To fit in with the change of events, words, too had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect.
As the result . . . . there was a general deterioration of character throughout the [ . . . ] world. The simple way of looking at things, which is so much the mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each side viewed the other with suspicion.
This sounds a lot like a description of current political discourse . . . . . read on to learn more.
This passage is excerpted from here:CL56: HANDOUT 9 and I found it in Thomas Cahill’s Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter. This isn’t as good as his previous works in the Hinges of History series: it seems rushed and the extensive digressions on sex/erotica, especially given the lack of scholarly language (do we need “giving head” as a descriptive term? Surely anyone mature enough to be interested in the topic will understand a more mature term).
But I did find his quote from Thucydides to have some resonance, and upon reading it in context, it seems he could have used more of it if he was reallty interested in making this book a hatchet job.