What do you think?
Rate this book
The Problem of Tyranny and Philosophy in the Thought of Plato and Nietzsche
An ancient prejudice against philosophy and philosophers was that they were somehow associated with tyrants or encouraged tyranny. Was there something to this accusation against philosophy as politically dangerous? The relationship between tyranny and philosophy is investigated with special attention to classical sources--chiefly Plato--and especially the interpretation of these sources in the political thought of Nietzsche. By putting Nietzsche in dialogue with Leo Strauss on the problem of the relationship of philosophy to tyranny, and on the reading of classical political thought more generally, the thesis aims to discover the origin of the aforementioned charge against philosophers. A case is made for why the charge or accusation is in large part legitimate. Much of the body of the thesis consists of a reading of Plato, Pindar, and the historical and prehistoric record for an understanding of the political origin and definition of ancient Greek aristocracy and of aristocratic regimes more generally: the relationship of the emergence of tyrannical regimes and philosophical schools out of declining aristocratic polities is investigated in the writings of Plato and Nietzsche with special attention to the idea of nature in classical political philosophy.
ebook
First published January 1, 2015
154 people are currently reading
1429 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
September 19, 2023
I was blissfully scrolling through Amazon for new philosophy books that I could add onto my list and show off to pompous college students near my little sister's college in Vermont without actually reading any of those books. My college years are long gone - well over two entire decades long gone, yet I suppose that the yearn for community under liberalist ideals and such had not disappeared naturally with maturity or age. However - that all changed after I picked up this nice, shiny paperback titled "Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy". At first - I dismissed this book, but I had decided to purchase it anyways for the sake of coming off as an intellectual to thirteen-year-olds on Discord. After purchasing this book, I had decided to research the author of this book, 'Costin Alamariu'. It sounded off-putting, but I ultimately brushed it off. After searching his name on Google, I was met with a Wikipedia article referring to a pseudonymous author who went under the name 'Bronze Age Pervert'. I was initially confused as to why a 'Bronze Age Pervert' article would show up in the search results of 'Costin Alamariu', but after reading some of the article and doing a bit of research, I had discovered that Costin Alamariu and Bronze Age Pervert were really just the same person. After learning that Alamariu had written a separate book titled "Bronze Age Pervert", which I had decided to read out of a combination of boredom, fascination, and disgust directed towards what Wikipedia described as Alamariu's "far-right" politics. I had ordered Bronze Age Mindset shortly after my completion of research and had received it a mere half-hour later! I had expected it to come three days after buying it, but it was a very, very quick delivery. The delivery man was naked and chiseled to the very bone; he had an eight pack, a jaw that looked as if it could cut through diamond with ease, and arms that looked as if they could choke the life out of a grizzly bear in mere seconds. He looked strikingly similar to the blonde Swedish guy who acted as the Soviet boxer in the Rocky franchise - that is to say Nordic with blonde hair and eyes as blue and bright as crystal seas. The delivery man handed me the book as well as a huge bad filled up to the very brim with LSD, Shrooms, Datura, Red Meat, Testosterone supplements, and Feta Cheese. After forcing the bag into my hands, he ran away at what can only correctly be described as superhuman, flash-like speed. I had decided to open the book, and on the first page there was a note in some Scandinavian language - Danish? I'm still not entirely sure. I translated it using Google, and the note roughly read: "Get naked - Take Shrooms - SUBMIT!". I wasn't necessarily a stranger to drugs - I mean, I've smoked pot and took molly a few times, so this surely wasn't too crazy for a guy like me, right? Wrong. Thinking that it'd perhaps be funny and/or mildly exciting, I did as the note said. After "submitting", I had begun to read, and what I had read shocked me into an oblivion of harsh climates and a state of pure awe at the raw truth being expressed by the author. It had made me re-evaluate my life and smug, neckbeard philosophy. I had become truly human - embracing an aesthetic of which I haven't known a single thing about. I had opened Opera GX and went on a virtual pilgrimage to 4chan, 8chan, forbidden YouTube channels. I had started red-pilling myself - and the more I read Bronze Age Mindset, the more I understood and agreed with far-right politics, and the more I ventured through those forums and channels, the more I understood and agreed with Bronze Age Mindset. We were robbed of beauty, forced into civility as if we were apes in cages to the WEF and politicians? 13/50? Trump 2024? Dancing Israelis for Pete's sake?! I get it now! But, after waking up to discover myself naked covered in the blood of my coworker's kitten with half of that bag I was given the night before empty, all the while in a state of complete and utter confusion. It has all come back to me now that I tamed the tiger and embraced my natural soldier-like state of being.
I haven't actually read this book but go read Bronze Age Mindset! Great book. 8.4/10.
I haven't actually read this book but go read Bronze Age Mindset! Great book. 8.4/10.
September 2, 2024
This is a second draft.
Upon initial reading I couldn't help but find this work incredibly enticing, and there is still no denying that it is very well researched and indisputably intriguing, but upon further thought it is increasingly evident that the precise conclusion that Alamariu attempts to arrive at is unsupported and unwarranted.
It should be stated that the debate of the thesis is contingent upon a good scholarship of Plato, and while I have now read most of his work, there is still much that I am ignorant of, and so someone else could quite easily make a more substantive commentary which I could not respond to, nevertheless based on what I do know I believe that I have sufficient grounds to reject Alamariu's conclusion.
The fundamental flaw in this work is the conflation of what are quite widely accepted views with a far more controversial Nietzschean thesis that the philosophers were closeted tyrants, which he arrives at from a Straussian, esoteric reading of Plato, especially Gorgias.
Let's start with the agreement. First, Costin is probably correct in stating that Socrates' claim in the Apology that he taught nothing served a largely apologetic purpose, and his scepticism was probably weaponised to undermine the nomos of Athenian society. Furthermore, the philosophers, while noticing the usefulness of nomos, did believe in the primacy of nature which must be discerned by reason, which must be implemented politically. As an aside, his analysis of primitive society and the tension between nomos and phusis and the rise of aristocracy was absolutely fascinating, albeit not relevant enough to merit how long he wrote on it. The philosophers definitely stressed the arete's of phronesis and andreia, but it should be noted that so did everyone: these were the mental and physical excellences and considering that Athens was in a perpetual war it is no surprise that these were highly valued. Plato does not even hide his disdain for democracy and the desire to impose an aristocracy largely derived from people of noble nature who possessed certain arete's: although Costin underplays the importance of education in directing noble people towards the correct use of their nature and Plato at least certainly did not endorse the unbridled employment of passion even by aristocratic figures. This agreement takes up a significant proportion of Costin's writing, but none of this is particularly controversial (except to very liberal interpreters who engage in hermeneutic projection), and these facts do not prove the fundamental argument that Costin advocates. Finally, despite being called Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy, eugenics plays a limited role in his writing. It is true that Plato supported eugenics (as did Aristotle), but this view was hardly uncontroversial at the time: it is interesting to note in Book V of the Republic where Socrates makes some wild suggestions many are acknowledged as such but not the principle let alone programme of eugenics.
On to the area of disagreement, there are a few issues. First, Costin argument for an esoteric reading of Plato and especially Gorgias. In a broad sense, it is hard to deny any subtlety to Plato's dialogues: Socratic irony looms hard enough that it is often difficult to tell when he is meant to be serious, and his execution certainly would have made Plato weary of being explicit. However, Plato doesn't shy away from controversial points such as a wholesale rejection of democracy and a pretty clear doubt of the traditional Greek religion, which Socrates was primarily prosecuted for and accused of (Aristophanes' Clouds) even if his political agenda played a large role. The layers of the dialogues: their relation to historic events, the Socrates-Plato distinction, is Socrates always the hero, Plato's own philosophical development etc. make a determinate reading difficult (some may reasonably argue impossible). It would be cowardly to conclude from this that one cannot advocate some particular interpretation, even a fringe one, but it does raise the epistemic barrier if one is to find this interpretation persuasive. The arguments Costin provides fail to cross that barrier.
The main argument provides is from Gorgias, in which Costin argues that it is in fact Calliles whom Plato endorses and Socrates subtly accepts this. He argues for this in large part based upon the weakness of Socrates' response to Callicles, but even if we are to accept that Socrates argument are indeed weak, this doesn't demonstrate a Straussian interpretation. Plato's dialogues are filled with no shortage of weak arguments from Socrates. While some cases this weakness is intentional: Euthydemus being one great example of Socrates trolling sophism, there are others where the best explanation is that Plato just provided weak arguments. Phaedo is an entire dialogue aimed at attempting to prove the immortality of the soul, but admirers of both Plato and this doctrine have struggled to salvage the arguments provided, but it is equally difficult to salvage some alternate explanation for the text other than an attempt to prove the immortality of the soul. So the supposed weakness of Socrates' arguments does not provide sufficient evidence to argue that Plato in fact endorses secondary dialogue characters. Moreover, we have good grounds to believe that Callicles is not Plato's hero in Gorgias. First, a similar character emerges in the form of Thrasymachus in the Republic, not only is his presentation wholly unsympathetic and his arguments are more comprehensively refuted. Additionally, The Republic like many other dialogues, dedicate enormous energy to the pursuit and understanding of justice, and while Plato's conception of justice does not fully conform to a Christian conception, it certainly attempts to be objective and is not some Thrasymachan assertion of the will of the stronger. Costin to his credit points out that even if an esoteric message exists, this does not negate the exoteric meaning, it just supplements it. But were we to accept Platos' endorsement of Callicles, we render vast portions of his writing inert and out right contradictory. There is a risk in over emphasising Socratic irony or advocating esoteric interpretations that we can dismiss vast swathes of very plain evidence that widely contradicts whatever niche theory one desires to make.
The other big argument that Costin makes is that philosophers either acted like or associated with tyrants in such a way which reveals their ulterior motives, but there are many problems with this argument. One major case was Socrates' student Alcibiades who betrayed Athens for Sparta and Persia and acted as social nuisance. But we have good grounds to distance Alcibiades' actions from Socrates. First, all evidence suggests that Socrates, despite his disagreement with contemporary Athens, was loyal to the city (to deny this like many other claims would require one to argue that vast writings, especially Crito, were written in vain). Furthermore, Plato portrays Alcibiades as hedonistic and excessively vain. Now Costin attempts to argue that for noble people, temperance is a vice and so could apply this to Alcibiades. But this is not at all what is argued, Plato goes to great lengths to demonstrate that even noble people are susceptible to corruption and it is only noble pursuits such as philosophy, and Book VI 494c of the Republic even attempts to explain how by his vanity, Alcibiades (although he is not mentioned by name) was corrupted into licentiousness and ambition by his overwhelming vanity and how philosophers should avoid his path: the reference to Alcibiades is way to subtle to serve a merely apologetic purpose. Notice how in this case, the exoteric interpretation not only differs but is irreconcilable with an exhortation to imitate Alcibiades. If Plato so incessantly insisted upon hiding absolutely all of his real teaching under a mass of indiscernible and contradictory text, it begs belief why he thought it practical to write anything at all and instead just imitate Socrates by teaching orally in secret. Finally is the willingness of philosophers to cooperate with tyrants. First, this doesn't even show a disapproval of democracy let alone an appreciation for tyranny, instead it just shows a willingness to work with other powers for self gain or a noble end, especially when shunned by Athenian society. For example, the great saviour of democratic Athens Themistocles consented to being a Persian satrap after being exiled from Athens, but given his populism it is hard to declare him even an anti-democrat. We have already discussed the issue of Alcibiades. Furthermore, ambivalence to democracy in Athens was widespread, so actions such as the coup of the Thirty Tyrants in 404BC shouldn't be regarded as some product of philosophy even if one of its leaders was a student of Socrates (it should be noted that in the Apology, Socrates claimed that he didn't cooperate with the regime which Xenophon corroborates and while it was an Apology, it bears consideration that this was an easily falsifiable claim which aids its veracity). Aristophanes has better claim to being the intellectual backbone of the oligarchic coups, but he acted out of conservative motivations and expressed great distrust of philosophy resulting in his awkward relationship with Plato. Even Thucydides, despite his neutrality, doesn't hide his misgivings for democracy, especially in the Mytelenian debate and the demagogue Cleon. Sympathy with the oligarchic coups could just as easily be attributed to the desperate situation of Athens towards the end of the Peloponnesian War as to underlying ideological ambitions. Finally, Plato willingness to work with the tyrant of Syracuse, as well as Aristotle's association with Phillip the Great (beyond being a Macedonian) can be explained in Book VI 499b of the Republic, as the desire to convert a king to being a philosopher so a genuinely aristocratic society can be implemented. It is obviously relevant that when this failed in Syracuse, Plato left as he cared about good rulership and not just power itself. The relation with tyranny was no greater among philosopher than other aristocrats, especially as Athenian democracy was imploding and the appeal of oligarchic Sparta grew, and all relation between philosophers and tyrants by the best evidence have, served to implement rule of justice and not just rule of power.
In conclusion, the argument fundamentally fails because it associates what are relatively mundane conclusions about the philosophers dislike of democracy and favour of noble hierarchy, with a stronger claim that they essentially had no regard for justice or the common good and sought to assert purely the rule of the strong. Such a view requires an esoteric reading of Plato which carries an epistemic burden which is not overcome by unconvincing arguments and is highly problematic when contrasted with the plethora of text which stands against it. Furthermore, when we look at the historical evidence, we merely see an Athens on the brink of collapse following decades of war and internal strife, and with that a general collapse in faith for democracy by many people, not just the philosophers. A simpler understanding of political nature of the philosophers can be discerned by a plain reading of what they gave us, that democracy was undesirable for sitting too nicely with relativistic thinking which ran in tension with the philosopher pursuit of truth, and the common aristocratic belief that the wise would rule for the common good better than the people. This plain reading bears much similarity to Costin's thesis, but critically it is not the view that philosopher's were closet tyrants represented by Callicles who wildly asserted their subjugation of the masses for their own interest with disregard for principles of justice. Despite its fascinating arguing and great research, Costin's analysis works better as Nietzschean fantasising than as an actual explanation of history.
Upon initial reading I couldn't help but find this work incredibly enticing, and there is still no denying that it is very well researched and indisputably intriguing, but upon further thought it is increasingly evident that the precise conclusion that Alamariu attempts to arrive at is unsupported and unwarranted.
It should be stated that the debate of the thesis is contingent upon a good scholarship of Plato, and while I have now read most of his work, there is still much that I am ignorant of, and so someone else could quite easily make a more substantive commentary which I could not respond to, nevertheless based on what I do know I believe that I have sufficient grounds to reject Alamariu's conclusion.
The fundamental flaw in this work is the conflation of what are quite widely accepted views with a far more controversial Nietzschean thesis that the philosophers were closeted tyrants, which he arrives at from a Straussian, esoteric reading of Plato, especially Gorgias.
Let's start with the agreement. First, Costin is probably correct in stating that Socrates' claim in the Apology that he taught nothing served a largely apologetic purpose, and his scepticism was probably weaponised to undermine the nomos of Athenian society. Furthermore, the philosophers, while noticing the usefulness of nomos, did believe in the primacy of nature which must be discerned by reason, which must be implemented politically. As an aside, his analysis of primitive society and the tension between nomos and phusis and the rise of aristocracy was absolutely fascinating, albeit not relevant enough to merit how long he wrote on it. The philosophers definitely stressed the arete's of phronesis and andreia, but it should be noted that so did everyone: these were the mental and physical excellences and considering that Athens was in a perpetual war it is no surprise that these were highly valued. Plato does not even hide his disdain for democracy and the desire to impose an aristocracy largely derived from people of noble nature who possessed certain arete's: although Costin underplays the importance of education in directing noble people towards the correct use of their nature and Plato at least certainly did not endorse the unbridled employment of passion even by aristocratic figures. This agreement takes up a significant proportion of Costin's writing, but none of this is particularly controversial (except to very liberal interpreters who engage in hermeneutic projection), and these facts do not prove the fundamental argument that Costin advocates. Finally, despite being called Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy, eugenics plays a limited role in his writing. It is true that Plato supported eugenics (as did Aristotle), but this view was hardly uncontroversial at the time: it is interesting to note in Book V of the Republic where Socrates makes some wild suggestions many are acknowledged as such but not the principle let alone programme of eugenics.
On to the area of disagreement, there are a few issues. First, Costin argument for an esoteric reading of Plato and especially Gorgias. In a broad sense, it is hard to deny any subtlety to Plato's dialogues: Socratic irony looms hard enough that it is often difficult to tell when he is meant to be serious, and his execution certainly would have made Plato weary of being explicit. However, Plato doesn't shy away from controversial points such as a wholesale rejection of democracy and a pretty clear doubt of the traditional Greek religion, which Socrates was primarily prosecuted for and accused of (Aristophanes' Clouds) even if his political agenda played a large role. The layers of the dialogues: their relation to historic events, the Socrates-Plato distinction, is Socrates always the hero, Plato's own philosophical development etc. make a determinate reading difficult (some may reasonably argue impossible). It would be cowardly to conclude from this that one cannot advocate some particular interpretation, even a fringe one, but it does raise the epistemic barrier if one is to find this interpretation persuasive. The arguments Costin provides fail to cross that barrier.
The main argument provides is from Gorgias, in which Costin argues that it is in fact Calliles whom Plato endorses and Socrates subtly accepts this. He argues for this in large part based upon the weakness of Socrates' response to Callicles, but even if we are to accept that Socrates argument are indeed weak, this doesn't demonstrate a Straussian interpretation. Plato's dialogues are filled with no shortage of weak arguments from Socrates. While some cases this weakness is intentional: Euthydemus being one great example of Socrates trolling sophism, there are others where the best explanation is that Plato just provided weak arguments. Phaedo is an entire dialogue aimed at attempting to prove the immortality of the soul, but admirers of both Plato and this doctrine have struggled to salvage the arguments provided, but it is equally difficult to salvage some alternate explanation for the text other than an attempt to prove the immortality of the soul. So the supposed weakness of Socrates' arguments does not provide sufficient evidence to argue that Plato in fact endorses secondary dialogue characters. Moreover, we have good grounds to believe that Callicles is not Plato's hero in Gorgias. First, a similar character emerges in the form of Thrasymachus in the Republic, not only is his presentation wholly unsympathetic and his arguments are more comprehensively refuted. Additionally, The Republic like many other dialogues, dedicate enormous energy to the pursuit and understanding of justice, and while Plato's conception of justice does not fully conform to a Christian conception, it certainly attempts to be objective and is not some Thrasymachan assertion of the will of the stronger. Costin to his credit points out that even if an esoteric message exists, this does not negate the exoteric meaning, it just supplements it. But were we to accept Platos' endorsement of Callicles, we render vast portions of his writing inert and out right contradictory. There is a risk in over emphasising Socratic irony or advocating esoteric interpretations that we can dismiss vast swathes of very plain evidence that widely contradicts whatever niche theory one desires to make.
The other big argument that Costin makes is that philosophers either acted like or associated with tyrants in such a way which reveals their ulterior motives, but there are many problems with this argument. One major case was Socrates' student Alcibiades who betrayed Athens for Sparta and Persia and acted as social nuisance. But we have good grounds to distance Alcibiades' actions from Socrates. First, all evidence suggests that Socrates, despite his disagreement with contemporary Athens, was loyal to the city (to deny this like many other claims would require one to argue that vast writings, especially Crito, were written in vain). Furthermore, Plato portrays Alcibiades as hedonistic and excessively vain. Now Costin attempts to argue that for noble people, temperance is a vice and so could apply this to Alcibiades. But this is not at all what is argued, Plato goes to great lengths to demonstrate that even noble people are susceptible to corruption and it is only noble pursuits such as philosophy, and Book VI 494c of the Republic even attempts to explain how by his vanity, Alcibiades (although he is not mentioned by name) was corrupted into licentiousness and ambition by his overwhelming vanity and how philosophers should avoid his path: the reference to Alcibiades is way to subtle to serve a merely apologetic purpose. Notice how in this case, the exoteric interpretation not only differs but is irreconcilable with an exhortation to imitate Alcibiades. If Plato so incessantly insisted upon hiding absolutely all of his real teaching under a mass of indiscernible and contradictory text, it begs belief why he thought it practical to write anything at all and instead just imitate Socrates by teaching orally in secret. Finally is the willingness of philosophers to cooperate with tyrants. First, this doesn't even show a disapproval of democracy let alone an appreciation for tyranny, instead it just shows a willingness to work with other powers for self gain or a noble end, especially when shunned by Athenian society. For example, the great saviour of democratic Athens Themistocles consented to being a Persian satrap after being exiled from Athens, but given his populism it is hard to declare him even an anti-democrat. We have already discussed the issue of Alcibiades. Furthermore, ambivalence to democracy in Athens was widespread, so actions such as the coup of the Thirty Tyrants in 404BC shouldn't be regarded as some product of philosophy even if one of its leaders was a student of Socrates (it should be noted that in the Apology, Socrates claimed that he didn't cooperate with the regime which Xenophon corroborates and while it was an Apology, it bears consideration that this was an easily falsifiable claim which aids its veracity). Aristophanes has better claim to being the intellectual backbone of the oligarchic coups, but he acted out of conservative motivations and expressed great distrust of philosophy resulting in his awkward relationship with Plato. Even Thucydides, despite his neutrality, doesn't hide his misgivings for democracy, especially in the Mytelenian debate and the demagogue Cleon. Sympathy with the oligarchic coups could just as easily be attributed to the desperate situation of Athens towards the end of the Peloponnesian War as to underlying ideological ambitions. Finally, Plato willingness to work with the tyrant of Syracuse, as well as Aristotle's association with Phillip the Great (beyond being a Macedonian) can be explained in Book VI 499b of the Republic, as the desire to convert a king to being a philosopher so a genuinely aristocratic society can be implemented. It is obviously relevant that when this failed in Syracuse, Plato left as he cared about good rulership and not just power itself. The relation with tyranny was no greater among philosopher than other aristocrats, especially as Athenian democracy was imploding and the appeal of oligarchic Sparta grew, and all relation between philosophers and tyrants by the best evidence have, served to implement rule of justice and not just rule of power.
In conclusion, the argument fundamentally fails because it associates what are relatively mundane conclusions about the philosophers dislike of democracy and favour of noble hierarchy, with a stronger claim that they essentially had no regard for justice or the common good and sought to assert purely the rule of the strong. Such a view requires an esoteric reading of Plato which carries an epistemic burden which is not overcome by unconvincing arguments and is highly problematic when contrasted with the plethora of text which stands against it. Furthermore, when we look at the historical evidence, we merely see an Athens on the brink of collapse following decades of war and internal strife, and with that a general collapse in faith for democracy by many people, not just the philosophers. A simpler understanding of political nature of the philosophers can be discerned by a plain reading of what they gave us, that democracy was undesirable for sitting too nicely with relativistic thinking which ran in tension with the philosopher pursuit of truth, and the common aristocratic belief that the wise would rule for the common good better than the people. This plain reading bears much similarity to Costin's thesis, but critically it is not the view that philosopher's were closet tyrants represented by Callicles who wildly asserted their subjugation of the masses for their own interest with disregard for principles of justice. Despite its fascinating arguing and great research, Costin's analysis works better as Nietzschean fantasising than as an actual explanation of history.
November 11, 2023
Didn’t really want to read this in the first place but it was a book club selection. Wish I didn’t spend $30 on what could have been a much shorter and semi thought provoking blog post
January 25, 2024
The book's argument on the interdependence of philosophy and the idea of nature appears to be built on a rather speculative foundation. The claim that philosophy is born with and dependent on the perception of hereditary transmission of physical and behavioral qualities seems overly deterministic and reductionist. It lacks a robust empirical basis and risks oversimplifying the complex historical and cultural factors that contribute to the development of philosophical thought.
September 25, 2023
One of the most encouraging dissertations of recent times: about my dream, more or less, of an artistic absolutist regime directed towards the service of Heidegger's Last God. In my version this is more Anglo-Saxon and a tad Scottish, matching my own genetic frame of reference. Yet this in itself is good. It is great, in fact. Inasmuch as this is an astoundingly CLEAR, almost geometrically clear, academic text -a rare virtue- it is also dramatic in ways that prefigure and expound anime plots. The line 'We still do not know of anyone named Callicles' is rife with implication. It is a grammatical trap door that lowers you, the chosen incelligent reader, into the secret basement where Plato keeps his wine casquets and hentai. Yes, yes!
The only thing missing, in all seriousness, is some minor reference to Ezra Pound's employment of Eleusinian mystery rites throughout his works -and across high Western (and Eastern) culture- in a way that I would say goes beyond Nietzsche. For if Freddy, my diminutive term for him, sings, at his best, a poetry through his philosophy, then Pound sings philosophy through his poetry -in the old fashion [of the golden age]. Some flavour of this would have paired well with Pindar's understanding of nature, since Pound is not a raycist but a "racialist" by the description of A. David Moody. Anyway, now is a good time to be part of this scene. And I intend to make my own PhD dissertation even more based than this one.
Fnaught out.
The only thing missing, in all seriousness, is some minor reference to Ezra Pound's employment of Eleusinian mystery rites throughout his works -and across high Western (and Eastern) culture- in a way that I would say goes beyond Nietzsche. For if Freddy, my diminutive term for him, sings, at his best, a poetry through his philosophy, then Pound sings philosophy through his poetry -in the old fashion [of the golden age]. Some flavour of this would have paired well with Pindar's understanding of nature, since Pound is not a raycist but a "racialist" by the description of A. David Moody. Anyway, now is a good time to be part of this scene. And I intend to make my own PhD dissertation even more based than this one.
Fnaught out.
November 18, 2025
* READ FOR MY THESIS *
Oh god where do I even start. Yes, this is a book about eugenics. But there's a difference between writing a manifesto that preaches eugenics and giving a survey of why you think Plato and Nietzsche had eugenicist politics. This book is the latter, but I think it often gets misconstrued as the former. Anyways, tbh I don't really have the energy in this review to talk about that whole issue so I'm just gonna leave it at that for now but I really don't think this was as bad and problematic as it's made out to be. He didn't really say anything that Plato hasn't.
I think that the Straussian reading of Nietzsche and Plato that Alamariu presents in this work is incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. I don't agree with him on every aspect of the Nietzschean reading (and my thesis advisor basically told me that his take on Plato is incomprehensible) but I think these are important questions to raise. I also think that his focus on esoteric vs exoteric teachings put his later work, Bronze Age Mindset, into incredibly interesting perspective. After reading this work and being almost all the way done with BAM, I have decided that BAM is BAP's way of presenting his philosophy exoterically for the voter-base and staffers to use to create a political situation that will be safe for him to exercise his more esoteric ideas and practice philosophy as such. This is perhaps a radical position but I think we see it actually happening. Anyways I posed this idea in class today and my prof. said I should try to get on a podcast to make the case for it so I might be onto something. Catch me in the pod universe sometime soon.
As a closing note I'll say that I saw a few goodreads reviews that read this for book club or something and that is just crazy lol. This book would be almost incomprehensible if you aren't pretty familiar with both the Republic and the Gorgias and Nietzsche's philosophy as a whole. I wouldn't' recommend as just like a fun little read unless you already have that base knowledge.
Oh god where do I even start. Yes, this is a book about eugenics. But there's a difference between writing a manifesto that preaches eugenics and giving a survey of why you think Plato and Nietzsche had eugenicist politics. This book is the latter, but I think it often gets misconstrued as the former. Anyways, tbh I don't really have the energy in this review to talk about that whole issue so I'm just gonna leave it at that for now but I really don't think this was as bad and problematic as it's made out to be. He didn't really say anything that Plato hasn't.
I think that the Straussian reading of Nietzsche and Plato that Alamariu presents in this work is incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. I don't agree with him on every aspect of the Nietzschean reading (and my thesis advisor basically told me that his take on Plato is incomprehensible) but I think these are important questions to raise. I also think that his focus on esoteric vs exoteric teachings put his later work, Bronze Age Mindset, into incredibly interesting perspective. After reading this work and being almost all the way done with BAM, I have decided that BAM is BAP's way of presenting his philosophy exoterically for the voter-base and staffers to use to create a political situation that will be safe for him to exercise his more esoteric ideas and practice philosophy as such. This is perhaps a radical position but I think we see it actually happening. Anyways I posed this idea in class today and my prof. said I should try to get on a podcast to make the case for it so I might be onto something. Catch me in the pod universe sometime soon.
As a closing note I'll say that I saw a few goodreads reviews that read this for book club or something and that is just crazy lol. This book would be almost incomprehensible if you aren't pretty familiar with both the Republic and the Gorgias and Nietzsche's philosophy as a whole. I wouldn't' recommend as just like a fun little read unless you already have that base knowledge.
December 27, 2023
NB These are merely my initial thoughts – I have only just finished reading and have not had time to organise my notes and consider the thesis in adequate depth.
NB also that my review does not concern the Introduction (as I understand, not part of the original PhD dissertation), on which I shall pass no comment.
Overall, I think this is a very high-quality, interesting piece of work. Alamariu’s main point is that from its inception philosophy was connected with tyranny because the preconditions for the emergence of philosophy are also the preconditions of tyranny and—a stronger claim—because the philosopher and tyrant are the same type.
Chapter 1 deals with the problem of how the idea of nature could have originated in pre-philosophical society, given the total domination of consciousness by nomos; Alamariu connects the ‘discovery’ of the idea of nature with an originally-pastoral aristocracy’s imposition of itself on a foreign farming population. The discussion is fascinating and, I must say, quite persuasive. Although this chapter is typically overlooked in favour of the later discussion of Gorgias, it seems to me that this chapter is what really makes the thesis interesting because it deepens the nature-philosophy link into an explicit link between philosophy and “biological reality”, heredity.
Chapter 2 then offers a linguistic analysis of Pindar with the aim of elucidating what nature meant to the ancient Greeks. The choice to utilise Pindar for the thesis’ purposes is noteworthy and commendable in itself. The chapter also beautifully develops the book’s structure – firstly, expanding on Chapter 1’s connection between biology and the pre-philosophic idea of nature, and, secondly, setting up the later discussion of the Platonic dialogues. I am not qualified to assess the actual details of Alamariu’s linguistic analysis of Pindar but it seems well-researched and developed, and so I find myself in agreement with Bryan Garsten, one of the markers of Alamariu’s dissertation, who wrote that this chapter is not only significant for the thesis but, if the linguistic analysis it contains stands up to scrutiny, makes a significant contribution to wider literature.
(Chapters 1 and 2 could thus be said to constitute the ‘Selective Breeding’ part of the book, with chapters 3 and 4 more concerning the ‘Birth of Philosophy’.)
Chapter 3 is a close reading of Plato’s Gorgias, intended to show that Plato actually agreed with Callicles’ political aims; Alamariu builds on this to provide a revaluation of the entire Platonic project as an enterprise for a covert seizure of power in the polis by the naturally superior. One must give Alamariu credit for the ambitiousness and originality of the reading but this chapter struck me as less convincing than the preceding two. I will have to re-read it with Gorgias in hand, for without it the text seemed jumpy and Alamariu’s earlier clarity waned. The methodology also strikes me as somewhat dubious. The subject arguably deserves a whole book devoted to itself alone and given the constraints of space Alamariu cannot be expected to have covered more dialogues extensively (he wrote a fair amount on Hippias Major as is); still, the method of carrying out a Straussian reading of just one dialogue (even if an important one) in order to derive esoteric and exoteric Platonic doctrines is questionable and leaves the conclusions highly vulnerable to the objection that a similar reading of the rest of the Platonic corpus is not possible. Alamariu does bring in a good amount of contextual historical evidence from other contemporary sources to show that philosophers were widely regarded as hypocrites and closeted tyrants but I am not sure as to how decisively that settles the issue.
Chapter 4 covers Nietzsche’s intention to revive philosophy by doing away with the exoteric aspect of Plato’s teaching and essentially defends Nietzsche’s understanding of Plato and the kinship between philosophy and tyranny. I expected Alamariu’s reading of Nietzsche to be sound and in this regard at least he did not disappoint. His argument that, per Nietzsche, it is when an aristocracy is in decline and there is a degree of liberalisation that the teaching of nature is radicalised and the ‘energies’ created in the course of the generations-long aristocratic breeding project are unleashed that the conditions for high culture, philosophy and tyranny obtain seems to me well presented. One hopes that this explanation of what Nietzsche meant by “all great ages of culture are ages of political decline” will put an end to the embarrassing persistence of the ‘anti-political’ reading of Nietzsche.
NB also that my review does not concern the Introduction (as I understand, not part of the original PhD dissertation), on which I shall pass no comment.
Overall, I think this is a very high-quality, interesting piece of work. Alamariu’s main point is that from its inception philosophy was connected with tyranny because the preconditions for the emergence of philosophy are also the preconditions of tyranny and—a stronger claim—because the philosopher and tyrant are the same type.
Chapter 1 deals with the problem of how the idea of nature could have originated in pre-philosophical society, given the total domination of consciousness by nomos; Alamariu connects the ‘discovery’ of the idea of nature with an originally-pastoral aristocracy’s imposition of itself on a foreign farming population. The discussion is fascinating and, I must say, quite persuasive. Although this chapter is typically overlooked in favour of the later discussion of Gorgias, it seems to me that this chapter is what really makes the thesis interesting because it deepens the nature-philosophy link into an explicit link between philosophy and “biological reality”, heredity.
Chapter 2 then offers a linguistic analysis of Pindar with the aim of elucidating what nature meant to the ancient Greeks. The choice to utilise Pindar for the thesis’ purposes is noteworthy and commendable in itself. The chapter also beautifully develops the book’s structure – firstly, expanding on Chapter 1’s connection between biology and the pre-philosophic idea of nature, and, secondly, setting up the later discussion of the Platonic dialogues. I am not qualified to assess the actual details of Alamariu’s linguistic analysis of Pindar but it seems well-researched and developed, and so I find myself in agreement with Bryan Garsten, one of the markers of Alamariu’s dissertation, who wrote that this chapter is not only significant for the thesis but, if the linguistic analysis it contains stands up to scrutiny, makes a significant contribution to wider literature.
(Chapters 1 and 2 could thus be said to constitute the ‘Selective Breeding’ part of the book, with chapters 3 and 4 more concerning the ‘Birth of Philosophy’.)
Chapter 3 is a close reading of Plato’s Gorgias, intended to show that Plato actually agreed with Callicles’ political aims; Alamariu builds on this to provide a revaluation of the entire Platonic project as an enterprise for a covert seizure of power in the polis by the naturally superior. One must give Alamariu credit for the ambitiousness and originality of the reading but this chapter struck me as less convincing than the preceding two. I will have to re-read it with Gorgias in hand, for without it the text seemed jumpy and Alamariu’s earlier clarity waned. The methodology also strikes me as somewhat dubious. The subject arguably deserves a whole book devoted to itself alone and given the constraints of space Alamariu cannot be expected to have covered more dialogues extensively (he wrote a fair amount on Hippias Major as is); still, the method of carrying out a Straussian reading of just one dialogue (even if an important one) in order to derive esoteric and exoteric Platonic doctrines is questionable and leaves the conclusions highly vulnerable to the objection that a similar reading of the rest of the Platonic corpus is not possible. Alamariu does bring in a good amount of contextual historical evidence from other contemporary sources to show that philosophers were widely regarded as hypocrites and closeted tyrants but I am not sure as to how decisively that settles the issue.
Chapter 4 covers Nietzsche’s intention to revive philosophy by doing away with the exoteric aspect of Plato’s teaching and essentially defends Nietzsche’s understanding of Plato and the kinship between philosophy and tyranny. I expected Alamariu’s reading of Nietzsche to be sound and in this regard at least he did not disappoint. His argument that, per Nietzsche, it is when an aristocracy is in decline and there is a degree of liberalisation that the teaching of nature is radicalised and the ‘energies’ created in the course of the generations-long aristocratic breeding project are unleashed that the conditions for high culture, philosophy and tyranny obtain seems to me well presented. One hopes that this explanation of what Nietzsche meant by “all great ages of culture are ages of political decline” will put an end to the embarrassing persistence of the ‘anti-political’ reading of Nietzsche.
July 15, 2023
Alamariu is better known for other work, and I do think the other work is a more fun read, but this stands nicely as an academic work that deals with many of the same ideas. The dissertation examines Pindar to establish a remarkable model of Archaic Greek virtue. Of particular joy to read were the sections on the eugeny of pastoral societies compared to agricultural ones, a eugeny which is a common theme throughout the dissertation. The focus on the breeding of greatness and the biological underpinnings of tyranny (and by extension, philosophy!) is probably the most important idea discussed, with the meat of the latter half being a close reading of Plato's Gorgias that develops a rather esoteric theory centering on the interlocutor Callicles' arguments, wholeheartedly endorsing them with backup from Nietzsche and a little Paglia (like I said, many of the same ideas). Plato is argued to esoterically support a policy of tyranny and hunger for power while hiding it under a familiar veneer of monk-like, philosophical piety. Some support for this is also drawn from the Republic. On a large scale, Alamariu reapproximates Plato's thought to the sophists that the philosopher was so concerned with distancing himself from, critically arguing that this proximity is a good thing, and that it is a necessity for the continuance of the aristocratic regime and the proliferation of the 'higher life' that he claims is reflected both in the philosopher and the tyrant. It should be to no one's surprise that beauty and native, raw ability and potential is a ubiquitous theme in the dissertation, and familiar BAM notions like the longhouse (referred to at the beginning in different, though in no less polemic and political terms), the importance of leisure, and the piracy of the Ancient Greeks rear their heads too. The prose is clear and engaging and Alamariu's convictions shine through well, a fact which alone makes it entertaining as far as classically-focused dissertations go. Worth a read, or at least a skim for anyone who seeks to escape this turgid world of shades.
October 22, 2023
A brilliant book that delves into the origins of tyrants and philosophers, including their connection with each other, which in turn breaks down the meaning and intentions of various Greek figures, such as Plato, Socrates, Pindar, etc. in reference to human "nature", culture, the aristocracy, politics, and more. Later briefly explaining Nietzsche's conception on "nature", and his view on philosophical history.
Despite being written as a thesis, the book is very engaging and intriguing, as well as having a certain flair that could be considered the prototype for the author's future work. Sections and chapters are nicely spaced out also.
There's not much more I would like to say, as the book is very on topic and tightly bound together, and I want to avoid giving away too much about it. But if you want to find a great guide on breeding, then this is the perfect book for you.
Despite being written as a thesis, the book is very engaging and intriguing, as well as having a certain flair that could be considered the prototype for the author's future work. Sections and chapters are nicely spaced out also.
There's not much more I would like to say, as the book is very on topic and tightly bound together, and I want to avoid giving away too much about it. But if you want to find a great guide on breeding, then this is the perfect book for you.
September 27, 2023
Deciphering Plato’s twilight language through the lens of Pindar and Nietzsche. Ancestral nomos is on life support after this one.
March 31, 2024
First off, Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy is one hell of a title. If nothing else that should grab your attention enough to at least give the book a skim-through.
There is also something very alluring about Costin Alamariu’s thesis for this dissertation; that philosophy as a discipline is based on an essentialist conception of nature, which in turn was introduced into general ontology by an ancient pastoral ruling class that conquered a sedentary serving class. Alamariu makes this case by a very close reading of Pindar, Plato, and Friedrich Nietzsche, demonstrating how the philosophical project from its very conception has served to cement the ruling class’ right to rule.
While this is a very interesting thesis, and Alamariu does argue his point very well, I’m very lost as to what I’m to use the information for. Even if philosophy at its very inception was meant to serve the ruling class, and by extension infected the thought processes within all the philosophy that followed, at no point does Alamariu tell what this means for philosophy, psychology, anthropology, or any other study that was conceived by those old Greek bastards.
I think Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy might suffer from its origin as a doctoral dissertation, where the academic standards keep it from reaching conclusion that doesn’t live up to said academic standards. I know it’s weird to say that living up to accepted standards is weird, but what made a writer like Nietzsche so exciting to read, and oppositely makes Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy kinda dull.
There is also something very alluring about Costin Alamariu’s thesis for this dissertation; that philosophy as a discipline is based on an essentialist conception of nature, which in turn was introduced into general ontology by an ancient pastoral ruling class that conquered a sedentary serving class. Alamariu makes this case by a very close reading of Pindar, Plato, and Friedrich Nietzsche, demonstrating how the philosophical project from its very conception has served to cement the ruling class’ right to rule.
While this is a very interesting thesis, and Alamariu does argue his point very well, I’m very lost as to what I’m to use the information for. Even if philosophy at its very inception was meant to serve the ruling class, and by extension infected the thought processes within all the philosophy that followed, at no point does Alamariu tell what this means for philosophy, psychology, anthropology, or any other study that was conceived by those old Greek bastards.
I think Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy might suffer from its origin as a doctoral dissertation, where the academic standards keep it from reaching conclusion that doesn’t live up to said academic standards. I know it’s weird to say that living up to accepted standards is weird, but what made a writer like Nietzsche so exciting to read, and oppositely makes Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy kinda dull.
Read
November 13, 2023A very fun to read and thought provoking book on the relationship of nature, philosophy and tyranny. Highly recommended.
February 2, 2025
Read it!
October 26, 2023
I won't claim I achieved an understanding of the whole book - likely because I haven't read 1/3rd of the references/bibliography. Yet reading one of the other reviews makes it clear that others have not even read it. This alone makes me feel superior. Whether this feeling is deserved, I can't say I particularly care. Nevertheless...
The parts I was able to follow, I enjoyed greatly. The conclusion lifts up the first part about Pindar and the fourth part about Nietzsche. Personally I found the interpretation of Socrates (or Plato to be more specific) in chapter 3 to be the most enjoyable.
It is very rare to see such an information dense book nowadays, with the bookshelves flooded with "popsci" papers.
One thing I will raise against this work. It is somewhat "inflammatory" in it's premise yet the contents themselves are not that outrageous. At least in my opinion.
If you're at all interested in philosophy I recommend reading this book/disertation(?). It's not that long and enjoyable enough.
The parts I was able to follow, I enjoyed greatly. The conclusion lifts up the first part about Pindar and the fourth part about Nietzsche. Personally I found the interpretation of Socrates (or Plato to be more specific) in chapter 3 to be the most enjoyable.
It is very rare to see such an information dense book nowadays, with the bookshelves flooded with "popsci" papers.
One thing I will raise against this work. It is somewhat "inflammatory" in it's premise yet the contents themselves are not that outrageous. At least in my opinion.
If you're at all interested in philosophy I recommend reading this book/disertation(?). It's not that long and enjoyable enough.
October 17, 2023
Costin Alamariu's work, "Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy," presents a novel and interdisciplinary exploration of the interconnectedness of selective breeding practices and the development of early philosophical thought. This review seeks to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Alamariu's book within an academic framework.
Alamariu's thesis is rooted in the premise that the domestication of animals and plants in ancient civilizations played a pivotal role in the evolution of philosophical thinking. He contends that the processes of selective breeding, with their inherent complexities and ethical implications, prompted humans to reflect upon fundamental questions regarding life, nature, and their role in shaping the world. The author skillfully navigates through historical, archaeological, and philosophical evidence to support this claim.
One of the book's notable strengths is its interdisciplinarity, as it draws from diverse fields such as history, anthropology, and philosophy. Alamariu meticulously examines ancient texts, artifacts, and the writings of early philosophers, tracing the origins of philosophical inquiries to the practical and ethical dilemmas associated with selective breeding. This interdisciplinary approach lends depth and richness to the book's argumentation.
Moreover, Alamariu demonstrates a profound understanding of the philosophical history and the intricacies of selective breeding practices. His analysis of key figures, such as Aristotle and Xenophon, in the context of animal husbandry and agricultural developments is particularly insightful. This engagement with primary sources enhances the book's credibility and scholarly rigor.
However, there are certain aspects that warrant criticism. The book occasionally lacks clarity in its organization, and the author's argumentation could be more explicit at times. This may challenge readers' comprehension and hinder the flow of the narrative. Additionally, while the author adeptly navigates historical and philosophical contexts, the book's treatment of certain scientific and genetic concepts could benefit from more detailed explanation for readers less familiar with these topics.
Furthermore, the text would have been strengthened by a more extensive exploration of counterarguments and alternative theories. Alamariu, in his dedication to his thesis, occasionally overlooks competing perspectives on the relationship between selective breeding and early philosophy. A more robust engagement with these opposing viewpoints would have enriched the book's scholarly discourse.
In conclusion, "Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy" by Costin Alamariu offers a thought-provoking and innovative exploration of the symbiotic relationship between selective breeding practices and the genesis of philosophical thought. Its interdisciplinary approach and in-depth analysis of historical and philosophical texts make it a valuable contribution to the field. However, the book could benefit from improved clarity of argumentation and a more comprehensive treatment of counterarguments. Scholars and researchers interested in the intersections of philosophy, history, and agriculture will find this work a stimulating addition to the academic dialogue on the subject.
GPT
Alamariu's thesis is rooted in the premise that the domestication of animals and plants in ancient civilizations played a pivotal role in the evolution of philosophical thinking. He contends that the processes of selective breeding, with their inherent complexities and ethical implications, prompted humans to reflect upon fundamental questions regarding life, nature, and their role in shaping the world. The author skillfully navigates through historical, archaeological, and philosophical evidence to support this claim.
One of the book's notable strengths is its interdisciplinarity, as it draws from diverse fields such as history, anthropology, and philosophy. Alamariu meticulously examines ancient texts, artifacts, and the writings of early philosophers, tracing the origins of philosophical inquiries to the practical and ethical dilemmas associated with selective breeding. This interdisciplinary approach lends depth and richness to the book's argumentation.
Moreover, Alamariu demonstrates a profound understanding of the philosophical history and the intricacies of selective breeding practices. His analysis of key figures, such as Aristotle and Xenophon, in the context of animal husbandry and agricultural developments is particularly insightful. This engagement with primary sources enhances the book's credibility and scholarly rigor.
However, there are certain aspects that warrant criticism. The book occasionally lacks clarity in its organization, and the author's argumentation could be more explicit at times. This may challenge readers' comprehension and hinder the flow of the narrative. Additionally, while the author adeptly navigates historical and philosophical contexts, the book's treatment of certain scientific and genetic concepts could benefit from more detailed explanation for readers less familiar with these topics.
Furthermore, the text would have been strengthened by a more extensive exploration of counterarguments and alternative theories. Alamariu, in his dedication to his thesis, occasionally overlooks competing perspectives on the relationship between selective breeding and early philosophy. A more robust engagement with these opposing viewpoints would have enriched the book's scholarly discourse.
In conclusion, "Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy" by Costin Alamariu offers a thought-provoking and innovative exploration of the symbiotic relationship between selective breeding practices and the genesis of philosophical thought. Its interdisciplinary approach and in-depth analysis of historical and philosophical texts make it a valuable contribution to the field. However, the book could benefit from improved clarity of argumentation and a more comprehensive treatment of counterarguments. Scholars and researchers interested in the intersections of philosophy, history, and agriculture will find this work a stimulating addition to the academic dialogue on the subject.
GPT
November 16, 2023
غالبًا ما يعلق المحافظون الاجتماعيون، من بين آخرين، على اهتمام الإنسان القديم أو على الأقل على اهتمام الكتاب المقدس بالأمور الجنسية، لكنهم يختصرونها كثيرًا إلى صيغة "الأسرة هي الوحدة الأساسية للمجتمع".
حتى لو كان هذا صحيحًا، فهو ليس السبب الرئيسي الذي دفع المشرعين القدماء من العبرانيين أو الرومان أو اليونانيين -ثلاث مجتمعات أحادية الزواج بشكل غير عادي في العالم القديم- إلى إيلاء كل هذا الاهتمام لهذه الأنواع من القوانين. لو كانت الرغبة الطبيعية للرجل العادي أن يكون زوجًا وأبًا صالحًا، لكان عملهم سهلاً. لكن في بدايات عهد روما، على سبيل المثال، كان يجب حظر العزوبية بموجب القانون. المشكلة من وجهة نظر المحافظين الاجتماعيين هي افتراضهم أن واجب الرجل تجاه زوجته وأطفاله أمر طبيعي، وبالتالي يتم تنفيذه بسهولة أكبر مما هو عليه في الواقع.
إنهم في كثير من الأحيان لا يرون العمل الهائل الذي كان يجب القيام به لجعل الرجال أزواجًا أو آباءً صالحين، ولا الامتيازات العظيمة التي تم من خلالها إغراء الرجال لقبول هذه الواجبات؛ ناهيك عن أنهم لا يرون أو يجرؤون على ذكر العمل العظيم – القمع ربما – الذي كان لا بد من ممارسته لجعل النساء زوجات وأمهات مخلصات.
الليبراليون الاجتماعيون والنسويون يرتكبون نفس الخطأ. ويفترضون أن المشكلة تكمن في أن الرجال يرغبون في السلطة الأبوية والملكية على الزوجة والأطفال. ولا يرون أن هذه، جزئيًا، أساليب لجأت إليها بعض الحضارات لحث الرجال على قبول مسؤوليات الأب والزوج. الرجال المحرومون من النظام الأبوي ليس لديهم أي سبب لقبول الواجب أو المسؤولية، ولا فقدان الحرية التي تصاحب الحياة الأسرية. تحتوي المجتمعات الحديثة على الكثير من الرجال اللذين إما يحصدون ثمار التحرر الجنسي من خلال الجماع السهل، أو لا يستطيعون، لأي عدد من الأسباب، تحمل ضغوط هذه المطاردة ويصبحون بدلاً من ذلك غير مبالين، على الأقل مقارنة بالنساء.
المشكلة، كما يكتشف الآن الليبراليون الاجتماعيون والنسويون، لا تكمن في أن الرجال يسعون بطبيعتهم أو تعليمهم إلى السيطرة على زوجاتهم أو أطفالهم، بل تكمن في أن الرجال ببساطة لا يهتمون.
.
Costin Alamariu
Selective Breeding
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
حتى لو كان هذا صحيحًا، فهو ليس السبب الرئيسي الذي دفع المشرعين القدماء من العبرانيين أو الرومان أو اليونانيين -ثلاث مجتمعات أحادية الزواج بشكل غير عادي في العالم القديم- إلى إيلاء كل هذا الاهتمام لهذه الأنواع من القوانين. لو كانت الرغبة الطبيعية للرجل العادي أن يكون زوجًا وأبًا صالحًا، لكان عملهم سهلاً. لكن في بدايات عهد روما، على سبيل المثال، كان يجب حظر العزوبية بموجب القانون. المشكلة من وجهة نظر المحافظين الاجتماعيين هي افتراضهم أن واجب الرجل تجاه زوجته وأطفاله أمر طبيعي، وبالتالي يتم تنفيذه بسهولة أكبر مما هو عليه في الواقع.
إنهم في كثير من الأحيان لا يرون العمل الهائل الذي كان يجب القيام به لجعل الرجال أزواجًا أو آباءً صالحين، ولا الامتيازات العظيمة التي تم من خلالها إغراء الرجال لقبول هذه الواجبات؛ ناهيك عن أنهم لا يرون أو يجرؤون على ذكر العمل العظيم – القمع ربما – الذي كان لا بد من ممارسته لجعل النساء زوجات وأمهات مخلصات.
الليبراليون الاجتماعيون والنسويون يرتكبون نفس الخطأ. ويفترضون أن المشكلة تكمن في أن الرجال يرغبون في السلطة الأبوية والملكية على الزوجة والأطفال. ولا يرون أن هذه، جزئيًا، أساليب لجأت إليها بعض الحضارات لحث الرجال على قبول مسؤوليات الأب والزوج. الرجال المحرومون من النظام الأبوي ليس لديهم أي سبب لقبول الواجب أو المسؤولية، ولا فقدان الحرية التي تصاحب الحياة الأسرية. تحتوي المجتمعات الحديثة على الكثير من الرجال اللذين إما يحصدون ثمار التحرر الجنسي من خلال الجماع السهل، أو لا يستطيعون، لأي عدد من الأسباب، تحمل ضغوط هذه المطاردة ويصبحون بدلاً من ذلك غير مبالين، على الأقل مقارنة بالنساء.
المشكلة، كما يكتشف الآن الليبراليون الاجتماعيون والنسويون، لا تكمن في أن الرجال يسعون بطبيعتهم أو تعليمهم إلى السيطرة على زوجاتهم أو أطفالهم، بل تكمن في أن الرجال ببساطة لا يهتمون.
.
Costin Alamariu
Selective Breeding
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
August 9, 2024
Unremarkable & dishonest scholarship. The best section concerns Plato's Gorgias, and is founded on the correct insight that for the leading majority of that dialogue Callicles is, by all appearances, winning the debate with Socrates... Until the closing sequences of deductions in which Callicles forfeits the discussion.
For those that haven't read the Gorgias, I'll render it *very* roughly (there is much genius in the way Plato designs the dialogue and obfuscated the points that Socrates is building up to deliver)
Callicles is arguing that the desirable outcome is to hold and wield power according to one's whim.
Socrates argues ineffectively for awhile before eventually building to the point that to have and wield power to enact one's whim is only to become even more completely a slave to the passions than a powerless man. The argument is not that there is virtue in weakness or even the insight that the weak have this advantage: It is pointing out that being powerful brings us no closer to answer the question of justice (What should be done?). The fact that Callicles remains silent after Socrates advances these points is meant as allegory: The embodiment of Callicles philosophy literally does not have the ability to raise such queries & to exert power over *himself*, since he is solely consumed in wildly questing after whatever his whims suggest.
Costin Alamariu almost entirely ignores or misses this about the Gorgias, these points are left unaddressed and ignored, even though the Gorgias appeared to comprise the heart of his Ph.D thesis.
By the way: there are other pieces of greek literature which have exactly the same allegory about power, though they were expressed unphilosophically. Sophocles Ajax is an example, as well as Aeschelyus's Orestia.
The second section, an exegesis of Pindar, is even more unremarkable. It is not dishonest, but it bears the more grievous sin of being boring. All that was accomplished in the ending chapter was pointing out all the places in Pindar's victory odes where he celebrated the strength of the body of the contestant. What is more obvious than that?? For those unaware, Pindar's Victory Odes were written on the occasion of a sporting victory, and celebrate the contestant's victory, which will of course involve the pre-eminence of their body.
For those that haven't read the Gorgias, I'll render it *very* roughly (there is much genius in the way Plato designs the dialogue and obfuscated the points that Socrates is building up to deliver)
Callicles is arguing that the desirable outcome is to hold and wield power according to one's whim.
Socrates argues ineffectively for awhile before eventually building to the point that to have and wield power to enact one's whim is only to become even more completely a slave to the passions than a powerless man. The argument is not that there is virtue in weakness or even the insight that the weak have this advantage: It is pointing out that being powerful brings us no closer to answer the question of justice (What should be done?). The fact that Callicles remains silent after Socrates advances these points is meant as allegory: The embodiment of Callicles philosophy literally does not have the ability to raise such queries & to exert power over *himself*, since he is solely consumed in wildly questing after whatever his whims suggest.
Costin Alamariu almost entirely ignores or misses this about the Gorgias, these points are left unaddressed and ignored, even though the Gorgias appeared to comprise the heart of his Ph.D thesis.
By the way: there are other pieces of greek literature which have exactly the same allegory about power, though they were expressed unphilosophically. Sophocles Ajax is an example, as well as Aeschelyus's Orestia.
The second section, an exegesis of Pindar, is even more unremarkable. It is not dishonest, but it bears the more grievous sin of being boring. All that was accomplished in the ending chapter was pointing out all the places in Pindar's victory odes where he celebrated the strength of the body of the contestant. What is more obvious than that?? For those unaware, Pindar's Victory Odes were written on the occasion of a sporting victory, and celebrate the contestant's victory, which will of course involve the pre-eminence of their body.
August 6, 2025
The book was fine and contained some rather interesting thoughts however I'd almost just as well of wished Costin Alamariu rewrote the thesis by & large to emphasize his main idea. He made (according to his introduction) a few small changes with the goal to leave his thesis almost entirely intact. Unfortunately, this leaves much of the work as hidden as he intended. Although he boldens the messaging, a text about his ideas exclusively would've been a much more fulfilling and enjoyable read. Chapters 2/3 & the appendix felt almost irrelevant to his goals of the text and rather as fluff to justify the thesis and it's stated goals. The introduction & chapters 1/4 were the only portions of the text to directly address his stated goals. There were a few rather interesting claims about the creation of a "high culture" and how to create it as well as the general basis of society being around breeding. Although I believe I understand the linkage between high culture and his views on breeding I'd have wished he spent more time expanding upon such subjects so I can affirm my thoughts and ponder upon my stances. This is my first time reading a PHD thesis as a text so this might be considered extraordinarily enthralling and I might just be rather tough on the text (it was well-written and well-structured) however telling me your true intentions of the text yet not properly changing the text to reflect those intentions made it feel like a rather large waste of time.
January 14, 2025
The thing that surprises me most about this book is that it was originally a doctoral dissertation. It is so fascinating and cutting in its analysis that it is by no means dry and dusty like you would expect from the likes of the Yale political philosophy department.
Alamariu attempts to lay out the connection between philosophy and tyranny, both of their bases in Nature, and the subsequent efforts of Plato to obscure this connection and Nietzsche's efforts to uncover it. He does a masterful job in laying out his definition of Nature (phusis) as it is understood by Pindar, and the history of an aristocratic class most familiar with this concept. Then he follows up with his analysis of Plato's Gorgias and the multiple layers it contains, ultimately drawing the connection between philosophy and tyranny, and the birth of political philosophy used to control the perception of this connection. Finally, Costin shares how Nietzsche unravels the all too effective entanglement in moralism caused by the Platonic project.
Overall, a very thought provoking book with an extreme and convincing conclusion.
Alamariu attempts to lay out the connection between philosophy and tyranny, both of their bases in Nature, and the subsequent efforts of Plato to obscure this connection and Nietzsche's efforts to uncover it. He does a masterful job in laying out his definition of Nature (phusis) as it is understood by Pindar, and the history of an aristocratic class most familiar with this concept. Then he follows up with his analysis of Plato's Gorgias and the multiple layers it contains, ultimately drawing the connection between philosophy and tyranny, and the birth of political philosophy used to control the perception of this connection. Finally, Costin shares how Nietzsche unravels the all too effective entanglement in moralism caused by the Platonic project.
Overall, a very thought provoking book with an extreme and convincing conclusion.
May 30, 2025
I really enjoyed Bronze Age Mindset (written under Alamariu's pen name), so I figured I'd check out his other book. I knew it was a dissertation, so it was going to be a slog, and it was, but I still mostly enjoyed it. The author even added a preface to the work that mentioned he hated writing it in the academic format, so even he acknowledged it could be a bit dry. And, it is a philosophical work, so there are a lot of jargon terms and repetitive words.
With all of that said, this work was a bit of fresh air. I liked his thesis and agree with a lot of it. I'll admit, he lost me in the third chapter on Plato and Socrates a bit; not in disagreement per se, but that section was a little boring, and I had a hard time trying to figure out what exactly he was trying to say. Chapter one and four, on Breeding Law and Nietzche, respectively, were definitely the most interesting and engaging for me.
Interesting work, not an easy work, and lots to think about that will definitely stick with me going forward.
With all of that said, this work was a bit of fresh air. I liked his thesis and agree with a lot of it. I'll admit, he lost me in the third chapter on Plato and Socrates a bit; not in disagreement per se, but that section was a little boring, and I had a hard time trying to figure out what exactly he was trying to say. Chapter one and four, on Breeding Law and Nietzche, respectively, were definitely the most interesting and engaging for me.
Interesting work, not an easy work, and lots to think about that will definitely stick with me going forward.
April 9, 2025
I can't give it a higher grade because the author doesn't understand eugenics. It's a good book about strife within Greek culture, but it's not about eugenics. The fight between societal rules and brilliance is shown here very well, but claims about it having eugenic ideas or ideas of the selective breeding of elites are rather doubtful. They were simply lacking the methodology to do that. Physical beauty is a poor criterion for a claim of eugenic character for their culture. For eugenics, you need a secular idea of science, and that's a 19th-century invention. It's evidence of a further problem of people who take up the topic of eugenics without actually reading about genetics. You can't become more eugenic by exercising, nor can you by eating nootropics.
December 19, 2023
Alamariu presents a convincing case that tyranny and philosophy, in the sense of trying to understand human nature, requires a failing aristocratic state with a "breeding program" based on the most natural appreciation of values, wanting your sons to be both strong and wise. Only when the aristocracy is failing does it become weak enough to let philosophers and tyrants through.
Plato realized this, and tried to keep it under wraps in the hope that the idea itself would survive the by then collapsing Athenian polis. If he would've been open about wanting tyrants and philosophers to flourish at the same time, he would've been killed and his books burned.
Plato realized this, and tried to keep it under wraps in the hope that the idea itself would survive the by then collapsing Athenian polis. If he would've been open about wanting tyrants and philosophers to flourish at the same time, he would've been killed and his books burned.
September 21, 2025
An extensive thesis about the relationship between the origins of philosophy and tyranny with many references and works being cited from Greek literature to modern philosophy.
At times it repeats the same themes over and over, but to make such controversial claims it needs to reassert its arguments and points which feels justified, after all, this thesis feels dedicated to a broader readers and not merely to people that would agree with its claims before reading it.
At times it repeats the same themes over and over, but to make such controversial claims it needs to reassert its arguments and points which feels justified, after all, this thesis feels dedicated to a broader readers and not merely to people that would agree with its claims before reading it.
Read
May 21, 2024Lengthier than it needed to be but I found the premise interesting. You should study Greek history and Indo-European linguistics before reading this, and Robert Drews has good supplemental information.
Want to read
September 26, 2023funny how just plain racist folks won't even get through the first chapter
November 8, 2023
I need to learn Greek
abandoned
July 7, 2024Stopped at 31% (Pg. 150)
Book becomes quite challenging and tedious to read for those not deeply familiar with Nietzche and ancient Greek philosophers. Hard to follow.
Book becomes quite challenging and tedious to read for those not deeply familiar with Nietzche and ancient Greek philosophers. Hard to follow.
August 9, 2024
A very readable academic study of ancient greek philosophy and Nietzsche. Greece is not my strong suite so I cannot comment on that but I can say it is in the spirit of Nietzsche and has moments of energy and potency just like his writings.
October 3, 2024
Original ideas are hard to come by in philosophy these days
October 28, 2024
A work of absolute genius, and I am not exaggerating.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews