Western Lit. 1-45: Agamemnon: Hubris, Fate, and Moral Law

The Trojan War was one of the key events in Greek mythology and perhaps the most central event in Greek culture. Over the centuries, it has inspired countless works of art, literature, and philosophy, profoundly shaping the way people view the world with the insights derived from the legend. Among countless writers and poets who explored the themes and lessons of this war, Aeschylus stands out as a master of tragedy and insight. His play "Agamemnon" offers a powerful and complex portrayal of the war and its aftermath, exploring themes such as hubris, fate, justice, and the will of the gods. This essay examines Aeschylus' view of the Trojan War as presented in Agamemnon. Through his play "Agamemnon", Aeschylus presents a multifaceted view of the Trojan War that highlights the destructive consequences of human hubris and the inescapable power of fate. He emphasizes the need for moral law and the possibility of redemption and reconciliation in the face of tragedy. Perhaps the greatest way this tragedy manifests itself is through heavenly envy invoked by hubris.

The poet Aeschylus depicts the downfall of a mighty king who succumbs to his own pride and ambition. As the leader of the Greek forces, Agamemnon sacrificed his own daughter to the gods to secure a favorable wind for his fleet. Oddly, the play describes this as "the harsh yolk of necessity". The true moral abhorrence of this act stems from the king's attitude. His ambition and pride made him ambivalent about his daughter's life and his wife's. His disregard for the consequences of the war he waged in pride took the same toll everywhere. The king sacrificed her not because he had to, but because he wanted to act with impunity toward others. With his conquest of Troy, the treatment of his men, and the abandonment of his people he proves that he is conceited to the core. His act of ungodly hubris and arrogance unleashes a furious chain of events that leads to his own destruction and his family's ruin. Aeschylus shows us that no one is above moral laws. Even the most powerful rulers must be held accountable for their actions.

Agamemnon emphasizes humility and self-restraint. Aeschylus warns us that seeking too much power or glory can provoke envy and resentment from others, leading to disastrous consequences. After Agamemnon conquers Troy, he returns without any spoils from the war, and having only barely gained victory. In fact, he still fails to credit those who won it for him. Instead, he speaks of the gods with fleeting recognition and accuses his men of jealousy for his own valor. Upon reaching the palace, he hesitates for a moment when his wife boasts arrogantly and spreads a red carpet for him. He realizes, even for a moment, that such honors are only fitting for gods. This man's inability to control his self-indulgence secured his fate. Treading the carpet means accepting all his wife's boasts, flaunting his jealous victory before a long-suffering people. Tension mounts as he marches across the carpet to his fate in damnation's castle. This walk is symbolic of the broader pattern of his life; for a decade he commanded an immense force defying the gods to conquer a city for pride. This is the disposition shared by all elites, warmongers, and self-righteous rulers. Aeschylus suggests that crossing a certain threshold of aggrandized abandon in pursuit of glory leads to tragedy. When his wife murders him in revenge, her real motivation is hatred for his egoistic recklessness. The wisest of kings and mighty men shy away from prideful boasting. They should be wary of envy rules. For them, it is far better to remain innocent in peace than to be damned in victory.

Greek myth is based on the conflict between sovereign fate and mortal authority. Agamemnon is no exception. It skillfully illustrates the power of both the gods and the furies over mortal affairs and establishes a causal system for these sanctions. Aeschylus portrays a world in which divine justice always punishes those who transgress nature and moral laws. The furies, in particular, are a fearsome force that haunts and torments those who commit crimes or offenses against the gods. Aeschylus thus suggests that even the most powerful mortals are ultimately subject to the gods' will. They must be careful not to defy the sovereign mandate. Each man must consider the possibility that his words will produce lightning from heaven. War's morality is derived from its natural consequences. Violence provokes violence, boasting breeds envy, etc. The central thing is to know what the sovereign is, and what its laws are to reduce conflict. The ideal life is not to live all the rage, but to be at peace with gods and men.

A related theme is fate and destiny. In the play, the conflict between mortal destiny and will in war is deeply intriguing, and Agamemnon plays a key role in exploring these themes. Aeschylus elevates fate's role in determining the outcome of events. However, he also portrays the importance of will in shaping their inevitable destiny. It is not only the will, but the actions that stem from the will that seal one's fate. Agamemnon is portrayed as a leader with significant power and will. However, it is his moral ineptitude that ultimately led to his tragic downfall. The decision to sacrifice his daughter is both an example of his powerful will and a microcosm of the decisions led up to his assassination. Blinded by his ego, the king is woefully unable to escape his tragic fate or see it coming. What it is also implied is that his wife, Clytemnestra, was more than a passive instrument of fate. Instead, she was an actor whose will and choices shaped the play's outcome. In this way, Aeschylus presents a nuanced view of the interplay between fate and individual will in shaping mortals' final destiny, especially in times of war.

Perhaps the greatest tragedies of the play are hardly discussed. But what could be more horrible than a dynastic calamity? Even in the modern day, no, especially in the modern day, it is more comfortable to forget the impact of war on families and communities. Leaving out the specifics says more about the horror of this tragedy than anything else. For many, moving on and forgetting is the only way to handle it, but some things cannot be forgotten. The war has immutably changed the lives of countless people including the massacred citizens of Troy, the drowned soldiers of the lost fleet, the families at home with no bodies to mourn, the children raised without fathers, the old men who feel useless and emasculated, and the women who have grown old without a husband. But perhaps the ones hurt most of all are the wives abandoned for a war they never wanted and whose bitterness is unbearable in silence. Aesychelles highlights the bitterness and strife that arise in the aftermath of war, including the lingering trauma that persists for generations after the fact. In the House of Atreus, this manifests itself in a vicious cycle of revenge and violence. The tragic circumstances of the play illustrate the human experience of war and its consequences. Both the spoken word and what is unsaid work to illustrate the true cost of armed conflict. This is not just in terms of human life but also the emotional toll it takes on those left behind. The old and the widows, the wives and children of soldiers abroad all suffered alike for victory.

In Agamemnon, Aeschylus masterfully explores domestic violence and revenge. The central conflict of the play and the foreshadowed curse of Atreus' house envisage behaviors that perpetuate destructive cycles of hatred and pride. The tragic downfall of Agamemnon's family serves as a cautionary tale. With its symphonic rhythm, the play shows us how history repeats itself through this bloodline. The tale intertwines the family's inevitable fate with the impulses of vengence that motivate them. Ultimately, it illustrates the devastating effects of allowing these violence patterns to persist, urging viewers to recognize and break the cycle. The question on everyone's mind is how to do that, forshadowing the final resolution of the play in The Eumenides.

Despite the seemingly bleak outlook of mortal fate and the recurring theme of violence, Aeschylus also offers a glimmer of hope for a more peaceful future. While the characters in Agamemnon cannot break with fate, the play hints at the possibility of redemption and reconciliation. Aeschylus suggests that despite the human tendency to perpetuate patterns of conflict and strife, there is always potential for change and growth. In the final lines of the play, the chorus reflects on the human condition, hinting at the promise of a better future ahead.

In conclusion, Aeschylus' Agamemnon presents a multifaceted and intricate portrayal of the Trojan War and its aftermath. The play delves into the psychological and emotional impact of war on both the victors and the defeated. It highlights the complexities of the human experience in times of conflict. Moreover, it raises crucial ethical questions concerning violence, revenge, and human life taking. Aeschylus demonstrates the moral law as a guiding force. He warns against the dangers of hubris, the destructive nature of revenge, the power of moral accountability, and the inevitability of fate. The play's enduring legacy lies in its ability to provoke contemplation and reflection on these timeless themes of war and conflict. This makes it a cornerstone of Western literature and a testament to tragedy's enduring power. Aeschylus leaves us with a message of hope. He suggests that even in the face of the most bitter conflict, there is always potential for redemption and a better future.

Western Civ. 1-50: The Augustan Settlement: A Critical Analysis of Augustus’ Reforms

Augustus Caesar's reign marked a crucial turning point in Rome's history. Known as the Augustan Settlement, Augustus' reforms during his long and prosperous rule transformed Rome from a Republic to an Empire. This essay critically analyzes the Augustan Settlement, focusing on its impact on Roman politics, society, and culture. Specifically, it will examine the political and social context in which the Settlement was introduced, the main components of the reforms, and their long-term implications. Through this, the reader will gain valuable perspectives into the nature of power and its relationship to liberty.

The Augustan settlement was the result of Augustus' recognition of the need for changes in the Roman political system to ensure its survival and stability. The reforms followed over a century of political instability and civil war, when peace was desired. His reforms aimed to create a new and unified balance of power by placing the emperor at the head of a unified imperial state. With the defeat of the Ptolemies in Egypt, he got his chance. In 27 BC, Augustus established his principate, a form of government in which he held supreme power as princeps, or first citizen. A vast number of previously collegiate titles and powers granted Augustus immense authority and prestige. This played a vital role in his efforts to centralize power in the Roman Empire. He reformed the Senate, reducing its size and increasing its power relative to populist assemblies. In addition, he granted more authority to the magistrates and the army, placing them almost exclusively under his control.

To avoid public backlash, Augustus took the sly approach of preserving the Republic's appearance while holding a multitude of powerful titles. These titles included Imperator Caesar Divi Filius, Augustus, Princeps Civitatis, Pontifex Maximus, Pater Patriae, Tribune of the Plebs, and Consul, among others. These titles granted him various powers, including Imperium Maius, which gave him control over all other officials and the ability to make decisions on matters of war and peace. He also had Imperium Proconsulare, which gave him authority over all Roman provinces. Additionally, he held the power of Imperator, which allowed him to command the Roman military, and Dominus, symbolizing his absolute authority over the Roman state. It was this collection of powers which stabilized the empire from civil war. However, this concentration of power inevitably led to abuses, such as persecutions and horrid tyranny not possible under a more decentralized system.

Another key aspect of Augustus' cultural reforms was his focus on the traditional Roman family structure. Through these, he aimed to create a sense of order and stability in a society ravaged by war and plagued by decadence. He encouraged marriage and family formation and promoted the idea of the paterfamilias, or the head of the household, as a cornerstone of Roman society. Augustus saw the family unit as the foundation of Roman society and believed that strong families would contribute to social stability and economic prosperity. He also introduced legal reforms aimed at encouraging marriage and family formation, such as the Lex Papia Poppaea. This provided incentives for couples to marry and have children, and harshly punished adulterers and profligates. Augustus' promotion of a moral revival and celebration of traditional Roman family structures reinforced social order and hierarchy. Their objective was to encourage a return to the traditional Roman virtues of piety, loyalty, and discipline, which were believed to be essential to the stability and prosperity of the Roman state.

Another key aspect of Augustus' cultural reforms was his patronage of the arts. He commissioned a vast array of public works, including buildings, sculptures, literature, and other forms of art. These works celebrated Rome's grandeur and imperial power. The Forum Augustum, ordered in 20 BCE, was a massive public space that served as a center of political and cultural life in Rome. The Forum was a testament to Rome's power and wealth, and it showcased Roman architecture and engineering grandeur and sophistication. Despite the impressiveness of these achievements, it should be noted how architecture and the finance of significant projects shape our thinking about the world and our culture's legacy. When art is patronized by the state, it risks compromising the creative and moral integrity of the work in the interests of the client in a way that cannot be said of private commissions. As a consequence, Roman art became both dependent on and subservient to the power of the state. The clearest example of this is Augusta of Prima Porta which is a monument to his imperial majesty

Augustus' promotion of traditional Roman values and customs had a significant impact on Roman society and culture. While it restored some positive aspects of Roman life, it also cracked down on personal liberties. Augustus and his successors implemented strict moral codes that regulated everything from marriage and family life to personal conduct. These moral codes were enforced through a powerful bureaucracy, which monitored and punished any deviations from the norm. Despite his sincere intentions, it seems these laws were unnecessary and unnecessarily harsh. The underlying cause of degeneracy is ethical, which is a much deeper problem. Treating decadence with the law is like treating Herpes with an anti-inflamation cream. A more sophisticated look at the problem would uncover many other issues with this reactionary sentiment. For example, prolonging a harmful secular cycle in society.

The Augustan settlement had a profound impact on Roman society and culture. It brought stability and unity to Rome, ending civil wars and ushering in a period of peace and prosperity known as the Pax Romana. But the reforms also cemented the power of the emperor and the imperial family, creating an established political and social hierarchy that lasted for centuries. Moreover, the Settlement established a cultural foundation for Western civilization, influencing art, literature, and architecture for centuries to come.

However, this stability and prosperity came at a cost. The concentration of power in the hands of the emperor and his advisors inevitably led to abuses, such as the persecution of political dissidents and religious minorities. The Augustan Settlement also entrenched a system of imperial rule that prioritized the interests of the ruling elite over those of the people. This lack of representation and accountability led to corruption and the tyranny of incompetent dictators, undermining the empire's long-term stability.

From a libertarian perspective, while Augustus' reforms aimed to create stability and security, they ultimately resulted in an authoritarian government that trampled on individual liberty. The creation of the principate and the elevation of the emperor to god-like status concentrated power in the hands of one individual, paving the way for later emperors to wield nearly absolute authority over the Roman people. The establishment of a cult of personality around the emperor further eroded traditional Roman values of civic virtue and duty, encouraging blind obedience and loyalty to the state rather than personal autonomy and responsibility. As such, the Augustan Settlement can be seen as a cautionary tale about the dangers of centralized power and the importance of individual liberty.

In conclusion, the Augustan Settlement marked a pivotal moment in the history of the Roman Republic, transforming it into an empire that would dominate the Mediterranean for centuries to come. Augustus' reforms enabled stability and prosperity in Rome. Many of his initiatives, such as the construction of public buildings and monuments, contributed to the empire's cultural and architectural legacy in the west. Despite this, the settlement's authoritarian nature and consequences cannot be ignored. The concentration of power in the hands of the emperor and his advisors ultimately led to abuses of power and the erosion of individual liberties. The next many centuries of Roman rule would be haunted by the ghost of its most influential emperor.

From a libertarian perspective, the Augustan Settlement serves as a warning about the dangers of unchecked power. In order to safeguard personal freedom and secure property rights, it is crucial to limit the power of the state or anyone else who might try to control it. The legacy of the Augustan Settlement should prompt us to reflect on the balance between stability and freedom in any political system, and the dangers of sacrificing freedom to the public good. Ultimately, the Augustan Settlement reminds us that the price of security can often be the loss of individual liberty. Paradoxally, the ultimate of security is national autophagy. We must remain vigilant in safeguarding our freedoms in the face of any attempt by the state to consolidate power with itself lest we succumb to the same fate. 

Gov. 1A-45: Voluntary Arrangements and People in Distress

Pick any chapter in How to Argue, and write 250 words on this: "How could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder?" 31. “If government doesn’t relieve distress, who will?”

In times of distress and disaster, people often turn to the government for aid and relief. After all, if the state didn’t relieve their distress, who would? This view, however, is missing something. It gives undue credit to the politics of plunder underlying state-imposed solutions but ignores the power of voluntary arrangements. This essay explores the benefits of voluntary arrangements, both charitable and businesslike as a solution to distress and how they provide a superior alternative to state intervention. By the end the reader should understand why private aid is a more practical and morally superior alternative to state mandates. By understanding the benefits of private assistance, we can gain a better understanding of how to effectively help those in need. This knowledge must include an understanding of existing activities, their alignment with individual freedom and liberty, and their practical advantages. Overall, voluntary arrangements are the solution to disasters because they are morally and practically superior for the people concerned.

When considering solutions that affect millions of people, it is imperative to take their moral considerations into account. Voluntary arrangements align with individual freedom and liberty by allowing individuals to decide how they want to contribute to relief efforts. Political solutions, on the other hand, rely on coercion and force to take resources from some groups to distribute to others. Charity is only charity if it is done voluntarily, otherwise it is brutish and amoral. Political redistribution violates the rights of countless individuals regardless of their so-called voted consent. Such a policy undermines the principles of individual liberty and self-expression. Voluntary arrangements maintain the moral principles of individual freedom and avoid the coercion inherent in state-imposed solutions.

The moral claim is all well and good, but statists may object that private aid can't be relied upon, and that sometimes you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. On the contrary, private aid, such as insurance and charity, provides compelling incentives for anyone to contribute to relief efforts. Insurance companies have a strong financial incentive to operate efficiently and effectively ensuring the safety of their clients as they must compete with other providers in a free market. Similarly, charities rely on the goodwill and donations of their supporters to continue operating. This creates a strong need to use donations effectively and ensure they are making a real difference in the lives of those they seek to help. In contrast, state programs are aligned with political pressures and are rarely held accountable for inefficiency or wasting precious resources. Moreover, reliance on the maternal state reduces the public's sense of responsibility and commitment to relief efforts. This generates a crippling dependency on unilateral extortion to pay for mutual aid. Voluntary arrangements allow individuals to allocate resources according to their knowledge and preferences, creating a sense of ownership and commitment that minimizes waste and increases efficiency. In summary, private aid, such as insurance and charity, can be relied upon to operate effectively. They provide excellent incentives for providing effective relief and aid to those in need.

Throughout history, there have been numerous successful examples of voluntary arrangements providing effective relief and aid without the need for state intervention. Mutual aid societies, covenant communities, insurance agencies, and private fire departments are just a few examples of these organizations. For instance, mutual aid societies were prevalent in the United States during the late 1800s and early 1900s, where members of communities would band together to support each other during times of distress. In the absence of state aid, these societies provided a safety net for their members in times of crisis. Another example is the Amish community's covenant community, which operates a system of mutual aid and charity that helps members with medical expenses, funeral costs, and other expenses related to family crises. This system is based on a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the community, rather than state intervention. Moreover, private insurance agencies are another example of how voluntary arrangements can operate efficiently and effectively. These agencies are subject to market forces and must compete with other providers, driving them to offer better services at lower prices. Private fire departments also provide a compelling example of how voluntary arrangements can work. In the early days of the United States, private fire departments were prevalent, and they competed with each other to provide better services to their clients. By examining these examples, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of how voluntary arrangements can provide efficient and effective aid and relief solutions than state-imposed beuracracy. These organizations are freestanding examples of distress relief that can operate independently and successfully without state intervention. As a result, voluntary arrangements can be a reliable and effective alternative to government aid.

The practicality of voluntary arrangements is undeniable. While government intervention can be sluggish and bureaucratic, leading to frustrating delays in relief efforts, voluntary arrangements are often more nimble and flexible, able to rapidly respond to the needs of those affected by disasters. And what's more, voluntary arrangements have the advantage of being based on consent, not force. People are free to choose whether or not to participate, and can opt out at any time. It's a level of freedom that state-imposed solutions simply can't match.

But the benefits of voluntary arrangements don't stop there. They're also incredibly cost-effective compared to state alternatives. Government intervention often comes with a hefty price tag, one that taxpayers are all too familiar with. In contrast, voluntary arrangements often provide relief and aid at a fraction of the cost. The principle of mutual aid means that members pool their resources to help each other, achieving more together than they could alone. It's a powerful approach that simply can't be replicated by state-imposed solutions. So not only are voluntary arrangements more moral, but they're also more practical and cost-effective.

Voluntary arrangements offer a superior alternative to state-imposed solutions for providing relief and aid during times of distress and disaster. Rather than relying on coercion and violating individual freedom, voluntary arrangements align with these principles, allowing individuals to choose how they want to contribute to relief efforts. Incentives for efficient and effective operation abound in a free market, and mutual aid societies and covenant communities offer a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the community. Voluntary arrangements are also more nimble and flexible than government intervention and often provide relief and aid at a fraction of the cost. Understanding the benefits of private assistance can lead to more effective ways to help those in need. Therefore, it is crucial to consider voluntary arrangements as a reliable and practical solution to distress and disaster. As a people we should all work together to support the power of the free market and individual choice by exploring and participating in voluntary arrangements that can effectively alleviate distress and support those in need.