On Revolutions

Both the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution are somewhat misnamed. Edmund Burke called the Glorious Revolution a “revolution averted” and the same could be said of the American Revolution. Indeed the American Revolution would be much better described as a secession (no, secessionists, I’m not on your side) – the various states decided to secede from the control of Great Britain and her king and parliament after their blatant abuse of power.

The distinctive difference in these two “revolutions” from all others in history is that the governance of Great Britain and the United States did not change all that much in principle. Great Britain saw the greatest change in switching from the king as sovereign to parliamentary sovereignty, a change long in the making. The colonies in America maintained their various state governments which became sovereign after the revolution. In both cases, the “revolution” was focused at regaining long-standing rights or preventing the abrogation of rights. What is important to observe is that both societies remained relatively the same and many aspects of their government remained the same.

This pattern of retaining the structure of society and government is not seen the French Revolution and the subsequent “modern” revolutions. These revolutions are inevitable connected with gross human rights abuses in their attempt to overthrow societal hierarchies and the government. These revolutions, always utopian, result in greater oppression and horror than the regimes that preceded them. One need only look at the Reign of Terror in France, the Bolshevik Revolution, the reigns of Lenin and Stalin, the communist take-over of China, China’s Cultural Revolution, etc. to see the destructive nature of true revolutions.

Thus, the current journalistic and popular tendency to view the revolutions in Africa and the Middle East as positive should cause distress to students of history and human nature. This region of the world is especially susceptible to repressive tyranny given its history and the religion of Islam. One need only to look at the nation of Iran to see the insanity of believing that a revolution in this region of the world will bring about good. Though the aim of the revolution may be gaining freedom, trying to gain freedom by overthrowing society and government only leads to chaos. This chaos can only (at least historically has only) been fixed by the establishment of another regime. This new regime, cognizant of the fact that it was put in place by the mob and the overthrow of the previous regime, enacts as harsh or harsher controls on the population in a bid to maintain power longer than the previous regime. Throw in religious fanaticism and one creates an ultra-repressive regime like the Taliban where men cannot shave their beards, where girls cannot go to school, and where women have the approximate social standing and rights as animals.

The U.S. needs to learn that the world is not entirely ready for universal democracy and that democracy does not always result in freedom. Secular regimes are both in the better interests of their citizens than religious regimes and, especially if supportive of U.S. interests, the best for the interests of the United States. Given the proclivity of governments in this area to devolve into religious regimes, the U. S. government ought to support the secular regimes that exist. We don’t need another Iran.

The Eagle Neither Soars nor Plummets

The Eagle (released February 11 by Focus Features) was a breath of fresh air in its focus on honor rather than freedom. With the preponderance of movies such as Ridley Scott’s vapid blockbuster, Gladiator, portraying such ridiculous ideas as the modern desire for political freedom in the ancient world, we ought to be grateful for any movie that attempts to accurately portray the mentality of the people of its time

Julius Caesar said, “I love the name of honor more than I fear death.” This was the mindset of the main character of The Eagle – Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum). Aquila’s family is dishonored because his father’s legion was destroyed by the Picts and the eagle standard of the legion was captured. Aquila’s life goal is to regain that lost eagle and with it his family’s honor.

Aquila pleads for the life of a Brigantine slave named Esca, played by Jamie Bell, because he showed courage when unfairly matched against a gladiator in the arena. Aquila’s uncle eventually purchases Esca to be Aquila’s body servant. Esca pledges service to Aquila in payment of hislife debt even though he despises him as a Roman. They decide to set out to regain the lost eagle and Aquila’s family honor

Both men are forced to trust each other in the wild together. Esca’s honor is tested as he finds himself among allies only too glad to kill Romans. When they finally reach their destination Esca seemingly turns on Aquila, and Aquila finds himself Esca’s slave. This tests their mutual trust even further. Eventually they escape with the eagle and are chased back to Roman Britain. They are met by the remnants of the lost legion who lose their lives but regain their honor in defending their eagle once more. In the end, the newly freed Esca and Aquila bring the eagle to the Roman authorities before setting out for further adventures – their trust of each other having led to understanding

Channing Tatum was reasonable as the main character. He is not the world’s most compelling actor and this movie changes nothing. He was, however, better able to portray the thoughts and model of the ancient world than characters in movies like the one mentioned above. Jamie Bell, on the other hand, exceeded even his usual stellar performance. His portrayal of a slave torn between his hatred of his master as a Roman and the life debt that he is honor bound to fulfill was moving. Both actors are convincing in their portrayal of growing trust and understanding as they become friends.

The cinematography left much to be desired. The film had a tendency to focus on a character’s face and blur the rest of the background for extended periods of time. The battle scenes were often jumpy and confused. The music (by Atli Orvarsson – Babylon A.D., Law & Order: Las Angeles) supported the action, plot, and themes well, but was not very memorable. Additionally, for those who have not read the book, the plotline may seem to develop very slowly.

The locations used in the film helped make it very real. There were breathtaking panoramas of the mountains of Scotland. There were scenes were the Romans were paddling boats up swampy rivers swathed in mist. The Seal People’s village looked completely natural in its setting.

The costumes were superb as well. The Romans’ uniforms were toned down, old, and well used – appropriate for a frontier outpost. The costumes of the city Romans also reflected a colonial edge and adaptation. The costumes of the Seal People were especially compelling. Probably the best scene, however, was the Druidical coming-of-age ritual with the vibrant costumes and headgear looking much the same as many old drawings of those rites

Besides Bell’s performance, the most remarkable aspect of this film was its accurate and compelling portrayal of the ancient views of freedom, slavery, honor, and virtue. Aquila and Esca treat each other as rough equals even though they are master and slave. Though Aquila gives him his freedom, Esca’s honor binds him to Aquila. Cicero wrote: “Honor is the reward of virtue” It is from their inner virtue that Aquila and Esca succeed in their endeavor.

Friendship: Pursuit of Virtue or Pursuit of Numbers?

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes life without friends as hardly worth living; but his idea of friendship is vastly different than the modern fetish of “making friends and influencing people” in which he who has the most friends wins. For Aristotle, friends are equals and their relationship is based on an active love for each other. Unanimity of feeling and shared intellectual sympathies are key to this idea of friendship. A mere feeling of goodwill cannot constitute friendship for Aristotle as one can feel such goodwill for someone one has never met. For Aristotle, mutual participation in activities that develop virtue are the main interest of the best type of friends. The depth of companionship needed for this type of friendship precludes friendship with large amounts of people. While there is certainly nothing wrong with being friendly with everyone, being everyone’s friend in any meaningful way is truly impossible. And as Aristotle noted, to go through one’s life without true friendship is to miss out on life.

In his book The Four Loves, C. S. Lewis distinguishes between friendship and the love that Christians are commanded to have for others – this is the distinction between φιλέω and ἀγαπάω/αγάπη. Lewis’ understanding of φιλέω is very similar to Aristotle’s conception of friendship. This type of friendship and love has mutual feeling – it is a quasi-emotional form of love. Αγάπη, on the other hand, is not a word connected with feeling. It is a word which describes action – actions taken on behalf of the loved. As C.S. Lewis notes, this type of love used to be called charity. This is the type of love that we are commanded to show others in the Bible. Φιλέω, or friendship, is never used in a command in the Bible. Thus, while we are required to serve one another in demonstration of our love to God, we are nowhere commanded to be friends with everyone nor to have fuzzy feelings of affection for everyone.

In the book of Job, we see several friends who none of us would like to emulate. As Job sits on a dung heap covered in sores having lost everything, his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. In the beginning, they seem to be a sort of Aristotelian friends (albeit pre-Aristotle) and they just sit down in the dust and dung with Job and share his suffering. But then they open their mouths. They all begin long diatribes accusing Job of sin, blaming his suffering on that sin, and encouraging Job to repent. Job all along defends himself. After all the rest speak, a fourth younger man, Elihu, speaks and rebukes the three friends for their false superiority and misconceptions of God’s justice. He also points out the hubris in Job’s desire to make his case before God as if he has some moral superiority over God. God then shows up and rebukes the three friends and Job, but not Elihu.

As Christian friends, we have a tendency to be like Job’s friends. We are always rebuking each other for some perceived slight moral failure. These moral failures often result not from the person violating a Biblical command, but from violating our personal standards. We rebuke people in much the same way as Job’s friends critiquing his activities. We are rarely like Elihu, challenging our friend’s misconceptions of reality and other real problems. We never attempt to help people with the problems that will have an effect on their lives and jobs. Problems such as failing to practice normal etiquette, competent dressing ability, use of proper grammar in speech, etc. go unaddressed as we strain at the gnats of minor dress code violations and music choices. We owe our friends more.