I came across this video while browsing YouTube. Very interesting discussion about Plato and his influence on Byzantine and Roman thought and theology. Professor Hanegraaff has a series of similar videos, and I recommend the ones I’ve seen. The Ritman Library is also worth checking out.
+JMJ+
St. John Chrysostom, Bishop and Doctor of the Church
January 27, 2018
I don’t normally write about politics here, and I’m not going to start (though I will be starting a separate political blog soon – watch for an announcement). For this particular topic, I’ll leave the political analysis to Ms. Horton. I’m going to look at the Hydra tale from more of a philosophical perspective.
As an aside, a further bit of synchronicity is that this post is being published on the feast of St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest Saints and Doctors of the Church, and a Greek. His epitaph, Chrysostom (Χρυσόστομος), means “golden-mouthed” as he was known for his oratory, rhetorical, and homiletic abilities. Why this is synchronistic will hopefully be apparent by the end of the post.
The second task of Hercules (Herakles) was to slay the Hydra. There are various versions of this legend, each with different aspects, pros, and cons, and the version I tell here is comprised of the most accepted parts of a few versions.
The Lernaean Hydra lived in the murky swamps near Lerna in Argolis and would come forth time to time to attack people and livestock. The Hydra had the body of a serpent and is usually considered to have nine heads. One of the heads, however, was golden and immortal. If one of the mortal heads was cut off, more than one would grow back in its place. If this were not bad enough, the blood and breath of the Hydra were highly poisonous. It gave off enough toxic vapor to make the area unlivable.
Hercules, with his trusted nephew and charioteer, Iolaus, set off to confront the Hydra. With Athena standing beside him, Hercules chased the Hydra out of its lair by means of flaming arrows, and then confronted the Hydra while protecting himself from the noxious vapors by covering his nose and mouth with a cloth.
He took his club and started smashing the heads of the Hydra. As soon as he smashed one, two grew back where the smashed one was. Before long, he became overwhelmed, and the Hydra was able to grab one of his ankles. To make matters worse, Hera sent a crab to attack Hercules, and while he was in the grips of the Hydra, the crab attacked him injuring his foot. Hercules managed to dispatch the crab by stomping on it, and then called to Iolaus for help.
Iolaus came with a firebrand, and as Hercules dispatched each head Iolaus would immediately cauterize the stump stopping the head from regenerating. It is said Athena had told Iolaus before hand what to do. After Hercules had smashed the eight mortal heads, he used his sword to sever the ninth immortal and golden one. He buried this head – still alive since it was immortal – under a boulder at the side of the road that runs from Lerna to Elaios so it could never rejoin to a body. Having done this, he cut open the Hydra and dipped his arrows in her bile. These poison arrows would be key to him completing his later labors.
The alchemists have a saying: solve et coagula (dissolve and coagulate). Break things down to the prima materia, recombine them, and you have something new – a transmutation. It is no coincidence that alchemical texts and illustrations are meant to be analyzed in this way. When you see an alchemical picture like this, the only way to understand it is symbolically. One must break the picture into its component parts and put it back together to understand what it is saying.
In modern times we have lost the understanding of such use of symbolism that was commonplace and a basis for communication in the past, but we may still understand it at a subconscious level as Jung believed we did. In fact, he spent a lot of time studying alchemical art. It is with this hope for understanding we will dissect the story.
Within the story there are multiple objects with certain attributes that can be seen as symbolic. The list includes
Now it may be argued that all of those things can have different meanings so the meaning one person applies to them is no better than the meaning another applies. In one sense, that is true. There definitely can be multiple meanings. However, it does not necessarily follow that all meanings are equally valid or even insightful. If one claims the Hydra represents ice cream and Hercules represents a hamburger, that meaning is not very useful or good and is fairly dubious. It’s not good because it’s not reasonable – it doesn’t come from the use of reason. More than likely, it comes from someone who has an empty stomach and was daydreaming about lunch.
As an example of the use of reason applied to symbols and words to tease out more meaning, we can look at Plato’s words in Cratylus.
Hermogenes
I think, Socrates, enough has been said about these words; but might we not consider the names of the gods in the same way in which you were speaking about that of Zeus a few minutes ago, and see what kind of correctness there is in them?
Socrates
By Zeus, Hermogenes, we, if we are sensible, must recognize that there is one most excellent kind, since of the gods we know nothing, neither of them nor of their names, whatever they may be, by which they call themselves, for it is clear that they use the true names. But there is a second kind of correctness, that we call them, as is customary in prayers, by whatever names and patronymics are pleasing to them, since we know no other. Now I think that is an excellent custom. So, if you like, let us first make a kind of announcement to the gods, saying that we are not going to investigate about them—for we do not claim to be able to do that—but about men, and let us inquire what thought men had in giving them their names; for in that there is no impiety.
Hermogenes
I think, Socrates, you are right; let us do as you say.
Cratylus 400d -401a
Hermogenes asks Socrates if there may not be something to be learned from the names of the gods. Socrates replies in the affirmative, but cautions that we don’t know anything about the gods, not even their real names, but only what men call them. Since they will be considering the things of men (what men call the gods) instead of the gods themselves, this is not impious, and the inquiry can move forward. Next in the dialogue,Plato next has Socrates discuss several of the gods, but we will skip ahead to the discussion of Hermes because that will prove both relevant and useful during an analysis.
Hermogenes
I will do so, but first one more god. I want to ask you about Hermes, since Cratylus says I am not Hermogenes (son of Hermes). Let us investigate the name of Hermes, to find out whether there is anything in what he says.
Socrates
Well then, this name “Hermes” seems to me to have to do with speech; he is an interpreter (ἡρμηνεύς) and a messenger, is wily and deceptive in speech, and is oratorical. All this activity is concerned with the power of speech. Now, as I said before, εἴρειν denotes the use of speech; moreover, Homer often uses the word ἐμήσατο, which means “contrive.” From these two words, then, the lawgiver imposes upon us the name of this god who contrived speech and the use of speech—εἴρειν means “speak”— and tells us: “Ye human beings, he who contrived speech (εἴρειν ἐμήσατο) ought to be called Eiremes by you.” We, however, have beautified the name, as we imagine, and call him Hermes. Iris also seems to have got her name from εἴρειν, because she is a messenger.
Hermogenes
By Zeus, I believe Cratylus was right in saying I was not Hermogenes; I certainly am no good contriver of speech.
Socrates
And it is reasonable, my friend, that Pan is the double-natured son of Hermes.
Hermogenes
How is that?
Socrates
You know that speech makes all things (πᾶν) known and always makes them circulate and move about, and is twofold, true and false.
Hermogenes
Certainly.
Socrates
Well, the true part is smooth and divine and dwells aloft among the gods, but falsehood dwells below among common men, is rough and like the tragic goat; for tales and falsehoods are most at home there, in the tragic life.
Hermogenes
Certainly.
Socrates
Then Pan, who declares and always moves (ἀεὶ πολῶν) all, is rightly called goat-herd (αἰπόλος), being the double-natured son of Hermes, smooth in his upper parts, rough and goat-like in his lower parts. And Pan, if he is the son of Hermes, is either speech or the brother of speech, and that brother resembles brother is not at all surprising. But, as I said, my friend, let us get away from the gods.
Cratylus 407e-408d
Another simple example of teasing out the meaning can be found in Durer’s engravings. In “Saint Jerome in his Study” a dog is pictured sleeping blissfully (next to a lion in fact) in front of Saint Jerome’s desk. In “Melencolia I”, he also has a dog blissfully asleep next to an angel. But in “The Knight, Death, and the Devil” the dog is awake and on the move, his ears are pulled back indicating the intensity of him keeping pace right at his master’s side. For Durer, the dog was a symbol of Loyalty, and would rest when the master was safe and be afoot if the master was not.
Another example of pulling apart the symbols to get meaning can be found in my previous entry on Divine Melancholy where I talk about “Melencolia I” a bit.
The Hydra is described by most as having the body of a serpent and nine heads, one of which is immortal and gold. Her body contains poison coursing through it, especially her gall which Hercules used to poison his arrows. The heads are forced to stay together, bound by a common body.
The heads of the Hydra regenerate when destroyed. Not only do they regenerate, but two grow back where one was. This geometric progression increases the threat and thwarts the usefulness of Hercules’ raw strength.
Hercules is the hero of the story, and what makes him a hero in most of the stories is his strength. However, in this story his strength is only good for defense, not offense. If he used sheer strength
~ Hesiod, Theogony
Iolaus is Hercules’ nephew and charioteer. Iolaus is not of the gods as is Hercules, but he is brave, loyal, and true. We know this because out of everyone in the world, Hercules asked Iolaus to come with him. Iolaus also bore the wisdom of Athena into the battle when he followed her counsel and cauterized the severed heads to stop them from growing back.
The weapon used against the Hydra in most versions of the stories is a club. A club is a brute-force weapon, much more so than any other weapon. While a sword does some of the work by cutting, a club is used to bludgeon, so its effectiveness relies completely on the strength of the person wielding it.
When Hera sees that Hercules is holding his own, she sends a crab to attack him.
Hercules uses a sword to sever the immortal head. This sword was given to him by Hermes. Hermes, among other things, was the god of communication, guile, persuasion, writing, and language. Swords are often symbolic of Wisdom such as the use of one in the Gordian Knot or with Arthur being worthy to draw Excalibur from the stone (and Iolaus is to Hercules as Merlin is to Arthur in a manner of speaking). In some versions, it is a golden sword given to Hercules by Athena; even so, that is still a symbol of Wisdom in that it was given to him by the goddess of wisdom.
Cauterization is actually burning part of a body to seal it shut. Sealing the stumps of the severed heads is what stopped new – and multiple – ones from growing back. In some versions it is said that Athena told Iolaus to do this, so it is symbolic of using Wisdom to complete the task.
The Hydra was filled with a poisonous and acidic gall. Philosophically this is black bile or acid phlegm and causes melancholia ultimately resulting in a deranged conception of things.
Serum is of two kinds: one is the mild whey of the blood; the other, being derived from black and acid bile, is malignant whenever it is imbued with a saline quality through the action of heat; and this kind is termed “acid phlegm.”2
“Black bile [melancholia] vexes us with too much care or much silliness, and disturbs the soul and judgment. It does this so much that it would not be wrong to say that scholars would be … the happiest and wisest people of all if it were not for black bile trouble, driving them to sadness or to silliness.”3
~ Seneca, Hercules Furens
Hera resented Hercules because he was the illegitimate offspring of her husband, Zeus. In fact, when Hercules was born, Hera sent snakes to his crib to try and kill him. Hercules, being strong even as an infant, quickly dispatched them. Seneca states that this was his practice for the Hydra. She was infamous for being jealous and spiteful.
Athena is the goddess of victory in battle and of wisdom. Unlike Aries, the way she is victorious in battle is via strategy and prudence rather than brute force. She is the half-sister of Hercules, both having Zeus as their father. “When Hercules went mad and killed his children, Athena stopped the disaster from getting worse. Just as the insane hero turned to kill Amphitryon, Athena threw a stone at Hercules, knocking him unconscious, so his mortal father was spared.”
So now we have a list of items that may serve as symbols, and we will put them back together to see what happens.
The Hydra is a water serpent with eight regenerative heads and a ninth golden immortal one. It is interesting that the immortal one is golden. Two things that live long past a person, that are in fact immortal, are one’s ideas (the head) and one’s wealth (gold). It is also good to be remembered that even though it was taken from the beast, it is still alive and must be kept contained so it can do no further harm. The other heads regenerate, so brute force won’t destroy them. It is only through Wisdom symbolized by the cauterization that Iolaus applied on the advice of Athena that they are destroyed.
She is filled with poison, most likely black bile. According to Plato, Ficino, and Agrippa, the build up of black bile makes one malicious and nasty. It is a special risk of philosophers for several reasons. In a sense it is a sign of a philosopher having gone down the wrong path. The path of sophistry (foolishness or maliciousness). The divine sponsor of the Hydra is Hera, also known as being malicious and nasty if she were crossed.
Against this we have Hercules, whose strength is renown. But Hera, knowing this, made it so his strength would be of little use against the Hydra because for each head he destroyed, two would grow back. And the immortal head has to be severed by a sword – symbolic of Wisdom and tactical thought – rather than the club, a brute force weapon. Luckily, his sponsor for this battle wasn’t Aries or he would be in serious trouble flailing against the Hydra facing a geometric progression of assaults. Rather it was Athena, goddess of Wisdom.
So we have Hercules, sponsored by Wisdom, followed into battle by Iolaus, a loyal friend and bearer of Athena’s wisdom. Hercules is wielding a sword given to him by the god of language and persuasion against a beast filled with black bile and sophistry. Note, as well, that Hercules and Iolaus are individuals capable of independent thought and reason while the heads of the Hydra are conjoined at the body and therefore must work in lockstep.
It seems the story is telling us that the way to defeat sophistry, bad thinking, and malicious and nasty bile is with wisdom and the aid of loyalty rather than brute force.
Let’s read what Ms. Horton wrote:
“Conservatives: The Hercules to the Liberal Hydra” was the title, and within the essay she says, “Third Wave Feminism, Social Justice, Black Lives Matter, the LGBT, the entertainment industry, and all of the other organizations that serve as a catalyst for cultivating leftist activity are merely the multiple heads of the Hydra, and cutting them off will only cause them to regenerate.”4
Let’s compare Ms. Horton’s assignment of Conservatives to Hercules and Progressives to the Hydra using the attributes we discerned and see how it pans out.
It seems to fit well, better than one might have thought if it hadn’t been dissolved and coagulated. But, as always, it is good to turn to the father of Western Philosophy, Plato, to see what he might have to say about it.
Do you find that your brother, who knows everything, has not spoken aright?
I a brother of Euthydemus? quickly interposed Dionysodorus.
Whereupon I said: Let me alone, good sir, till Euthydemus has taught me that I know that good men are unjust, and do not grudge me this lesson.
You are running away, Socrates, said Dionysodorus; you refuse to answer.
Yes, and with good reason, I said: for I am weaker than either one of you, so I have no scruple about running away from the two together. You see, I am sadly inferior to Hercules, who was no match for the hydra—that she-professor who was so clever that she sent forth many heads of debate in place of each one that was cut off; nor for another sort of, crab-professor from the sea— freshly, I fancy, arrived on shore; and, when the hero was so bothered with its leftward barks and bites, he summoned his nephew Iolaus to the rescue, and he brought him effective relief. But if my Iolaus were to come, he would do more harm than good.5
Well, answer this, said Dionysodorus, now you have done your descanting: Was Iolaus more Hercules’ nephew than yours?
I see I had best answer you, Dionysodorus, I said. For you will never cease putting questions—I think I may say I am sure of this—in a grudging, obstructing spirit, so that Euthydemus may not teach me that bit of cleverness.
Euthydemus 297b-297d
The dialogue continues with some amusing words games, mental gymnastics, and sophistry just as Socrates predicted. The part that is relevant to us is this: Socrates was wise (because he knew what he didn’t know) and a philosopher. He placed himself in the role of Hercules, however not as efficient at dispatching the Hydra. Socrates referred to Dionysodorus and Euthydemus as the Hydra, they being sophists. So Plato portrayed Socrates having the same understanding of Hercules as wisdom and the Hydra as sophistry as we have teased out from the original story.
~ Avialae Horton
It appears that subconsciously we do understand some universal symbols, at least enough to tease them out with some reflection. Of course, this is not solely an intellectual or rational exercise. The understanding is a form of intuitive gnosis, an intuitive understanding where we are no long viewing objects but are in some way experiencing the objects themselves. Part of this intuitive understanding occurs precisely because it is told as a legend in which we can immerse ourselves. These myths and legends are not children’s stories as one might first suppose. As Jung might believe, they stir something in our subconscious that has been forgotten. Again, I will refer to Plato who said learning is actually the act of remembering.
Perhaps this subconscious knowledge is what inspired Ms. Horton to cast Conservatives, whose arguments are based on rational thought, loyal, freed and unchained, and Progressives, whose arguments are based on emotional response and forced to toe the line for each other, as Hercules and the Hydra respectively. In any case, it seems it is a very apropos analogy and one that should be mined for further insight and guidance.
Plato’s Dialog Cratylus
Plato’s Dialog Euthydemus
Here, we stand
Defiantly, we bend nor break
And here, we stand
In Phalanx, side by side
Our hearts devoid of fear
Athena’s wrath is
Here, we stand
Our shields and spears are shining bright
And here, we stand
Surrender to no one
So here, we stand
Facing off a legions worth
We fear, no man
For the Gods are on our side!
Athena’s wrath
Athena’s wrath
Athena, our goddess
She guides our swords
Together claim victory
Over the Persian hordes
Lay waste the invaders
Show no remorse
With the Gods behind us
An unrelenting force
Athena’s wrath
Athena’s wrath is
Here we stand, still side by side, wielding shield and spear
Defend, till our final breath, all that we hold dear
Our land, our birthright, the Gods will interfere
Descend, our Goddess of War, for victory we cheer
Athena’s wrath is here
Athena!
+JMJ+
4th day of the Octave of the Epiphany of Our Lord
January 9, 2018
For The Cascade Legion – May your members be ever loyal and true.
The tears that we all cry
Are as dark as the lies we deny
I hope the things that you would die for
Are worth it in the end
“Hollow Eyes” – Lost Society
Loyalty can have many meanings and different objects. One can be loyal to different degrees, and one can be loyal to a cause, to a group, or to a person. But the primary definition of loyalty has to do with friends. “It is constituted centrally by perseverance in an association to which a person has become intrinsically committed as a matter of his or her identity. Its paradigmatic expression is found in close friendship, to which loyalty is integral…”6 Friendship may be the paradigmatic expression, but it extends beyond that to the higher categories such as organizations, ethnic groups, nations, etc.Before one can say they are loyal, one has to have certain qualities that function as prerequisites to loyalty. While what those qualities are is a matter open to debate, there are, I believe, several basic qualities that are prerequisites for loyalty most of which are found in the definition above.
We will look at these qualities each in turn and see how they are necessary for loyalty to exist.
Honesty is clearly required. If we lie to someone, we are in a sense misdirecting their decision making process to our benefit and against theirs. Even if we think we are lying to protect them or such, what we are doing is interfering with their free will by misrepresenting information that will go to their making a choice.
~ Anonymous
Someone loyal would, definitely, inform the group or person or persons they are loyal to if he believes the object of loyalty is making a mistake. But it is the height of disloyalty to exercise control over another’s will through the use of lies and deception. Such behavior often leads to outright treachery.
“…an association…”
Can’t you see I’m easily bothered by persistence
One step from lashing out at you
You want in to get under my skin
And call yourself a friend
“Walk” – Pantera
One of the most basic prerequisites of loyalty would be association. We cannot be loyal to something or someone we are not associated with. To associate with someone means to work alongside of them, communicate with them, be mentioned with them. A familiarity needs to be built which means to some degree our and their true natures need to be shown to each other. However this association must be sincere and for the right reasons. Judas, for example, used his association with Christ – his position as an Apostle – to further his disloyalty. Jung states about Judas’ betrayal of Christ, “The Judas legend is itself a typical motif, namely that of the mischievous betrayal of the hero. One is reminded of Siegfried and Hagen, Baldur and Loki: Siegfried and Baldur were both murdered by a perfidious traitor from among their closest associates.”7
“…as a matter of his or her identity.”
Once we are associated with the object of our loyalty, we need to go further and make that part of our identity. We make something part of our identity outwardly by announcing our membership, and we do it inwardly by feeling a sense of belonging. If I say I am loyal to my family, I am, in fact, intrinsically committed to my family as a matter of my identity because it is my family and goes to my identity, in this case, by blood and/or kinship. If I say I am loyal to the Church, again, I am committed to the Church as a matter of my identity because I am initiated (baptized) and a member of the Church. And if I say I am loyal to my friend, there, too, I am committed to my friend as a matter of my identity. I tell people, “This is my friend,” and presumably my friend tells people that I am their friend. And when people see my friend, they associate that person with me, ascribing – sometimes unfairly – the character and actions of the friend to me and vice versa. These relationships which call for loyalty are all relationships that help to define who we are.
In a psychological study, it was found that identity was key to group loyalty.8 It had nothing to do with how much energy, time, money, etc. that a person had expended on the group already. It did have exactly to do with how much a person identified with the group. The more the person identified with the group, the more loyal they were especially under circumstances that put loyalty to the test.
This is why things that have a strong identity obtain strong loyalty. A good Catholic, for example, is required to identify with his faith. This identification with the faith is exactly what leads people to fight for the Church, to be martyred for their faith, and to be the subject of attacks and endure them.
Friendship is another instance of strong identity. The more one identifies as a friend to another, the more loyal a friend they will be.
“…to which a person has become intrinsically committed”
Life has taught me that you can’t control someone’s loyalty. No matter how good you are to them, doesn’t mean they’ll treat you the same. No matter how much they mean to you, doesn’t mean they’ll value you the same. Sometimes the people you love the most, turn out to be the people you can trust the least.
Trent Shelton
To be loyal, we need to be committed to something. That means that we intend to make a reasonable effort to help that to which we are loyal, to give of ourselves, to sacrifice at some level.
~ Anonymous
And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. (Apocalypse 3:14-16)
In fact, it is better if there is no commitment rather than a halfhearted one. If one is depending on us to be there for them and we are not, it would be better to be clear about that from the beginning because the person could have sought the aid of another.
“It [loyalty] is constituted centrally by perseverance in an association…”
Loyalty implies perseverance. The association is not something that occurs occasionally, or for a time. It is something that is continuous and holds together through difficult times.
~ Anonymous
Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. 9
As is true with all of the Cardinal Virtues, perseverance (Fortitude) needs to be modified by the other Virtues, especially Prudence and Justice. Externally, Justice goes towards giving others their due. Prudence tells us the right action to take and the right time to take it. For the sake of Justice, we should only exhibit perseverance in an association to someone if they in turn persevere towards us; to do otherwise is to have misplaced loyalty. For the sake of Prudence, we should only behave honorably to maintain the association, because it is never wise to bring dishonor upon one’s self. To behave dishonorably in order to maintain the association, we have gone from loyalty to servitude.
But the well-established idea of a “loyal opposition” should give pause to the suggestion that loyalty requires complaisance or servility. … If the setting aside of good judgment is sought, there is nothing to stop a person—albeit with a heavy heart—from questioning whether the object of loyalty may have forfeited claims to it. The trust that tends to accompany loyalty need not encompass gullibility and credulity. In the ordinary course of events, the trust that accompanies loyalty has a judgment of trustworthiness as its background.10
That same trust is what makes honesty a prerequisite for loyalty. If one lies, they cannot be trusted, and if they cannot be trusted, they do not deserve our loyalty.
As the definition we are using states, “its paradigmatic expression is found in close friendship, to which loyalty is integral…” The best expression of loyalty is found in close friendship, and close friendship is rooted in love.
It is he [Love] that bestows our every joy upon us, and it is through him that we are capable of the pleasures of society, aye, and friendship even, with the gods our masters.
~ Symposium – Plato
Even in the case of romantic love, a form of friendship is at the root of loyalty to the relationship.
It is base to indulge a vicious lover viciously, but noble to gratify a virtuous lover virtuously. Now the vicious lover is the follower of the earthly Love who desires the body rather than the soul; his heart is set on what is mutable and must therefore be inconstant. And as soon as the body he loves begins to pass the first flower of its beauty, he ‘spreads his wings and flies away,’ giving the lie to all his pretty speeches and dishonoring his vows, whereas the lover whose heart is touched by moral beauties is constant all his life, for he has become one with what will never fade.
Symposium – Plato
If friendship is based on anything except the higher form of Love, that which values the soul and person qua person, loyalty is doomed to failure. In the case of romance, the lower form of Love is usually the form of lust, and as Plato points out looks fade and so will the baser form of Love. In the case of friendship, it is not lust, but any other attribute that is not of the soul and inconstant: money, fame, usefulness, etc. If the friendship exists based on anything mutable and inconstant, the friendship is vicious and loyalty will not be present. As soon as the basis of the friendship changes or leaves, as material things are wont to do, commitment and perseverance will expire and the loyalty, and often the friendship, will end.
Socrates says that in order to retain that friendship – and the loyalty – one should be faithful to one’s friends lest they be abandoned.
“…it would be well that each man should consider how much he can be worth to his friends, and that he should endeavour to render himself as valuable as he can in their regard, to the end they might not abandon him; for when I hear one complain that his friend has betrayed him; another that he, whom he thought faithful, has preferred a small gain to the preservation of his friendship, I reflect on these stories, and ask whether, as we sell a good-for-nothing slave for what we can get for him, we are not likewise tempted to get rid of an ill-friend when we are offered more for him than he is worth? because I do not see men part with their slaves if they be good, nor abandon their friends if they be faithful.”11
If one is to be considered honorable, one must be first considered loyal.
Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything one does; it is honesty, fairness, and moral fortitude in one’s beliefs and actions.12
Loyalty also goes to the notion of honor when honor is taken to mean “Adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct.” Being loyal is considered the right thing to do with someone or something one shares an identity with. Being disloyal to one’s family, church, or friends is considered dishonorable. Loyalty is considered a laudable value, and disloyalty is considered to impugn one’s character.
~ Niccolo Machiavelli
Without loyalty, honor falls apart. The reason for this is in the case of disinterest of loyalty, or as Apocalypse says, being lukewarm, there is no commitment and as stated above, honor requires selfless service, integrity, and courage all of which demand commitment. The association is not one of loyalty, but one more probably coming from convenience as in the case of a “fair-weather friend.”
Even worse is when there is disloyalty. That often results in treachery as in the cases of Judas and Brutus who feigned loyalty and then used the close association to betray those they pretended to be loyal to. This subversion of loyalty turns something that is valued into a weapon.
One can look at the listed prerequisites for loyalty and perhaps say that disloyalty occurs either because one of those qualities wasn’t truly present, or because it became absent.
In one place, Jung ascribed disloyalty in the form of treachery to envy. ” At the same time it [Judas Myth] is an event that was repeated many times in history, for instance in the case of Caesar and Brutus. Through the myth is extremely old it is still a subject for repetition, as it expresses the simple fact that envy does not let mankind sleep in peace.” 13 This is of interest because Jung gives the cause – envy – and the result – murderous treachery. Envy can be looked at as a lack or loss of commitment. One is more committed to one’s self than the object of one’s professed loyalty. In the case of weak morals, this can arise in the form of envy. “My commitment to him is not worth as much as my commitment to me. He has something I do not and that I want or deserve. Therefore, I will act in such a way as to either obtain it or stop him from possessing it.”
Jung further goes on to say, “This [Judas] myth is moving and tragic, because the noble hero is not felled in a fair fight but through treachery.” 14 Indeed, Judas betrays Christ by being disloyal to Him. He is not committed, he is not honest, and his association with Christ and identification as an Apostle he actually uses to his advantage to betray Jesus to the authorities. He removes or misuses every prerequisite for loyalty that has been defined so far. That is what makes his betrayal so tragic and treacherous. Judas was as disloyal as one could possibly get.
We live just to die and we try to justify
The bottomless pit of our soulless lies
Pull my eyes and feed them to the weakest of the weak
I’ve seen the past, the future, but what the fuck does it mean to me
“Hollow Eyes” – Lost Society
The net effect of disloyalty in the case of Judas, according to Scripture, is desolation. Judas obtained land from his betrayal of Christ and in shame hung himself over that land. When he did so, his abdomen burst open and soaked the land with blood. From that point on, people refused to use that land seeing it as cursed.
Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. (Acts 1:16-20)
Land is symbolic of one’s legacy. It is something that is passed down for generations, or at least used to be. In this case, not only is Judas dishonored, his legacy has become desolate. His memory will forever be one of dishonor and accepted by none. It is cursed.
Likewise is the person and reputation of someone who is disloyal, and even more so if they have been treacherous. Upon learning that someone has been disloyal, people of prudence will be reluctant to become friends or even associated with the individual. For sure, some will still be willing to befriend such a person, but those are people of the same mindset who might seduce a partner from a spouse thinking, “They will leave the spouse for me, but they will never do the same to me.” When one is of poor character and dishonorable, it is possible for them to change, but such change does not happen overnight and is, for many reasons, unlikely in general. People who are disloyal, and therefore dishonorable, are best avoided until such a time as they have proven themselves made worthy again by their actions.
“We ought to take,” said Socrates, “a man who were the reverse of all those we have mentioned, who would be temperate in his manners, faithful in his promises, and sincere in all his actions; who would think it a point of honour not to be outdone in civilities so that it would be of advantage to have to do with him.” “But how can we be certain of all this,” said Critobulus, “before we have tried him?” “When we would give our judgment of statuaries, we have no regard,” replied Socrates, “to what they say of themselves, but consider their works; and he who has already made good statues is the person of whom we have the best opinion for those he shall make for the future. Apply this to the question you asked me, and be assured that a man who has served his former friends well will be likely to show no less affection for those that come after; as we may strongly conjecture that a groom, whom we have formerly seen dress horses very well, is capable of dressing others.”15
Is there no standard anymore?
What it takes, who I am, where I’ve been
Belong
You can’t be something you’re not
Be yourself, by yourself
Stay away from me
A lesson learned in life
Known from the dawn of time
Respect, walk
“Walk” – Pantera
Van Vugt, Mark and Claire M. Hart, “Social Identity as Social Glue: The Origins of Group Loyalty”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, Vol. 86, No. 4, 585–598. Available as a PDF download here: Social Identity as Social Glue – The Origins of Group Loyalty
Excerpts from the Memorable Thoughts of Socrates by Xenophon: Socrates on Friendship
The whole text of the Memorable Thoughts of Socrates by Xenophon is available on Project Gutenberg here.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on “Loyalty” may be found here.
Lost Society performing “Hollow Eyes”
Behind my hollow eyes
I’m just a creature trying to survive
My blood that runs inside
Getting colder ’til the day I die
We live just to die and we try to justify
The bottomless pit of our soulless lies
Pull my eyes and feed them to the weakest of the weak
I’ve seen the past, the future, but what the fuck does it mean to me
Behind my hollow eyes
I’m just a creature trying to survive
My blood that runs inside
Getting colder ’til the day I die
Burn!
The tears that we all cry
Are as dark as the lies we deny
I hope the things that you would die for
Are worth it in the end
Behind my hollow eyes!
I’m lost without a place to call my own
I’m lost without a place to call my home
Look behind my eyes and tell me what you see
A soul without a reason to be
What if this is what you call hell
And what if I’m doomed to live forever
Nothing can save me
Nobody can break me
I’ve already perished
Behind my hollow eyes
Behind my hollow eyes
Behind my hollow eyes
Pantera performing “Walk”
Is there no standard anymore?
What it takes, who I am, where I’ve been
Belong
You can’t be something you’re not
Be yourself, by yourself
Stay away from me
A lesson learned in life
Known from the dawn of time
Respect, walk
Run your mouth when I’m not around
It’s easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
Can you hear the violins playing your song?
Those same friends tell me your every word
Is there no standard anymore?
What it takes, who I am, where I’ve been
Belong
You can’t be something you’re not
Be yourself, by yourself
Stay away from me
A lesson learned in life
Known from the dawn of time
Respect, walk
Are you talking to me?
No way punk
Walk on home boy