An Introduction to Western Civilization: Ancient Philosophy and Literature

My Western Civ class (see long complicated title above) has nine people in it: eight students and the professor, a Mr. Ben Lorch previously of Boston who stated that he was "more comfortable speaking ancient Greek than using computers," which is literally one of the most endearing statements I have ever heard in my life. This is the college class that I have always wanted to take. Obscure classical learning, very few classmates who are so far very intelligent, and a teacher that loves what he teaches. Yesssssssss.

We are reading four books: Xenophon's Education of Cyrus and Anabasis of Cyrus, and two compilations on Socrates, Socrates and Alcibiades: Four Texts and Four Texts on Socrates. Socrates is evidently frequently connected with the number four. Fascinating.

We started reading the first Xenophon book today. We read a sentence, analyze it, read another sentence, analyze it, etc. So far we're on the third paragraph. (One sentence generally equals one paragraph.) The course is entirely about the philosophy of governing and leading. And it's just so interesting. Xenophon points out, for instance, that humans are nearly impossible to rule, while animals are quite easy to rule. The logic follows that humans need something better than them to rule them; something that knows them inside and out and is able and willing to give them what they want. He concludes that Cyrus, who was evidently the only perfect ruler the world has thus far seen, had knowledge. And leaves it there. What knowledge did Cyrus have that made him so perfect? Or is Xenophon simply saying that we, as those who are ruled, cannot have that knowledge, because then we would ourselves want to rule? But then, the knowledge must be perfect, so anyone given that knowledge will be a perfect ruler, but what happens if everyone gets that knowledge? We all know everything, so what else can we know? I think the ruler bit is what tends to get to people. Animals do not like being ruled, being told exactly what to do. They simply like being led to the things they want, which is what shepherds and keepers do. They take the animals to and from water and shelter and food. Humans are rarely led to the things we want because, as one of my classmates pointed out, "Half of us want entirely different things and the other half doesn't even know what they want." So is the key, then, to know people? To simply be a sociologist or psychologist? Then, you could hire an economic genius or a military general and, using your knowledge of people, get them to provide the country with what they need? Then again, what if the economist and the general know that you're ignorant of their subject matter and decide to wrest control from you? Do you also need to be an economist and a general? Do you need to hold all the power, or is it plausible to delegate? If you hold all the power, will you be smart enough and able enough to control what you have to control? And if you delegate, how can you possibly guarantee the loyalty of your advisors? Is knowledge all you need, or do you also need resources? The smartest human the world has seen can be born, live, and die in the Gobi Desert without any opportunities to prove his greatness.

And that's my Western Civ class. Or at least the first three paragraphs of the first book of it. My mind is going to explode by the end of the year.