1; Unity

In the half-century following the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War, the city-states of Hellas remained embroiled in incessant quarrels over the most of petty matters, despite the best attempts of those who had once hoped to unite all Hellenes under a common banner. Though the leaders in power had never solved any issues of great importance, they still walked with pride and held their heads high, concerning themselves with little matters fit only to enhance their own reputations. These leaders made often treaties of peace between themselves, but in vain and perhaps in ill-conscience from the outset. The treaties themselves did not settle hostilities, but served only to defer wars to the moment that one such leader perceived that he could inflict some grievous wound upon another.

It is in this environment that we are counseled by Isocrates, that the more narrow-minded and cowardly our leaders prove to be, the more vigorously the rest of us must work to find a solution in order to end our apparent enmity. Our duty is to rise above these petty plots and endeavour to establish a greater sense of security at home, and to install greater confidence among neighbors and between each other.

The specifics, however, may be more difficult to swallow in modern times. Isocrates presents a simple solution to forging a lasting peace: war with Persia, which would turn the mutual enmity of the Hellenes away from each other and towards a common enemy.

Yet has America not been forged by the very same process? We have been united by war, and our member states have long ago sacrificed much of their independent identities and sovereignties to become integrated as parts of the whole. Our enemy was no derivative Achaemenid king, guardian of a realm long bereft of their former glory and hegemony, but one of the most powerful and far-flung empires that has ever graced the surface of this Earth, and it was still yet in its prime.

It took a foreign army to conquer the city-states of Hellas and impose unity upon them. Isocrates would no doubt look upon the creation of the United States as a demonstration of the natural tendency to form bonds against all adversity. The colonies, which were established with vastly different motivations and creeds, had virtually no mutual ties but were able to create common cause nonetheless.

The United States has advanced innumerable steps since then, but our political climate has suffered to the point that it is comparable to that of Hellas. Long gone are the days that any single politician can be elected to the office of the Presidency on a unanimous vote. Politicians today stand on what they call “principle” in order to appeal to their voter base, instead of compromising with opposing factions to create more balanced legislation. They do and say not what is required for the betterment of country, but what will cement their reelection. One faction’s triumph is now automatically regarded as another’s scourge. The recent battle over the 2011 budget is exemplary of the tendency to pass temporary treaties so that all parties involved can probe for another chance at the killing blow: several “stopgap” funding measures were passed that funded the government for 3 weeks at a time, postponing the inevitable confrontation and giving politicians more time to maneuver. However, I am not here to judge the guilty party, but only to observe that all sides are worthy of praise and deserving of condemnation.

It is time that we left behind these petty, childish power plays that have yet again divided our country into squabbling factions. But who are we to unite against? Enemies that we face now are much more insidious than the looming threat of a foreign invader. The true threats are diminishing natural resources, global overpopulation, and rising extremism on all sides of the political spectrum. These are enemies that shed no blood and conscript no hosts, and cannot be solved by a broken and disjointed effort. No, what can spur a nation to great heights other than the sentiment that it is being outdone by another? Like those before me, I propose a simple solution. We have been complacent for too much time while we surmised that our country was preeminent in all affairs: science, law, medicine, literature, and invention. Such designations are far from permanent and are ultimately worthless to our motivations; other nations have been spurred by the desire to match and surpass our accomplishments, and they are getting ever closer. Let the spirit of competition among nations dictate to us an identity and purpose that all can rally behind. If we are to endure the real challenges that lie ahead of us, our banners must first be unfurled.

To that effect, let us bask in our mutual accomplishments instead of our ideological differences, and allow all our myriad parts to come together as a functioning whole once more. After all, we hardly boast that that a single state was responsible for the civil rights movement or that the Democratic Party defeated the Third Reich in World War II; such deeds are what the nation is capable of only if it chooses to come together.

2 responses to “1; Unity

  1. Oh Isocrates, why is it that you, of all people, assume the value of unity, versus plurality, among the Greeks (or the Americans)? Is this where you found yourself thinking with Plato, rather than against him? And is this where you broke with those sophists and Heraclitians you earlier praised (indirectly)?

    • Hi prof O! I see you left a frigthening barrage of comments all at once! 🙂 Saved up them til after the final exam, I guess? I’ll try to tag along one-by-one.

      I always thought that ‘unity’ and ‘plurality’ had a different relationship for Isocrates and Aristotle than it did for Plato. They may appear to be opposing concepts, but for the first two they seemed also to be inextricably tied, while for Plato it appeared that plurality had to be stamped out to make way for unity.

      e.g. two examples that stand out from class: Aristotle being comfortable with the possibility of different realities for everyone and the diversity/multiplicity it implied, and Isocrates being a ‘philosopher of statistics’ in realizing there would never exist an 100% or 0% case. The point of this post was to emphasize that we can never escape this aspect of the universe, and so ‘unity’ could coexist with ‘plurality’ as the natural sum of its parts.

      Thinking about this again makes it seem a bit like splitting hairs, but from our experiences in class it appeared that most philosophers had the same Point A and Point B, but the routes between them were very very different.

Leave a comment