It's not all that complicated. Read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu and "The Art of the Deal" by Donald Trump. The similarity of the titles is not a coincidence.
I think he agrees with the ordinary ancient Greek opinion -- which Socrates tries to talk us out of in the early parts of the Republic -- that justice means doing good things for those who are good to you, and to harm those those who seek to harm or destroy you. This gets lost on modern students, because the way it is expressed is in terms of "friends" and "enemies," which are much less dramatic terms in contemporary society. One can readily co-exist with an enemy today; but in ancient Greece, enemies tended to enslave or destroy you, and might be at least as strong as you were yourself.
The Christian tradition has weakened this view somewhat, with the 'turn the other cheek' aspects. It also licenses only defensive war in response to attacks, so you don't have to worry about one of Socrates' objections ("What if you're wrong about who your enemies are?").
Still, it's an ancient view with such a basic plausibility that it was a standard view of justice in Plato's time. It's more plausible in this case because Trump's enemies really are trying to destroy him: not only to impeach him, but to imprison him, to strip him of his wealth and ruin his family. They also seek to destroy his reputation, with labels like "racist" and even "Traitor!"
I can understand the view that there are some things one ought not to do, even defensively. On that view, Trump is wrong even if he is just replying in kind to those who are doing the same things to him, and first. (That's the jus in bello rule in Christian Just War Theory.) That view is well-argued by many great thinkers, theologians and philosophers. But the old Greek view remains accepted by many.
One can readily co-exist with an enemy today; but in ancient Greece, enemies tended to enslave or destroy you, and might be at least as strong as you were yourself.
I can't think of any enemy of ours that doesn't want to enslave or destroy us.
On the larger point, Trump has always characterized himself as a counter-puncher, not a puncher, and his behavior has reflected that, at least since he began his campaign for office which is the first I started tracking him. I don't, though, agree that preemptively punching is necessarily wrong. Technology has changed somewhat since St Augustine's time.
Still, it's an ancient view with such a basic plausibility that it was a standard view of justice in Plato's time.
I don't think it's beyond the pale that UP, or Wharton, would have taught the Greeks in their undergrad and business schools, and that Trump would have been exposed to them thereby.
Game theory and certain computer modeled "markets" suggest that "tit for tat" is THE optimal strategy for dealing with others. Start by assuming fair play, play fair (in the next round) will all who have played fair with you (in the last round) continue to deal -- unfairly -- with those who wronged you in prior wrongs, but if the previously unfair player repents, and starts to plays fair, you start playing fair yourself going forward, as if the defect never happened.
I've never heard Trump quoted saying the exact expression "tit for tat" but his actions seem quite consistent with the concept.
It's not all that complicated. Read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu and "The Art of the Deal" by Donald Trump. The similarity of the titles is not a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteI think he agrees with the ordinary ancient Greek opinion -- which Socrates tries to talk us out of in the early parts of the Republic -- that justice means doing good things for those who are good to you, and to harm those those who seek to harm or destroy you. This gets lost on modern students, because the way it is expressed is in terms of "friends" and "enemies," which are much less dramatic terms in contemporary society. One can readily co-exist with an enemy today; but in ancient Greece, enemies tended to enslave or destroy you, and might be at least as strong as you were yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe Christian tradition has weakened this view somewhat, with the 'turn the other cheek' aspects. It also licenses only defensive war in response to attacks, so you don't have to worry about one of Socrates' objections ("What if you're wrong about who your enemies are?").
Still, it's an ancient view with such a basic plausibility that it was a standard view of justice in Plato's time. It's more plausible in this case because Trump's enemies really are trying to destroy him: not only to impeach him, but to imprison him, to strip him of his wealth and ruin his family. They also seek to destroy his reputation, with labels like "racist" and even "Traitor!"
I can understand the view that there are some things one ought not to do, even defensively. On that view, Trump is wrong even if he is just replying in kind to those who are doing the same things to him, and first. (That's the jus in bello rule in Christian Just War Theory.) That view is well-argued by many great thinkers, theologians and philosophers. But the old Greek view remains accepted by many.
One can readily co-exist with an enemy today; but in ancient Greece, enemies tended to enslave or destroy you, and might be at least as strong as you were yourself.
ReplyDeleteI can't think of any enemy of ours that doesn't want to enslave or destroy us.
On the larger point, Trump has always characterized himself as a counter-puncher, not a puncher, and his behavior has reflected that, at least since he began his campaign for office which is the first I started tracking him. I don't, though, agree that preemptively punching is necessarily wrong. Technology has changed somewhat since St Augustine's time.
Still, it's an ancient view with such a basic plausibility that it was a standard view of justice in Plato's time.
I don't think it's beyond the pale that UP, or Wharton, would have taught the Greeks in their undergrad and business schools, and that Trump would have been exposed to them thereby.
Eric Hines
Game theory and certain computer modeled "markets" suggest that "tit for tat" is THE optimal strategy for dealing with others. Start by assuming fair play, play fair (in the next round) will all who have played fair with you (in the last round) continue to deal -- unfairly -- with those who wronged you in prior wrongs, but if the previously unfair player repents, and starts to plays fair, you start playing fair yourself going forward, as if the defect never happened.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard Trump quoted saying the exact expression "tit for tat" but his actions seem quite consistent with the concept.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Tit_for_tat#In_game_theory