|
In case you haven't noticed, there is a flaming 'culture war' going on over the land. It is being fought in our politics, our news media, our entertainment media, our schools, our universities, our courts, our places of business, even in our churches. But the most important battles are taking place in our minds -- for those who are puzzled at what they see and hear. This puzzlement produces a 'passivity' that clouds decision and stymies action. A case in point is the recent defense of the new 'ethics' program at the Academy by Captain Mark N. Clemente, USN. He defends this program in the February 2000 issue of the 'Proceedings,' the monthly magazine of the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association.' In this defense, CAPT Clemente wraps the shining flag of heroism of ADM James Stockdale, USN (Ret.), a universally admired Vietnam War ex-POW, around the new 'ethics' program at the Academy. ADM Stockdale, a Medal of Honor winner for his heroism and leadership in Hanoi's Hoa Lo prison, has a long record of applying the Stoic philosophy to his professional and personal conduct. He is deeply informed of the tenets of this philosophy and credits it with "serving him well" while a prisoner of war. ADM Stockdale "encourage[s] the teaching of ethics and philosophy to military professionals." While at the U.S. Naval War College, he developed a curriculum for teaching such ethics to naval officers.
ADM James Stockdale is a true American hero. I cannot imagine a single person who is not singularly proud to be an American after learning of ADM Stockdale's role in bringing our Vietnam War POWs (NAM-POWs) home with their honor, their integrity, and their self-respect intact. There is absolutely no doubt that ADM Stockdale earned his Medal of Honor for leadership during that terrible time.
The esteemed scholar and popularizer of history, Will Durant [6], summarizes the era in which Stoicism flourished in ancient Greece -- the cradle of democracy. It was an era of decay -- decay from within. "...when Greece had seen Chaeronea in blood and Thebes in ashes ... and when the glory had departed from Athens, she was ripe for Zeno and Epicurus." Is this marriage of Stoic philosophy and the decay and dissolution of the culture in which it emerged a characteristic of Stoicism itself? Is this 'pessimistic' philosophy one which we would chose for America? Is American culture at the concomitant stage of dissolution and decay as was experienced in ancient Greece in the aftermath of Alexander the Great? Is this defeatist philosophy (the apathetic acceptance of defeat) one which we could consciously choose as a foundation for the moral strength of our core combat leadership? In this collective state of mind, it was easy for Oriental fatalism to take root. What was this fatalistic view of the world? Durant tells us that it consisted of three 'opinions.' If you don't recognize the current New Age fads in America in this ancient Oriental philosophy, you aren't alive. Non-judgmentalism. Everything is relative -- even morals. Situational ethics and 'values clarification' in our public schools. Whatever! A perfect philosophical underpinning for slaves, despondent peoples in a ravaged land, or even prisoners of war who are at the complete mercy of a ruthless barbaric captor -- in any age. Is American civilization at its stage of evolution such that we are receptive -- as were the ancient Greeks -- for a reincarnation of the Stoic creed? "Since an increasing number of Epicurus' followers interpreted him as counseling the pursuit of personal pleasure, the essential problem of ethics -- what is a good life? -- had reached not a solution but only a new formulation: how can the natural epicureanism of the individual be reconciled with the stoicism necessary to the group and the race? -- how can the members of a society be inspired to, or frightened into, the self-control and self-sacrifice indispensable to collective survival?"
Zeno, the early Greek master of stoicism, founded a school and taught there during his entire adulthood. He died at the age of 90. "He died ... in the following manner ... When he was going out of his school he tripped and broke a toe. Striking the ground with his hand, he repeated a line from the Niobe: 'I come; why call me so?' and immediately he strangled himself." He committed suicide in the true stoic fashion. Whatever will be, will be. But before he died, Zeno gave the Stoic doctrine its historic form by expounding it in 750 books ... [said to be] ... models of learned dullness. After [Zeno], Stoicism spread throughout Hellas ... [and became] ... the most widespread and influential philosophy in the ancient world." What were the fundamental beliefs of stoicism, as practiced by the Greeks? According to Durant [9], "The Stoics agreed with the Epicureans that knowledge arises only out of the senses, and placed the final test of truth in such perceptions ... Experience, however, need not lead to knowledge; for between sensation and reason lies emotion or passion, which may distort experience into error even as it distorts desire into vice ... Reason is the supreme achievement of man ..."
A fundamental principle of Stoicism, as stated [10] by Durant, is, "Since man is part of God or Nature, the problem of ethics can be easily solved: goodness is co-operation with God, or Nature, or the law of the World. It is NOT the pursuit or enjoyment of pleasure, for such pursuit subordinates reason to passion, often injures the body or the mind, and seldom satisfies in the end. Happiness can be found only through a rational adjustment of our aims and conduct to the purposes and laws of the universe." Indeed, whatever will be, will be. Was this philosophy the foundation for a nation which wrenched its freedom from the tyranny of the Crown of England in 1776? Was it the philosophy of those who roamed the West and with their bare hands and strong hearts built a strong, verile, and prosperous nation from the mountains, forests, deserts, and valleys of what has come to be known as America? Was this the philosophy which underpinned the determination of our ancestors to sacrifice, face hardship, and with entrepreneurial zeal build a great economic enterprise, the like of which has never before been seen on the face of the earth? Was this the foundational mindset for a nation of people who, twice in the 20th century, marshaled its will, natural resources, ingenuity, and young men to repel and defeat the two most rapacious, socialist monstrosities known to history -- the National Socialism of Nazi Germany and the Bolshevic Socialism of Stalin's Soviet Union? Was this a foundational philosophy for a nation which won World War II against the forces of evil; Japanese imperialism and Nazi dreams of world conquest? Was this the foundation of thought on which America won the 40-year Cold War against the forces of Soviet communism? The answer is obvious -- a strong and resounding NO! It should be just as obvious that such a philosophy, Stoicism, is NOT one which we should implant in our national psyche. That is, unless you believe that the United States of America and our American civilization is in a terminal state of decay, dissolution, and despair. And it is even more obvious that Stoicism is not a moral philosophy which should guide the development of our core combat leadership -- either in our entire military or at our most prestigious military academies. Durant continues [11] to describe the Stoic creed, as practiced by the ancient Greeks. "The Stoic, therefore, will shun luxury and complexity, economic or political strife; he will content himself with little, and will accept without complaint the difficulties and disappointments of life. He will be indifferent to everything but virtue and vice -- to sickness and pain, good or ill repute, freedom or slavery, life or death. He will suppress all feelings that may obstruct the course or question the wisdom of Nature ... He will seek so complete an apatheia, or absence of feeling, that his peace of mind will be secure against all the attacks and vicissitudes of fortune, pity, or love. He will be a hard teacher and stern administrator. Determinism does not imply indulgence; we must hold ourselves, and others, morally responsible for every action." "The Stoic looks upon virtue as its own reward, and as an absolute duty or categorical imperative, derived from his participation in divinity; and he will console himself in misfortune, by remembering that in following the divine law he becomes an incarnate god." In this sense, he predated Immanuel Kant by nearly 2,000 years. "[The Stoic] thinks of perfection, not as Plato and Aristotle did, in terms of the good society, but in terms of the good man ... He may give his life for his country, but he will reject any patriotism that hinders his loyalty to all mankind; he is a citizen of the world." Is it no wonder that the New Age power elite who rule America today would return us to this vision. Their fetish for expanding the power of the United Nations, politically, legally, and militarily places them in the same mind set as the Stoics of ancient Greece. In this philosophy, armed interventions on foreign soil are justified if human rights violations are carried out by that sovereign state on their own citizens. On this basis, Stoicism justifies America's 'human rights' imperialism -- the justification for the use of military force on the basis of an appeal to our consciences, anywhere in the world. Such a philosophy can lead to tyranny just as ominous as others which have ravaged the earth by 'men of high ideals' -- men who would be Kings. Robert Conquest [12] labels this defect of modern history as 'the tyranny of ideas.' According to Durant [13], "Stoicism was a noble philosophy, and proved more practicable than a modern cynic would expect. It brought together all the elements of Greek thought in a final effort of the pagan mind to create a system of morals acceptable to the classes that had abandoned the ancient creed [the Greek religion]; and though it naturally won only a small minority to its standard, those few were everywhere the best. Like its Christian counterparts, Calvinism and Puritanism, it produced the strongest characters of its time. Theoretically it was a monstrous doctrine of an isolated and pitiless perfection. Actually it created men of courage, saintliness, and good will like ... Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius [in a later era]; it influenced Roman jurisprudence in building a law of nations for non-Romans; and it helped to hold ancient society together until a new faith came." "The Stoics lent countenance to superstition, and had an injurious effect upon science; but they saw clearly the basic problem of their age -- the collapse of the theological basis of morals -- and they made an honest attempt to bridge the gap between religion and philosophy." Is this what ADM Stockdale and others, who would raise the Stoics to an exalted place in American culture, see as the status of our nation? Are we at the stage in our civilization that we need a NEW RELIGION for which Stoicism will come in to bridge the gap. Are we in such a state of MORAL COLLAPSE that we need a resurgence of Stoic philosophy to lead us from the darkness? Is this what ADM Stockdale and the defenders of the Naval Academy's new 'ethics' program would have us believe? Epicurus won the Greeks, Zeno won the aristocracy of Rome; and to the end of pagan history Stoics ruled the Epicureans, as they always will. When a new religion took form out of the intellectual and moral chaos of the dying Hellenistic world, the way had been prepared for it by a philosophy that acknowledged the necessity of faith, preached an ascetic doctrine of simplicity and self-restraint, and saw all things in God. According to Durant [14], "...the ethical [strain in Greek philosophy] remained until Epicureanism and Stoicism were conquered or absorbed by Christianity." Many components of the Stoic creed were Asiatic in origin, some were specifically Semitic. In essentials, Stoicism was one elemental phase of the Oriental triumph over Hellenic civilization. Greece had ceased to be Greece before it was conquered by Rome." Indeed, Greece had disintegrated from within; morally -- in the loss of its religion -- intellectually, and militarily. And within 53 short years after the beginning of military incursions by Italia from the West, were conquered by the Romans. Ancient Greece -- the cradle of democracy -- dissolved, decayed, and died under the influence of an apathetic Stoicism. This philosophy, indeed, enabled a willing acceptance of defeat.
According to Durant [15], "The Romans, coming to despoil Hellas in 146 B.C., found these rival schools [Epicureanism and Stoicism] dividing the philosophical field; and having neither leisure nor subtlety for speculation themselves, brought back these philosophies with their other spoils to Rome. Great organizers, as much as inevitable slaves, tend to stoic moods: it is difficult to be either master or servant if one is sensitive. So such philosophy as Rome had was mostly of Zeno's school, whether in Marcus Aurelius the emperor or in Epictetus the slave..." Thus, the fatalist strain of the Oriental mind eventually invaded Rome, through the latter's conquest of ancient Greece. That 'victory' planted the seed for acceptance (when the time came) of its own dissolution and decay; the the apathetic acceptance of defeat. Will Durant, in his second volume of an epic eleven volume series of books on 'The Story of Civilization,' reminds us of the importance of the study of history in attempting to understand our civilization and problems of our day -- including the philosophical underpinnings of our heritage. In the preface to this second volume [16], he states, "We shall learn more of the nature of man by watching his behavior through sixty centuries than by reading Plato and Aristotle, Spinoza and Kant..." As the sage he rightly is, Durant presages our current American dilemma. "But that multiple panorama has greater meaning for us than through its scope and majesty: it resembles significantly, and sometimes with menacing illumination, the civilization and problems of our day. This is the advantage of studying a civilization in its total scope and life -- that one may compare each stage or aspect of its career with a corresponding moment or element of our own cultural trajectory, and be warned or encouraged by the ancient aftermath of a modern phase. There, in the struggle of Roman civilization against barbarism within and without, is our own struggle; through Rome's problems of biological and moral decadence, signposts rise on our road today ... the desperate effort of the Mediterranean soul to maintain some freedom against a despotic state is an augury of our coming task ... of ourselves this Roman story is told." The part of that story which pertains to our look at the Stoic philosophy of Zeno begins with the emperor, Marcus Aurelius (120-180 A.D.). According to Durant [17], "'If,' said Gibbon, 'a man were called upon to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would without hesitation name that which elapsed from the accession of Nerva to the death of Aurelius (96-180 A.D.). Their united reigns are possibly the only period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government ... At the age of twelve [Marcus Aurelius] took on the rude cloak of a philosopher, slept on a little straw strewn over the floor, and long resisted the entreaties of his mother to use a couch. He was a Stoic before he became a man." "All Italy and all the provinces acclaimed [Aurelius] as Plato's dream come true: the philosopher was king ... But...he was a philosopher-king in the Stoic rather than the Platonic sense ... He had no thought of attempting a Utopia. Like Antoninus he was a conservative ... He had discovered that not all men wished to be saints; and he sadly reconciled himself to a world of corruption and wickedness." "It was [Marcus'] misfortune that his fame as a philosopher, and the long peace under Hadrian and Antoninus, encouraged rebels within and barbarians without..." In a series of wars against the barbaric German tribes in the North and internal rebellion of a Roman general in the Roman provinces, Marcus Aurelius fought and won over all. But a plague, carried back from abroad by one of his armies, befell the Roman people. Marcus, helpless before this intangible enemy, did all he could to mitigate the evil. But to no avail. Durant tells us the result [18]. Amid these domestic difficulties news came (167 A.D.) that the tribes along the Danube...had crossed the river, overwhelmed a Roman garrison of 20,000 men, and were pouring unhindered into ... [Roman provinces] ... [and] were laying waste the rich fields of northern Italy. Never before had the German tribes moved with such unity or so closely threatened Rome. Durant informs [19] us of the action taken by the Stoic 'philosopher king.' "Marcus acted with surprising decisiveness. He put away the pleasures of philosophy and determined to take the field in what he foresaw would be the most momentous of Roman wars since Hannibal." Observe that, during the time of great national strife, when a determined and brutal enemy threatened, the 'philosopher king' abandoned his Stoic philosophy, the theoretical basis for 'explaining' human behavior, and turned to the tenets of a 'warrior' spirit and mentality. He 'put away the pleasures of philosophy' and took decisive action. So much for those who would place primacy in the education of our nation's core combat leadership hostage to a 'defeatist' creed -- Stoicism. Durant continues, "[Marcus Aurelius] shocked Italy by enrolling policemen, gladiators, slaves, brigands, and barbarous mercenaries into legions depleted by war and pestilence. Even the gods were conscripted to his purpose: he bade the priests of alien faiths to offer sacrifice for Rome according to their various rites ... To raise war funds without levying special taxes he auctioned off in the Forum the wardrobes, art objects, and jewels of the imperial palaces. He took careful measures of defense -- fortified the border towns from Gaul to the Aegean, blocked the passes into Italy, and bribed German and Scythian tribes to attack the invaders in the rear. With energy and courage all the more admirable in a man who hated war, he trained his army into disciplined strength, led them through a hard campaign mapped out with strategic skill, drove the besiegers from [the land], and routed them even to the Danube, until nearly all were captured or dead." No philosophy here. No Stoicism here. No 'defeatism' here. No apathy here. Action. Decisive, courageous, and direct action. And it saved the day. According to Durant [20], "Only a man schooled in the Roman and Stoic sense of duty could have transformed himself so completely from a mystic philosopher into a competent and successful general. The philosopher remained, hidden under the imperator's armor; in the very tumult of this Second Marcomannic War (169-175 A.D.)...Marcus wrote that little book of Meditations by which the world chiefly remembers him." "And, after the war, the Stoic 'philosopher king' returned to his softer side. It was then that things started falling apart. His son, Commodus, was a lout. He devoted himself to the life of gaiety and frivolous pleasure. Marcus was too good to be great enough to discipline him or renounce him. And he escalated that weakness into a colossal blunder. He associated Commodus with himself in the victory and now made him, a lad of fifteen, his colleague on the throne. For the first time in nearly a century the principle of adoption (choosing a most fit young adult for grooming to succession) was put aside and the hereditary principate was resumed. Durant tells the story [21] of the aftermath of this greatness. "Nevertheless, amid the prosperity that made Rome brilliant in this second century, all the seeds were germinating of the crisis that would ruin Italy in the third. Marcus had contributed heavily to the debacle by naming Commodus his heir and by wars that centralized ever more authority in the hands of the Emperor. Commodus kept in peace the prerogatives assumed by Aurelius in war. Private and local independence, initiative, and pride withered as the power and functions of the state increased; and the wealth of nations was drained away by ever-rising taxation to support a self-multiplying bureaucracy and the endless offensives of defense. The mineral wealth of Italy was diminishing, pestilence and famine had taken bitter toll, the system of tillage by slaves was failing, governmental expenditures and doles had exhausted the Treasury and debased the currency. Italian industry was losing its markets in the provinces through provincial competition, and no economic statesmanship appeared to make up for languishing foreign trade by a wider distribution of buying power at home. Meanwhile the provinces had recovered ... their ancient skills had revived, their industries were flourishing, their new wealth was financing science, philosophy, and art. Their sons replenished the legions, their generals led them; soon their armies would hold Italy at their mercy and make their generals emperors. The process of conquest was finished and was to be reversed; henceforth the conquered would absorb the conquerors." Commodus turned out to be the emperor who plunged the Roman Empire into an ever spiralling downward path toward dissolution, decay, and death. Durant informs [22] us that he offered the enemy immediate peace and returned to Rome to indulge himself in pleasures. He left the palace and lived in the gladiators' school; he drove chariots in the races, and fought in the arena against animals and men ... He drank and gambled, wasted the public funds, kept a harem of 300 women and 300 boys, and liked to vary his sex occasionally, at least by using a woman's garb, even at the public games ... Tales of unbelievable cruelty are transmitted to us: Commodus ordered a votary of Bellona to amputate an arm in proof of piety; forced some women devotees of Isis to beat their breasts with pine cones till they died; killed men indiscriminately with his club of Hercules; gathered cripples together and slew them one by one with arrows ... a new terror raged in Rome ... Commodus...abandoned himself to sexual dissipation. Durant tells the story [23] of this beginning of the visible downward spiral of the Roman Empire. "As if conscious of these omens and problems, the mind of Rome...sank into a cultural and spiritual fatigue...Since the prince had almost all authority, the citizens left him almost all responsibility. More and more of them, even in the aristocracy, retired into their families and their private affairs; citizens became atoms, and society began to fall to pieces internally, precisely when unity seemed most complete. Disillusionment with democracy was followed by disillusionment with monarchy. The 'Golden Thoughts' of Aurelius were often leaden thoughts, weighted down with the suspicion that Rome's problems could not be solved, that the multiplying barbarians could not long be held back by a sterile and pacific breed."
For those of you who find the study of ancient history 'dry,' or 'boring,' even as written by gifted 'popularizers' of that history, the same message can be found in a new novel by Tom Wolfe. This brilliant novelist has written eleven popular books. He wrote 'The Right Stuff' (1979) and 'The Bonfire of the Vanities (1987). "One of his disciples (no doubt a young man, about Conrad's own age, in a toga) says, 'What do you mean?" "Then Epictetus tells them about an Olympic athlete who was threatened with death if he did not allow himself to be castrated so that he might serve as a statuesque eunuch, a human ornament, in Nero's seraglio. His brother, who was a philosopher, came to him and said, 'Brother, what will you do? Are we to let the knife do its work?' The athlete refused and was executed." "'How did he die,' asks one of the disciples, 'as an athlete or as a philosopher?'" "'He died as a man,' says Epictetus, 'and a man who had wrestled at Olympia and been proclaimed victor, one who had passed his days in such a place as that, not one who merely parades about the gymnasium anointing himself with oil so that all can admire him. Another man would have consented to have even his head cut off, if he could have lived without it. That is what I mean about keeping your character: such is its power with those who have acquired the habit of carrying it into every question that arises. You can be the ordinary thread in the tunic, or you can be the purple, that touch of brilliance that gives distinction to the rest." "They said, 'We must behead you then.'" "Epictetus says, 'How does the bull, when the lion attacks, discover what powers he is endowed with? It is plain that each of us who has power of this sort will not be unaware of its possession. Like the bull, the man of noble nature does not become noble all of a sudden; he must train through the winter and make ready, and not lightly leap to meet things that concern him not.'" In this manner, Conrad devours the 'ethics' of his new found saviour, Epictetus, while in prison. When an earthquake demolishes the prison and Conrad escapes, he starts a new life in Atlanta, GA. There he meets the other major player in Wolfe's novel. Charlie Croker. Charlie is a man in his sixties who has accumulated great wealth during his life. He has assumed the full life of power, that of a modern day emperor, at least in his own economic domain. His empire is threatened with bankruptcy due to mistakes in judgment at the same time that he suffers a crippling injury. He is confined to a wheelchair and cannot manage the simplest of activities without excruciating pain in his leg. At this critical juncture in Croker's life, Conrad emerges as a Home Care worker who is assigned to Charlie Croker's case. It is a time in Charlies life in which his character is being tested. Conrad sees a calling in the sense that he can help Charlie if only he can 'explain' Epictetus' Stoic philosophy to him. In a riveting conclusion, the author weaves a story of how Conrad shows Charlie the path to 'honoring his own character' through the teachings of Epictetus. This novel is presented here because it brilliantly reveals the utility in the Stoic philosophy of Epictetus -- the Roman slave who became a famous philosopher. It is no wonder that ADM Stockdale, who studied Epictetus before his imprisonment and brutal torture by his North Vietnamese captors, turned to his knowledge of Epictetus and his Stoic philosophy while a captive. It obviously assisted him through his own personal resistance to the enemy's attempt to keep him under their complete control as well as his heroic efforts in inspiring and leading the the other NAM-POWs. It allowed them to return with their honor, their integrity, and their self-respect. It is a perfect philosophy -- for slaves and prisoners, dominated by the complete power of a 'master' or a barbaric captor.
According to Durant [26], "Nothing in all literature is so depressing as the 'Dissertations' of the slave [Epictetus], unless it be the 'Meditations' of the emperor [Aurelius]. 'Seek not to have things happen as you choose them, but rather choose that they should happen as they do; and you shall live prosperously.' No doubt one can in this manner dictate the future, and play royal highness to the universe. Story has it that Epictetus' master, who treated him with consistent cruelty, one day took to twisting Epictetus' leg to pass the time away. 'If you go on,' said Epictetus calmly, 'you will break my leg.' The master went on, and the leg was broken. 'Did I not tell you,' Epictetus observed mildly,' that you would break my leg?' Yet there is a certain mystic nobility in this philosophy ... In such passages we feel the proximity of Christianity and its dauntless martyrs; indeed were not the Christian ethic of self-denial, the Christian political ideal of an almost communistic brotherhood of man, and the Christian eschatology of the final conflagration of all the world, fragments of Stoic doctrine floating on the stream of thought? In Epictetus the Greco-Roman soul has lost its paganism, and is ready for a new faith. His book had the distinction of being adopted as a religious manual by the early Christian Church. From these 'Dissertations' and Aurelius' 'Meditations' there is but a step to 'The Imitation of Christ.'" "Meanwhile the historical background was melting into newer scenes. There is a remarkable passage in Lucretius which describes the decay of agriculture in the Roman state, and attributes it to the exhaustion of the soil. Whatever the cause, the wealth of Rome passed into poverty, the organization into disintegration, the power and pride into decadence and apathy. Cities faded back into the undistinguished hinterland; the roads fell into disrepair and no longer hummed with trade; the small families of the educated Romans were outbred by the vigorous and untutored German stocks that crept, year after year, across the frontier; pagan culture yielded to Oriental cults; and almost imperceptibly the Empire passed into the Papacy." "The Church, supported in its earlier centuries by the emperors whose powers it gradually absorbed, grew rapidly in numbers, wealth, and range of influence. By the thirteenth century it owned one-third of the soil of Europe, and its coffers bulged with donations of rich and poor. For a thousand years it united, with the magic of an unvarying creed, most of the peoples of a continent; never before or since was organization so widespread or so pacific. But this unity demanded, as the Church thought, a common faith exalted by supernatural sanctions beyond the changes and corrosions of time; therefore dogma, definite and defined, was cast like a shell over the adolescent mind of medieval Europe. It was within this shell that Scholastic philosophy moved narrowly from faith to reason and back again, in a baffling circuit of uncriticized assumptions and preordained conclusions. In the thirteenth century all Christendom was startled and stimulated by Arabic and Jewish translations of Aristotle; but the power of the Church was still adequate to secure, through Thomas Aquinas and others, the transmogrification of Aristotle into a medieval theologian." Christianity, as we know it today, has further grown such that it provided the foundation for not only Western civilization but that special and fragile experiment with democracy -- our Constitutional Republic. The ultimate question arises then. If Christianity evolved out of the roots of Stoicism via the Christian martyrs who died for the faith, why in heavens name must we go back to the Stoics to find 'guidance' for situations where one is placed in a situation wherein his character might be compromised by his actions while under extreme stress -- including the threat of suffering, torture, and death? If the situation arises wherein great courage and steadfastness of will is required, why are we encouraged to go way back to the Stoics for our inspiration? Why will Christ not serve as our guide? When one compares 'what once was' with the New Age 'ethics' being promoted and implemented at our premiere military academies, one is reminded of an everyday metaphor. While raking the leaves from my yard one day, I was reminded by a 'seasoned gardener' of the necessity for such activity.
Our premiere military academies fill a very special need. They are vital to our nation's national security. They are venerable institutions which have traditionally produced hardened 'warriors' who have served as the core combat leadership for our Armed Forces. And when faced with plague and famine at home at the same time that the Germanic tribes were crossing the borders and invading Italia, Marcus Aurelius the emperor threw off the defeatist yoke of Stoicism and took decisive action. "Marcus acted with surprising decisiveness. He put away the pleasures of philosophy and determined to take the field in what he foresaw would be the most momentous of Roman wars since Hannibal." Thus, during the time of great national strife, when a determined and brutal enemy threatened, the 'philosopher king' abandoned his Stoic philosophy, the theoretical basis for 'explaining' human behavior, and turned to the tenets of a 'warrior' spirit and mentality. He 'put away the pleasures of philosophy' and took decisive action. So much for those who would place primacy in the education of our nation's core combat leadership hostage to a 'defeatist' creed -- Stoicism. Durant tells us that, "[Marcus Aurelius] shocked Italy by enrolling policemen, gladiators, slaves, brigands, and barbarous mercenaries into legions depleted by war and pestilence...He took careful measures of defense -- fortified the border towns from Gaul to the Aegean, blocked the passes into Italy, and bribed German and Scythian tribes to attack the invaders in the rear. With energy and courage all the more admirable in a man who hated war, he trained his army into disciplined strength, led them through a hard campaign mapped out with strategic skill, drove the besiegers from [the land], and routed them even to the Danube, until nearly all were captured or dead." No philosophy here. No Stoicism here. No apathy here. No acceptance of defeat here. Action. Decisive, courageous, and direct action. A steely nerve, a toughness of mind, and a man of action emerged. Marcus Aurelius suppressed his Stoic nature and became a 'warrior,' a man of action. And it saved the day. According to Durant [28], "Only a man schooled in the Roman and Stoic sense of duty could have transformed himself so completely from a mystic philosopher into a competent and successful general. The philosopher remained, hidden under the imperator's armor; in the very tumult of this Second Marcomannic War (169-175 A.D.)...Marcus wrote that little book of Meditations by which the world chiefly remembers him." So we see in a study of objective history that the apathetic acceptance of defeat -- the Stoic creed -- was not what the emperor, Marcus Aurelius, marshaled in defense of his empire. He brought to the fore the age-old military arts of survival to meet the necessity of the situation. Indeed, when the chips were down, the philosopher disappeared into his 'Meditations' while the 'warrior' emperor led his army, which he had trained into disciplined strength, to victory. It is crystal clear. A Stoic philosophy -- the apathetic acceptance of defeat -- in the face of a determined enemy is a cardinal error. It guarantees infection of the military mind. It guarantees defeat of the military spirit. It absolutely guarantees destruction of the 'warrior' ethos. And, more importantly, it guarantees defeat on the battlefield. The Stoic creed would be an absolute disaster if planted in the psyche of our future core combat leadership. It would be a travesty if we continue to allow it to infect our venerable military academies. 1) Yapko, Michael D., "Suggestions of Abuse: True and False Memories of Childhood Sexual Trauma," Simon & Schuster, 28) Ibid, pp.431. |
||