Yes, a great man must be able to fight and to dance, write a treatise and a poem, know Literature and mathematics. This used to be the goal of university, but long ago was undermined by (((academia))).
Plato and Aristotle are still right that philosopher-king is the ideal form of government, while democracy is a poor form that is used to gain the consent of the masses to be ruled by lesser people than themselves.
Aristotle is not given enough credit. His books are not by his hand but rather are notes taken by his students. One of whom was, famously, Alexander. Alexander was able to conquer the world because Aristotle told him how it works.
‘A warrior and a scholar’ we need this sentiment back. It was not an unusual combination in human history, but modern culture tries to present intellect at odds with physical, practical capabilities. No one is ‘meant’ to live with their head in a book. Genius was first meant for hunting, warfare and nation building before it became the fast track to a PhD.
PS: Meaning no disrespect to his loyal followers, the very thought of Trump as Philosopher-King cannot fail to bring a respectful giggle, 🤭, maybe many giggles: injecting bleach, immigrants eating pets, Hannibal Lector (was he confusing him with the Hannibal of elephant fame?), father of IVF, the list just keeps getting better …🤫🫨
Sorry, but how could you give example of Philosopher Kings and bring up Hitler, and making it so that Julius Caesar was the only Roman you mentioned? You claimed to be discussing Philosopher Kings but you generally discussed Warrior Kings. It’s easy to be a Warrior King, countless thousands of rulers have done that. At your examples, Alexander could qualify with his Aristotelian education, Napoleon qualifies with his writings, but Gaius Julius Caesar was certainly no philosopher, and you only need to read Mein Kampf to see that Hitler wasn’t a serious thinker.
There are many better examples you could have mentioned.
Yes, it was written when he was young and working through his thoughts, but it's far more intellectually honest than any politician's autobiography put out since
It’s intellectually honest, yes. Hitler was a very honest writer. But he was also not very intelligent, and his ideas are stupid. The perfect evidence for this is in the outcome of their application. The ideas of Mein Kampf that Hitler lived out led to the people of his country being decimated, their culture subverted more wholly and perfectly than any “Jewish Conspiracy” could have hoped to accomplish, a partition that reverted the work of every previous German statesman since Bismarck, and the destruction of almost all other states which aligned even partly with his ideals save Spain. Nazism was the most thorough political failure in history
So, @FromKulak, if you were voting in America on Nov 5, for whom would you be voting?
I note your sentence throwing Alexander, Caesar (Julius, I reckon) Napoleon and Hitler together. Their lives ended in a state of siege or by murder, but the manner in which a thing ends is not the measure of it, seems to be your point. All of these men altered the face of the world. That is the measure of “greatness”, and heroic courage is a morally neutral virtue. Yet it would be flattering (except to the pussy-whipped of both sexes) to call a leader an Alexander or a Napoleon. It would be an expression of admiration albeit somewhat grudging. But to call an American leader “Hitler”! That is the avara cadavera, the supreme and deadly imprecation. Have I read you right over the last couple months?
I'm little bit torn on the issue. Hitler did great in many aspects, but it was best to leave him out of actual military questions (Dunkirk was a fail or the time Manstein wanted to attack ASAP but he wanted to wait for more tanks.)
In a way you're looking for an organiser. I wrote in a note, regarding Musk about this. Someone who has the right people for the positions. We can call them Champions. People who know how to do the 'little things' and loyal to the cause/leader to the end. You can't have the boss handle everything down to the lowest level, but the Champions must be able to decode the 'word' in the right way.
The answer is we don't really know. Obviously Trotskyists and Communists have tried to portray him as dumb or responcible for the failure of the revolution, but a lot of Russian Nationalists would argue he saved Russia from both the hateful foreign influence in the revolution and Hitler...
Then you have to ask the Question of Jewish influence in Trotsky and Lenin's factions of the revolution, and how you feel about that, and as far as I can tell NOTHING is written about this question in english. Russian Nationalists and Georgians are asking all these questions, but we don't really have a clue.
Like I could not tell you if Stalin was the Greatest Villain of Soviet history and killed 10s of millions or if he's the greatest hero and only via his leadership was the revolution prevented from concluding in a further 50 million dead in Russia.
Lenin and Trotsky I feel way more confident calling amongst the most evil men in history... Stalin is a complete enigma to me.
I've seen a lot of Russian Nationalists argue he saved the Russian Ethnicity, and he's the only one who the most degenerate of communist academics will try to insult...
Like... is the idea here that he "wasn't a real communist" or something?
Because -- at the risk of sounding trite -- anyone who is seriously a communist and doesn't realize that incentive set doesn't work with our species is dumb.
I would be open to an argument that Stalin might have done an acceptable job of preserving Russian Identity, if it were argued competently. That said, the number of things he did that seem incredibly counterproductive are legion. That said, I have always acknowledged that my perspective as an American with a purely synthetic sense of nationality makes it *very* difficult for me to grasp that of folks who have a truly genetic national identity.
Plato would absolutely classify Putin as a philosopher king. People may bristle at that bc they don't like Putin, but everything from his piano and judo capabilities to the way he pulled Russia out of the mud are philosopher king traits.
People here who have stated Churchill et al have never read Plato and/or watch CNN.
Putin is a shockingly well rounded, well experienced, and well read leader.
Just from his interview with Tucker i can guess at his favourite historians and his biography reads like a 19th century leader in terms of military experience and activity.
if one peruse victor d. hansons book The second world warS there is a comparison of Hitler to Churchill showing that whilst c. was widely experienced, h. was a provincial cluck who had no experience out side of Mitteleuropa
Yet the military campaigns Churchill planned consistently failed like Galipoli, whereas Hitler's campaigns were shockingly, legendarily effective compared to the balance of forces.
Contrast Gallipoli with the invasions of Poland and France.
"Oh Yes but Hitler had the German General staff" yes and Churchill had access the British officer class.
It's remarkable that Hitler has had 80 years of everyone trying to cast aspirtions on him to redeem their own careers, or as a way to combat the "mythology" of nazism... Yet he has several of the greatest campaigns in history to his name + one of the most remarkable defenses in human history (Napoleon did not get soldiers to keep fighting even into the halls of the National Assembly)
Last time we saw that was with Washington, Lincoln and both Roosevelts as well as Carter in the US. Then Churchill, King George in WW II, Gandhi, Mandela …. Far too few for such a large endlessly warmongering planet.
What democracy are you taking about? There are no philosopher kings among the Trotskyites or the Gramsci Marxists. You read Plato, but didn't understand.
Why do you bring up Trotsky & Marxism? Is the extent of your knowledge so limited/your character so shallow that you can only default to mainstream Cold War talking points?
Good stuff.
Yes, a great man must be able to fight and to dance, write a treatise and a poem, know Literature and mathematics. This used to be the goal of university, but long ago was undermined by (((academia))).
Plato and Aristotle are still right that philosopher-king is the ideal form of government, while democracy is a poor form that is used to gain the consent of the masses to be ruled by lesser people than themselves.
" but long ago was undermined by (((academia)))"
You got a reference for that?
Aristotle is not given enough credit. His books are not by his hand but rather are notes taken by his students. One of whom was, famously, Alexander. Alexander was able to conquer the world because Aristotle told him how it works.
‘A warrior and a scholar’ we need this sentiment back. It was not an unusual combination in human history, but modern culture tries to present intellect at odds with physical, practical capabilities. No one is ‘meant’ to live with their head in a book. Genius was first meant for hunting, warfare and nation building before it became the fast track to a PhD.
PS: Meaning no disrespect to his loyal followers, the very thought of Trump as Philosopher-King cannot fail to bring a respectful giggle, 🤭, maybe many giggles: injecting bleach, immigrants eating pets, Hannibal Lector (was he confusing him with the Hannibal of elephant fame?), father of IVF, the list just keeps getting better …🤫🫨
This is where Elon's sudden appearance in politics warms my heart
FELICES MUCHOS BREVE
You’re describing the Pater of the Indo-European cult who is the priest, judge, warlord, king of his familial cult.
Sorry, but how could you give example of Philosopher Kings and bring up Hitler, and making it so that Julius Caesar was the only Roman you mentioned? You claimed to be discussing Philosopher Kings but you generally discussed Warrior Kings. It’s easy to be a Warrior King, countless thousands of rulers have done that. At your examples, Alexander could qualify with his Aristotelian education, Napoleon qualifies with his writings, but Gaius Julius Caesar was certainly no philosopher, and you only need to read Mein Kampf to see that Hitler wasn’t a serious thinker.
There are many better examples you could have mentioned.
Why is MK seen by you as a negative?
Yes, it was written when he was young and working through his thoughts, but it's far more intellectually honest than any politician's autobiography put out since
It’s intellectually honest, yes. Hitler was a very honest writer. But he was also not very intelligent, and his ideas are stupid. The perfect evidence for this is in the outcome of their application. The ideas of Mein Kampf that Hitler lived out led to the people of his country being decimated, their culture subverted more wholly and perfectly than any “Jewish Conspiracy” could have hoped to accomplish, a partition that reverted the work of every previous German statesman since Bismarck, and the destruction of almost all other states which aligned even partly with his ideals save Spain. Nazism was the most thorough political failure in history
FELICES
So, @FromKulak, if you were voting in America on Nov 5, for whom would you be voting?
I note your sentence throwing Alexander, Caesar (Julius, I reckon) Napoleon and Hitler together. Their lives ended in a state of siege or by murder, but the manner in which a thing ends is not the measure of it, seems to be your point. All of these men altered the face of the world. That is the measure of “greatness”, and heroic courage is a morally neutral virtue. Yet it would be flattering (except to the pussy-whipped of both sexes) to call a leader an Alexander or a Napoleon. It would be an expression of admiration albeit somewhat grudging. But to call an American leader “Hitler”! That is the avara cadavera, the supreme and deadly imprecation. Have I read you right over the last couple months?
I'm little bit torn on the issue. Hitler did great in many aspects, but it was best to leave him out of actual military questions (Dunkirk was a fail or the time Manstein wanted to attack ASAP but he wanted to wait for more tanks.)
In a way you're looking for an organiser. I wrote in a note, regarding Musk about this. Someone who has the right people for the positions. We can call them Champions. People who know how to do the 'little things' and loyal to the cause/leader to the end. You can't have the boss handle everything down to the lowest level, but the Champions must be able to decode the 'word' in the right way.
Kulak, was Stalin a Philosopher-King?
I got in this discussion on Twitter...
The answer is we don't really know. Obviously Trotskyists and Communists have tried to portray him as dumb or responcible for the failure of the revolution, but a lot of Russian Nationalists would argue he saved Russia from both the hateful foreign influence in the revolution and Hitler...
Then you have to ask the Question of Jewish influence in Trotsky and Lenin's factions of the revolution, and how you feel about that, and as far as I can tell NOTHING is written about this question in english. Russian Nationalists and Georgians are asking all these questions, but we don't really have a clue.
Like I could not tell you if Stalin was the Greatest Villain of Soviet history and killed 10s of millions or if he's the greatest hero and only via his leadership was the revolution prevented from concluding in a further 50 million dead in Russia.
Lenin and Trotsky I feel way more confident calling amongst the most evil men in history... Stalin is a complete enigma to me.
I've seen a lot of Russian Nationalists argue he saved the Russian Ethnicity, and he's the only one who the most degenerate of communist academics will try to insult...
Like... is the idea here that he "wasn't a real communist" or something?
Because -- at the risk of sounding trite -- anyone who is seriously a communist and doesn't realize that incentive set doesn't work with our species is dumb.
I would be open to an argument that Stalin might have done an acceptable job of preserving Russian Identity, if it were argued competently. That said, the number of things he did that seem incredibly counterproductive are legion. That said, I have always acknowledged that my perspective as an American with a purely synthetic sense of nationality makes it *very* difficult for me to grasp that of folks who have a truly genetic national identity.
No, Stalin wasn't that refined.
Plato would absolutely classify Putin as a philosopher king. People may bristle at that bc they don't like Putin, but everything from his piano and judo capabilities to the way he pulled Russia out of the mud are philosopher king traits.
People here who have stated Churchill et al have never read Plato and/or watch CNN.
Putin is a shockingly well rounded, well experienced, and well read leader.
Just from his interview with Tucker i can guess at his favourite historians and his biography reads like a 19th century leader in terms of military experience and activity.
if one peruse victor d. hansons book The second world warS there is a comparison of Hitler to Churchill showing that whilst c. was widely experienced, h. was a provincial cluck who had no experience out side of Mitteleuropa
Yet the military campaigns Churchill planned consistently failed like Galipoli, whereas Hitler's campaigns were shockingly, legendarily effective compared to the balance of forces.
Contrast Gallipoli with the invasions of Poland and France.
"Oh Yes but Hitler had the German General staff" yes and Churchill had access the British officer class.
It's remarkable that Hitler has had 80 years of everyone trying to cast aspirtions on him to redeem their own careers, or as a way to combat the "mythology" of nazism... Yet he has several of the greatest campaigns in history to his name + one of the most remarkable defenses in human history (Napoleon did not get soldiers to keep fighting even into the halls of the National Assembly)
This Is The Way
Last time we saw that was with Washington, Lincoln and both Roosevelts as well as Carter in the US. Then Churchill, King George in WW II, Gandhi, Mandela …. Far too few for such a large endlessly warmongering planet.
Churchill many would argue is a case study in Scholarly virtue divorced from personal virtue.
His books are great but his drunkenness, organizational problems, and personal careerism arguably doom the british empire.
Many however would argue the opposite, he was a veteran adventurer by 1910.
FDR & Churchill? You've never read Plato, and/or you are too steeped in WW2 mythology
Carter?
They're here right now: Viktor Orbán, Nayib Bukele and Javier Milei.
Milei? Laughable. You prove why democracy is a bad system
What democracy are you taking about? There are no philosopher kings among the Trotskyites or the Gramsci Marxists. You read Plato, but didn't understand.
Why do you bring up Trotsky & Marxism? Is the extent of your knowledge so limited/your character so shallow that you can only default to mainstream Cold War talking points?