If I recall correctly, Herbert was upset by how many people liked Paul and viewed him as a hero, and he felt compelled to write the sequels to undo that. Of course, that may actual point out the Great Man Theory has more merit than Herbert would like to admit when one consider that even in Herbert's fictional work designed to undermine the Great Man theory people accepted Paul as a Great Man.
Haha great points. So I head 2 things from Herbert: 1 that he had the first three planned out and had to split them for the sake of publishing--but I kind of don't buy this, and 2 that he wrote Messiah to get the point across, then failed at that so wrote Children and finally got ths point to stick in God Emperor. I think 2 is true but he just makes the characters too likeable and too much victims of circumstance for us to hate them
I think that Herbert may subscribe to Lord Acton's famous dictum: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." You certainly see that tendency in the Harkonnen's, and even though it seems Paul is aware of the dangers of power, given the prophecies and what seems to be a largely deterministic universe, he is powerless to stop the prophecies from coming true and fulfilling his destiny.
Herbert also appears to have a rather dim view of human nature, as reflected in the complex moral struggles the characters undergo. Obviously, Arabic culture was a significant influence on Herbert. I wonder if Islam played an important role in shaping the moral universe of Dune?
Thinking about the idea of Great Man Theory... I'm torn on Paul. It definitely seems that Paul has little choice in what's happening... or that if he does have a choice it's fairly minor points of choice. Reading ahead a bit, this changes a bit, but not a ton. It reminds me a lot of The Iliad, the characters are swept up in fate/destiny rather than having any agency... and yet they still make choices and we still like/despise them for those choices. I think your point about whether Paul's alternative "futures" being real is a good one... it isn't exactly clear!
Reading a bit into history, I remember Mike Duncan on the History of Rome podcast arguing that history is really a combination of great men and great times... and that sometimes one is in the drivers seat while other times the other is and sometimes it's a combination. For example, post WW1 Germany was rife with discontent and anger... AND Adolf Hitler was a particularly intoxicating figure, remove either and you may not get Nazi Germany.
It seems to me that Arrakis post the death of Kynes is in a similar situation, having lost their leader who directed frenetic energy of the Fremen into restoring the planet slowly over generations, the Fremen are now susceptible to a power vacuum... and the specific man that steps in will shape and alter that energy as they see fit... regardless, that energy is going somewhere.
If this is true, then what are we supposed to do as human beings? If Paul, who by all indications is a potential philosopher king is evil per Herbert, then what is the solution if you lose a man like Kynes? Or is Kynes death ultimately also the fault of Paul, but Paul did not manufacture his predicament, the emperor and his grandfather did, so are they the true source of evil?
This is probably super rambling and I hope I can clarify my thoughts before our next meeting, but again great essay Parker! Thank you!
Aside from eisegesis, I find the attribution of the Four Classical Virtues—wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice—to certain characters in Dune problematic. The cases of Thufir Hawat and Duncan Idaho, in particular, seem misaligned with their supposed virtues.
Mentats like Thufir Hawat are often mistaken for wise simply because they process massive amounts of data and generate probabilities. But wisdom isn’t raw calculation—it’s discernment, judgment, the ability to see beyond logic to deeper truth. Hawat, presented as a master strategist, utterly fails this test. After over 15 years of loyalty from Lady Jessica, he immediately suspects her of treason based on a planted note. Rather than calculate the probability of a ruse—as Duke Leto did instinctively—Hawat becomes fixated on betrayal. His mental prowess becomes a prison, not a compass. This is not wisdom. It’s cognitive blindness masked by training.
Likewise, the claim that Duncan Idaho embodies temperance doesn’t hold. Temperance is about restraint, balance, self-control. Yet we see Idaho arrive drunk in the middle of the night, stumbling into the great hall and creating a spectacle. Jessica is forced to subdue him with the Voice and later confronts Hawat about Idaho’s state as a symptom of deeper discontent among the Atreides. This isn’t the action of a temperate man—it’s emotional exhaustion, a lapse in discipline. Understandable, yes. Exemplary of virtue? Hardly.
If there’s a governing moral axis in Dune, it isn’t classical virtue—it’s hubris. The humans of Herbert’s universe destroyed thinking machines only to chain themselves to something worse: the spice. A new slavery, cloaked in prophecy, bureaucracy, and necessity. Institutions like the Bene Gesserit, the Spacing Guild, and even the Mentats claim noble intent but serve ambition and control. The Major Houses war for power, not peace. The Imperium governs through fear, not justice. Nothing virtuous survives on Arrakis—it is a crucible of ambition.
Herbert’s universe doesn’t showcase virtue—it strips it bare. Dune is a study in ideological entropy, in how systems meant to guide or enlighten become weapons of control. If we find any virtue, it’s in isolated acts of resistance, not in systemic design. It is not a tale of heroes and virtues, but of flawed humans grappling with forces far larger than themselves.
Have you read my other companion essays? In the second one I made the points that you made about Duncan and Hawat and even Leto. They didn't live up to the virtues they are meant to personify. That's the whole point. And Paul is the one who identifies Duncan as the moral and Gurney as the valorous, 2 of the 4 supporters of worlds, the other 2 being wisdom and justice which obviously apply to Hawat and Leto.
So rather than problematic eisegesis, it's more like finding Herbert's deeper point which his hid right in plain sight.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I have indeed read your companion essays and appreciate the layered framework you’re building across them. My comment on this specific post was meant not as a refutation but as a contribution—a way to deepen the dialogue around how the virtues manifest (or fail to) in Dune’s central figures.
I completely see the arc you’re tracing: that these characters represent the Four Virtues aspirationally—and that part of Herbert’s genius is showing how tragically they fall short. That’s an insightful frame. My only pushback would be on the classification of Mentats as embodiments of wisdom.
To me, a Mentat like Hawat doesn’t automatically qualify as wise. Calculation, even at a superhuman level, isn’t synonymous with wisdom. A computer can weigh probabilities, but wisdom involves discernment, humility, emotional intelligence, and—crucially—the capacity to recognize when the model is flawed. Hawat’s betrayal of Jessica, despite years of loyalty and love between them, is a failure of judgment, not logic. In that way, his arc reads more like a tragedy of intelligence detached from insight.
If anyone in the narrative embodies wisdom in the fuller sense, I’d argue it’s Jessica—especially after her transformation among the Fremen. Post-reverend-mother, she carries not just knowledge, but an evolving understanding of the consequences of power, prophecy, and motherhood. Even Alia, despite her instability, reflects that dangerous mix of vast historical insight and human fallibility.
I think we’re aligned in seeing Herbert’s larger point: these virtues aren’t granted, they’re tested—and often, subverted. The figures we think should represent them collapse under pressure, while others, unexpectedly, rise into their place.
Thanks again for creating the space to wrestle with these themes. Few works invite this level of philosophical excavation, and it’s a pleasure to explore it alongside thoughtful readers like yourself.
Awesome essay, reading these has seriously enriched my reading of Dune!
I am so glad to hear that! Thanks Carson! That is just exactly what I'm going for, so to hear that it's working is really rewarding
If I recall correctly, Herbert was upset by how many people liked Paul and viewed him as a hero, and he felt compelled to write the sequels to undo that. Of course, that may actual point out the Great Man Theory has more merit than Herbert would like to admit when one consider that even in Herbert's fictional work designed to undermine the Great Man theory people accepted Paul as a Great Man.
Or maybe it is just ironic?
Haha great points. So I head 2 things from Herbert: 1 that he had the first three planned out and had to split them for the sake of publishing--but I kind of don't buy this, and 2 that he wrote Messiah to get the point across, then failed at that so wrote Children and finally got ths point to stick in God Emperor. I think 2 is true but he just makes the characters too likeable and too much victims of circumstance for us to hate them
I think that Herbert may subscribe to Lord Acton's famous dictum: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." You certainly see that tendency in the Harkonnen's, and even though it seems Paul is aware of the dangers of power, given the prophecies and what seems to be a largely deterministic universe, he is powerless to stop the prophecies from coming true and fulfilling his destiny.
Herbert also appears to have a rather dim view of human nature, as reflected in the complex moral struggles the characters undergo. Obviously, Arabic culture was a significant influence on Herbert. I wonder if Islam played an important role in shaping the moral universe of Dune?
Great essay Parker! Love the artwork too.
Thinking about the idea of Great Man Theory... I'm torn on Paul. It definitely seems that Paul has little choice in what's happening... or that if he does have a choice it's fairly minor points of choice. Reading ahead a bit, this changes a bit, but not a ton. It reminds me a lot of The Iliad, the characters are swept up in fate/destiny rather than having any agency... and yet they still make choices and we still like/despise them for those choices. I think your point about whether Paul's alternative "futures" being real is a good one... it isn't exactly clear!
Reading a bit into history, I remember Mike Duncan on the History of Rome podcast arguing that history is really a combination of great men and great times... and that sometimes one is in the drivers seat while other times the other is and sometimes it's a combination. For example, post WW1 Germany was rife with discontent and anger... AND Adolf Hitler was a particularly intoxicating figure, remove either and you may not get Nazi Germany.
It seems to me that Arrakis post the death of Kynes is in a similar situation, having lost their leader who directed frenetic energy of the Fremen into restoring the planet slowly over generations, the Fremen are now susceptible to a power vacuum... and the specific man that steps in will shape and alter that energy as they see fit... regardless, that energy is going somewhere.
If this is true, then what are we supposed to do as human beings? If Paul, who by all indications is a potential philosopher king is evil per Herbert, then what is the solution if you lose a man like Kynes? Or is Kynes death ultimately also the fault of Paul, but Paul did not manufacture his predicament, the emperor and his grandfather did, so are they the true source of evil?
This is probably super rambling and I hope I can clarify my thoughts before our next meeting, but again great essay Parker! Thank you!
Aside from eisegesis, I find the attribution of the Four Classical Virtues—wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice—to certain characters in Dune problematic. The cases of Thufir Hawat and Duncan Idaho, in particular, seem misaligned with their supposed virtues.
Mentats like Thufir Hawat are often mistaken for wise simply because they process massive amounts of data and generate probabilities. But wisdom isn’t raw calculation—it’s discernment, judgment, the ability to see beyond logic to deeper truth. Hawat, presented as a master strategist, utterly fails this test. After over 15 years of loyalty from Lady Jessica, he immediately suspects her of treason based on a planted note. Rather than calculate the probability of a ruse—as Duke Leto did instinctively—Hawat becomes fixated on betrayal. His mental prowess becomes a prison, not a compass. This is not wisdom. It’s cognitive blindness masked by training.
Likewise, the claim that Duncan Idaho embodies temperance doesn’t hold. Temperance is about restraint, balance, self-control. Yet we see Idaho arrive drunk in the middle of the night, stumbling into the great hall and creating a spectacle. Jessica is forced to subdue him with the Voice and later confronts Hawat about Idaho’s state as a symptom of deeper discontent among the Atreides. This isn’t the action of a temperate man—it’s emotional exhaustion, a lapse in discipline. Understandable, yes. Exemplary of virtue? Hardly.
If there’s a governing moral axis in Dune, it isn’t classical virtue—it’s hubris. The humans of Herbert’s universe destroyed thinking machines only to chain themselves to something worse: the spice. A new slavery, cloaked in prophecy, bureaucracy, and necessity. Institutions like the Bene Gesserit, the Spacing Guild, and even the Mentats claim noble intent but serve ambition and control. The Major Houses war for power, not peace. The Imperium governs through fear, not justice. Nothing virtuous survives on Arrakis—it is a crucible of ambition.
Herbert’s universe doesn’t showcase virtue—it strips it bare. Dune is a study in ideological entropy, in how systems meant to guide or enlighten become weapons of control. If we find any virtue, it’s in isolated acts of resistance, not in systemic design. It is not a tale of heroes and virtues, but of flawed humans grappling with forces far larger than themselves.
Have you read my other companion essays? In the second one I made the points that you made about Duncan and Hawat and even Leto. They didn't live up to the virtues they are meant to personify. That's the whole point. And Paul is the one who identifies Duncan as the moral and Gurney as the valorous, 2 of the 4 supporters of worlds, the other 2 being wisdom and justice which obviously apply to Hawat and Leto.
So rather than problematic eisegesis, it's more like finding Herbert's deeper point which his hid right in plain sight.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I have indeed read your companion essays and appreciate the layered framework you’re building across them. My comment on this specific post was meant not as a refutation but as a contribution—a way to deepen the dialogue around how the virtues manifest (or fail to) in Dune’s central figures.
I completely see the arc you’re tracing: that these characters represent the Four Virtues aspirationally—and that part of Herbert’s genius is showing how tragically they fall short. That’s an insightful frame. My only pushback would be on the classification of Mentats as embodiments of wisdom.
To me, a Mentat like Hawat doesn’t automatically qualify as wise. Calculation, even at a superhuman level, isn’t synonymous with wisdom. A computer can weigh probabilities, but wisdom involves discernment, humility, emotional intelligence, and—crucially—the capacity to recognize when the model is flawed. Hawat’s betrayal of Jessica, despite years of loyalty and love between them, is a failure of judgment, not logic. In that way, his arc reads more like a tragedy of intelligence detached from insight.
If anyone in the narrative embodies wisdom in the fuller sense, I’d argue it’s Jessica—especially after her transformation among the Fremen. Post-reverend-mother, she carries not just knowledge, but an evolving understanding of the consequences of power, prophecy, and motherhood. Even Alia, despite her instability, reflects that dangerous mix of vast historical insight and human fallibility.
I think we’re aligned in seeing Herbert’s larger point: these virtues aren’t granted, they’re tested—and often, subverted. The figures we think should represent them collapse under pressure, while others, unexpectedly, rise into their place.
Thanks again for creating the space to wrestle with these themes. Few works invite this level of philosophical excavation, and it’s a pleasure to explore it alongside thoughtful readers like yourself.
I feel the same way, appreciating your detailed comments!
https://open.substack.com/pub/parknotes/p/whats-a-ruler-without-wisdom-justice?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1n883j