NationStates Jolt Archive

Marcus Brutus turned on his oldest friend, Gaius Julius Caesar, to preserve the Republican ideal and stand behind his convictions against tyranny.

Could you have done the same?

Would you sacrifice your relationships for your ideologies?

Marcus Brutus turned on his oldest friend, Gaius Julius Caesar, to preserve the Republican ideal and stand behind his convictions against tyranny.

Could you have done the same?

Would you sacrifice your relationships for your ideologies?

Probably not. I lack that kind of resolve and conviction.

Yes.

I am in the mood today to sacrifice most of my relationships anyway.....

Marcus Brutus turned on his oldest friend, Gaius Julius Caesar, to preserve the Republican ideal and stand behind his convictions against tyranny.

Could you have done the same?

Would you sacrifice your relationships for your ideologies?

I don't know. Possibly. It depends on what kind of sacrifice we're talking about here. It's not as if I would ever be willing to kill someone, as that's one of the very things I'd be standing behind, so to speak.

I will say this though...Brutus may have killed his friend, and while I dislike killing to the extreme, he did it for a vast number of very good reasons and--had it worked successfully--would have prevented many more lives from being lost due to the imperialistic stances the Roman Empire would take, and as such, the way he is treated as a traitor and condemned in so much of fiction--such as being one of those stuck on the Ninth Level of Hell in Dante's Inferno--bothers me quite a bit.

...

Wait a second. For some vague reason I'm getting the impression that Brutus himself was a fictional character, unless Dante's Inferno was written before William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar play, which I think it was. (What, 1300 something?)

Probably not. I lack that kind of resolve and conviction.

I agree. If only because I lack the constitution to kill in cold blood, though I suppose, if one lived through enough suffering...one can get used to anything, and emotions can be weeded out.

I agree. If only because I lack the constitution to kill in cold blood, though I suppose, if one lived through enough suffering...one can get used to anything, and emotions can be weeded out.

That I can see. But I lack the strength of conviction of my beliefs to take another life to defend them, especially the life of another human being who I care about.

That sounds like a double standard, but it's a double standard that's pretty much unavoidable.

I don't know. Possibly. It depends on what kind of sacrifice we're talking about here. It's not as if I would ever be willing to kill someone, as that's one of the very things I'd be standing behind, so to speak.

I will say this though...Brutus may have killed his friend, and while I dislike killing to the extreme, he did it for a vast number of very good reasons and--had it worked successfully--would have prevented many more lives from being lost due to the imperialistic stances the Roman Empire would take, and as such, the way he is treated as a traitor and condemned in so much of fiction--such as being one of those stuck on the Ninth Level of Hell in Dante's Inferno--bothers me quite a bit.

...

Wait a second. For some vague reason I'm getting the impression that Brutus himself was a fictional character, unless Dante's Inferno was written before William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar play, which I think it was. (What, 1300 something?)

Brutus was quite real, and is the subject of much medieval literature, including both Dante and Shakespeare. He is viewed as a traitor because he betrayed his Caesar's confidence, but also because the actions leading up to and following the assassination against the figure of the state (Caesar) resulted in chaos which gave rise to the Caesars, the emperors.

To be honest, whether Caesar lived or dies the Republic was dead.

It died before Caesar entered the Senate really, he was just the last of a procession of dictators. The subsequent chaos which allowed Augustus to take power was probably better in the long run as Augustus established himself as 'leading citizen' and was a lot less brutal than he probably would have been as 'dictator for life' had he succeeded Caesar as was Caesar's will at the time of his death.

I'm non-violent personally but if I was dealing with someone like |Caesar... I might just have picked up the dagger.

Brutus was quite real, and is the subject of much medieval literature, including both Dante and Shakespeare. He is viewed as a traitor because he betrayed his Caesar's confidence, but also because the actions leading up to and following the assassination against the figure of the state (Caesar) resulted in chaos which gave rise to the Caesars, the emperors.
Ah. So in other words his actions had the exact opposite effect from what he intended, so he is villified despite actually being a good person who was trying to work towards the greater good of everyone he knew and loved.

...how unfair.

Good thing to know he was real...the last thing I'd want to do is mourn about a fictional character I don't give a damn about.

Venereal Complication: I doubt Brutus could have truly known that. Remember, we're acting on hindsight--by thousands of years, no less--while he was working with the knowledge he had at the time.

Would I kill to save the world? Indeed. Brutus as he saw it killed Caesar to save the whole world from tyrants. Too bad his some of his constituants didn't hold such opinions and too bad it failed. Rome might have lasted tot his day if not for the Emperors.

Actually, if I recall correctly, Brutus betrayed Caesar twice. i forget the details of the first occasion, but Caesar ended up forgiving him for it, even though all his officers and generals told him it was a bad idea.

so he is villified despite actually being a good person who was trying to work towards the greater good of everyone he knew and loved.


That's one interpretation. Or Brutus might just have had it in for the guy who'd stopped him marrying his childhood sweetheart. Plus Caesar had a high-profile affair with Brutus' mum, causing his parents' marriage to break up, then declined to marry her after the divorce.

Maybe he helped kill Caesar in a desperate attempt to restore the Republic, or maybe his actions were deliberately misrepresented by the conspirators.

the needs of the many exceed the needs of the few

i think he had the right idea, but it completly backfired on him

Actually, if I recall correctly, Brutus betrayed Caesar twice. i forget the details of the first occasion, but Caesar ended up forgiving him for it, even though all his officers and generals told him it was a bad idea.

He took part in two armed conflicts against Caesar, iirc. Caesar was always keen to forgive his enemies, so as not to make himself look too much like a tyrant.

Actually, if I recall correctly, Brutus betrayed Caesar twice. i forget the details of the first occasion, but Caesar ended up forgiving him for it, even though all his officers and generals told him it was a bad idea.

Yes, Brutus fought against Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus. He joined forces with Caesar's mortal opponent, Gnaeus Pompey, but was later forgiven. Julius was prepared to forgive this of his friend--because he felt a bond between them, and did not understand his friend.

That's one interpretation. Or Brutus might just have had it in for the guy who'd stopped him marrying his childhood sweetheart. Plus Caesar had a high-profile affair with Brutus' mum, causing his parents' marriage to break up, then declined to marry her after the divorce.

Maybe he helped kill Caesar in a desperate attempt to restore the Republic, or maybe his actions were deliberately misrepresented by the conspirators.
And unless you're hiding a time machine in your pocket, I doubt we'll ever know.

I tend to prefer not villifying people...maybe because I seem to believe that everyone can always act...better. I'd say I look for the good in everyone except that I don't recognize good and evil as anything more than philisophical concepts that have no basis in reality.

He took part in two armed conflicts against Caesar, iirc. Caesar was always keen to forgive his enemies, so as not to make himself look too much like a tyrant.
Yes, Brutus fought against Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus. He joined forces with Caesar's mortal opponent, Gnaeus Pompey, but was later forgiven. Julius was prepared to forgive this of his friend--because he felt a bond between them, and did not understand his friend.
Ah. Thank you both for refreshing my memory.:)

That's one interpretation. Or Brutus might just have had it in for the guy who'd stopped him marrying his childhood sweetheart. Plus Caesar had a high-profile affair with Brutus' mum, causing his parents' marriage to break up, then declined to marry her after the divorce.

Maybe he helped kill Caesar in a desperate attempt to restore the Republic, or maybe his actions were deliberately misrepresented by the conspirators.

It's quite probable that Brutus was affected by multiple motives, and certainly the situation is intricate and sufficiently complicated that, short of interrogating Brutus, will be left forever to speculation. But it is known that Brutus feared the was an ardent supporter of the Republic. It is not a huge step to suggest that he thus feared the man Caesar had become--blinded by ambition, and with an eye toward an empire that outspoken thinkers (Cicero et al) of the time viewed as ultimately detrimental to the "good" of Rome. In essence, they feared the elimination of senatorial representation--not popular representation, as Caesar bypassed the corrupt Senate and often dealt directly with the people. Many did not want an empire whose borders could be expanded to breaking...exactly what happened 600 years later.

In truth, the complications and explanations can carry on for pages.

For the purpose of the original post, let us take as hypothesis that the overriding justification for Brutus's betrayal was grounded in ideological conviction to preserve a dying Republic.

And unless you're hiding a time machine in your pocket, I doubt we'll ever know.


I've got people working on it, don't you worry...
No, we'll never know, which is possibly one of the reasons why I like history.


I tend to prefer not villifying people...maybe because I seem to believe that everyone can always act...better. I'd say I look for the good in everyone except that I don't recognize good and evil as anything more than philisophical concepts that have no basis in reality.

You don't recognise good and evil? Well, that would explain why you tend not to vilify people...

Marcus Brutus turned on his oldest friend, Gaius Julius Caesar, to preserve the Republican ideal and stand behind his convictions against tyranny.

Could you have done the same?

Would you sacrifice your relationships for your ideologies?

He took part in two armed conflicts against Caesar, iirc. Caesar was always keen to forgive his enemies, so as not to make himself look too much like a tyrant.

Wouldn't you fight (and Die) for what you believe in?

Most freedom fighter (aka resistance) or terrorist (depends on your view) 'live' by this moto!

I've got people working on it, don't you worry...
No, we'll never know, which is possibly one of the reasons why I like history.


Actually, we may eventually know, if we survive long enough to be implanted into robotic bodies, from which point we could survive indefinitely, possibly until humanity develops a method of time travel, through, say, manipulation of negative energy.

You don't recognise good and evil? Well, that would explain why you tend not to vilify people...
Why would I? They don't exist beyond fiction and philosophy. Everything we do is defined partially by our sentience and partially by our instincts; even morality is something we're born with, that develops as part of our sentience. There is no such thing as true good or true evil, only perspectives, and as such I just prefer to ditch the concepts altogether and go with something based in science and reality.

Actually, we may eventually know, if we survive long enough to be implanted into robotic bodies, from which point we could survive indefinitely, possibly until humanity develops a method of time travel, through, say, manipulation of negative energy.

Why would I? They don't exist beyond fiction and philosophy. Everything we do is defined partially by our sentience and partially by our instincts; even morality is something we're born with, that develops as part of our sentience. There is no such thing as true good or true evil, only perspectives, and as such I just prefer to ditch the concepts altogether and go with something based in science and reality.

Whether an action is good or evil is not a factor in the now; an action simply is, and is justified in the moment of its realization.

Evil and good are legitimate delineations in the observation of past actions.

It's quite probable that Brutus was affected by multiple motives, and certainly the situation is intricate and sufficiently complicated that, short of interrogating Brutus, will be left forever to speculation.


That's (currently) how I interpret his actions - personally and ideologically motivated. After all, people are complicated.

Anyway we are, as you say, off the OP topic.
I suppose there might be circumstances where a moral crisis would force me to turn against a friend. In a way, it happened to me a couple of years ago when a friend from work was having an affair. However, it's not a great comparison - the friendship in question had been going badly wrong for some time. Plus I wasn't exactly called upon to commit cold blooded murder.

That's (currently) how I interpret his actions - personally and ideologically motivated. After all, people are complicated.

Anyway we are, as you say, off the OP topic.
I suppose there might be circumstances where a moral crisis would force me to turn against a friend. In a way, it happened to me a couple of years ago when a friend from work was having an affair. However, it's not a great comparison - the friendship in question had been going badly wrong for some time. Plus I wasn't exactly called upon to commit cold blooded murder.

No one says you have to be a literal Brutus. Betrayal does not necessarily involve murder--it's a convenient gauge of the significance of the betrayal. ;)

Why would I? They don't exist beyond fiction and philosophy. Everything we do is defined partially by our sentience and partially by our instincts; even morality is something we're born with, that develops as part of our sentience. There is no such thing as true good or true evil, only perspectives, and as such I just prefer to ditch the concepts altogether and go with something based in science and reality.

Surely if they are defined, even partly, by our instincts then there must be something to them.
Anyway it's an interesting claim, but probable belongs on another thread.

EDIT: 'probable belongs'?! Hayfever medication has messed me up.

Go here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529191). :)

No one says you have to be a literal Brutus. Betrayal does not necessarily involve murder--it's a convenient gauge of the significance of the betrayal. ;)

Oh, OK.
Well, on this occasion I didn't consider my actions much of a betrayal. Certainly not on the same level as having an affair with someone whose long-term girlfriend has shown you nothing but kindness, trust and understanding.

Whoa - it was about three years ago, but I still get annoyed thinking about it...

Whether an action is good or evil is not a factor in the now; an action simply is, and is justified in the moment of its realization.

Evil and good are legitimate delineations in the observation of past actions.
That's an interesting way to look at it, certainly. I don't agree with it, but it's definitely an interesting way.

No one says you have to be a literal Brutus. Betrayal does not necessarily involve murder--it's a convenient gauge of the significance of the betrayal. ;)
Aye. After all, as I said, any betrayel with me would involve NOT killing anyone, as I doubt I ever could unless absolutely no other option possible whatsoever was presented, and even then I'd be extremely reluctant to do it.

Surely if they are defined, even partly, by our instincts then there must be something to them.
Anyway it's an interesting claim, but probable belongs on another thread.
That's the thing though: it's purely a matter of perspective. Some people see homosexuality as evil, while others see it as fine and dandy. Some see pre-marital sex as evil, while others are okay with it, and so on and so forth. Sure, there are some things that are mostly universal--such as killing being wrong--but that's more a case of what is hard-wired into us when it comes to preserving the species, and even there it doesn't hold true for everyone, as we see with murderers and serial killers and what have you.

That said, you are correct that this is not the thread upon which to discuss this matter, so I shall thusly shut my mouth.