"The most terrible evil, death, is nothing for us, since when we exist, death does not exist, and when death exists, we do not exist." - Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus.

Thank you for asking this important question.

My favorite passage in the Iliad is when Priam visits Achilles' tent, and the two men weep together for their respective losses. Achilles has not only killed Priam's son, but (perhaps even worse for the ancient Greeks) desecrated his body and refused to return it for burial. Priam has every reason to call Achilles a savage, a barbarian, a human animal, fit only for slaughter.  But he doesn't. He recognizes that Achilles' rage is motivated by a grief as deep as his own. So the two men sit together and weep.

I wish that we still had this ethos. I wish that the people with their fingers on triggers in Israel and Gaza, and those giving them orders, could recognize each other's grief, and not wish to multiply it.

I think about this change in our attitude toward enemies in terms of the kind of stories we tell.  

In Ancient Greece, the two main dramatic genres were tragedy and comedy.  In tragedy, conflict comes from a hero with a tragic flaw (such as Oedipus' temper), or a conflict between two people with good reasons for what they are doing (Antigone's devotion to family against Creon's devotion to country).  In comedy, everyone is flawed and confused, but they manage to reconcile their differences and muddle along together anyway.  

Now, most stories we tell are melodramas. The conflict is between a hero, representing what is good in the world, and a villain, representing evil. The proper resolution for a melodramatic conflict is the elimination of the villain. Problems are solved by figuring out who needs to be gotten rid of. We can see the disastrous results of this way of thinking in the headlines every day.

I would like to see us cultivate a more tragic view of the world, in which we recognize our enemies as flawed humans like ourselves, who (most of the time) genuinely believe what they're doing is right.  Yes, sometimes we still have to fight them.  Sometimes it ends badly.  But we don't have to dismiss our opponents' humanity, and in so doing cauterize our own.  And occasionally we might, as in comedy, be able to find a way to work it out.

Warm Regards,

Asa 

Indeed, noble Hector was a sympathetic figure in the Iliad, the good son to his parents and his community, an empathic husband and father to his family, and the best of all Trojan warriors.  But he came in second, and for this reason is less remembered than the famous fleet footed Achilles.  

A flawed human that he was, nonetheless, Achilles showed greatness of heart in returning Hector’s corpse to Priam for burial. For Achilles the decision to forego a long and wizened life for the glory of eternal fame is what made him the greatest warrior of all time.

My mother Thetis a moving grace,

Tell me two fates that sweep me to my death.

If I stay here and fight, I will never return home,

But my glory will be undying forever.

If I return home to my dear fatherland

My glory is lost but my life will be long.

Homer, The Iliad, 1970 (Robert Fitzgerald trans)

George P. Z.

Loved it.  Zeus supported his team in war, but did he ever ORDER his followers to start war?

My prophet is not Campbell but Lennon: “Just imagine, nothing to kill or die for, no religion too”

Roger

Very interesting question. I am inclined to think that both aspects referred to, the spiritual distancing (monotheism in place of a more universal 'animism') and technological distancing both play their parts. 

To expand a little, psychological distancing allows othering to be more easily achieved and more complete. The industrialisation of warfare and oppression allows this psychological distancing to become very pronounced, dehumanizing 'the enemy' and allowing it to become the repository of the shadow (individual and collective).  What is abhorred in the self is placed on the enemy and distancing allows denial to go unchallenged.  

Similarly the ability to spiritually 'other' is enhanced by a monotheistic view whereas an animist view places the same spiritual value on all things, undermining the notion of moral high ground. 

 Best regards 

J Thomas 

What is meant by an enemy is probably the key to the question. I define ‘enemy’ as anyone that seeks your destruction. So in that case, an enemy should be seen in the prism that only one of us survives by destroying the other.

Moral people and wise nations understand no other nation or people can ever be their friends. The goal is to keep them from becoming enemies if at all possible. America loves to run all over the world seeking monsters to combat and destroy. They have become the very monster they were founded in opposition to.

These foreign entanglements are directly counter to the Founding Fathers’ admonitions that our role was to avoid such and strive to live in peace, unless there was no other way but to take up the fight when someone comes against the nation and people. This then creates a terrible resolve to save the country and people by unconditionally defeating the attackers.

However, causing the attack through a false flag or foreign policy damaging another country is not consistent with this action. Regrettably enemies are now created and merchandise for profit, straight out of 1984. The Founding Fathers weep.

Charles F.