"Aristotle said that it was a waste of time to teach political science to people who were swayed by passion, and ignorant of the actions that occur in life. I think that's accurate."
He failed to see the necessity which was consistent with his doubts about democracy. If we cannot teach young, passion-driven people politics we are condemned to roiled by rebellion and revolution. I was taught civics at the age of 14 by a bigotted white Methodist (Mrs. Bolden) who believed in segregation, child-baptism, and many other weird things (St. Wapnicl!). We knew she was teaching crap, and with a few other boys we started harassing her, citing constitutional cases and reading forbidden books and supporting world government and the four freedoms in their broadest sense (it was WWII - 1944). I refuse to believe that we were passion led -- except a passion for freedom and equality which we thought we might have to fight for very soon. Had we had a decent teacher -- say Aristotle or even Plato, (or Dr. Rual Stephenson (but he was fighting in France) and we had to wait) we might have accomplished something. As it was we produced a fine Congressman (Eliot Levitas) and a bunch of liberal integrationists. Not bad for a segregated school.
Young people have always been the source of political reform, and when thwarted, revolution. Conservatives have always hated educating youth when they are enthusiastic. That why they made them read worthless stuff in Latin and Greek. (When I read Cicero I defended Catiline! and thought Cicero acted unconstitutionally).
I think you're wrong about the young in the 4th BCE. Athenian ephebes were 18-20 and were "boys" before that. Alexander was quite young and took great responsibility early on. He had observed the court, and led the calvary (with his chums) in battle. He was a brilliant politician and tried to create a multiethnic empire. When he married Roxanne he compelled his generals to marry other Persian ladies in an attempt to create a Makedone-Persian ruling class. He attempt to incorporate states into his empire and adopted many of the customs. He made himself Pharoah and King of Kings --- these were hedged with godhood, and it annoyed some of his Macedonians. He was too early, I've always thought. Truly brilliant, brave to a fault, a man who drew men to him like a magnet. And mad. I've always viewed him as the great tragic figure. A world united under a saner him, a civilization of peaceful trade radiating Hellenism, wisdom, a sense of mission to civilize all mankind -- he wasn't pushing superstition -- ah! that were a better world. |
