Ancient Greece mesmerized modern Westerners for centuries. enthusiastic
researchers went to talk about a "Greek miracle", and even if they went too
far, it is easy to understand why they were so happy: Ancient Greek hero
shows Kindred, who cultivated virtues, harnessed individual powers for the
greater good of their towns and fraternities, worshiping tutelary gods,
could rise from the war to the enterprise, and toil in the fields of
philosophy. Or, at least, is the feeling of their works communicate.
Although we know that the weather tends to fix things, and what we have
classical Greeks was perhaps the best they have produced their writings
show a people who managed to unite sophistication energy male.
Greeks knew caste and Indo-European tripartite organization. Homer and
Plato explicitly mention these. However, they had lower social class than
other companies. The neighboring Persian Empire had a pyramid structure,
with many slaves, whipped by small employers rather unsympathetic & # 8212;
that could have decapitated were omnipotent despot to control. As said
Leonidas in 300: "You have many slaves, Xerxes, but few warriors. "For a
warrior is not only a man brandishing a weapon and the weapon is not the
warrior. Only a free man, worthy deserve the label.
Since they lived in the city-states, the Greeks were not removed from
centers of power. Their city could be the vassal or dependent on another
party, most powerful city, but they knew who was managing it. Men were what
the Romans called paterfamilias & # 8212; heads of their families, kings in
their homes. As power scales are low and people preferred Excellence (edge
ἀρετή) games bullshit, more or less everybody knew where they were and
those among knew they could trust those above . In some cities, you could
try to increase its capital by committing to, say, & # 8212; and finance &
# 8212; military and commercial shipping. In others, particularly Athens, a
draw will decide who should be appointed.
In another article, I said Socrates, the archetypal philosopher, undermined
by attacking several sociability of its fundamental aspects. Aiming to
overcome the Sophists, Socrates their own dialectical games against them,
but his questions and absurd definitional standards contrived tore common
sense aside Plato shows him rejecting various definitions of piety and
courage until concludes that we have no adequate idea of these concepts.
If that is the case, can we know what we have to comply? Do we really aim
to be courageous? Reject all landmarks and you get through life without a
compass.
However, when Socrates was sentenced to death for trialed and messing with
the gods, one of his contemporaries, Xenophon wrote a touching compilation
moments "memorable" of Socrates. It is thinly veiled excuses trying to
prove them wrong accusers philosophers. Xenophon insists above all on the
amount of Socrates practiced virtue, respect the common gods, encouraged
people to act positively and well taught by pure example.
Indeed Socrates had his house was a full citizen, went to battle at least
three times during the Peloponnesian War & # 8212; which seems to imply
that he had his shit together. Once, recalls Xenophon, Socrates explains
how to make and care for friends, another time, he motivated a man still
shy able to enter politics. He married a woman so unbearable, Xanthippe,
who has emptied his chamber pot on his head, just to form his own ability
Stoic & # 8212; the exact opposite of hypergamy woman.
In retrospect, we can not assess the extent to which Xenophon overrated
virtues of Socrates or overdressed stories. What we know for sure is how
the Greeks esteemed excellence in practice. It does not matter if Socrates
wanted people to reject almost every concept and definition, as long as he
still had a clear vision of the practice kindness, fairness, beauty,
morality and other . The city-state was a confederation of Kindred small
farmers and families. As long as they have lived the good life, Xenophon
suggested, they do not need confrontation definitions and arguments Greece
is known for.
Later, Plato's Republic advocates the idea of an ideal city-state
organized around three castes: the philosopher-kings, priests, guards,
warriors and craftsmen-producers-farmers. This idea is a direct example of
the Indo-European tripartite division. However, this does not mean having
snobs or cliques classes hovering above the rest.
In the ideal city of Plato, everyone wants to be an aristocrat in the
etymological sense & # 8212; to achieve excellence to govern in its own
domain, as a great man. The city may have different castes, it has only one
class. Only at a later stage of a degenerative history would be the Greek
city of divide into two classes, abusive oligarchs, and poor short view.
What Plato describes as "not one, but two cities, living in the same place
and constantly conspiring against each other" (Republic, 551d) shows
how "classism" tends to divide what was plain: while castes are based
vocation internal consistency and external social needs, like the
complementarity between the sexes, classes come to an accumulation of
wealth at the expense of others and virtue.
The two classes are divided Plato speaks about, which is surprisingly
similar to bourgeois proletariat diptych Karl Marx, is not
necessarily "capitalist" character. Both modern Bolsheviks and bankers to
maintain: either by having a small class holding (private) having all or
any property belonging to the public, both for depriving the vast majority
of their own stuff. Managerialism is about stripping people of their means,
and control their lives. Whether this is done by a despot, a company
director or officer & # 8212; is always the same serfdom.
Well, that is what Greece has rejected when their cities united to reject
the Persian slavery. Later, the city-states were absorbed by the empire of
Alexander, they more or less maintained an organic relationship between
them. However, empires fall & # 8212; Alexander was divided, while Rome was
so ripe with strife, he had to transfer part of its power to a soulless
bureaucracy.
As the saying goes, small is beautiful. The most durable empires proved to
be able to delegate the maximum they could to smaller scales. And even
then, there was enough space for most individuals to own their domain and
produce much of their livelihood & # 8212; or be independent artisans
belonging.
Only the modern world make the bureaucracy, factories, and a pyramid
structure absolutely necessary for the existing demand, the volume of
goods, information and people who have had to manage. Previously,
management may be on a smaller scale & # 8212; in particular the importance
of regular people who run their own lives. The Greeks lot about virtue
because they were responsible for the & # 8212; they did not have to tell
them what to do or media oligarchs forcing them to conformism. (Sometimes
they had this kind of bully, but they would not end nicely.) Being
outnumbered their Persian neighbors, they do not need the bureaucracy or
the massive factories. Are they missing something?
Aristotle openly says that the best cities are mainly populated with people
of the middle class. The rich despise and exploit others, the poor are
forced into subservience and resentment. Former slaves need to maintain
their lifestyle and haughty behavior, they often lack any sense of
responsibility "when the poor become the strongest, the city deteriorates
and dissolves" (Aristotle, Politics, 4 , 11). Only those who are in the
middle can cultivate temperance and befriend them. With excellence should
come friendship (philia, φιλία).
Perhaps small scale independent producers belonging, who care about virtues
and do not take orders either a foreign or elite mobs low life cam a just
entertain. Perhaps a middle class deal with a balanced sociability.
Read more: Men must be educated in the classics If they wish to Take Men
Fortitude
No comments:
Post a Comment