that scorned an ignominious life, held only at the mercy of an usurper, or by flattering his villainy, and abetting his usurpations; and a spirit, which those that want it can never admire.... It is undoubtedly true, that by the percepts of Christianity we are not at liberty to dispose of our own lives; but are to wait for the call of heaven to alleviate or end our calamities: But the Romans had no other laws to act by, but the natural dictates of uncorrupted reason. I call upon the great pretenders to philosophy and refined morals, to assign one fair reason, why a Roman, why Brutus and Cassius, should prefer a miserable life to an honourable death; should bear vassalage, chains, and tortures of body or mind, when all those evils were to be avoided by doing only that, which, by the course of nature, every man must soon do. It is better not to be, than to be unhappy...

-Letter 56 from Cato's Letters, By Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard

 

-Jeffrey Luebcke

Virtue in Action: Aristides and the Illiterate Man

    A certain incident in the 1990's serves as a perfect example of politics today.  No, I'm not talking about politicians having elicit affairs with random workers; instead, I am talking about the trend of politicians to do whatever it takes to remain in power.  Instead of politics and government being a tool intended to serve the people, it has become a tool intended to serve the politician.  If this requires giving up truth, integrity, honesty, and justice, then so be it.  The power of government seems to have a corrupting effect, whether you are Adolf Hitler seeking absolute rule or Ted Kennedy seeking eternal Senatorship.  George Washington noted the dangers of government when he stated, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  It is for this very reason that being in a position of power requires the utmost degree of virtue.

    The Persian Wars thrust Athens into a very prominent position after the battle of Marathon, making it a rival to Sparta as one of the great Greek city-states. Aristides was an Archon, or leader, of Athens during the Persian wars.  He was elected by the people to lead them through this difficult time. 

    It is stated of Aristides that:

"In all the vicissitudes of public affairs, the constancy he showed was admirable, not being elated with honours, and demeaning himself tranquilly and sedately in adversity; holding the opinion that he ought to offer himself to the service of his country without mercenary views and irrespectively of any reward, not only of riches, but even of glory itself." (Plutarch)

For this reason he was known as "a most determined champion for justice".  His fame and power did not come unattested.  Themistocles was the rival of Aristides, a rivalry that began in their childhood.  Themistocles was equally loved by the people, especially because of his brilliant victory at Salamis.  Thus Aristides found himself in a most chaotic time.

    There was a practice in Athens called Ostracism.  This practice allowed the Athenians to banish, by means of voting, any citizen they deemed a hazard to their city-state.  The practice is described as follows:

"In January of each year, the assembly took a vote on ostracism. If at the designated assembly meeting there were at least 6,000 ballots cast, whichever citizen received a simple majority of the votes was exiled for ten years, under which he could not return to [Athens] under penalty of death . The citizen lost the right to participate in politics by virtue of his absence, but his property was not confiscated, and he could appoint a manager to deal with his affairs and forward any income." (a correct description from Wikipedia).

The Athenians would ostracize any person they considered a threat to Athenian democracy.  Slander from Aristides' arch-rival Themistocles led the Athenian citizens into believing that Aristides was for dismantling the democracy in favor of an aristocracy.  Thus the people put Aristides up for ostracism.

    Because he was Archon, it was Aristides job to oversee the Ostracism and tally up the votes.  Plutarch states that:

"As therefore, they were writing the names on the sherds, it is reported that an illiterate clownish fellow, giving Aristides his sherd, supposing him a common citizen, begged him to write Aristides upon it; and he being surprised and asking if Aristides had ever done him any injury, 'None at all' said he, 'neither know I the man; but I am tired of hearing him everywhere called the Just.'  Aristides, hearing this, is said to have made no reply, but returned the sherd with his own name inscribed."

When the votes were tallied, Aristides held the majority of votes.  He gathered up some of his belongings and complacently left Athens. He gave up his land and power for the good of the State (only to be recalled later on).

    What is amazing about this action is the justice and honesty that Aristides displayed.  He could have written any other name to save himself from a 10 year banishment and loss of all power.  Instead, Aristides remained true to what was just and wrote his own name.  In essence, he aided in his own banishment; he helped in dissolving his own power.  It was men like Aristides that Washington sought to emulate when he stated, "I have no other view than to promote the public good, and am unambitious of honors not founded in the approbation of my Country."  What a shame that our modern politicians don't exhibit such virtue.

-Jason Roberts (Crossposted to the Egosphere)