In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche argued that the tragedies of ancient Greece were so complete in representing the human condition (by combining Apollonian and Dionysian urges) that they represented the highest works of art. The irony is that Tragedy was born in a certain age and triumph in others - during the period following the Bronze Age collapse (between 10th and 6th century BC), the heroic epics of Homer were transmitted rapaciously through oral tradition before being recognized as the originary fictive myth of the Greek world.
In this context, the high achievements of the Athenian Empire and the broader development of the Greek city states through the 6th to 3rd centuries represented both the apogee of that civilization, but also the beginnings of a culture of discouragement, pessimism and fringe-nihilism which led to conflict, war, decline and the prioritization of self interest and eventually mutually aligned sovereignty (e.g. the league of Corinth) in place of higher cultural projects. In a sense, the birth of tragedy was the birth of a genre which ultimately permitted the domination of the Greek world by outside forces.
Much as the cycle of empire persists throughout history, it is important to notice and respond to the cycle in order to at least attempt to break it.
What begets the culture of discouragement in the West?
Tragedy, pessimism and nihilism are at first attractive genres of thought because of their novelty. In the western Canon, we could almost consider this as similar to the advent of The Graduate or Bonnie and Clyde in cinema - transgressive attempts to redefine life with a sort of romantic abandon, which while indulging in violent and destructive urges - provides affirmation to the protagonist that they have in some manner furnished their own destiny.
While other influences could certainly accelerate this sort of brute intellectualism (e.g. CIA funding of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop), we can imagine in the mind of the Boomer to whom this culture is attributed a sort of rapacious desire to break molds. It’s certainly true that they were motivated in this manner, whether it was right or on balance a benefit to society is a question for future historians whose thoughts are not tinged by their long shadow. And yet in our own time, it would seem that the simple energy of youth, the desire to set out for oneself and be difference, on the whole broke a culture of broad consensus as to what was best in life in the post-war West.
Why does internationalism need to be worked at?
Hope for the future might involve greater internationalism and collaboration, but there are two reasons which predominate the division of nations and people’s on the earth: 1) the opportunity to “get one over” on the other guy and 2) the lack of unifying founding myths and perspectives.
American classical republicanism could be an example of the formation of a unique founding myth out of different nations. For example, at one time it was not perceived as possible for the Irish, English, Scottish and Scot-Irish to inhabit a nation peaceably and effectively, and yet today many would consider these indistinguishable social categories. Hence how does one blend all the cultures of the world - Chinese, Indian, Korean, Japanese, British, German, French, the myriad ethnicities of all continents - these cannot possibly have the same founding myths except the “out of Africa” hypothesis, or perhaps in place of that, a mutual understanding of the cycles of empire.
What could this imply? In history, progress and innovation are at first diffuse, then concentrated, then diffuse again. In this we observe the global center of culture and knowledge to shift - first from our ethnic origins, then to centers of power and control. In the west, first Greece, then Rome, then away, then to France and Britain, eventually to the United States, and perhaps one day to Germany were it not for the outcomes of the 20th century.
In that away period what was observed? The Arab conquests, the height of China’s power, empires of India and Southeast Asia. The whole world is a tapestry of contribution to the ethos of civilized life, each culture - no matter how small - makes a contribution. In our current day, as the desire to view the center of power as trending away from the Americas, what good does it bring to continue the cycle of exploitation and control? Eventually the exploiter grows comfortable and becomes the exploited - easy enough for a guy sitting on the East Coast to say.
As for the desire to “get one over” on the other guy, Game theory may provide an influence: the more there is to gain, and the less mutual cooperation there is to be expected, the more one has the incentive to “defect” in prisoner’s dilemma terms. This implies, getting one over on the other guy, ripping them off, works only when you don’t expect much to come after this or that particular interaction. This statement does not offer a solution, but perhaps in the context of setting boundaries (as all good relationships require), collaboration is a choice?
What breeds a culture of success?
There are three factors which create the ability to realize a culture of success, optimism and prosperity: 1) broad agreement in society as to what constitutes a good life, 2) the distribution or availability of resources which permit that good life to be achieved in a realistic timeframe and 3) the absence of perverse incentives which discourage individuals from taking the responsibility of pursuing a good life upon themselves.
Whether it’s because of the distribution of wealth, power or influence in our society, today the good life does not appear accessible to most people most of the time. While there are plenty of material benefits and pleasures to the modern age, the realization of things like happy marriage, children, meaningful work, trust in institutions, belief that life will continue to improve - many perceive this as only accessible to those with sufficient resources, the right connections and the ability to superhumanly pull themselves up by their bootstraps without simply collapsing from the “stress and trauma” of it all.
We have produced a toxic stew of discouragement, which is amplified by the generic negativity bias or sensitivity that all people exhibit, now available 24/7 through digital technology and media consumption, and leaving us unable to abandon what is wrong with the world in order to set the world right.
This further context requires two more questions to be answered: 1) what constitutes the good life earnestly, and 2) how do we know that it is earnestly good? This is tricky because even the most negative, frustrated, depressed people will tell you they are happy with how they live their lives, while the most affluent, prosperous, performatively successful people may also be hiding a deep unhappiness with their day-to-day lives.
For stronger base principles on the good life, I would consider first some of the components mentioned above: achievement of traditional and natural milestones in a reasonable manner that sustains the natural, millenias-driven human lifecycle. These are simply required to sustain life in the way we have come to know - it is essential, but in our modern age which seems to lack meaning, what is the meaning which will drive the interplay of essentials that sustain humanity for the long term?
A worth consideration on this basis may be Tellus of Athens. Croesus, the richest man in Greece, once told Solon he was the happiest man, for all his material prosperity. Solon, the Athenian Statemen, responded that he was missing three people: Kleobis and Biton, who substituted a missing Oxen to carry their mother to a festival for the goddess Hera, and subsequently dies peacefully in their sleep (generally regarded as a demonstration of filial piety above all), and Tellus of Athens, who lived a full life of marriage, children and grandchildren, and in an attack on Athens, routed the enemy in an act of self-sacrifice, and was commemorated on the spot where he died.
To Solon, happiness could not be decisively determined before death, but it is what we dies for, and perhaps ultimately what we live for, which determines our greatest happiness - whether that is simply for pleasure, or weather that pleasure, the things we take joy in, leave a residue of our existence long after we’re gone. In this, perhaps modern ambitions could be explained, most youth today don’t seek fame or fortune per se, but seem to seek influence, and potentially see in that influence a residue of their existence in the neurons of others.
What is lacking there, I would argue, is that digital life is unreal - it feels real in many ways, and can be a constant source of pleasure until our senses are dulled - but the part of humanity which connects human beings with meaning must be grounded in the physical world. This has been the route to meaning for all the many years which we have lived.
To take another turn, the lessons of Solon could also be perceived as a sense of conviction. We know, for instance, that in the past, the leadership of society held convictions more strongly had seemingly had more meaningful integrity, even if the outcomes of their decisions may have often led to failure. It is conviction which drives us to succeed in spite of many failures: while we may not see this in our leadership class today, perhaps if more people had conviction demonstrated to them - a greater willingness to succeed on abstract aims - they would have a better idea of what it looks like, and practice it for themselves.