do you think that Caesar was happy?

Of course it matters if a ruler is happy! In the first place, it says a lot about the nature of his rule, and of rule in general. Secondly, a rulers happiness says a lot about his morality. That is interesting because a person is never an objective fact, always subject of affections and sentiments.

Caesar was Julius’ personal nickname. After he became Rome’s first solitary ruler, the name Caesar was adopted as a term to denote Roman rulership. Later it has been used as Kaiser and Czar, the German and Russian terms for ruler of an empire.

I personally think that Caesar enjoyed a happiness so great few of us can imagine, and that the consequence of his murder was a small thing compared to his cumulative experience. But at the same time it is clear that he can be seen as a genocidal maniac, slaughtering entire tribes of hundreds of thousands.

That is the question I’m asking as well - do you think that a mass murdering tyrant can also be seen as a virtuous man? The answer is of course yes, because we do, as a culture, admire Caesar. I would say that we need to revise our ideas on the morality of violence to account for these things, in order to be able to deal with the concept of inflicting suffering more intelligently.

And not make claims like “the world is evil because I am in such pain”, or “God cannot exist because if he did he would not allow suffering.” What the hell is that, really? Who ever said God opposes suffering? The Bible makes it quite clear that the entity it describes greatly values suffering and never shuns to impose it on his loved ones.

Sorry to derail now to religion, this was only an example of how the fear of suffering obscures our view of our real moral principles, which, as I believe, favor violence if it is for a cause we admire.

FC…

I think that you are sort of right or probably right in your thought line but to say that is is just “suffering” caused is one thing, but in reality it is temporary “suffering”…but then it isn’t really suffering as in pain at least not necessarily, it is more like having to work to get the goal… things don’t come free… if one sees that the doing is valuable regardless of what one must sacrifice of the self, be that time, effort, etc, then it should not really be seen as suffering, or negatively “sacrifice” it is more like giving and receiving, putting forth to get back. In other words if to help humanity survive and be happy for a really long time, it is worth having to work for that and pay for it by having to give away parts of what is had… But what comes in is the capacity for one to justifiably decide whether another sacrifices them self for the cause for the one person… And if it may actually be better to keep people alive almost always, which is what i think …IDK

Yes I understand what you mean, like Bertrand Russels famous quote “No one can sit next too a dieing child and believe God’” as if the invincibility of children is a condition for the existance of god.

Im not sure if Caeser would be considered genocidal, to be honest I haven’t researched much about him.

Indeed. What an idiot!

Well I read some about him and he didn’t shun to erase whole tribes and these tribes were fairly vast.

In Caesars time there weren’t really concepts such as “people” , you had either citizens or barbarians. Barbarians were uncivilized, not Roman, thus worth nothing in comparison to a citizen, let alone the whole glory of Rome! Happiness simply doesn’t rely on humanistic morality. Which brings me to FJs question:

He must have been exhilirated by most of that I cannot imagine anything else at least. Wouldn’t you?

No, happiness in real life, like you say. I imagine that he has had lots of very happy moments, more then most of us, more than me likely. I want to talk about the happiness of tyrants, people who do thing that we consider morally wrong.

Or would Caesar have secretly suffered immensely and maybe he was glad to be killed?

I didn’t mean to necessarily say happiness in the way i think you are thinking about it so much as satisfaction or accomplishment of what is best, happiness is pretty much just a feeling that follows that , it is to say happiness like to say “I drove my 4 wheels to work”, rather than to say “i drove my car to work”…maybe…

I imagine that many of the accomplishors like that do not feel happiness like some, as sharp exhilaration, I imagine Caesar was simply content and satisfied, and probably wasn’t afraid of thing that might occur or the loss of happiness so much…IDK

[quote]
“lizbethrose”]Beyond that, who really cares whether or not a ruler of the Roman Empire was ‘happy?’ Does that have any relevance to how history transpired?

What relevance does how history transpired have to the OP? He didn’t ask how history transpired. He asked if you think Caesar was happy.

That doesn’t answer my question about which Caesar we supposed to be discussing: in Roman history there were many. I asked FC which Caesar he meant–a perfectly legitimate question before any answer to his op can be given. If he meant Julius Caesar, that’s fine. But what’s he trying to ask? Was Julius Caesar ‘happy’ when Cleopatra came to him wrapped in a rug? Was he happy during his affair with her? Was he happy when he was victorious in battle? Was he happy when he was declared “dictator in perpetuity?” Was he happy when Crassus died?

Or does FC want to talk about the ‘feeling’ of happiness, in general?

And, please, let FC answer–it’s his topic, after all.

I don’t know why you posted this at all, this response is just nonsense. I know i didn’t answer your question about which Caesar, I agree that it’s a reasonable question, I never said otherwise and that’s precisely why i didn’t quote that part in my response. It’s fine that you asked that.

By sarcastically saying that it’s my topic, you really only show your own hypocrisy: you’re the only one who came here and tried to change the subject from Caesar’s happiness to some completely random other topic about “how history transpired.” I have no clue why you did that. Nobody is talking about how history transpired here and you come and say that that’s what we should be talking about. Why should we talk about that? Why can’t mrCross talk about Caesar’s happiness?

If you want to come in here and say that OP’s topic is not worth talking about, tell us why. Tell us why we should be talking about how history transpired instead of this.

I suggest you understand the difference between FC (FixedCross) and FJ (Flannel Jesus.) Then go back and re-read. Personal apologies are always accepted; personal checks aren’t.

Don’t derail into religion.

Caesar wasn’t a nickname–it was a family name meaning ‘hairy’, btw. It later became a title. That’s not really important.

“Can a mass murdering tyrant also be seen as a virtuous man?”

Yes, both as he was in time and as he is in history. It depends on your point of view. If he believed in “Veni, Vidi, Vici” as something the Roman populace wanted and needed, it was virtuous. If the Roman populace wasn’t particularly interested in a small war in Turkey, then it becomes a statement of personal aggrandizement which is nothing more than political. Is this ‘happy’ or is it self-promotion in order to achieve a political goal?

Which is it that you want to talk about?

Good to see you are giving orders now.

It is perfectly clear who I mean when I say Caesar. If I had meant Augustus Caesar I would have said Augustus, if I had meant Tiberius Caesar I would have said Tiberius, obviously not Caesar.

Do you mean if he believed that his victory was good for Rome?

Or what else could you mean by “if he believed in 'Veni, Vidi, Vici”… do you question that he believed that he had come, seen and conquered?

I am asking a simple question. Was he happy?

I want to talk about the fact that violence makes people happy, and that by some standards this would mean it is virtuous.

Yeah I think Caesar was happy because he was a very emotional man which is demonstrated by his crying at the statue of Alexander. If it bothered him so much that he didn’t have success and glory, that made him unhappy. So it is natural that he would have been very happy when the success started coming. Like I said Caesar was probably very emotional, some even said in his time that he was gay, because of how he walked and dressed.

Okay, then we agree. But that raises the next question: how did his rationale work?

I agree; the assassination was a short event. It was negligibly short in comparison with the rest of his life. Therefore, I would say that he was mostly happy, as far as we know. To be happy, in this context, means to feel good about what a person is doing. Yes, it is only a guess.
.

What are you talking about?

Julius Caesar was either happy with his decisions or he wasn’t. He was either happy with his wife, Pompeia, or he wasn’t. He was either happy with Cleopatra and their son, or he wasn’t. With respect, Jonquil and FC, I don’t understand what this topic is about; you seem to.

Until FC explains his first question, how can he go on to another question. “How did his (Caesar’s) rationale work?”

Does an unexplained and undefined ‘happiness’ lead to a rationale? A rationale for what?

I must be very unlearned, but I really don’t understand what either the subject or the object of the thread is. Mea culpa.

I think the idea is to speculate as to how ceaser thought. Which can be aplicable to many exterior motivations, considerations, or quandaries.

I think you are just here to object to me, not caring if what you write down can be understood by anyone.
In fact you have been behaving like somewhat of a lunatic since I have disagreed with you for the first time.
There is nothing difficult to understand about the question. If I had asked it of Hitler, you would undoubtably have taken issue with the very notion that he could have been happy.

For his actions of course.

Most likely you are, judging by the way you ostentatiously include bits of random trivia in your posts.

Yes but his happiness was cruel and hard on him Methinx.
Harder than the pain of you is on you. Harharharhareth!!

FC–I think you’re placing to much importance on yourself when you say:

I asked you to identify the Caesar about whom you were speaking, since there were more than one and they were all soldiers. I know some things–such as where his name came from and who his wife was, his affair with Cleopatra, etc–because I was in a high school production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and read a lot about him so as to give thought behind my character. And I asked who really cared whether or not he was ‘happy,’

I asked that question in an effort to understand what the intent of the thread was; which is something I still don’t understand! I could have asked, “What do you mean by 'happy?”–I didn’t because I didn’t know where you wanted to go with your thread. Perhaps I should have. I mean, it’s like asking if Genghis Khan, or Saladin, or Constantine, or Alexander, or (yes, even) Hitler was happy! I imagine they all were–I imagine they all had unhappy times, as well.

So, I’ll ask now, what do you mean by ‘happy?’ Do you mean, “Did Caesar have a feeling of pride and accomplishment when he did his job as he thought his job was?” Would he have done his job if he didn’t?

If he had a feeling of pride and accomplishment because he was able to bring more land under Roman control, thereby expanding the Roman Empire, which do you think meant the most to him–his personal feelings, or expanding the Roman Empire?

I also meant to ask you when you disagreed with me the first time.

I think the two were inextricably linked. Because I do not think that humans can experience anything separate from their context. I think that he would have been unhappy if he had continued to fail as a statesman/conquerer.

By the way, I have strong doubts that Hitler was as happy as Caesar (I am talking about Julius, the one who is in the play). I think that a man going out into the field, exploring territory, meeting different cultures and having a healthy sex life, to name some things that distinguish Caesar from Hitler, is more prone to happiness (I think we both understand the meaning of the word) than someone who doesn’t do any of these things.