In Episode 166 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Thomas Ricks about his book “First Principles: What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks & Romans.” The two discuss the influence of Greco-Roman thought and culture on America’s founding generation, while drawing lessons that can be applied to our democracy today.
First Principles is a timely book, in that we find ourselves grappling today with many of the same questions, concerns, and anxieties that animated and vexed the drafters of the American constitution. It is also a deeply profound one because it reminds us that America was, is, and always will be an experiment. The constitution was constructed after all, in the midst of the Enlightenment.
“What was most important and really new about the Age of Reason,” writes the scholar William Goetzmann, “was the sublime confidence of the intellectuals and societal leaders in the power of man’s reason…Human nature, like all other nature, was a constant that yielded to rational inquiry.” In other words, the enlightenment showed the founding generation that it was possible to use reason and observation to discern the eternal laws of nature and then to use that understanding to aid human progress. To be enlightened was to have an energetic way of examining the world with skepticism and self-confidence and that self-confidence came from the knowledge that the world was knowable, that truths could be discovered, and inquiries made into the nature of things. “To be enlightened,” as the intellectual historian Caroline Winterer put it, “was to be filled with hope.”
It was with this sense of hope and empowerment that America’s founding generation set about to construct the American constitution and bill of rights. What were their objectives? Who did they look up to? What books did they read? And why the obsession with the ancients? What lessons did they take from the successes and failures of the Greeks and Romans? What did they value in themselves and in others? How did these values inform their construction of the union? And what can we learn from their experience when grappling with our own challenges today, whether we’re talking about executive power, media censorship, political division, or any of the other issues that animate the spirit of today’s generations?
The purpose of this episode is to provide a historical context for the challenges we face today in an effort to understand that they are not altogether new, nor are they insurmountable.
You can access the overtime to this episode, as well as the transcript and rundown through the Hidden Forces Supercast Page. All subscribers gain access to our overtime feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.
If you enjoyed listening to today’s episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following:
Thomas E. Ricks is an adviser on national security at the New America Foundation, where he participates in its “Future of War” project. He was previously a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and is a contributing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, for which he writes the prizewinning blog The Best Defense. Ricks covered the US military for The Washington Post from 2000 through 2008. Until the end of 1999, he had the same beat at The Wall Street Journal, where he was a reporter for seventeen years. A member of two Pulitzer Prize-winning teams, he covered US military activities in Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is the author of several books, including Churchill and Orwell, The Generals, The Gamble, and the number one New York Times bestseller Fiasco, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His most recent book, First Principles, has ranked as high as #3 and #4 on Amazon’s and the New York Times’ Best Sellers lists respectively.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Suo genere perveniant ad extremum; Sed quot homines, tot sententiae;
Intrandum est igitur in rerum naturam et penitus quid ea postulet pervidendum; Sin laboramus, quis est, qui alienae modum statuat industriae? Semper enim ita adsumit aliquid, ut ea, quae prima dederit, non deserat. Et hercule-fatendum est enim, quod sentio -mirabilis est apud illos contextus rerum. Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. An vero displicuit ea, quae tributa est animi virtutibus tanta praestantia? Heri, inquam, ludis commissis ex urbe profectus veni ad vesperum. Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Iam doloris medicamenta illa Epicurea tamquam de narthecio proment: Si gravis, brevis; Fatebuntur Stoici haec omnia dicta esse praeclare, neque eam causam Zenoni desciscendi fuisse. Cum salvum esse flentes sui respondissent, rogavit essentne fusi hostes. Intrandum est igitur in rerum naturam et penitus quid ea postulet pervidendum;
Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Quis Pullum Numitorium Fregellanum, proditorem, quamquam rei publicae nostrae profuit, non odit? Quid interest, nisi quod ego res notas notis verbis appello, illi nomina nova quaerunt, quibus idem dicant? Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere.
Omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur. Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono. Hoc ipsum elegantius poni meliusque potuit. Dempta enim aeternitate nihilo beatior Iuppiter quam Epicurus; Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vide igitur ne non debeas verbis nostris uti, sententiis tuis. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus. Illi enim inter se dissentiunt.
Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Re mihi non aeque satisfacit, et quidem locis pluribus. Quid paulo ante, inquit, dixerim nonne meministi, cum omnis dolor detractus esset, variari, non augeri voluptatem? Sin aliud quid voles, postea. Quod cum accidisset ut alter alterum necopinato videremus, surrexit statim.
Quid, cum fictas fabulas, e quibus utilitas nulla elici potest, cum voluptate legimus? Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se expetuntur. Ad eos igitur converte te, quaeso. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Nam his libris eum malo quam reliquo ornatu villae delectari.
Nec vero hoc oratione solum, sed multo magis vita et factis et moribus comprobavit. Etenim si delectamur, cum scribimus, quis est tam invidus, qui ab eo nos abducat? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Mihi vero, inquit, placet agi subtilius et, ut ipse dixisti, pressius. Quid censes in Latino fore? Cyrenaici quidem non recusant; Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Quis animo aequo videt eum, quem inpure ac flagitiose putet vivere?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quod cum accidisset ut alter alterum necopinato videremus, surrexit statim. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Cum id quoque, ut cupiebat, audivisset, evelli iussit eam, qua erat transfixus, hastam. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. At, illa, ut vobis placet, partem quandam tuetur, reliquam deserit. Cum ageremus, inquit, vitae beatum et eundem supremum diem, scribebamus haec.
Ita nemo beato beatior. Sin tantum modo ad indicia veteris memoriae cognoscenda, curiosorum. Sed quid ages tandem, si utilitas ab amicitia, ut fit saepe, defecerit? Cum autem negant ea quicquam ad beatam vitam pertinere, rursus naturam relinquunt.
Saepe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia; Materiam vero rerum et copiam apud hos exilem, apud illos uberrimam reperiemus. Ea possunt paria non esse. Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L. Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. De vacuitate doloris eadem sententia erit. Addebat etiam se in legem Voconiam iuratum contra eam facere non audere, nisi aliter amicis videretur.
Erat enim Polemonis. Cupiditates non Epicuri divisione finiebat, sed sua satietate. Si longus, levis. Et ais, si una littera commota sit, fore tota ut labet disciplina. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. Aeque enim contingit omnibus fidibus, ut incontentae sint. Non igitur potestis voluptate omnia dirigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem. Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare. Experiamur igitur, inquit, etsi habet haec Stoicorum ratio difficilius quiddam et obscurius. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Hoc non est positum in nostra actione. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Ita est quoddam commune officium sapientis et insipientis, ex quo efficitur versari in iis, quae media dicamus. Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere. Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; A quibus propter discendi cupiditatem videmus ultimas terras esse peragratas. Non quaeritur autem quid naturae tuae consentaneum sit, sed quid disciplinae. At enim sequor utilitatem. Hoc ipsum elegantius poni meliusque potuit.
Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. Tum ille timide vel potius verecunde: Facio, inquit. Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere.
Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Itaque et manendi in vita et migrandi ratio omnis iis rebus, quas supra dixi, metienda. Quod autem meum munus dicis non equidem recuso, sed te adiungo socium. Si qua in iis corrigere voluit, deteriora fecit. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit?
