Something That Made Me Think

[Steel Tiger]

I encountered this quote and it made me wonder. I began looking at it in terms of the global situation today.

"The conditions of conquest are always easy. We have but to toil awhile, endure awhile, believe always, and never turn back."

Marcus Annaeus Seneca


What do you think? Can you see Seneca's statement in today's world? Is it likely that we are seeing attempted conquest from various groups around the world?

 

[CoryKS]

I think it's stating the obvious, really. It applies not only to military conquest but to any endeavor in which you may find opposition. Your will to succeed has to be stronger than any other countervailing will or you lose. Be prepared to work for it and don't second-guess yourself.

 

[grydth]

I encountered this quote and it made me wonder. I began looking at it in terms of the global situation today.

"The conditions of conquest are always easy. We have but to toil awhile, endure awhile, believe always, and never turn back."

Marcus Annaeus Seneca


What do you think? Can you see Seneca's statement in today's world? Is it likely that we are seeing attempted conquest from various groups around the world?

This could, and should, be the motto for any enemy which has fought the USA since 1945.

 

[tellner]

There's only one problem. It's ********.

The Soviets toiled away in Afghanistan. The Germans toiled in Russia. Napleon toiled all over Europe. Libya toiled against Egypt and Chad. We toiled in Vietnam. We're toiling like hell in Afghanistan and Iraq (and soon in Iran). The Kaiser toiled against Europe. The idea that if you just spend enough blood and impoverish yourselves for long enough victory is assured is simply insane.

Seneca was a conquest-crazed old warmonger. Millenia later he's still wrong.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Note he said the "conditions of conquest" not "you are assured victory if...". Just beacuse you set some conditions doesnt mean that you dont have to do the work or adapt to the conditions in the field. I think hes right, if you dont go into a fight with that mindset, dont even start. If you turn tail at the first sign of difficulty you might as well move to France.

 

[thardey]

There's only one problem. It's ********.

The Soviets toiled away in Afghanistan. The Germans toiled in Russia. Napleon toiled all over Europe. Libya toiled against Egypt and Chad. We toiled in Vietnam. We're toiling like hell in Afghanistan and Iraq (and soon in Iran). The Kaiser toiled against Europe. The idea that if you just spend enough blood and impoverish yourselves for long enough victory is assured is simply insane.

Seneca was a conquest-crazed old warmonger. Millenia later he's still wrong.

Reminds me of a Pyrrhic Victory. Even if you win, you still lose. It's like arguing with your wife or girlfriend. Even if you win, you're still wrong.


Tellner's right. It's a good attitude to have towards many individual goals, that is, perseverance has gotten me more benefits that any skill or luck, (Have you ever noticed that if something is failing, it's stubbornness, but after you make it work, it's called perseverance? But I digress.) but it should also be balanced with more common wisdom such as "pick your battles", or the "principle of diminishing returns."

“Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand" (Luke 14:31)

 

[CoryKS]

Reminds me of a Pyrrhic Victory. Even if you win, you still lose. It's like arguing with your wife or girlfriend. Even if you win, you're still wrong.


Tellner's right. It's a good attitude to have towards many individual goals, that is, perseverance has gotten me more benefits that any skill or luck, (Have you ever noticed that if something is failing, it's stubbornness, but after you make it work, it's called perseverance? But I digress.) but it should also be balanced with more common wisdom such as "pick your battles", or the "principle of diminishing returns."

Actually, he's wrong. But the way in which he is wrong highlights certain weasel words in the original quote. Such as "a while", which doesn't specify a time. Yes, the Soviets toiled away in Afghanistan. But the Afghanis toiled longer. We toiled away in Vietnam, but the North toiled longer. That may not have been the case indefinitely, and even the NVA commanders have admitted that they would not have lasted much longer, but we turned back. And though it's true that you can't spend and bleed indefinitely, this brings us to weasel word number 2: "endure". This makes the assumption that you have the resources necessary for conquest. If you impoverish yourself, either in manpower or treasure, you are, by definition, not enduring. And then there is "never turn back". This renders the quote a tautology. If you run out of resources, you have not endured. If you turn back, you have chosen to fail. So, assuming the neverending means to endure plus the decision not to stop fighting, victory is assured. Basically what the quote says is that to win, you must not lose. Well, yeah.

 

[thardey]

Actually, he's wrong. But the way in which he is wrong highlights certain weasel words in the original quote. Such as "a while", which doesn't specify a time. Yes, the Soviets toiled away in Afghanistan. But the Afghanis toiled longer. We toiled away in Vietnam, but the North toiled longer. That may not have been the case indefinitely, and even the NVA commanders have admitted that they would not have lasted much longer, but we turned back. And though it's true that you can't spend and bleed indefinitely, this brings us to weasel word number 2: "endure". This makes the assumption that you have the resources necessary for conquest. If you impoverish yourself, either in manpower or treasure, you are, by definition, not enduring. And then there is "never turn back". This renders the quote a tautology. If you run out of resources, you have not endured. If you turn back, you have chosen to fail. So, assuming the neverending means to endure plus the decision not to stop fighting, victory is assured. Basically what the quote says is that to win, you must not lose. Well, yeah.

"The conditions of conquest are always easy. We have but to toil awhile, endure awhile, believe always, and never turn back."

Marcus Annaeus Seneca

The whole thing is made of "weasel words". We could argue and re-define "conquest", "always", "easy", "but", "toil", "awhile", "endure", "believe" and "turn back".

It could be interpreted:
"The way to win is simple: Work harder, last longer, keep your faith, and don't give up". (which I would agree with).

Or it could be read:
"Victory is not hard: keep working at it, persevere, believe you can win, and never retreat." (which I would disagree with.)

Or it could be read in a hundred other ways. When it comes down to it, it says nothing. So, it's ********.

 

[tellner]

Excellent summation thardey. Seneca made a grand statement with no semantic content whatsoever. You can read it in a lot of ways. But he was wrong then, and he is still wrong. Failure is possible even if you really really want to win and send lots of people out to die for you for a long time. If what you're doing fails you can always say "But if I'd only done it longer, suffered more, spent more and killed a few more people it woulda coulda shoulda worked because it's just gotta." That is damned near the textbook definition of neurotic compulsion.

 

[CoryKS]

I disagree. I think he stated a truism. That's not the same as saying it is ********, and it's certainly not the same as saying it's wrong. I don't know, maybe it wasn't as obvious back then and needed saying. Like most things here in the Study, it looks different when you're not parsing everything through the WARBAD! filter.

 

[Marginal]

I disagree. I think he stated a truism. That's not the same as saying it is ********, and it's certainly not the same as saying it's wrong. I don't know, maybe it wasn't as obvious back then and needed saying. Like most things here in the Study, it looks different when you're not parsing everything through the WARBAD! filter.

So... Then...

Yay conquest?!?

 

[CoryKS]

So... Then...

Yay conquest?!?

Wow. I hope that didn't hurt.

We really need a "facepalm" smiley.

 

[thardey]

The Sphinx: To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.
The Sphinx: You must lash out with every limb, like the octopus who plays the drums.
The Sphinx: He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.
The Sphinx: You must be like wolf pack, not six-pack.

Mr. Furious: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...
The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...
Mr. Furious: ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?
The Sphinx: Not necessarily.

From "Mystery Men"

I guess that's about all I get out of the saying. I just doesn't say anything to me. Calling it "********" doesn't mean I thinks it's false, (there's no way to tell) it just means I think it's worth about as much at the end of the day. Throw in $2.50 and I can get a coffee.

If it means something useful to people, then I'm glad it helped!

Wouldn't it just be simpler to say "If you want to win, do the things that it takes to win."?

Or Cory put rather well, I thought:

to win, you must not lose. Well, yeah.

Very true, but not particularly inspiring.

I don't know who this guy was, but I'm guessing he didn't say this in English, so maybe some translator made it more poetic than it needed to be.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I think that Seneca's statement has a very important relationship to context. He was speaking from a position of stunning military superiority at the end of the Roman Republic. He was an orator who specialised in rhetoric, in particular the rhetorical question.

In his day he lived in the lands of the undisputed masters of the Mediterranean so it is not surprising that he might think conquest easy. Rome had, by that time, seen off all rivals in the nearby regions.

Then again he may be putting forward a point to be argued. He did write ten volumes of rhetoric that followed the form of a number of men arguing over some point or other. If that was the point of this particular statement then I think he would be pleased with our discourse.

 

[thardey]

I think that Seneca's statement has a very important relationship to context. He was speaking from a position of stunning military superiority at the end of the Roman Republic. He was an orator who specialised in rhetoric, in particular the rhetorical question.

In his day he lived in the lands of the undisputed masters of the Mediterranean so it is not surprising that he might think conquest easy. Rome had, by that time, seen off all rivals in the nearby regions.

Then again he may be putting forward a point to be argued. He did write ten volumes of rhetoric that followed the form of a number of men arguing over some point or other. If that was the point of this particular statement then I think he would be pleased with our discourse.

Ah, I didn't realize it was supposed to be rhetoric. Sounds like a bit of sophistry mixed in for fun. Plus a healthy dose of ego.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Ah, I didn't realize it was supposed to be rhetoric. Sounds like a bit of sophistry mixed in for fun. Plus a healthy dose of ego.

Can't disagree on any of those points, especially the ego.

 

[Marginal]

Wow. I hope that didn't hurt.

Hey, it's your truism.