

Meaning: the History of Western Philosophy

Copyright 2014 Dr Clinton J de Bruyn

Smashwords Edition

Chapter One: Introduction

To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically.

– Henry David Thoreau

So, what's the point of life?

When we consider the term "philosophy", many images come to mind. To some, it's of a toga-draped man contemplating (and probably missing out on) life; to others, it's probably a picture of some pseudo-intellectual running around Paris talking excessively, very much in the Woody Allen mould.

So does this suggest that philosophy is consigned to history, lacking relevance in our lightning-fast world of Facebook and Twitter where information is shared instantly? Isn't the sum of human knowledge just a Google search away?

To say this is to make a fundamental error, because the speed at which one can access information does not change the content. And much of the content online is remarkably basic, consisting of pleasing but superficial snippets of information with limited or no real value – lots of 'shiny objects' to distract us from the serious analysis of fundamental issues.

And while global access to education has spread dramatically, the human perspective on life has arguably been dumbed-down. Most people in the world adopt one of two basic approaches to life – either:

  * there is a power greater than ourselves (usually called God, although often referred to as 'nature' or a higher power) meaning that there is purpose to the universe and we should basically try to do good and be nice to each other. This is the dominant – but declining – world view; or

  * we are simply the by-product of an evolutionary world, meaning there is no higher power and what you see around you is all that there is. We should trust only what we can prove and develop our own meaning for our lives rather than searching for it (the humanist view, very popular with the intelligentsia since the 1950s).

In a post-industrial system where science seems to provide solid answers to everything, can philosophy really tell us anything useful about the world and our place in it?

A Roman in the Modern World

To answer that question, let's refer to the Roman politician, writer and philosopher, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) and engage in a bit of time travel.

Cicero was an active statesman in Rome and a strong supporter of the Republic. As well as this, he was the most gifted orator of his day and someone well versed in different schools of knowledge. A powerful intellectual, he was wealthy and lived a materially rich life compared to most Romans of the day. Nevertheless, in his writings he clearly understood the pitfalls of materialism, as well as its benefits.

A model of classical virtue, he ended up dying for the Republic, stating that the will of the people was far superior to the will of one man. His confrontations with Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony and Augustus to defend this principle led to his downfall – and also made him a Republican hero throughout the ages.

Let's engage in a thought experiment and assume that Cicero was transported into today's world. What would he think?

Cicero's views on the modern world

Let's start with the basics.

It is reasonable to think that a man possessed with the intellectual talents of Cicero would be amazed by the sheer quantity of existing technology and its remarkable effectiveness.

It is also fair to say that with a little help, he would be able to understand the underlying principles of modern technology, although some things (like the production of electricity or the transmission of wireless data) would be understood in the abstract. But, being the intelligent man he is, he would certainly pick up the details eventually.

However, when Cicero was finished looking on in amazement, he would probably ask us how we saw our lives and our purpose in society – and he would almost certainly be less than impressed. In particular, the common approach modern life – that we should just try to enjoy ourselves while we are here, and not speculate on our purpose – would be particularly depressing to him, because it would suggest a level of thoughtlessness, if not selfishness, for our reason to exist.

True, some extreme versions of Epicureanism (such as the Cyrenaics) maintained that immediate, hedonistic pleasure was the best thing to seek even in Cicero's day. However, as Cicero would likely tell you, this was a fringe movement. To think this approach represented a mainstream view (and that many people openly admit to it) would be quite shocking.

Cicero would likely conclude that even with our remarkable technology – flight, television, antibiotics, life-saving surgery, physics, the Internet – our understanding of what is necessary to live a happy and meaningful life is rudimentary. He would likely suggest our focus on materialism has stopped us from seeing the big picture – our reason for existing.

As a staunch defender of the Roman Republic, Cicero would see the spread of democracy and culture in today's world as remarkably progressive – maybe even too progressive for him – but he would be appalled at postmodern ideas suggesting all ethical development is "relative", with right and wrong being specific to individual cultures and societies.

His main question would probably be "why is it that the majority of people in the developed world are so wealthy, with an abundance of material goods compared to the Ancients, yet so unphilosophical about their own lives?"

He would probably chastise us for indulging in our largely material life, rather than getting to "know ourselves", learning about the world around us and help shaping the society we are a part of.

In summary, Cicero would likely be amazed at the material progress which has occurred from his day to the present, but rather disheartened by the lack of moral and spiritual progress society has achieved, despite over 2000 years of development.

Knowledge vs wisdom

The point of this story is to illustrate that while knowledge and scientific development has increased dramatically over the ages, the application of wisdom has been far more limited. While we are at a high point in terms of our technological development, at the start of the 21st Century many people have failed to confront the most critical questions – the reason for the existence of the universe and their place in it.

In beginning to determine the meaning of life, most people ask themselves the following fundamental questions:

  * Why do I exist?

  * What is my purpose?

From this, a number of further questions arise:

  * Is there a God (or higher power) in the universe?

  * If God does not exist and the Universe is just a cosmic accident, does my life have any meaning? If not, can I create meaning for myself?

  * Do I have free will, or are my actions controlled by some external force?

  * How do I know if I am making the right choices in my life?

  * How can I maximise my potential and the potential of others? How can I be a better person?

  * Does material development represent true progress and do the things I own really make me feel happy?

  * Most importantly – what is the point of it all?

These are the key questions that have been asked again and again, over at least the last 2500 years. Yet we have come no closer to definitively answering questions concerning the purpose of our life, despite our faith, suspicions or intuitions.

Put simply, while human knowledge – the how – has increased substantially through all of history, human wisdom – the why – has barely changed at all.

The history of philosophy

All is not lost. Because humanity has been around for a long time, we have a wide store of ideas to access and explore. The real issue is not the speed at which people can access information, but the challenge of information overload and the quality of information one can obtain. As such, this book attempts to sort through the clutter and present the philosophies which have most influenced western culture.

This book begins by examining the bright young things of early Greek Philosophy, the Presocratics, as well as Socrates himself (Chapter Two). From there, the three dominant philosophies of the Ancient World are examined: the idealist philosophy of Plato (Chapter Three) the austere, virtuous school of Stoicism (Chapter Four) and the more materialist school of Epicureanism (Chapter Five).

We then skip the Middle Ages and move forward to examine 18th Century Liberalism (Chapter Six), the idea which supports individual freedom, the free market and contributed to overthrowing monarchs. The remarkable reaction to Liberalism is contained in Marxism (Chapter Seven) which has influenced the world of politics considerably, even now having an influence on the world most people don't realise.

Finally, we finish our journey with Existentialism (Chapter Eight), a very European philosophy based on examining one's own mortality and the consequences of the fact that we don't live forever.

Unfortunately, a focus on influential ethical philosophers has meant that many other worthwhile philosophers have been excluded. I particularly regret not being able to provide a separate section on Aristotle and his "golden mean" (although he is mentioned from time to time), the Neo-Platonist Plotinus, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper.

As important as these individuals are, they do not directly fit into the scope of this work. Additionally, as this book is focused on western philosophy, eastern forms of thought are also not considered, despite their undisputed validity to human thought and practice.

I have also omitted religious philosophies. As interesting as it would be to provide a chapter on religious thought (e.g. Christian theology or the ethics of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism), such theological approaches are out of scope. Still, in the last 25 years religious movements have been constantly understated in the history of human development, particularly in terms of the effects religions have on people's behaviour – you might be surprised just how many of today's cultural norms are derived from religion, even now.

Philosophical ideas are by their nature conjectural and I have taken liberties in order to convey certain ideas as simply as possible. While I have attempted to be accurate and honest, any misinterpretations of the philosophical schools presented are of course my own.

I am hopeful this book will provide a clearer understanding of the schools of knowledge which have changed the world, whether you are reading this as a university student or for personal pleasure. I hope you enjoy discovering these powerful ideas – ideas which have occupied the human mind for centuries and which have literally changed the world.

Dr Clinton J de Bruyn

Brisbane, 2014

Chapter Two: The Beginning

The Presocratics and Socrates

So where did it all start?

The first seeds of western philosophy are difficult to trace. By approximately 1000 B.C., poetry, literature and mythology were combined, extending beyond purely personal beliefs bolstered by poetic prose. At this point, western writings began to show a degree of reasoned, logical analysis – the seeds of philosophy and science.

Consider the following passage from Homer's Illiad (thought to have been written between 1000-800 B.C). It is the earliest written Greek work to survive:

So, friend, you die also. Why all this clamour about it? Patroclos also is dead, who was better by far than you are. Do you not see what a man I am, how huge, how splendid and born of a great father, and the mother who bore me immortal? Yet even I have also my death and my strong destiny, and there shall be a dawn or an afternoon or a noontime when some man in the fighting will take the life from me also either with a spear cast or an arrow flown from the bowstring.

– Homer, Illiad (XXI 106-13)

General concepts such as fate and the meaning of existence are all touched on in this passage. It is thought that Homer's stories were orally communicated for hundreds of years before they were written down. Therefore, we can safely say such thoughts occupied the minds of men and woman far longer than previously thought.

Likewise, the poet Hesiod (who lived around 900-800 B.C.) demonstrated a form of early philosophical thought by providing an account of the universe as a self-generating entity. This early approach to cosmology does not rely on the Gods to create things, even though religious themes are frequently invoked. Have a look at this snippet:

From expanse came darkness and black night;

And from Night came Ether and Day

Whom she conceived and bore after joining with Darkness in love.

Earth bore first, equal to herself,

Starry Heaven, to enclose her all about

That there might be a seat ever safe for the blessed gods.

– Hesiod, Theogony

Some have argued that later philosophers developed their political philosophy from Homeric works, particularly the Iliad. Although this is overstated, it is clear that Homer's work influenced most Ancient philosophers, as Homeric quotes have appeared in works by Plato, Aristotle and others.

The first Presocratics

Pre-Socratic timelines concerning who said and did what are useful, but often compiled using evidence from sources written hundreds of years later, making them subject to error. The term is useful for delineating a difference in philosophical method, particularly given most early schools of philosophy took a cosmological, universe-centred approach, rather than an individually centred approach.

It is important to acknowledge the significant contributions and inspiration provided to philosophy through Ancient art, linguistics, literature, poetry and religion. However there is a clear difference between using poetic licence to express bits of abstract thought and developing a coherent framework for understanding the world around us.

As can be expected, this early burst in philosophical speculation was optimistic in focus and developed at breakneck speed. It represents the salad days of Greek thought and inquiry and was supported by the development of wealthy, independent Greek city-states, such as Corinth, Sparta and Athens.

Importantly, the material development of these city-states freed up time for people to think rather than just survive. The youthful and fragile Athenian democracy, the first of its type in the world (established in 508 B.C.) was particularly fruitful, likely because of the fertile plains and large olive harvests providing significant wealth to its population.

It is also important to recognise the other city-states in the Mediterranean that contributed to knowledge early on, particularly those near the coastline, who enjoyed good weather, an abundance of high-quality food sources and the luxury of time to sit and think. To a large extent, geography really is destiny.

The most influential of the pre-Socratics – the first true philosophers from the west – will now be examined. And we start with a formidable thinker, known as the grandfather of Greek Philosophy.

Thales of Miletus (624-546 B.C.)

Thales' was the first to define general principles and test hypotheses, an approach to thinking that was as revolutionary as the discovery of the wheel or electricity. As well as being a keen philosopher, he was considered one of the "seven sages" of Ancient Greece and was a famed statesman, astronomer and businessman.

In a much repeated tale, he hired olive presses due to his prediction of favourable weather and an abundant olive harvest. In this way he demonstrated the practical side to knowledge and made a tidy profit in the process. He is also argued to have been the first to predict a solar eclipse (calculated to be 28 May 585 B.C.) and to understand the mechanism behind it.

Thales' most well-known theory relates to determining what is the a priori, or first substance, which dominates the universe. After some investigation, he assumed water was the primal substance of which everything was created. This insight was probably stimulated by his enquiry into the problem of change – if something changes its form, like brown hardwood turning into black embers on a roaring fire, does this mean the substance has been transformed into something different, or is this thing still essentially what it was, even if it now looks different?

By referring to an all-encompassing primal substance which made up everything, it was possible to argue that while matter may be transformed in appearance, it was still fundamentally composed of the same substance and so was the same.

This is the first hard example of an accurate scientific principle being demonstrated using reason (i.e. that all things are made of one substance, what we would today call atoms) even though the principle went against a commonsense interpretation of what objects are composed of.

Thales extended this explanation to speculate the earth floated on a body of water, providing explanations for global disturbances such as earthquakes. It is quite likely he thought the earth was composed of the water which surrounded it:

Thales assures that water is the principle of all things; and that God is that mind which shaped and created all things from water.

– Cicero, De Natura Deorum

In experimenting with magnetism, Thales connected the power of magnetism to the moving power of the soul, to suggest the soul was the prime mover of individuals. In so doing he articulated an animistic theory of existence suggesting that every form around us is alive and possesses a soul.

This notion he applied to inanimate objects just as much as plants, animals and humans. It is romantic to imagine Thales' changing his behaviour and reaction to the objects around him, thinking they all possessed souls; unfortunately, we have no evidence to attest to this ideal.

Some say that soul is mixed in the whole universe. Perhaps that is why Thales thought everything was full of gods.

– Aristotle, On the Soul

While Thales' experimental conclusions may appear quite misguided to the modern mind, it was the first attempt to use a combination of observation, thought and insight to provide a methodologically coherent framework to understand reality. Arguably, we see embryonic beginnings of scientific inquiry, taken for granted in the modern world, in Thales' early approach.

In addition, Thales' knowledge of geometry was much discussed in the Ancient World. It was thought he had a good understanding of points, lines, planes, distances and angles and was able to apply such principles:

They say that Thales was the first to prove that a circle is bisected by its diameter.

– Proclus, Commentary on Euclid

Modern Geometry even has a theorem named after him: Thales' Theorem states that if points A, B and C exist within a circle and if line AC represents the diameter of a circle, then the angle ABC is a right angle. True to ancient practice, it was reported that Thales sacrificed an ox to celebrate the significance of this discovery.

A thorough over-achiever, he also established that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal and that the sum of angles in any triangle is equal to two right angles. We don't know what animals were sacrificed following this triumph!

While a number of historians have suggested it is likely the Egyptians and Babylonians had an earlier knowledge of geometry, there is no evidence they had proven their theorems. It is possible the Greeks, including Thales, obtained this earlier information, improving on the knowledge, including providing mathematical proof.

Because of Thales' enviable status as the first western philosopher, later Ancient writers attributed a number of moral maxims to him, particularly the Greek historian and biographer Diogenes Laertes (c.3rd Century A.D.).

Here are the best of them, providing a flavour for what Thales contributed and how he was interpreted by the Ancient World. Be warned, some of this information is considered unreliable.

Of existing things, God is the oldest – for He is ungenerated. The world is the most beautiful – for it is God's making. Space is the greatest – for it includes everything. Mind is the swiftest – for it runs through everything. Necessity is the strongest – for it controls everything. Time is the wisest – for it discovers everything.

We should not beautify our appearances but be beautiful in our practices.

He said that death is no different from life. "Then why don't you die?" someone asked him. "Because death is no different" he replied.

Who is happy? One who has a healthy body, a well-stocked soul and a cultivated nature.

When asked what is difficult, he said "to know thyself"; what is easy, "to give advice to others".

It is not many words which shows an intelligent opinion:

search out one wise thing,

choose one good thing;

for thus you will stop

the ceaseless tongues of babbling men.

– Diogenes Laertes, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers

Pythagoras

The so-called Pythagoreans, who were the first to take up mathematics, not only advanced this subject, but saturated with it, they fancied that the principles of mathematics were the principles of all things.

– Aristotle, Metaphysics

No pre-Socratic philosopher is better known than Pythagoras (c.570 – c.495 B.C.), but not for his philosophy. While Pythagoras' Theorem sends shudders through many a secondary school math's student, his gifts extended far beyond mathematics. In the ancient world, he was known as a mystic, philosopher and religious leader; a man with enormous wisdom and reputed supernatural powers.

While Pythagoras' contributions to modern mathematical knowledge are clear, his reasons for doing so have roots in a desire to discover the ultimate reality of the universe – believing they could be found "within the numbers". This particularly related to the nature of spiritual truth, which he considered the most important question of all.

His work was enormously influential on later thinkers such as Plato, who incorporated many Pythagorean concepts of mathematics and transmigration of the soul into his own work. Sadly, as with many early philosophers, the extent of Pythagoras' contributions are veiled in obscurity, with later writers attributing ideas to Pythagoras which may have been developed by his followers or by some other later philosopher.

From what we do know, it is fairly certain he was born on the island of Samos, travelled widely (probably to Egypt, Arabia, Phoenicia, Judea, Babylon and maybe even India) and moved to Croton around 530 B.C. Here, he established a highly influential religious sect.

One of his most certain teachings concerned transmigration of the soul – the idea that a person's soul was divine and separate from the body – as well as a belief in reincarnation. Although there was much debate around whether his version of reincarnation was species-specific (i.e. did reincarnation only take place from human-to-human, or from human-to-animal as well?), it is relatively certain that Pythagoras theory supported interspecies reincarnation:

And once when he [Pythagoras] passed a puppy which was being whipped, they say he took pity on it and made this remark: "Stop, do not beat it; for it is the soul of a dear friend – I recognised it when I heard its voice"

– Xenophanes in Diogenes Laertes, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers

Of interest, we have more evidence of the application of Pythagoras' belief in inter-species reincarnation. Vegetarianism is one of the traits associated with the Pythagorean community. In effect, eating animals would have likely constituted a form of cannibalism.

The doctrine of eternal recurrence (the idea that everything in the universe repeats cyclically, over and over again) and the immortality of the soul appears to be two teachings Pythagoras developed, possibly from Egyptian and Oriental religions:

What he has said to his associates no one can say with any certainty: for they preserved no ordinary silence. But it became very well known to everyone that he said, first, that the soul is immortal; then, it changes into other kinds of animals; further, that at fixed intervals whatever has happened happens again, there being nothing absolutely new; and that all living things should be considered as belonging to the same kind. Pythagoras seems to have been the first to introduce these doctrines into Greece.

– Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras

As well as this, it is worth noting that ancient sources ascribed numerous mystical powers to Pythagoras. Whether these were associated with the formation of his religious sect is unknown. This included his possession of a golden thigh (this was indicative of divinity in the Ancient World and he was even reported to have displayed it at the ancient Olympic games), being able to see deep into the past and future, remembering his previous incarnations and even being able to write on the moon:

Among them was a man of immense knowledge who had obtained the greatest wealth of mind, a matter especially of every kind of wise deed. For when he reached out with his mind he easily saw each and every thing in ten or twenty generations.

– Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras

Pythagoras was also known for leaving behind a dedicated Pythagorean community long after his death. Partly a religious sect, partly a brotherhood, Pythagoreans were composed of a semi-closed, quasi-monastic group who followed and developed the ideas of the master.

It is likely they were very communal, sharing all their property and admitting women to their community, with women also being provided a degree of equality comparable to their male counterparts. If this is true, it probably represents the first organised example of female equality known to history.

Two schools of the Pythagoreans

It is believed that the Pythagorean school split into two groups: the akousmatikoi ("listeners") and the mathēmatikoi (the "learners" – this is where the term mathematics comes from). The akousmatikoi focused on the more esoteric and ritualistic forms of Pythagorean thought, thinking the mathēmatikoi were not truly Pythagorean; meanwhile, the mathēmatikoi,(as the name might suggest), focused on developing the mathematical and scientific basis of Pythagorean thought. While the mathēmatikoi did accept the akousmatikoi as being broadly Pythagorean, they thought of them as less representative of true Pythagorean thought.

Bizarrely, both schools had one thing in common – a significant emphasis on beans. Eating and even touching a bean was considered to be inappropriate. Granted, it has been argued the term "beans" may have been symbolic of life or sexual desire:

Keep your hands from beans, a painful food; as Pythagoras enjoined, so to I urge.

– Callimachus in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights

So Plato bids us go to bed with our bodies so composed that there is nothing which may bring distraction or disturbance to the mind. That, it is thought, is why the Pythagoreans are forbidden to eat beans which cause considerable flatulence and are thus inimical to those who seek peace of mind.

– Cicero in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights

Pythagorean communities existed until at least the 2nd century A.D., with an excavation in 1915 unearthing a three-storey Pythagorean basicilia in Rome. Aside from the more entertaining aspects of Pythagorean thought, later philosophers, particularly Neo-Platonists such as Plotinus (204/5-270 A.D.), absorbed many Pythagorean thought into their own philosophies.

In particular, the Pythagorean approach to Mathematics – using numbers to understand everyday phenomena – continues to inform modern science to this day. It is unfortunate we do not know more about this almost mythical person who perhaps represents the most perplexing and enigmatic of all the ancient philosophers.

Zeno (490-430 B.C.)

Zeno of Elea (not to be confused with Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism) is perhaps the second-best known pre-Socratic philosopher after Pythagoras, due to his famous paradoxes. Perplexing logicians over the ages, it was suggested by Diogenes Laertes that he was "skilled to argue both sides of any question, the universal critic". Or perhaps the modern day lawyer.

Zeno was a follower of the Eleatic school of Parmenides (c.5th century B.C.), a philosopher who was fundamentally monist, meaning he believed all of existence was one and indivisible. So dedicated was Zeno to his premise of "oneness" that his paradoxes were designed to forcefully demonstrate just how much of an illusion the supposed "divisions" of the universe actually were.

Zeno constructed 40 paradoxes, although none of his own work survives. Thanks to Aristotle, we have two of these paradoxes directly, with another six being paraphrased and attributed to Zeno (there may be a ninth, although this is uncertain). Most of these deal with divisibility, time and motion; they attempt to reinforce the oneness of the universe by demonstrating that the concept of division is absurd.

Three of Zeno's most famous paradoxes are listed below:

The Paradox of Movement

In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.

– Aristotle, Physics

This paradox was known as Achilles, according to Simplicius, due to the ancient use of Achilles and the Tortoise from Aesop's Fables.

Imagine Achilles is behind the tortoise which is crawling at a much slower pace than Achilles is running. For Achilles to reach the tortoise, he must first reach the point at which the tortoise is. But by the time Achilles gets to this point, no matter how fast he runs, the tortoise must have advanced slightly forward.

At this point Achilles continues to move towards the tortoise – but again, as he reaches the point the tortoise was at, the tortoise has already moved slightly ahead. Based on this paradox, Achilles will get closer and closer to the point the tortoise has left, but never actually reach the tortoise, as the tortoise will always move slightly ahead of him.

The Dichotomy

That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.

– Aristotle, Physics

Another brain teaser. Let us suppose that a man wishes to walk from one side of the street to another (from point A to point B). Before he can get there, he must get halfway there (1/2).

Before he can reach that point, he must reach halfway of that shorter distance (1/4). Before he can reach that point, he must also reach halfway of this (1/8) and so on. This argument, called the dichotomy, basically consists of continually splitting a distance into two equal parts.

The logical conclusion of this paradox is that movement cannot occur (as you will eventually get to a point where you cannot physically divide a given distance any further).

Aristotle regarded this as another version of the paradox of movement and regarded Zeno's thinking as a misunderstanding – he responded by stating that as some things can be infinitely divided (such as a point of space), there really was no paradox to resolve.

The Arrow Paradox

If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.

– Aristotle, Physics

The arrow paradox suggests that one considers an arrow in flight.

At any point in time, the arrow is static. For it to move forward, the arrow will have to assume a new position. However, the static arrow cannot do that, because at any point it cannot move from "where it is" to go to "where it is not".

Put another way, the supposedly "moving" arrow is actually static at any point in time, and consequently does not (or can not) exhibit motion!

Of all Zeno's paradoxes, this one in particular sounds contrary to all experience, because movement demonstrably does occur – we see it all around us. The outstanding medieval theologian and philosopher St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) provided an elegant solution, pointing out that space and time exist together – while the arrow may not be moving at a static point in time, when time is moving forward (as it always is) movement is generated because the space and time are connected.

So while a photo of the arrow may not show movement, the arrow is still moving, provided time is also moving forward (which it always is). Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has since confirmed that space and time are linked, supporting Aquinas' solution.

Although these and others of Zenos paradoxes are often used as examples of logical fallacies (reductio ad absurdum arguments), it's important to consider that such paradoxes were likely not designed to demonstrate that movement is impossible, etc. but that movement can only take place if there is no division in the universe.

If division does exist in the universe (as most philosophers thought), according to Zeno, movement and time cannot take place – it is the movement of objects which demonstrates there is no separation.

So rather than simply being confusing and elliptical, it is likely Zeno was trying to use his paradoxes to prove that everything is connected and that "all is one" in the universe.

Socrates

The unexamined life is not worth living.

– Socrates in Plato's Apology

Although the beginning of western philosophy is often dated to Thales, the golden age began with the most unlikely and enigmatic of characters, the remarkable Socrates (469-399 B.C.).

No pedantic scholar or book learner, Socrates was not universally accomplished or respected in his own time and in fact was disliked by people in power so much that they ultimately condemned him to death.

Despite this apparently unremarkable pedigree, or perhaps because of it, Socrates personifies the penultimate sage and autodidact.

Why? Because as a spiritual humanist who walked barefoot around the city, he was a man who demonstrated that through his wisdom, intuition and (ultimately) selfless courage, only the truly considered life was worth living. This constituted a remarkable insight and forward step concerning philosophical self-examination; in this sense, the school of philosophy has never had a greater friend.

Socrates heavily influenced the best and brightest of Athens, including his most gifted student, Plato (who in turn taught Aristotle), and others such as historian and military leader Xenophon. Unlike most other teachers who charged for their knowledge (the so-called "sophists"), Socrates never charged anyone a fee for his teachings, although his fanatically loyal students always did what they could to support him.

While ancient writers have provided much information on this almost mythical person, most accounts were written hundreds of years after Socrates' death. As it is believed Socrates himself wrote nothing, to truly know the historical Socrates we have only three contemporary sources:

Plato: Socrates' greatest student and a masterly philosopher in his own right (Chapter Three). Plato wrote of Socrates in a dialogue format, largely to deal with Socrates criticism that the problem with written work is that it provides the same answer to a question over and over again;

Xenophon: Another of Socrates' students who wrote in a direct manner, probably giving us a more realistic – though philosophically less sophisticated – picture of the real Socrates, compared to Plato's account;

Aristophanes: the famous Greek playwright who inspired Shakespeare and joked about Socrates in his play The Clouds. As he and Socrates were contemporaries, this is actually the earliest written interpretation of Socrates we have, although it is extremely comical, seeing Socrates as a windbag, profiting by fooling patrons with clever sounding words.

Some have suggested that this play contributed to Socrates' execution, but this explanation is probably a reflection of the limited number of sources we have to rely on rather than demonstrating any significant malice on behalf of the Athenian playwright.

Aristotle mentioned Socrates in passing, although he probably knew of him through his teacher Plato, rather than directly. Later writers based their description of Socrates on these sources as well as other bits of hearsay – some of which may be accurate, but much of which is likely embellished or false. Having said that, we should be mindful that many of these writers had access to original texts that have since been lost.

Because most of Socrates' thinking is transmitted through his most talented student, Plato, delineating what philosophy is directly attributable to Socrates and what is attributable to Plato is known as the Socratic Problem.

The Athenian City-State

In understanding why Socrates was eventually put to death, it is necessary to understand Athenian political life in the 5th century B.C. Although the Athenian City-state was the first form of democracy offering remarkable freedoms, these were precarious: in particular, many in Athens questioned the benefits of free speech, mainly due to the following reasons:

  * constant battles with nearby City-States (particularly traditional rivals Sparta) necessitated a more pragmatic, authoritarian approach to law and order;

  * a traditional, conservative distrust of new ideas;

  * a concern from the wider population that many self-labelled "philosophers" were teaching the most effective way to win an argument rather than true wisdom (the Sophists);

  * the birth of the professional politician – like the modern day, many were prepared to say and do anything to win an election, whether it was true or not.

These factors, most of which we are all too familiar with today, were completely new to Athenians. Therefore, individuals who tested the limits of these freedoms by questioning the ideas of people in authority were placed in a dangerous position.

In many ways, Socrates' trial represents the first example of restricting liberty in a democracy and prosecuting those who break unjust laws, ostensibly for reasons of national security. Socrates was one of the first to challenge authority on the basis of intellectual freedom.

To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.

– Martin Luther King Jr.

Socrates Teachings

So what did Socrates teach? Although many of his teachings were adopted and refined by Plato, we have a fair idea of the main ideas directly attributable to him. In no particularly order, they are as follows:

Nobody can knowingly do wrong: Socrates considered evil or immoral behaviour to be inconsistent with true knowledge and wisdom. He maintained that people who committed bad deeds against their fellow man for personal advantage were only obtaining apparent advantage, as the philosopher knows that no true advantage (i.e. the advancement of knowledge and growth of the spirit) can come from doing wrong.

Therefore, if people that do wrong are doing it without even realising it, are they guilty of any wrong - or simply misinformed?

Self-development is more important than material wealth: In a sentiment which has been echoed ever since, Socrates was one of the first to state that material advantage is not the key to happiness. The true key to happiness is self-knowledge, personal development and supporting the will of the community. This even extended to beings beyond the physical world; the formal, pious worship of the mythological pantheon of the Greek Gods was seen as less important to Socrates than demonstrating true moral rectitude and piety.

This led to the charge against him of not worshipping the gods, which was one of the most significant contributing to Socrates' trial and execution.

The doctrine of recollection: Socrates speculated that individuals cannot learn information from scratch, but recollect information they already know. In one of Plato's well-known dialogues, Meno, Socrates demonstrates a child can be taught supposedly "new" knowledge only by helping him remember what he previously knows. Knowledge and even virtue cannot be taught from scratch, but one must guide people towards what they already know.

But where does this "remembered" knowledge come from? This was further developed as a cornerstone of Plato's metaphysical system, the Theory of Forms (in Chapter Three).

Mystical development: as well as focusing on ethical development, there appears to be metaphysical overtones to much of Socrates' teachings. Although a lot of this can be attributed to Plato's work, there are parallels in other texts, including Xenophon. In particular, the guidance of his inner daemon – an internal inner voice which has been likened to a guardian angel or spirit guide – is abundant in almost all descriptions of Socrates.

This inner voice guided Socrates, particularly when he was doing the wrong thing such as considering his entry into politics and even preparing a scripted defence for his trial. This represents a personal form of intuition, although one external to himself (i.e. it appears this divine voice came from outside, not inside, his own being). Socrates termed this as a type of "divine madness" – a gift from the gods which led to the creation of poetry, mysticism, love and even philosophy.

The trial of Socrates

It is not so much through Socrates direct teachings but through his example that many have admired him. After questioning the powers that be through the constant scrutiny of Athenian values, Socrates was tried on the basis of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the State. He was found guilty on both counts and put to death through the forced consumption of the poison hemlock, arguably making Socrates one of our first recorded martyrs.

What was notable is that although Socrates eloquently refuted the charges and showed them to be trumped-up, he nobly accepted his fate prior to the start of his trial and did not attempt to escape.

Even when his friends tried to convince him to flee (which by all accounts would have been quite easy as his friends were able to bribe the prison guards), Socrates resolutely refused to escape for a number of reasons:

  * Socrates thought that even though one could question the laws of the State, it was ultimately wrong to be protected by a nation's laws and yet to violate them when it was personally inconvenient.

  * A philosopher should never fear death and always lead by example. Fleeing would suggest he was afraid of death, which was unphilosophical and incorrect, according to Socrates.

  * Socrates realised he was not a young man (he was 69 at the time), and the alternative of dying through old age was not preferential.

  * Socrates also thought that no matter where he went, he would incur the displeasure of authority as he would continue to question established beliefs wherever he was.

Socrates unjust trial and execution was well attested by the Ancients. Plato's account (probably his earliest well-known writing) represents one of the most touching and powerful dialogues ever written. Rather than providing additional detail on the last hours of Socrates' life in this book, I would recommend you read Plato's work on the topic (listed below under "Further Reading"). It is a touching description of a man who, despite everything, never chose apparent advantage over what he believed in.

Conclusion

The pre-Socratics burst out of the blue, a growth of the youthful City-States in the Mediterranean. With deep questions concerning the meaning of the universe, western philosophy was born, as was the development of reasoned thought, deductive inquiry and ethical theory.

In particular, the ideal of wisdom was combined with an intellectual attempt to achieve it. This allowed the Ancients to make reasoned inquiry into the nature of the universe and also allowed people such as Socrates to teach others that the key to personal happiness was to "know thyself" – a piece of advice which is so simple and yet so deep that, when you really think about it, it represents one of the most powerful philosophical insights ever made.

Pros:

  * The early philosophers represented the fertile, exciting days of early thought; there was great excitement and rapid breakthroughs in understanding were expected. Nothing was off limits – life, the universe and everything was abundantly pondered, often through powerful dialogue and utopian formulations. Some of the conclusions were wrong, but almost all of it provided fruitful material for the latter development of philosophy, science and humankind in general.

  * For the first time, the power of intellectual thought became legitimate: high-level thinking was used to solve abstract problems rather than just wheeling out pragmatic, rule of thumb solutions on every occasion. As a consequence, knowledge flourished and humans began to understand more about the world. We owe all of what is around us to this earliest phase of philosophy.

Cons:

  * Unfortunately, we have very little source material for most of the pre-Socratic thinkers. Many of the quotes and fragments come from works written up to 800 years later. In particular, some things attributed to a few of these philosophers (such as Pythagoras' legendary powers and the mathematical formulas ascribed to a range of philosophers) should be taken with a grain of salt.

  * Because this period represented the earliest development in western thought, philosophy and reason was initially highly appealing. As elements of it became fanciful and contestable theories were plausible but contradictory, the first wave of intellectual cynicism set in. It would take a great intellectual (Plato) taught by an equally great man (Socrates) to develop the first systematic theoretical framework which would last for centuries and permanently legitimate the power of thought.

Further Reading

Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy: A brilliantly compiled work from Penguin Classics covering all the important pre-Socratic philosophers. Barnes successfully compiles fragmentary source material into author and subject, interspersed with commentary to show what each philosopher was trying to say. Really well written.

Plato, The Apology: The description of Socrates' trial at the hands of the Athenian authorities. It is one of the most touching and powerful documents from Antiquity, particularly when combined with Plato's other work (the Phaedo), which describes Socrates death in some detail.

Google search of Greco-Roman Gods: An internet search of the polytheistic religion of the Greeks, and later the Romans, shows just how thoughtful these people were. It also demonstrates how Hellenistic religion influenced early Western thought and practice.

Chapter Three: Plato

The perfect Republic, philosopher-kings and your soul

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.

– Alfred North Whitehead

After the untimely death of Socrates, a number of his curious and intelligent students continued his intellectual quest.

The first student of which we have detailed information is Xenophon, the General-historian who may have been a good soldier and a solid writer, but his philosophical depth has often been questioned. This is certainly not true of Socrates' other well-known student, arguably the most gifted and nuanced of all the ancient philosophers – Plato.

Put simply, he changed everything. It was this extraordinary man who took intellectual reasoning to new heights and as Whitehead's quote suggests, it is probably fair to say that Platonic reasoning provided the template for all future philosophical speculation in the West.

Platonism is often considered to mark the beginning of the Western liberal tradition toward open dialogue and systemic thought. However, it is a lot more than that; through examining the concept of a higher power within an intellectual framework, it is arguably the first western attempt to provide a truly coherent way of understanding the world.

Politics also features highly, as for Plato, service to the State was the highest and most noble action an individual could undertake. Many parallels between the perfectly ordered soul and the perfectly ordered City are made in his work.

Because Plato's work expressed his ideas through a dialogue, or discussion between individuals, his work reads like a philosophical play with some cryptic elements. Plato's creation of the dialogue format was used to satisfy Socrates' concerns over the limitations of the written word, while providing something for posterity.

It would take Plato's student Aristotle to develop the more straightforward essay format we are used to today. This has to be kept in mind when reading Plato's work.

It should be noted that as Plato uses Socrates as a character in his writings, there is some confusion in early works as to whether Plato is representing Socrates' ideas or his own (the Socratic problem previously discussed). Fortunately, later works contain more developed aspects of Plato's philosophy which other writers do not mention, so it can be assumed that these represent Plato's original contributions rather than Socrates' own ideas.

The life of Plato

Plato was born into one of the richest and politically influential families in Athens. It appears some of his family (such as his uncle Charmides) were supporters of oligarchy while others (such as his stepfather Pyrilampes) supported the implementation of democracy. The name Plato appears to have been a nickname for platos, meaning "broad" and possibly "broad-shouldered" in Greek, based on his reputed physique during wrestling as a boy.

After studying under Socrates until his teacher's death, a reasonably young Plato left Athens to explore the world. It is known he stayed in the ancient city of Megara in Attic Greece, but is also likely he travelled throughout Italy, Sicily and possibly even to Egypt (a very significant journey in this time). While in Syracuse he became the tutor of Dion, brother-in-law of a notable ruler and tyrant Dionysus I (432-367 B.C.) who controlled southern Italy. While Dionysus I initially greeted Plato warmly, their relationship soured; he allegedly tried to sell Plato into slavery, but Plato escaped and returned to Athens.

At this point in his life, Plato began constructing the happiest achievement of his life: The Academy, the world's first University. The school was fittingly located in a sacred olive grove which was dedicated to Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom.

After overseeing the Academy and writing some of his most significant works, Plato was again lured to Syracuse by the temptation of creating a Philosopher-King to put into effect his ideal of the perfect Republic. He accepted an offer from Dion, uncle of new ruler Dionysus II, to come and educate him. The flirtation was brief, with Plato being placed under house arrest within three months, but Plato did eventually persuade Dionysus II to release him and he returned to Athens.

He stayed there for four years, before being summoned back to Syracuse, when Dionysus II sent a ship and a message begging him to come back. Despite initial reluctance, Plato returned one more time, to be equally disappointed. This time the falling out was so significant that Plato had to organise his own escape.

At this point it was likely Plato was understandably disillusioned with politics and he lived out the last 13 years of his life in Athens at his Academy. Passing away in his mid-70s, he was allegedly buried on the grounds of the University he founded, although his grave has so far not been found.

Plato's Theory of Forms

So what was so amazing about Plato?

A big question in Greek philosophy at the time concerned how the appearance of a thing reflected, either correctly or incorrectly, the underlying thing itself. While it is easy to say a thing is what it looks, sounds, tastes, smells and feels like, early Presocratic philosophers such as Thales noted that things can change quite a bit in appearance while still being the same "thing" in essence.

For example, water and ice are materially identical but look and feel quite different; if we had never seen either before we would probably assume they are unrelated. To explain this, Thales asked what the "thing itself", beyond its appearance, actually was. He came up with the term substance – something intrinsic to the "thing itself" beyond its superficiality.

Although this seems to answer the question, the next question that flows form this is how the appearance of the thing differs from their substance, or essence? Put another way, given we can only interact with "things" through our physical senses, can we trust our senses and really know the true essence of anything?

Socrates had already suggested a theory of recollection, whereby new knowledge was not just provided to a student on a blank slate (a tabula rasa, as John Locke later called it), but that teaching helps a student remember what is already known to the student. Plato expanded on this and suggested that things, as well as qualities and attributes associated with them, actually exist outside the physical universe in a perfect state; these things are known as forms and Plato considered them to be perfect.

According to Plato, everything we experience (such as an object like a tree, an attribute like the colour green or a quality such as courage) is an imperfect reflection of the metaphysical, universal form outside our universe. For example, a tree in the garden is an imperfect copy or representation of the universal form of a tree. While the form is perfect, the tree is not, nevertheless we can still recognise the beauty attached to the imperfect tree in our physical world.

Now this might seem a bit barmy to us, because we are not used to thinking like this. However, if these perfect forms are thought to represent the "mind of God" (with perfect objects being manifested in our imperfect world), it makes much more sense (assuming you are a Theist, of course).

This is a strongly idealist form of philosophy. It suggests that in the end, it is ideas which are known to our souls and which influence the world. It runs counter to the philosophy of materialism, where all ideas are seen to be extracted from the experience of the material world, rather than from outside it. Karl Marx was a great supporter of the materialist school of philosophy, having little time for Plato's metaphysics, as we will see later.

The theory of forms solves a range of questions, particularly the problem of universals: how can one thing be many things at the same time? For example, a mobile phone is a "phone" but is also "plastic", "white" and has all sorts of other qualities. So what is it really?

Plato answered that perfect forms could manifest themselves in a range of things, so a tree would have the qualities of "tree-ness", "green-ness" and "wood-ness" attached to it. Analysed today using Plato's criteria, a mobile phone would have the quality of "phone-ness", "plastic-ness" and "white-ness" attached to it. These physical qualities, though imperfect, are considered manifestations of their corresponding perfect form, outside the physical realm.

What about the process of change? Doesn't age change the essence of something? Plato wrote that things can of course change, because qualities or attributes may become better or worse over time. However, this is no more than the imperfect physical thing degrading over time. By contrast, the perfect forms outside the universe are timeless, eternal and never change – the tree's form is unchanging.

This all sounds really nice, but is there any evidence for forms actually existing or are they a figment of Plato's overactive imagination? Plato used the following inductive arguments in support of his theory:

The argument from perception: Humans identify the sky and the ocean as being blue, although the wavelengths of both colours are quite different. No two blue colours are really the same, yet we can identify them as being of the same essence. Plato argues that this demonstrates both the sky and ocean possess the universal form of "blueness", and that this form must be known to our souls. If it was not, we could not identify and group these two essences together as being blue, even though they are slightly different.

The argument of perfection: We have never seen a perfect thing in our physical world, yet we understand the idea of perfection. When we look at a beautiful rose, we can say it is almost perfect, yet we know it still contains flaws. How do we understand the idea of a "perfect rose" in the first place, or even that some roses are more perfect than others? Plato argues it is because our soul intuitively remembers the form of the perfect rose, just as our soul remembers all of the perfect forms.

Platonic forms and the Allegory of the Cave

In Book IV of the Republic, Plato uses his famous Allegory of the Cave to describe his theory of forms:

  * Imagine prisoners that have been chained to the wall of a cave since childhood. Their arms and legs are fixed and their head is also directed at the wall. A fire behind them blazes, shining light against the wall.

  * Between their backs and the fire is a walkway, where people move backwards and forwards, transporting items on their heads of different shapes and sizes. There are also echoes of noises which bounce against the walls of the cave and are heard by the prisoners.

  * Because these unfortunate prisoners have only seen one side of the image since childbirth, they regard the shadows and echoes as representing the objects themselves, rather than being reflections of the objects behind them.

  * If one prisoner was released he would, after initially not understanding the new things he saw, eventually acclimatise, understand what was real and what represented the shadows and echoes of things.

  * But when he went back to explain this to his fellow prisoners, they would not believe him – they would trust in the shadows and echoes which they could see and hear directly, rather than the "abstract" truths the freed prisoner would communicate to them.

  * In the same way, the everyday things we experience in the world are only "shadows", or imperfect copies of reality. It is the hidden and perfect forms which are real, not their copies.

This idealist view is known (somewhat strangely) as Realism. According to Realism, things and the attributes exist objectively, independent of the physical objects themselves.

This is different to the opposing view – abstract terms are descriptive, but do not actually exist independently of the things they describe. The latter view is known as Nominalism and represents the position which most people agree with today.

Although in our materialist-dominated world it may seem strange to suggest things have a metaphysical form associated with them, a range of modern thinkers agree with Plato.

Mathematician Roger Penrose (colleague of physicist Stephen Hawking) asserts that because mathematical relationships are so intricate, and the methodology is so dependable, numbers do have an objective quality about them and are not just the products of human abstraction.

Penrose speculates that numbers are in fact real and exist independently of our thoughts, leading him to an acceptance of Plato's Theory of Forms. This suggests that a mathematical equation is either objectively true or untrue, even if it cannot be proven, as an equation would likely have the form of "trueness" or "falseness" attached to it (making it either true or false).

This also suggests truth is not subjective, but that abstract truths do exist – although that does not mean we can know with certainty what these truths are, particularly in the physical world.

The Form of the Good

In the Republic, Plato refers to a form which is greater than any other perfect form, which he calls the form of the Good. Mention of this overarching form has intrigued thinkers over the centuries, but it remains difficult to categorise; what does this peculiar form represent? Plato states it is a form greater than any other and does not represent any one quality, but represents the unity, or coherence, of all other forms.

As it represents and comes before other forms, it is logical to suggest this form is the first principle of everything – though this point is debatable. It is unclear whether this form represents a higher power, although as it constitutes a universal force from which all other forms manifest – the ultimate form – this is probably a fair bet. Or does this form simply represent our innate sense of goodness as human beings?

Perhaps we can best define the form of the Good by what it is not. According to Plato, it is not intelligence, truth or power, but "beyond it, and superior in dignity and power". Plato uses the analogy of the Sun to describe this form; just as the sun transcends all the properties it provides and contributes to on earth – such as heat, light, sight or growth – so the form of the Good transcends all the forms it contributes to.

Tripartite theory of the Soul

Plato's theory of the soul was developed as an extension of Socrates' view that the Soul is immortal, divine and contemplative, even after the death of the physical body it is attached to. Plato developed a tripartite theory of the soul which he analogised to his three perfect political classes in a healthy society:

  * The Appetitive: The lowest part of the soul, concerned with base desires and physical pleasures. This part plays an important purpose, in that it helps us in attending to immediate physical needs (such as food and drink) and helps support reproduction of the species (through the pursuit and enjoyment of sex). However, the Appetitive is base in its wants, won't teach you anything and needs to be restrained.

  * The Spirited: This part of the soul is responsible for the love of honour, victory and leadership. It is the part which makes us feel pride in our labours, gives us a work ethic and the desire to win in competitive situations. In the well-ordered soul, this part restrains and governs the appetitive part. It does this on behalf of the highest part of the human soul, the Rational.

  * The Rational: This represents the mind, encompassing intellectual development and higher awareness. It informs our understanding of the world and inspires us to pursue moral and spiritual truths. As such, it is responsible for philosophical desires.

According to Plato, in a well ordered soul the Rational constrains and guides the wants of the other two parts, the Appetitive and the Spirited. However, in an imperfect soul, one of the other two parts may become dominant, leading to problems.

If the Appetitive becomes dominant, we become slaves to our physical passions, only living for the moment and thinking of the next pleasurable physical sensation. Although few become outright hedonists, people with a dominant appetitive trait are focused on short-term pleasure and material accumulation.

If the Spirited becomes dominant, our focus in life becomes distorted – we become too concerned with work for its own sake, our status in society, approval from our peers and the perception of worldly success, at the cost of doing the morally right thing and pursuing higher knowledge.

Further, if the spirited part of the soul is not moderated, it can lead to excessive anger and frustration when goals are not met. It can also lead to feelings of failure, particularly concerning our status in society and employment. Having said this, a well-formed soul does rely on the Spirited part to a large degree, as this part provides the discipline required to be successful in life, particularly when enforcing the will of the Rational on the Appetitive.

As an illustrative example, let's consider an all-too familiar situation – getting up for work on a Monday morning:

The Appetitive part of the soul prefers the immediate warmth of the bed and additional sleep to getting up. It also wants to stay home and indulge physical pleasures rather than getting up and working hard. This is the part which tells you, "I don't want to get up today; let's call in sick, stay home and have fun".

The Spirited part urges us to forego our immediate wants and go to work for the sake of reputation and future success in the job. It provides us with the work ethic, drives us to complete tasks and to cultivate a positive professional reputation. This part tells you "if you get up, work hard and do a good job you will be highly respected. You will be considered a valuable person in the organisation and this will help your career".

The Rational part understands that part of our life involves forgoing immediate pleasure for long-term achievements, like getting out of bed and going to work even if we don't want to. However, it also questions the type of work we do and whether it is spiritually meaningful. It is this part which says "if you are making a difference and contributing to society, then you should get out of bed and work for the betterment of humanity. But if your job is not meaningful, you should reconsider your career and do something which matters".

Theories of the soul and The Republic

This sounds strange, but Plato's theory of the soul underpins his analysis of politics. Let me explain how.

In the Republic, Plato relates these three parts of the soul to classes in a well-ordered society. In his perfect State, the Appetitive represents workers and merchants; the Spirited represents the auxiliary class of soldiers; and the Rational represents the guardian class, enlightened rulers or "philosopher-kings" – the intellectual elite who are reluctantly pressed into service to benevolently rule on behalf of the people.

This somewhat meritocratic ideal had enormous influence on the Ancient World and was used by many leaders to justify their autocratic rule. Such leaders would say they had been pushed into being a ruler for the benefit of society, no matter how ruthless they ended up being.

Arguably, Plato's ideal of the "Philosopher-King" was so heartily embraced by rulers and ambitious despots that it provided the perfect justification for tyrannical and undemocratic rule. It is interesting to ponder whether Plato's falling out with Dionysus II was founded in Plato's realisation of that manipulation.

According to Plato, in a well-ordered society the philosopher-kings (rational) give instruction to the soldiers (spirited), who enforces the rulers rational and enlightened will on the workers and merchants (appetitive). In this way, the perfect society mirrors the workings of the perfect soul.

So how are people chosen for each class? Plato refers to the colour of a person's soul. Although this is a point of contention, I think Plato was suggesting the colour of a person's soul can be "seen" by other enlightened people, possibly through metaphysical means.

Importantly, Plato associates colour with a person's spiritual development. The colour bronze is associated with the lower, appetitive part (workers and merchants); the colour silver with the spirited part (auxiliary class) and the colour gold with the most pure and rare of souls, that of the rational part (guardian/ruling class). The quality of a person's soul determines who fits where in the perfect Republic. It was the ultimate attempt to pick the right person for the right job.

In summary, according to Plato the appetitive part of our soul represents our base desires; the spirited represents honour and duty; and the rational represents the highest part, which is constituted of knowledge and spiritual truth.

Plato and Reincarnation

As well as upholding the immortality of the soul, Plato's writings mention the concept of reincarnation. It appears Plato borrowed this from the Pythagoreans, agreeing that human souls do reincarnate after death. This approach is obviously similar to eastern religious beliefs such as Buddhism and Hinduism, remarkable because most western traditions, such as Christianity, do not support this.

Plato believed that reincarnation involved the entering of souls, which had already lived, into a new body. Plato was very concerned that when a soul re-entered a body, it tended to become impure due to the corrupting nature of physical existence. It was therefore important to keep the reincarnated soul as pure as possible to allow it to return to its pre-existent state (as pure spirit).

It is uncertain whether Plato was referring to human-to-human reincarnation only, or accepted the possibility of human-to-animal reincarnation; neither Plato nor contemporary writers make this clear. Neo-Platonists such as Plotinus and his student Porphyry (234 – 305 A.D.), writing 600 to 700 years later, were also divided on the issue.

The Theory of Forms fits nicely with reincarnation; the soul does not only have pre-existent knowledge, but can identify things it experienced in a former life. For example, if one went to Rome, visited a great ancient landmark (such as the Colosseum or the Pantheon) and felt a powerful affinity and emotional reaction, Plato may suggest this was not just because of its nostalgic value, but because you are remembering this powerful and iconic landmark from direct experience in a previous life.

This also applies to places and locations one feels pulled and connected to. Following Plato's reasoning, this may be the reason why people feel compelled to travel or live in distant locations they may have never visited before – they want to be in the environment they previously lived in. It also provides an explanation for the concept of Deja-Vu, the eerie feeling of having experienced something in the past which has not been experienced in this lifetime. Plato would likely suggest this feeling was something which the soul has "remembered" from a previous life.

Music and the soul

The Ancients regarded music not just as something to enjoy during a time of recreation, but as therapeutic. Plato extended this and regarded music not as just entertaining, but as both a barometer of a person's spiritual development and also having the ability to actually improve a person's soul:

In order to take the spiritual temperature of an individual or society, one must mark the music.

– Plato

He also suggested that beautiful and "correct" music had a direct and positive effect on the soul:

Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful.

– Plato

Atlantis

The legendary island of Atlantis has occupied people's minds (and generated innumerable conspiracy theories) since Plato first wrote about it in two of his later works (the Timaeus and Critias).

From Isaac Newton's study of the island, writings by US Congressmen Ignatius L Donnelly, Theosophical-mystical works (largely by Helena Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner and Edgar Cayce), the 1939 Nazi expedition in Tibet in the search for "Aryan Atlanteans" and recent books examining where Atlantis may be located (particularly from noted linguist Charles Berlitz), few ideas from antiquity have stuck so clearly and had such bizarre effects.

So what did Plato (as opposed to hundreds of later authors) actually write about Atlantis?

In the Critias, Plato writes that the island contained an advanced, prehistoric civilisation which existed until about 9600 B.C. He implies that the people of this utopian state eventually became materialist, corrupt and decadent, leading to its downfall, including the physical sinking of the island in one day:

For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them [the Atlanteans], they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control...when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power.

– Plato, Critias

Although some ancient writers such as the Platonist Crator (?-276 B.C.) considered the dialogue to be literally accurate, most ancient scholars regarded the text as an illustrative work only, an example of how a hypothetical utopia could be corrupted by the dominance of the appetitive soul. It is only in modern times that a large number of people have considered Atlantis to have actually existed.

Adding to the conspiracy, most of the dialogue of the Critias has been lost; it abruptly breaks off just as the fall of Atlantis is being discussed:

Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows...[the rest is lost]

Although Plato's core philosophy is not dependent on the oft-mentioned island, it is worth considering just what Plato was trying to represent here. Was Plato's Atlantis an ancient description of an actual island which sunk around 12,000 years ago, or does this represent a convenient myth Plato used to illustrate his philosophy?

Conclusion

Plato's powerful idealist philosophy has strongly influenced the Ancient and Modern world, only being recently superseded by Aristotelian logic and ultimately, modern-day empiricism. Although our current world does not regard Plato as highly as other Ancient philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus, it was Plato who provided the first complete and internally self-consistent framework explaining existence – albeit with a lack of definite proof.

Many of his ideas have been adopted scientifically and politically. Mathematicians have adopted his Theory of Forms, while rulers have referred to the ideals of the Republic.

More than anything else, it is his powerful metaphysical contributions which remain highly influential. Theories such as the immortality of the soul, the tripartite theory of the soul and justification for reincarnation have provided the groundwork for many Western religions and philosophies, spanning from early Christian thought to the psychoanalytical work of Sigmund Freud.

Plato was the arch Theist: a philosophical defender of the faith whose ideas remain compelling today. As a civilisation, we would not be where we are without him.

Pros:

  * Platonism represents the high point of idealist Philosophy – a sophisticated interpretation of reality supported by analytical hypotheses and driven home through gripping analogy. For those who believe in the immortality of the soul or that our life has a spiritual purpose, Plato is the original high priest in the western world.

  * While most philosophical schools either deny the reality of the physical world (pure idealism) or deny the existence of anything outside it (pure materialism), Plato does neither; he fully accepts the reality of things and objects around us while providing his Theory of Forms to demonstrate the existence of a pure, idealist and actually-existing reality, beyond that of the physical world.

Cons:

  * Much of Platonic theory is metaphysical so cannot be proven. Further, while much of Plato's approach is intuitively convincing, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support many of his assertions.

  * It is arguable that applying Plato's metaphysical principles to a political system is anti-democratic. This is because in practice, Philosopher-Kings are not elected, but usually appointed, due to the nature of their soul. While this sounds fine in theory, who is responsible for interpreting which citizen has the "best coloured soul", thus appointing them leader of a country? Modern philosopher Karl Popper was particularly sceptical of this idea, seeing it as a justification for tyranny. (for more on this see Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, 2002).

  * Plato's writing is largely in dialogue format. Because of this, it is often difficult to know whether he is referring to a literal event, analogising to demonstrate a specific point or directly mocking other philosophers to illustrate a counterpoint. This adds to the beauty, but also to the interpretative subjectivity, of much of Plato's work.

Further Reading

Plato, The Symposium: Plato's short, light-hearted and yet still philosophically meaningful work on the greatest of all human attributes: love. Don't let the implicit discussions on homosexuality vs. heterosexuality distract you from his main point; namely, what is true love?

Plato, The Republic: Plato's classical work on the development on a City-State and the classes in it. Make sure your copy has a good introductory explanation, otherwise you may get bogged down in the rather layered dialogue.

Plato, Timaeus: After the fall of Rome, this was the only Platonic work the West had access to until the Renaissance. This short work provides a surprisingly scientific approach to the material world mixed in with occasional lashes of mystical theory. It also contains a brief reference to the island of Atlantis.

Plotinus, The Ennead: Plotinus (204-270 A.D.) was born 600 years after Plato but is the most well-known Neo-Platonist. His work concentrates on the mystical element of Plato's teachings and is philosophically deep. Be warned: it is poetic, repetitive and tricky to decipher, requiring a strong introductory text. Despite this, It is still very much worth checking out.

Chapter Four: Stoicism

Accept the things you can't control and follow nature

What do I desire? To understand nature and follow her.

– Epictetus

Stoicism was one of the great philosophical schools of Greece, spreading quickly and infecting Rome like an intellectual plague. But unlike so many plagues of the Ancient World, this was a healthy plague – and an idea whose time had come.

By the 3rd Century B.C., the emphasis in philosophy had changed from uncovering metaphysical truths (as Socrates and Plato did) to uncovering the role of the individual in the world, the austere virtues of Stoicism developed and thrived.

By the 1st Century A.D., Stoicism had become the dominant philosophy amongst educated Romans, useful during times of economic and social uncertainty when people of the Ancient World required a high degree of intellectual anaesthetic. It was also a useful philosophy for a Roman soldier, an occupation requiring courage and the acceptance of death.

Although created by the Greeks, it is at heart a thoroughly Roman philosophy. By the first century A.D. most educated Romans called themselves Stoics, even if many did not practice what they preached.

A Quick History of Stoicism

The founder of the Stoic creed was Zeno of Citium (334-262 B.C.). Following from Aristotle, Zeno was a merchant who travelled to Athens to study philosophy at the age of 22. He studied a range of philosophical schools, including Platonism and a derivate of Socratic thought called the Megarian school, but was particularly influenced by Cynicism, the system which taught thinkers to question everything.

At the age of about 34, Zeno began to teach in the Stoa Poikile (painted porch) from where the Stoics derive their name. In 263 B.C. he was succeeded as head of the Stoa by his pupil Cleanthes (330-230 B.C.), a boxer who travelled to Athens and supported himself financially by carrying water at night. As well as being head of the school, Cleanthes was something of a poet and it was he who added the term "with nature" to Zeno's original dictum to "live consistently".

After his death, the prolific writer Chrysippus (279-206 B.C.) added the concept of fate, introduced his own form of propositional logic to the school (adding if, and, either...or type statements to philosophical logic) and systematised Stoicism into a complete metaphysical system. This period is known as the Early Stoa.

While there was a Middle Stoa (which included the teacher Panaetius (c.185-110 B.C.), who introduced Stoic teachings to Rome), most Stoic beliefs have been communicated to us from what was called the Late Stoa. The most famous philosophers from this period include:

  * The slave-turned-Philosopher, Epictetus (55-135 A.D.);

  * The wealthy and benevolent tutor of Emperor Nero, Seneca (3 B.C-65 A.D.); and

  * The great Philosopher-King of Rome, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.).

It is from this period onwards that we have a solid history of Rome; it is also from these enlightened thinkers that we obtain the bulk of our knowledge of Stoicism.

Stoicism remained popular in the Roman world up to the 6th Century, when Christianity completed its domination the philosophical landscape. From the 4th Century onwards Stoicism became locked in a three-cornered battle with Platonism and that new religion sweeping across Rome, Christianity.

By 529 A.D., Christianity had been the dominant ideology and religion for 150 years. Justinian I officially banned Stoic and Platonic schools from operation, as these philosophies appeared inconsistent with the stricter theological tenants of orthodox Christianity at that time.

Influence of Stoicism

Despite this, Stoic authors were greatly admired by many Christian writers; early Church Father Tertullian (c.160-220 A.D.) referred to Seneca as saepe noster (often one of us) and St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 337-397 A.D.) incorporated much of his early Stoic training into Christianity. Stoicism is even mentioned in the Bible by name along with Epicureanism (Acts 17: 18).

Stoicism had consistent underground support throughout the Middle Ages - one Bishop wrote that Seneca's clear Latin prose was distracting trainee monks from reading The Bible. During the Renaissance, writers such as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) appreciated classical Stoicism and wrote about it ad nauseam, usually backed up by extensive quotes from classical historians, particularly Livy and Tacitus.

Although less influential in the 21st Century, many concepts attributed to Stoicism have been adopted into modern psychological schools, particularly rational and cognitive-behavioural psychology.

Pithily eloquent quotes (such as "there are things we can control and things we can't") contain much truth in them and have been incorporated into self-help books as the key to leading a meaningful and stress-free life. This is natural, because in many ways Stoicism represents the first self-help philosophy ever written.

The Stoic Framework: God is everywhere

To begin with, Stoicism considered God to be Pantheistic. This means that stoics perceived God to exist everywhere as a life-force or "higher power", somewhat similar to Buddhism. The concept of nature is not of wild, uncontrollable elements, but of a rational, harmonious "whole", which unites all living things.

Early stoics were actually more agnostic than this, considering their idea of God to be represented in the physical universe only; later Stoic philosophers suggested a more metaphysical approach, with a spiritual life-force pulsing through nature.

Under the discipline of Stoicism, nature is not just considered rational but purposeful; it is deterministic, which means a human's life is not his/her own but is affected by fate.

Most Stoics asserted the existence of a life force, a sort of universal fire which permeates everything (pnuema) and guides growth and development, similar to the concepts of Taoism and Buddhism. It's so similar that many scholars have suggested an oriental influence, although like Platonism this has never been definitively established.

The early Stoa thought this all-embracing pnuema or fire was constituted of the "active elements" of fire and air (as opposed to the "passive elements" of earth and water). Later stoics did not provide physical explanations, as they tended to emphasise metaphysical principles. This later pantheistic approach, suggesting God and nature are one, shares similarity with early forms of mystical Christianity known as Gnosticism. Even elements of Orthodox Christianity contain traces of pantheism, particularly in the writings of St. Paul.

This all-encompassing view of nature directly fed into Stoic practice. Stoics did not consider philosophy to be an abstract discipline, but something to be applied to their lives every day. The stoic conviction, that external things will not make a person happy, was absolute; according to them, only the practice of philosophy would allow a person to be truly happy.

The Highest Good – Virtue

That alone is good which will make the soul better.

– Seneca

The essence of greatness is the perception that virtue is enough.

– Ralph Waldo Emerson

According to the Stoics, because nature is rational and purposeful, it follows that the only truly rational behaviour is to follow the good. But what is the highest good?

There are many things we want – wealth, health and happiness – but all of these are temporary and do not provide goodness in themselves. According to the stoics, the highest good is virtue, typically associated with virtue of the soul.

The problem is that to make sense of this interpretation, we need to define what the soul is made of – Stoics used the term "soul" very loosely, making it unclear as to what the term means. For example, Stoic writers often used the term interchangeably to mean "mind", "human character" or "spirit", without clearly defining which meaning they are referring to. This is quite different to Platonism or Christianity, where the term "soul" refers to a metaphysical, immortal element of ourselves which will never die, rather than a part of our character or other attribute.

It is never clear whether Stoics agreed or disagreed with the immortality of the soul. Some seem to hint support for the soul's life after death (such as Seneca), while most seem to be unsure and therefore hedge their position. This is how Marcus Aurelius refers to it:

Either this complex body of your own must also one day be broken up in dispersion, or else the breath that animates it must be extinguished, or removed and translated elsewhere.

– Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Not exactly a definitive answer. Due to this, it is unclear whether "virtue of the soul" refers to spiritual development through mystical means, a mental development towards kindness and wisdom, a development of character, or even a combination of the three.

It is unlikely ancient followers of Stoicism would have seen any conflict between a universal life force existing and not having an immortal soul. Unlike today, the Ancients gave immortality of the soul a much reduced priority compared to the existence of a higher, God-like power. This doesn't make things clear because immortality of the soul (which many Stoics did not accept) and the idea of a higher power existing (which later Stoics did accept) are usually considered today as ideas which are virtually inseparable. The Ancients saw these two concepts as being very different, with belief in one not necessarily indicating belief in the other.

Stoicism and Fate

Money will come of its own accord; titles will be given to you; influence and authority will perhaps be thrust upon you; but virtue will not fall upon you by chance.

– Seneca

The concept of fate was an extremely important one for the Stoics, linking in with the idea of a Pantheistic, God-is-everywhere universe.

When asked today about the nature of fate and free will in our lives, most people place much weight on the power of individuals to change themselves and achieve greatness, rather than being concerned with outside constraints and limitations. The idea that the human condition is shaped by forces completely outside of our control would be considered ridiculous to most people today.

This is because the modern world is based on the idea of inalienable rights, individual progress and personal material advancement, very much supported by the economic system of Capitalism and the philosophy of Liberalism (which we will look at later in this book).

Unlike today, an ultra-fatalistic belief system called hard determinism was embraced by many in the Ancient World. This suggested that everything was determined by an action before it and that therefore, all of human existence was set in stone.

Under this scenario, there was no free will at all; everything was predestined, despite any supposed "choices" made by individuals.

This belief in fate hardened during the decline of the Roman Empire, although by the 5th Century this was superseded by a non-fatalistic, God-focused approach to problem solving through faith – a major philosophical contribution from early Christianity which admitted the concept of free will into people's lives.

While most Stoics did not completely discount the notion of individual freedom (after all, there is no point in telling people to be virtuous when you have no free will), the overwhelming approach Stoicism took towards following nature seems to support the concept of a largely deterministic world. If free will exists, it exists in being virtuous and swimming with the tide of truth, rather than being led by one's own ego and thrashing against the current of fate.

This raises an objection to free will in the Stoic belief system. If life is guided by nature, do individual choices mean anything or are we just pretending to make them? Is human action free, or are these supposed "freedoms" illusory?

In response, Stoics responded by way of an analogy. They replied that while an individual part of the body – say a limb, or a blood cell – may have genuine independence, the part was still guided by the overall actions of the body around it. Related to individuals, the body was represented by the Universe.

An individual has a certain amount of freedom to react to circumstance, but only so far as the external environment allows it, according to Stoicism (this known as "soft determinism" in Sociological circles). This also ties in nicely with the Stoic maxim, "there are things you can control and things you can't".

Despite the potential philosophical contradictions, the idea of following nature through accepting the guidance of a universal, albeit impersonal, higher power holds a deeply satisfying and intuitive significance.

The message is particularly applicable to the environmentally conscious and mystically-minded individual (particularly undergraduate students who start to really question the belief systems of their parents and society) but it is equally relevant to people of all walks of life – many highly intelligent people who deny the existence of a Christian God are quite willing to accept the possibility of a higher power, or energy force, existing and binding the universe together.

In fact, most people who loosely claim not to believe in God are not Atheists but closet Pantheists; the key is to make a clear distinction between those who do not believing in anything existing beyond the physical (Atheism), those who are not sure (Agnosticism), those who believe in a personal God (Theism) or those who reject the concept of a personal God (often because they reject the stagnant religious views of their parents) but still feel there is a metaphysical life force in the Universe (Pantheism).

Put simply, Stoic writing focuses on fate, acceptance of reality and distinguishing between the freedoms we do have and those we do not possess as human beings. This leads to the next principle, one of the most influential in the Stoics philosophical armoury.

There are things you can control and things you can't

If you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.

– Epictetus, The Enchiridion

One of the key concepts Stoics teach is that there are things within our control and things outside it.

This simple philosophical maxim was strongly argued by the Stoics, who felt that human beings had an inherent tendency to misjudge what was within their power to control. Put simply, most of us tend to assume we have far more power and influence over our lives than we actually do. It is this shocking error of judgement which leads us to worry about things we can't change, while ignoring things we can influence.

This modern principle, contained in so many self-help books, was a fundamental principle of Ancient Stoicism. Stoicism teaches that most people have a level of self-worth which is either too optimistic or pessimistic, inevitably leading to error. By limiting ones control over the world and recognising personal behaviours which can be changed, balance and realism is finally achieved. It is this belief which many Stoics aggressively advocated as among their most important teachings.

As a modern day example, let's say you were about to enter into a meeting for which you were giving a complex presentation and you had prepared for this meeting as best you could. If you are like most people, you would be somewhat nervous, particularly if you didn't know many of the people at the presentation and have limited experience with giving presentations to a wider audience. The common sense view is to say that it is natural to feel anxious, but that as you begin the presentation, the fear of the unknown melts away and you are likely to be more relaxed.

Now the stoic sage would partially agree, but would go further. According to Stoicism, you need not be nervous at any time prior to the presentation in terms of the outcome, how well you present it or whether you make mistakes. This is due to one irrefutable fact: the presentation is outside your control until you actually start presenting it.

This rule is so strictly applied that even if you are presenting something in five minutes time, there is still little you can control until you actually start, five minutes later – on this basis, feelings of nervousness just before the event are actually irrational, as they are based on perceived problems which will probably never occur.

Ironically, apart from preparation for the presentation, Stoics would say that there is only one thing which you can control fully prior to any stressful event: your emotions. As your opinions are your own and your opinions affect what you feel, the Stoics would say your emotions are the only thing you need take full responsibility for:

Everything is but what your opinion makes it; and that opinion lies with yourself. Renounce it when you will, and at once you have rounded the forehand and all is calm; a tranquil sea, a tideless haven

– Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Even if you think that you may not present well – even if you become neurotic, fantasising about negative outcomes which are highly unlikely, no matter how badly you do (such as that you may faint or have a heart attack during the presentation) you should not be concerned. After all, why worry about things you have no control over? To be utterly at peace, you only need to do one thing: accept reality as it is, while only preparing for those eventualities you can control.

Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well.

– Epictetus

This is not to say we shouldn't get ready for things such as exams, presentations, public speaking events and such. Preparation is absolutely within our power, and we would be wrong to neglect it. But having calmly and stoically prepared for whatever task awaits us, we need not give it a second thought, because the outcome lies in the future and is beyond our power.

Nor should we be attached to outcomes, unless it relates to the application of virtue in our own lives. Issues related to material achievement (getting a better job and making more money, winning the lottery, etc.) are considered "preferred indifferents" by Stoics. They are neither inherently good nor bad; they are simply material events. It is important to put these supposedly beneficial events in their correct philosophical perspective.

The Stoic approach to acceptance attempts to move people away from immobilising emotions and towards taking charge of their lives. It is not just about ignoring tomorrow's problems and feeling good about your life, but accepting reality as it is and not reacting to things outside our power, no matter how apparently "good" or "bad" they look to us. For the Stoics, even our own death is considered an "indifferent" in the scheme of things (although certainly a "nonpreferred" one!).

Follow Nature

What do I desire? To understand nature and follow her.

.– Epictetus

One question continually put to the Stoics was how a philosopher could actually know what was virtuous. What is the right thing to do?

Unlike Platonism, Stoicism never accepted the idea of timeless forms outside of the physical world, allowing people to identify things inside it; Stoics regarded people as being born with the mind of a blank slate, or tabula rasa.

Through study and applied learning, knowledge and wisdom can be obtained, but unlike Platonism such knowledge is truly learnt (i.e. acquired from nothing), not "remembered" from the past.

While founder Zeno stated that the key to acting rationally and being happy was through "a good flow of life", this dictum was modified by Cleanthes to the more specific phrase, "living with agreement with Nature" – eventually, this came to be simply, "follow Nature".

This critical concept – that Nature is rational and purposeful, and all humanity need do to live a virtuous life is to live in agreement with it – indicates why Stoics shunned excess (or claimed to), particularly the hedonistic excesses which delighted many in the Roman world.

As with many Stoic doctrines, there is an intuitive resonance of appealing simplicity to this approach. Stoics were not just using the concept of Nature as an analogy, but believed that the wise man (or sapiens) would benefit from observing, imitating and taking peace from the natural world. This is a belief system not for the intellectual few, but for all humans to aspire to.

For those who follow nature everything is easy and straightforward, whereas for those who fight against her life is just like rowing against the stream.

– Seneca, Letters

False Impressions and the good

That alone is good which will make the soul better.

– Seneca

The Stoics were clear that following nature will allow us to live a virtuous life and lead us away that which is false. But how can one confirm that personal, "natural" concepts of what is good are correct?

The Stoics began by claiming that whatever is good must provide benefit and happiness to individuals under all circumstances. While people may wish for health and wealth, these things will not provide happiness all the time; stories of affluent people who squandered their fortune and developed harmful addictions and fetishes were well known in Ancient Greece and Rome.

Even if one if healthy, wealthy and sane, there are circumstances where a person may still not be happy – for example, if someone is wealthy, healthy and sane but has recently lost their entire family in a freak accident, they are likely not to be happy. Therefore, the Stoics claimed most things in this world are not good or bad objectively, although they may provide us with short-term pleasure or short-run pain.

Things that appear good but do not contribute to virtue are not things to be despised, neither are they ethically important. The Stoics called these things preferred indifferents.

This also applied to bad things which do not diminish one's own virtue. Things which give us discomfort and pain are considered temporary and unimportant to the Stoics – and may even be a blessing in disguise. Such things were considered nonpreferred indifferents.

Stoicism taught that as rational individuals, we must be calm and not allow the false impressions of things to carry us away, making false or incorrect moral judgements. Very few things were considered morally good or bad to the Stoics, despite how we might judge them.

Does this mean that ethics is completely subjective and does good and bad actually exist? Stoics accepted that good did objectively exist in the world, although the concept of pure evil was discarded by many such as Marcus Aurelius, who regarded evil as purely subjective.

The only things which are good are the qualities underlying virtue and consistent with Nature: wisdom (which includes knowledge), prudence (which is really just applied wisdom), justice, courage and moderation. Only this approach to realising and living the good (known in Ancient Greek as kalon) can be considered useful in promoting true happiness in our lives.

Conversely, it is only through not living up to these high principles that our actions can be deemed legitimately bad.

Taken to its logical extreme, this would mean the Stoic individual would be indifferent to virtually any event in the world except for their own moral actions and reactions. An untimely death would be unexpected, but not bad; a famine would only be terrible insofar as we did not respond to it. Although perhaps not heartless, this does appear a pretty tough way of getting through one's life!

Most Stoics softened this rather austere approach by stating that certain preferred indifferents did have a value, even if having them did not make one morally virtuous (and so were not "good" or "bad" objectively). As an example, good personal health and moderate wealth both contain some value, as it is generally reasonable to for them to be preferred over ill health and poverty. However, these blessings are not "good" or "bad" in themselves. If they are lost, it must be recognised this is not an evil, but just a nonpreferred form of what is still an indifferent.

Humans can quite rightly desire pleasure over pain, but this should never be confused with what is actually good, according to the Stoic. Fundamentally, the role of a philosopher is to accept the things that cannot be changed, accept the providential flow of nature and never consent to false impressions.

The mind which is free from passions is a citadel, for man has nothing more secure to which he can fly for refuge and for the future be inexpungible. He then who has not seen this is an ignorant man; but he who has seen it and does not fly to this refuge is unhappy.

– Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Eternal Recurrence

Only a little while, and nature, the universal disposer, will change everything you see, and out of their substance will make fresh things, and yet again others from theirs, to the perpetual renewing of the world's youthfulness.

– Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Although much of Stoicism was moral in nature, it did have a scientific base. The doctrine of eternal recurrence was first developed in China and India, although it appears the Pythagoreans and Stoics developed the concept independently.

This hypothesis suggests the Universe will continue to recur in a similar form an infinite number of times, in a cyclical way; essentially, what is happening now has happened in the past and will happen in the future, over and over again an infinite number of times. Stoics thought that in a physical sense, an all-embracing fire would eventually engulf the universe, restarting the cosmic cycle.

This approach to physics informed the ethical approach of Stoicism. All was considered transitory, all had occurred before, nothing was new or novel. More than that, everything had existed previously, an infinite number of times. This also suggested a link to rebirth, because at the end of the cycle every particle in the universe would be reconstituted into other forms.

This is not really Buddhist or Platonic reincarnation, but it does link to the holistic, all-is-one approach the Stoics adopted. We are a part of a whole, even if we will eventually be transformed into particles which constitute a range of other things and beings. This cycle is the way of nature, and as it should be.

While this supported the Stoic's more general approach to ethics, it also hinted that real historical progress could not occur – or that if it did, such progress had occurred before. This did not mean all progress was seen as negative by stoics (intellectual progress in particular was considered a preferred indifferent which would be desired), but that any new thing should be viewed in its true perspective, compared to the totality and repetitious nature of existence.

An example of how to live Stoically: A Job Interview

To provide a sense of how austere and disciplined Stoics were, let us consider a hypothetical, yet very relevant example which is often considered stressful to most: a job interview. If you don't want to go through this exercise, feel free to skip to the conclusion of the chapter.

I have presumed the job is a white-collar office job. Let's start with the expected approach:

  * You have been successfully shortlisted for a job which offers better pay and conditions than your current job. The interview is next week and you start preparing for it, researching the company in which you are applying for the job and thinking of how to handle questions related to your occupation as well as preparing for trick questions (such as "what do you regard as your biggest weakness?").

  * You begin to feel nervous the night before, and your sleep is unsettled, though you do get to sleep eventually. You dream about the interview process and feel relieved, in your dream state that it is "over". But of course it's not!

  * The next morning you wake up, have a shower, think about the interview, peruse any notes/material you may have prepared and obsess about how you are dressed, so as to make a good first impression.

  * You drive around trying to find the office. You are slightly lost and turn up 10 minutes late for the interview. Very nerve-racking. You are flustered and think about the negative image this will convey to the interview panel.

  * You go to the company office, where a pretty secretary escorts you into a side room to wait. You are nervous. You wait for what seems an eternity, and as the fear increases, you feel the need to go to the toilet.

  * One of the managers on the interview panel approaches you in a friendly way, shaking your sweaty palm, which puts you slightly at ease.

  * You then go into the interview, very nervously shake hands, try to focus on what the head manager is saying and starting to provide answers. As you do, it becomes easier to speak and the tension in the room evaporates to some extent.

  * You answers are mostly accurate, although you do exaggerate some of your current responsibilities and make up a few scenarios.

  * At the end of the questions you give your final pitch, thank everyone for their time and walk out of the room. One of the managers talks to you for a few minutes, asking you informal questions. You answer in a friendly but brief manner, as you want to leave as quickly as possible.

  * You are thorougly relieved and drenched in sweat which you hope nobody will notice – but you are calm now.

  * You go home that evening, have four to six drinks (or more) and reflect on how you did: "I think I did okay" you say to yourself, though you do remember a few easy questions where you made mistakes. You also think about how great it would be to get this job, so much better than your current dead-end position. You would be so much happier if you got this one!

  * Despite understanding that it's all over now, you think every day about the position – until you are contacted by phone. You got the job!

  * You are over the moon about this as you will have more money and better status. You know you deserve this position and think about how your family/friends will react, as well as what you will do with the extra cash.

This seems fairly straightforward and is likely consistent with your own experiences or the experience of people you know. Let's see how a Stoic Sage would respond to the same set of circumstances:

  * You reflect on the location and time of the meeting the night before, thinking logistically rather than emotionally. You sleep normally, although you may get up earlier than normal if this is required for the job interview.

  * You wake up, have a shower, quietly examine any notes or prepared material you may have, dress neatly, but are not overly concerned about outward appearance.

  * You drive around trying to find the office – you are lost, and turn up 10 mins late for the interview. You are unconcerned. This was the way of nature, you say to yourself, and you have no control over either going back in time or correcting the mistake or of what the interview panel will think of me. It may be a blessing in disguise if I don't get the job, you think. It is not for you to question and you go with it.

  * You go to the company office, where a pretty secretary escorts you into a side room to wait. You are calm and unconcerned with the upcoming interview, particularly regarding the outcome. This is not within your power to control and if you are not to get the job this is also part of nature's plan.

  * One of the managers on the interview panel approaches you in a friendly way, and shakes your palm. You then go into the interview, shaking hands with the panel in a calm and detached way.

  * You listen to what the head manager is saying with genuine interest (not just because you want the job) and start to provide answers. There is no tension in the room that you are aware of. You answers are accurate, and more importantly for you, completely honest. You do not make up any situations or exaggerate your current level of responsibility. The conversation is fluid and you are confident.

  * At the end of the questions you give your final response, thank everyone for their time and walk out of the room. One of the managers talks to you for a few minutes, asking you informal questions and you answer in a genuine manner – not just to gauge how well you have done in the interview or curry favour with this person. You then ask this person some genuine questions about themselves (not the company).

  * You are calm.

  * You go home that evening, have a few glasses of red wine and are completely unconcerned how you did. You did your duty in the interview, but have no control over the outcome. You are aware that any nervousness is a "false impression"; understandable, certainly, but not rational.

  * You do not think about the position until you are contacted – you got the job!

  * You are quietly happy as you prefer this new job to your existing one, but realise it is a "preferred indifferent" – preferred by you, but not philosophically "good" or required for the betterment of humanity. As far as your enhanced job status goes, this is certainly an indifferent and may even be bad for you – it supports the illusion that some people are more special than others, rather than the stoic truth that we are all equal.

  * What is important is that you were able to be calm and virtuous; you didn't lie in the interview and took genuine interest in the affairs of the company and your fellow man (you are aware they have their own lives too, with all of its accompanying problems and challenges). You have dealt with the process with Stoic virtue and calm, just as nature intended.

Now this experiment shows just what would be expected of a Stoic during periods of stress – and it is a lot to ask for!

The Stoic would respond by saying that this calm approach is not outside the realm of possibility – people have acted in this manner before and that the key to success is to continually reinforce Stoic principles. When we do the opposite and act with "real world" fear, we are assenting to false impressions.

Reacting calmly and indifferently to things which appear good or bad was not considered a psychological tool or "trick"; being relaxed during periods of stress, as in the above example, is due to one correctly understand the truth behind external impressions.

Conclusion

Stoicism was a philosophical school which combined some metaphysics with a brutally realistic assessment of the circumstances in which humans find themselves. The classical question which is still asked today is whether one can, in our material world, live a Stoic lifestyle.

A strict application of Ancient Stoicism would appear to lead to a very austere, passion-inhibited existence. But it was precisely this emotional anaesthetic which was so appealing to the educated class of the Roman Empire, especially as it began to crumble around the 4th Century A.D. Although life is not as materially demanding as it was in Ancient times, some of the principles are still very relevant.

An acceptance of the things we can change in our lives and the things we can't has been taught as a leading principle by many psychologists and self-help gurus. Additionally, the principle of "letting go" and following nature in one's life has also been frequently discussed.

The term virtue is less used today, seen by many as too moralistic and Victorian, but many people do strive to be virtuous when dealing with others.

During unsettled times through history, Stoicism has offered people calm in the face of adversity and has influenced the path of many civilisations, particularly that of Rome. It is the degree to which Stoic calm is real or mentally contrived that has made people ask – can one really live like this, given the reality of being human?

Given its notable and successful adherents, I think it is fair to give Stoicism the benefit of a doubt, particularly for people facing the most difficult of times.

Pros:

  * Stoicism is a solid philosophy and fair-weather friend, particularly during bad times. It is unnecessary for people to attempt to solve problems or be upset if a bad situation cannot be controlled – the Stoics simply counsel us to be virtuous and follow nature, thereby achieving calm. The simple message is that nothing is required of us as human beings except to know the difference between the things we can control in our lives and the things we can't.

  * The idea that most things in this life are preferred or non-preferred indifferents – rather than objectively good or bad things to be obtained, feared or purchased using credit cards – allows focus to be placed on things which matter. It also allows us to ignore pedestrian and inconsequential things. Stoicism states it is possible to gain perspective on our lives and be better people through doing this.

  * The fear of death is seen as unnecessary. Under Stoicism, humans can live their lives unconcerned with physical mortality, even if there is doubt. This is because we are either immortal in spirit (which will make us happy as we will live on after death) or we will be dispersed into nature and reabsorbed into the universe, becoming something else (which should also provide comfort, or at least an understanding of the universal purpose).

Cons:

  * The level of self-anesthetisation required to practice Stoicism has been criticised by some as being unnatural, unrealistic and worst of all, contrary to human progress. It has been argued that Stoicism attempts to reduce or extinguish the passions, the heights of human emotion – it is passionate and driven people who have contributed to genuine progress in the history of art, literature and science, particularly in the Western World. Is it Stoic calmness or human curiosity and passion which has driven civilisation forward?

  * Stoicism does have a tendency to emphasise the inexorable flow of fate and our part in this, exhorting we "follow nature". This downplays free will and, as a consequence, the life-changing decisions individuals can make for themselves. It also "intellectualises" emotions like hope, transforming hope from a powerful emotional feeling into a less satisfying quest for virtue and moral responsibility (although these two things need not be incompatible).

  * Perhaps the biggest criticism is that while Stoicism supports moral and spiritual progress for the individual, it limits the scope for societal progress, (particularly radical change – no revolution would occur under Stoicism!). It implies that lasting and objective material progress is unimportant, that everything repeats and that external progress is not all that significant for personal development. This approach tends to go against the tide of historical reality, particularly the significant material progress made in the last 200 years. As a society, would we be happier without cars, fridges, antibiotics, surgery, cancer treatment, clean water on tap and all the other things we take for granted?

Further Reading

Marcus Aurelius (Meditations): Plato's manifestation of the Philosopher-King: well-bred, well-read and hugely influential on later philosophers and writers. The abbreviated dot-point style means you can read his notes anywhere (interestingly, they were written to himself while on a military campaign he reluctantly took part in).

Seneca (Letters): Powerful, touching letters from the most humanist of Stoics. Like Marcus Aurelius, wide-ranging, flowing and easy to read.

Epictetus (The Enchiridion and Dialogues): The most austere of the stoic teachers and probably the best representative of early Stoicism. His disciplined approach may seem less realisable compared to Marcus Aurelius and Seneca, but he is still well worth reading. Difficult to find in print, but some good translations are available and easily found, free of charge, on the Internet.

James Stockdale: a US Air Force Major who was held in a P.O.W. camp in Vietnam, he used Stoic philosophy to survive the various tortures and depravations he experienced for seven years. Both inspiring and contemporary, his account seems to prove Stoicism is a durable philosophy even during the worst of times. Some of his key works are available on the internet, also free of charge. A quick Google search will reveal them.

Chapter Five: Epicureanism

Live for the day – but in moderation

Be wise, strain the wine, and scale back your long hopes to a short period. While we speak, envious time will have fled – seize the day, trusting tomorrow as little as possible.

– Horace

At the same time as individually-focussed philosophies were becoming popular, a philosopher called Epicurus sharply criticised both Platonic and Stoic ideals. He was confident the anxieties of life could be remedied without resorting either to the metaphysics of Plato or the austere philosophical discipline of Stoicism. He maintained that for all of life's problems, direct, practical and knowable guidance could be found.

Epicurus was treated like an oracle by his disciples: unlike most other philosophies, very little was added to Epicurus' system after his death. His followers were unusually supportive and dogmatic, to the general exclusion of most other philosophical schools.

However, the practical side of his philosophy is most attractive and is still one of the dominant philosophies applied in the western world. Let's have a look at why this philosophy came to be so influential, and why so many people follow it today (even though they don't realise it!).

The History of Epicureanism

Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) was the founder and undisputed master of the school. Despite reputably writing over 300 written works, only fragments of these remain, largely from later writers who quoted him.

His school was originally in his garden, and he was the first to admit women as a rule rather than an exception. Originally he had a small but remarkably dedicated number of followers. Some have suggested his forceful teachings and lack of tolerance for other philosophies and religious beliefs identify his school as a personality-driven cult. The documented celebration of Epicurus' birthday every year strengthens this suggestion, although it does appear that members were free to leave without recriminations.

His most famous follower was the atomist Lucretius (99 – 55 B.C.), who introduced the philosophy to Rome. We are fortunate to possess an almost complete copy of his work, On the Nature of the Universe, providing a coherent summary of Epicurean beliefs for the Romans, including basic and generally accurate scientific interpretations of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, thunder and lightning.

By the 1st Century A.D., Epicureanism was very much in vogue, particularly with the more decadent and hedonistic of Roman senators. Due to the increasing uncertainty later Romans faced through numerous civil wars and the shrinking of their empire by the 4th Century A.D., as well as a clear inconsistency between the Epicurean ideal and that of the new kid on the block (Christianity), its influence declined and was essentially taboo during the medieval period.

There was a revival of interest in Epicureanism during the Renaissance, when many Ancient works such as those by Lucretius came to light. In later centuries, the materialist focus of Epicureanism helped legitimate the methodological underpinning of science, validating and contributing to scientific method and thus helping to change the world in a way the founder could never have imagined.

Materialism vs Idealism

Epicurus said that all the tangible things are real and each impression comes from existing objects and is determined by the object that causes the sensations. – Sextus Empiricus, Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers.

Why did Epicurus despise most other philosophers and why did they despise him? Critically, Epicurus represented one of the early materialist philosophers.

So how does this materialist approach differ from that of an idealist?

Put simply, rather than relying on metaphysics to explain the world, Epicurus placed emphasis on examining the physical world first, and deriving truth from observation. Epicurus regarded our sensory impressions as basically accurate: it was only our perception that was subject to error. This posed a direct challenge to other philosophies which is why it became the main challenger to Platonism and Stoicism in the Ancient World.

Epicureanism was influenced by Democritus (460-370 B.C.), a philosopher who first suggested the principle of atomic theory. While both Epicurus and Democritus took a similar approach to analysing the physical world, they offered slightly different interpretations.

Democritus maintained that nothing could be known as certain, as sense impressions from atoms were misleading. Epicurus disagreed, suggesting basic generalisations could be made from sensory impressions – observation of the world could reveal its truths. Epicurus further suggested that Democritus could not say with confidence that "nothing can be known", as based on Democritus' own theory, even this statement could not be known!

Democritus strongly disagreed with the idealist approach to knowledge and focused only on what could be interpreted with the physical senses. This influenced Epicurus significantly and infuriated most idealist philosophers. Plato is said to have disliked Democritus so much he wished all his books burned!

As both Democritus and Epicurus viewed reality from the perspective of the material world, there was a degree of scientific method applied. As an example, consider how the Ancients analysed movement, depending on their approach:

Democritus and Epicurus (Materialism): things move because of cause and effect relationships (e.g. object A hits object B, which causes B to move in the opposite direction – there is no higher meaning behind this);

Plato and Aristotle (Idealism): things move towards their final cause (so object B has moved because this is in accordance with its purpose. This implies all things have meaning and a reason for their existence, referred to as a teleological explanation).

As we can see through western literature and art throughout the last 2500 years, Materialism was overshadowed by the far more spiritual and hopeful Idealism until the mid-18th Century. Once it did start to get a handle on philosophers, acceptance of materialism allowed the development of modern science. This was considered so important that many thinkers dedicated themselves just to this (Karl Marx did not write his PhD dissertation on Capitalism, but on the differences between the philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus).

Richard P. Feynman, one of the key physicists working on Quantum Theory and winner of the Nobel Prize in 1965, put it like this:

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that 'all things are made of atoms – little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.' In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

Ethical theory

Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.

– Epicurus, Principal Doctrines

In constructing a way to live, Epicurus simply started with the question, "what made people happy"?

He quickly came to the conclusion that the key to happiness was for humans to maximise their own pleasure. However, this did not mean Epicurus endorsed the wholesale pursuit of hedonistic pleasures. To Epicurus, pleasure was based on the absence of physical pain and mental disturbance which can be achieved only through moderation, rather than just going for broke. Perhaps even more importantly, the cultivation of sincere friendships is seen as the key to tranquillity (called ataraxia by the Greeks) so the application of Epicureanism includes a warm circle of trusted friends, not rampant individualism.

While pleasure-seeking was applied in strict moderation by Epicureans (mainly to avoid too much pain later, such as having a hangover from getting drunk), there were philosophies which took it much further. Greek Hedonist philosophers represented the extreme application of materialist principles – they were atheists and saw the meaning of life to be about personal pleasure and pain, and nothing else. Given this black and white view, Hedonists argued that what is good is equivalent to what is pleasurable, while what was bad is equivalent to what is painful (and that's it).

There is no room for sacrifice or altruism here – we should do whatever is in our own interests and we should do it now (so we should get drunk, take drugs etc. if we enjoy these activities, because we should enjoy them right now, rather than worrying about the consequences later).

While Epicureanism never took this extreme, it is still classified as egoistic because it states that personal happiness comes from the individual's perception of their own actions, rather than from the greater good. Kindness to others is important, but only because it provides happiness to the individual being kind; the receiver of the good deed is really irrelevant. While the greatest good to Epicurus was to seek pleasure and eliminate pain, Epicurus said that this was not achieved through Hedonism, but through moderation and friendship.

Even more strangely, this Epicurean moderation led the Epicurean community to practice disciplined austerity – from what little we know, it was probably a vegetarian community and sex was abstained from. Pleasure was generally considered positive, provided it did not cause pain later down the track. It should be noted that many later followers of Epicurus used his philosophy to justify being Hedonists, particularly during the later stages of the Roman Empire.

Nature's wealth at once has its bounds and is easy to procure; but the wealth of vain fancies recedes to an infinite distance.

– Epicurus, Principal Doctrines

Pleasure and pain were not considered relative. While drinking, sex and general overindulgence can give one fleeting enjoyment, the highest pleasure is to be obtained through knowledge, living a virtuous life and developing strong and lasting friendships. This suggests a pragmatic approach to achieving goodness, rather than a religious or spiritual one.

The key to living well was to "neither harm nor be harmed" by others, as it is impossible to live well without good health. Epicurus was quite direct on this point:

Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefulness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another.

– Epicurus, Principal Doctrines

This early position, termed the Ethic of Reciprocity, suggests we should not harm others, just as we would not like to be harmed (or simply: do as you would be done by). This idea was refined by later thinkers, including philosophers of the French Revolution (Jean-Jacques Rousseau discusses this in his "Social Contract"), English philosophers such as John Locke (largely through the respect for property rights, which includes one's own body) and Thomas Jefferson.

Most people don't realise that this polymath and hero of the War of Independence called himself an Epicurean, adapting the school's phrase "all men are created equal", by embellishing this with "certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It certainly had an effect on Jefferson, as the later phrase was included in the US Constitution.

Politics was shunned by Epicureans. While Platonism and Stoicism extolled a political life as the greatest and most noble sacrifice one could make for the community, Epicurus suggested people withdraw from political life altogether. The dishonesty and stress of politics was seen as opposed to living a life of tranquillity, so Epicureans were encouraged to pursue life through "living secretly" and not drawing attention to oneself. Even the demonstration of traits much respected in the Ancient World (such as honour and bravery) were considered unnecessary, if they caused undue stress in one's life.

This was not a suggestion to become a hermit. Epicurus was a strong supporter of having a wide circle of friends as a key to enduring happiness. However, he recognised that popularity and high office were not synonymous with genuine friendship and should therefore definitely be avoided, as such enterprises inevitably lead to psychological pain.

Epicureanism and Atheism

Unlike virtually all other philosophies, Epicurus took a novel approach to the existence of God (or the gods). Epicurus suggested that the traditional Greco-Roman gods did exist, that they were immortal and physically located outside the universe. However, he said that these deities were composed of atoms – they were made of a physical substance – and they never interfered with human affairs as their souls were in a perfect state of tranquillity.

On this basis, Epicurus advised his followers not to worry about the gods as they were not concerned with human affairs. Therefore, no amount of prayer will change the nature of events in our lives.

This bizarre approach to the gods – stating they certainly existed, but not to worry about them – was regarded with suspicion by many philosophers in the Ancient World. Although it could be interpreted as "Polytheistic Deism" (i.e. gods exists, but they are outside the universe and do not interfere with it), others thought it a form of closet atheism, because there seems little difference between the idea of wholly physical "gods" existing and wholly physical humans, for example.

Put another way, how can a purely physical being, no matter how powerful, be classified as a god?

Many critics suspected this Epicurean argument was a sham. The great philosopher and statesman Cicero wrote the following about it:

For what have we to do with holiness if the gods have no concern with us? And what sort of living god is it, who cares about nothing? It is obviously true...that Epicurus did not believe the gods existed at all and that what he said about them was said merely to avoid the odium of atheism.

– Cicero, The Nature of the Gods

The Christian apologist Lactantius (240-320 A.D.) was no friend of Epicurean ideas either:

In short, Marcus Tullius relates that it was said by Posidonius, that Epicurus understood that there were no gods, but that he said those things which he spoke respecting the gods for the sake of driving away odium; and so that he leaves the gods in words, but takes them away in reality, since he gives them no motion, no office. But if this is so, what can be more deceitful than him? And this ought to be foreign to the character of a wise and weighty man.

– Lactantius, On the Anger of God

It is even possible that when Epicurus discussed these physical and non-interfering "gods" he may have been alluding to outstanding philosophers and their personal qualities. This is plausible, particularly given Epicurus claimed the "gods" had a soul in a perfect state of tranquillity and this is what humankind should look to emulate.

Given that Greek and Roman citizens were liable to be charged for being atheists and not believing in the gods (this charge had been unfairly used against Socrates in his execution and Epicurus would have known this) it is likely Epicurus was indeed writing in code and didn't believe in a higher power at all.

Do we have a soul?

Similar to the perspective on the gods (or God) existing, Epicurus suggests that while humans have souls, these souls are made up of atoms rather than being spiritual in nature. Therefore, our soul will break up and be dispersed at our death, as the atoms of the soul are too weakly connected to hold together once our body dies.

The less than cheery conclusion is familiar to modern readers, although shocking to the Ancients: there is no afterlife, so we should just enjoy the limited time we have on this earth. This approach is virtually identical to the position taken by modern-day atheists such as Richard Dawkins.

Epicureans regarded the location of the "soul" (mind) as being in the chest, as this is where emotions are felt. This is similar to the position taken by most other philosophers at the time, with the exception of Plato, who correctly identified mind as being in the head.

What about free will?

The atomist Democritus stated that in a universe made up of atoms, there was no free will, as every event would be determined by the one which preceded it – atoms would continue to move and hit each other in a predictable fashion, so reality was determined.

Free will did not exist due to cause and effect, with atoms simply hitting other atoms in a predictable way. This is known to modern philosophy as hard determinism, and was understandably unpalatable to many who believed humans had a choice.

Epicurus developed a very novel twist on this, allowing for some flexibility. He suggested that while most atoms were predictable and moved downwards, some atoms randomly swerved, providing a level of randomness to the universe. The unpredictability induced by the occasional swerving atoms allowed for varied thoughts and actions. The logical extension of this theory is that the decisions we take are based on free will, but inevitably random.

Democritus' followers objected to this. Firstly, what evidence is there to suggest that some atoms swerve, even though most atoms move in a predictable direction? This seems counter to the cause and effect relationship and suggests that somehow, a few "magic" atoms just swerve for no reason. (In defence of Epicurus, it should be noted that since the discovery of Quantum mechanics in the 1930s, it is relatively clear that some particles do indeed move in a non-linear manner). Secondly, even if some atoms do swerve unpredictably, is this randomness the same as exercising genuine free will?

In any event, this major point of difference did allow Epicurus to suggest a kind of freedom in his philosophy, meaning Epicurus could argue that in an atomistic universe, people could make choices and that events were not wholly predetermined.

Two fears: gods and death

Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.

– Epicurus

Epicurus taught that humans have two key fears: one being of the gods and the other being of our own death. As mentioned, Epicurus taught that gods existed but did not interfere with the universe, so there was no reason to fear the wrath or retribution of the gods. But if our soul was not immortal, shouldn't we be afraid of our own death?

Epicurus told people not to worry. He confidently asserted our fear of death is unnecessary, based on a misapplication of the term "death" when applied in a self-referential manner.

Because we will not be around to experience our own "non-existence", it is not really possible for us to fear our own death at the point death actually occurs (although we will probably feel some physical pain just before this point). Fear of our own death is illogical, according to Epicurus, as we will always be alive when we fear it! Unlike most other traumatic events such as disease, illness or poverty, it is simply not possible for us to directly experience and interpret how being dead feels – so to Epicurus, there is no practical issue. You're either alive (and sometimes thinking about death) or dead and not thinking about anything!

Tetrapharmakos – the Four Part Cure

As the Epicurean communities grew and spread after the death of Epicurus, few of his concepts were changed. However, the interpretation of his philosophy and the form of language used to express Epicurus' teachings was developed into what was known as the tetrapharmakos, the four part cure.

This Greek term was originally used to describe a compound of four drugs from the Ancient World (wax, tallow, pitch and resin). Epicurus' followers used the term to describe their remedy for living the happiest life possible.

Although it is unknown who first constructed "the cure", fortunately we do have a description of this pithily elegant solution to life's problems. It is as follows:

don't fear god  
don't worry about death  
what is good is easy to get, and  
what is terrible is easy to endure.

– Philodemus, Herculaneum

Let's examine this in more detail:

  * _don't fear god [or the gods]:_ Because the gods do not concern themselves with human affairs, they do not affect the fate of the Universe;

  * don't worry about death: Because when you are alive, you don't have to worry about your own death – and when you are dead, you won't be alive to worry about it!

  * what is good is easy to get: The things Epicureans stated were required for a good life – food, shelter, and friendship – existed in the reach of virtually every person. Only expensive, hedonistic pleasures are hard to acquire, but they are totally unnecessary and usually counterproductive in terms of producing ongoing happiness. Therefore, such extravagances should be shunned in favour of simple pleasures.

  * what is terrible is easy to endure: Epicureans claimed that most pain is rarely long-lasting and chronic at the same time – pain is usually either chronic but of short duration, or long-lasting but relatively mild. It is not necessary to be concerned with ill health or poor circumstance, because when these occasional events occur they can be dealt with.

Conclusion

In order to obtain security from other people any means whatever of procuring this was a natural good.

– Epicurus, Principal Doctrines

Today's scientifically minded individual is likely to see Epicurus as a clear-headed realist who was centuries ahead of his own time. The more spiritually-minded person is likely to reject Epicurus' teachings outright, or at the very least feel uncomfortable with his blunt rejection of a higher power or a greater purpose to life.

Epicurus was a divisive character in his day. The principles behind his materialist strain of philosophy are equally divisive today, although religious tolerance has led to a degree of acceptance, particularly in terms of scientific method.

It must be remembered that this one man, writing 2300 years ago, sharply criticised the status quo of his time with a tenacity and passion similar to Socrates, being no less prepared to take the hard knocks which awaited him and even risk the charge of impiety to the gods, leading to a possible death sentence. In doing so he established a unique, durable and practical philosophy.

It is the materialist nature of this philosophy which supported scientific method for hundreds of years. Epicurean cynicism concerning the existence of a higher power – or in the universe having any inherent meaning for us – has, in a Hedonistic form, become our way of life during periods of strong economic growth.

It is difficult to look at our modern world and not see a strong influence, if not the outright dominance, of Epicurean ideas.

Pros:

  * The Epicurean philosophy provides a simple and direct response to the human condition, without the need for God or any other supernatural power. It is easily understood and does not rely on faith.

  * Epicureanism is philosophically easy and is free of religious dogma – you just need to act reasonably and enjoy your life. Pretty easy really!

  * Although not suspected by the Ancients, the materialist emphasis of Epicureanism has supported the development of science and technology, through legitimating materialist philosophy. This has been positive for humanity's development and personal welfare, with a range of scientific and medical breakthroughs occurring because of it.

Cons:

  * But is this philosophy positive for humanity's spiritual development? The Epicurean approach does not provide deeper metaphysical truths to those who want them. People with a religious bent, artistic personality or mystic tendency are likely to be unimpressed with Epicurus' bare moral philosophy. It is practical, limiting itself to what we can experience directly, and nothing more. You will not find God through Epicurus.

  * Epicurus' approach to free will seems inconsistent. Is randomness the same as free will, or does randomness just make life uncertain for all?

  * Experience suggests most humans actually do worry about their own death at some point, despite what Epicurus suggests. If you still fear your own death, particularly if you are sick or old, does Epicurus' exhortations not to worry really help?

Further Reading

Epicurus, Principal Doctrines: Forty short quotes from Epicurus himself (passed down from Diogenes Laertes' Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 500 years later), describing the essence of his philosophy. Only a few pages long, it represents an easy read is available on the internet.

Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe: The clear frontrunner in terms of understanding the basics of Epicurean thought from Antiquity. Lucretius produced this work in the late 1st Century B.C. to promote Epicurean ideas to a Roman audience. He writes clearly, and although the work is described as an "epic poem", most English translations read like an easily accessible and straightforward book.

Chapter Six: Liberalism

Liberty is obedience to the law which one has laid down for oneself. – Jean-Jacques Rousseau

FOR U.S. READERS: Please note that when I refer to liberal ideas or Liberalism, I am using the U.K. definition of liberal, which refers to maximising individual liberty, rather than the U.S. political definition of liberal, which refers to left-leaning policies, such as those of the Democratic Party.

Individual freedom is the bedrock of modern society. The right to think and say what you want, provided it doesn't hurt anyone else, is accepted almost unquestionably in most democracies.

But it wasn't always like this – until the 18th century, the freedoms of the individual weren't considered that important, and were always trumped by the power of the State or of the church. The concept of "freedom" that we take so seriously today was actually a fairly recent idea, but once it arrived, it stuck like glue to the human consciousness.

How did Liberalism begin?

After the Renaissance, the old landed aristocrats began to lose power to the merchants. Slowly, from the 16th to the 19th centuries, merchants (i.e. early capitalists) began to obtain more and more economic power through dominating profitable trade routes which opened up when Columbous discovered the New World in 1492.

While the merchant class grew, they had a problem: despite their economic dominance, it was the aristocrats who still controlled the state and its laws, an historic legacy from the Middle Ages. This led to huge restrictions on trade, taxes and land ownership on the people actually producing much of society's wealth.

Around this time, the world of ideas was becoming freer than in the Middle Ages. The medieval power of the Catholic Church had been challenged by Martin Luther, a former Catholic monk appalled by its practices. He was perhaps the first to articulate a libertarian philosophy to religion: sola fides, sola scriptura (through faith alone, through scripture alone). In other words, it was up to the individual to interpret God and the work in the Bible, not the institution of the Church.

Before this, there were some attempts to guarantee certain individual rights in the Middle Ages, with the Magna Carta of 1215 being the most significant. This English document was the first to guarantee certain legal rights to property owners and stating that the King's power could be bound by law. However, it was during the Enlightenment in the 18th century that liberalism was kick-started as a coherent philosophy. English, Scottish, American and French thinkers began to formulate a belief system which would act as the intellectual backbone of Capitalism.

Liberalism is a belief which is clear and fundamental: it allows individuals to be unrestricted and do what they please, so long as they do not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. No aristocrat, tyrant, bureaucrat, soldier or police officer should get in the way: man is born into nature completely free and, with limited conditions, should be free to think and act as he or she chooses.

It is an incredibly simplistic yet influential belief system, which represents the dominant ideology today.

Libertie! Fraternatie! Equalitie!

It matters now how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll; I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.

– William Earnest Henley, Invictus, 1875

As Capitalism and Liberalism are intimately interconnected, it's important to provide historical background concerning the growth of the free market.

A combination of the growth in the merchant class and the discovery of the New World led to a wealth of riches, fuelling the birth of the self-sufficient city-states, particularly in Italy. Although loosely captured under the umbrella of Capitalism, the period of world economic history from the 1500s to the 1700s is more accurately described as mercantilism.

Mercantilism refers to an economic system which represents wealth obtained through exploitation and trade, the motive being a zero-sum transfer of wealth between one nation to the detriment of another. Exploitation and plunder existed in the "New World" countries of the Americas, a large and vulnerable area dripping with precious metals. Trade was principally restricted to other European nations, with the intention of obtaining and selling as many valuable commodities as possible at the highest price.

Thomas Mun (1571-1641) is generally considered the high priest of the mercantilist philosophy. Beginning his career as a Mediterranean trader, he rose to prominence as Director of the East India company. In his posthumous work, published by his son in 1664, England's Treasure Through Foreign Trade, Nun strongly supports the notion that economic growth is achievable through the transfer of wealth from one group to another – either through fortuitous terms of trade or exploitation of underdeveloped lands.

A win-win approach is non-existent; while mercantilism supported extensive trade, it wasn't free trade. The key to mercantilist success is that while exporting as many goods as possible is great, imports are to be restricted as far as possible.

As the low-hanging fruit of easy trade began to wane in the late 1600s, some doubted mercantilism would be sufficient to enhance national economic growth in the long-term, particularly given the Americas had been largely plundered for precious metals and most European countries had started playing the protectionist game themselves.

While mercantilism continued as the economic orthodoxy until at least 1750, it was an event – a monumental event which occurred over 100 years before the French Revolution – which really kick-started liberalism's rise to greatness.

The "Glorious Revolution" in England, Parliament and Property Rights

In 1688, an event occurred which rocked the Aristocratic establishment to its core: England became the first modern democracy in the world. Although typically understated in academic circles when compared to the later French and American revolutions, no event had a greater influence on the credibility of liberalism than this.

The reigning English regent, King James II, was pro-French, Catholic and an absolute monarch. This was something which offended the largely anti-French, Protestant and freedom-loving English on a number of levels.

Due to the Kings ardent Catholicism, seven Anglican Archbishops (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) petitioned him for a reconsideration of his religious policies. For this relatively benign act, the King promptly charged them with seditious libel and the population became furious.

The last straw was when Queen Mary gave birth to a male Catholic heir, threatening the religious freedom of the largely Anglican population. At this stage, the English Parliament made a deal with the Dutch Monarch and defender of the Protestant faith, William of Orange.

The parliament took steps to invite the protestant King William to invade England and take the throne, an invitation the foreign King was all too happy to take up. But there was a huge and very unusual condition imposed: the Dutch King would be welcomed by the English provided Parliament was granted sovereign power and a Bill of Rights was agreed to.

Despite reluctance, William agreed and King James II was driven out of England by his armies, helped by a number of high-profile English officers defecting to William as soon as he reached the shores.

This was the first; a legitimate precursor to constitutional monarchy, representing the birth of democracy. Giving Parliament, rather than the King, lawmaking power led to almost immediate support for the following key freedoms:

  * Defence of the sovereignty of Parliament;

  * Upholding the rule of law;

  * Freedom of speech and debate;

  * A defence of individual property rights;

  * No taxation without Parliamentary approval.

It was as a defence of the "Glorious Revolution" that John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and A letter concerning toleration were penned. Both defend a range of liberal freedoms and are considered the first, classical liberal documents.

Locke, regarded by many as the "father of Liberalism", contributed perhaps its most important rule – that in the final analysis, an individual should be free to do whatever he or she wants, provided it does not infringe on the rights and liberties of another individual. This continues to be the guiding principle of liberal thought, underpinning a free-market approach to life.

Locke was the first to explicitly refer to "natural rights", human freedoms all should enjoy from birth. These freedoms he identified as "life, liberty and estate", later paraphrased in the US after the success of their own liberal revolution:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

– US Declaration of Independence, 1776.

It was the Americans who took Locke's concepts and articulated them as a guiding philosophy for the New World: every citizen would be endowed with Natural Rights, Personal Liberties and the freedom to create their own destiny. This suited the lack of Government control, regulation and free, open plains which existed in the US at the time (the native American Indians might disagree).

It also justified British succession, taking native American-Indian land, paying limited or no taxation to the State and opening up trade. The American Revolution was a thoroughly bourgeoisie one and the philosophy of liberalism suited it well.

The Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution

God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil...tender, anxious mother, I appeal to you. You can remove this young tree from the highway and shield it from the crushing force of social conventions. Tend and water it ere it dies. One day its fruit will reward your care. From the onset raise a wall round your child's soul; another may sketch the plan, you alone should carry it into execution.

– Rosseau

Meanwhile, back in Europe the birth of parliamentary democracy in England was causing uproar from the reigning monarchs elsewhere in Europe. The old arguments against democracy – the "divine right of Kings" and the supposedly "impractical" nature of democracy – had served European monarchs well for a surprisingly long time.

In support of monarchs, the historical failure of Ancient Athens and the Roman Republic and lack of other democratic examples since that time mascaraed as cautionary tales against democracy – particularly in terms of the supposed dangers of giving the uneducated "mob" a say.

However, with a working example of democracy in England, these arguments were hard to sustain. England's army was not weaker due to democracy: hard decisions could still be taken and national security was better organised than it had been before. Better still, as representatives to the House of Commons were elected, Parliament had a tendency to act in the interests of the people rather than the monarch!

True, King William was on the throne and the House of Lords was based on peerage, but it was the elected parliament that made laws. Kings and Queens in the rest of Europe became very nervous, nowhere more so than in nearby France.

An absolute monarchy, France had been England's constant rival and was soon to be economically destitute. This economic failure was to be combined with the Enlightenment – the intellectual "awakening", dominant in France during the 18th century.

This intellectual flourish was quite different from the Renaissance. While the 16th Century Italian city-states did contribute to Art and a rebirth of Greek and Roman intellectual traditions, the Enlightenment was the first systematic attempt to dramatically go beyond the Ancient World.

The idea of Truth began to be seen as objective and inalienable; reality could be separated from superstition; the quest for truth was seen as critical to understanding the world and our place in it. It was the beginning of modern thought as we know it and it was the following gifted thinkers who contributed to it:

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): Polymath, philosopher and inventor of the autobiography, Rousseau's contribution to the French and American Revolutions was incalculable.

Rousseau agreed with John Locke that our mind was a tabula rasa, a blank slate, believing that man was born into nature free and unencumbered; only the outside world could corrupt a person born pure of heart. It was therefore important to follow one's own reason rather than relying on institutions. His seminal work Emile: or, on Education, provides a range of liberal principles for educating the "whole person" for citizenship.

Voltaire (1694-1778): A writer, historian and philosopher, Voltaire (real name: Francois-Marie Arouet) was a flamboyant and charismatic defender of civil liberties.

After being arbitrarily exiled to England for responding to an insult from a nobleman, he was heavily influenced by England's constitutional monarchy and promoted these ideas when returning to France.

Promoting Pantheism (the idea that God was everywhere) but rejecting the Church, Voltaire claimed that humans were subject to "natural laws" which guided social as much as physical behaviour. These laws were derived from first principles and they very much supported the notion man was born free.

He also supported freedom of religion and was an early multiculturalist, in that he regarded people of different countries and races as being brothers and sisters.

Diderot (1713-1784): Co-founder of the voluminous and very French Encyclopedie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (Encycloaedia, or a systematic dictionary of the sciences, arts and crafts).

In a world without the Internet, or even an international book club, this was the first modern attempt to present truth across a range of subjects to all. The idea was that that through reason alone, one could make a free decision about any matter in one's life.

The American Revolution of 1776 further encouraged the French people that democracy was possible, but only through an overthrow of the existing order. It also seemed hypocritical that the French State would support American freedom, backing the revolutionaries against (ironically) the English, but not support these principles in France!

It was clear that King Louis XVI (1754-1793) was unable to deal with the gripping poverty of his people – instead, he ignored the problems of his country while living the high life in the palace of Versailles with Marie Antoinette. However, as is usually the case in history, the poverty of the masses which sealed his fate.

Eventually the King did try to instigate economic reforms to deal with French debt, but these were rejected by the vested interests of his nobles whose support he relied on. Poverty and inequality continued to increase.

During the turbulence of this time, a highly talented young lawyer called Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) led a radical party called the Jacobins. He encouraged the people to rise up against such naked inequality, and Europe's first liberal revolution began.

After Robespierre took control and began to run the National Convention (effectively the parliament during the Revolution), King Louis XVI and Marie Antoniette tried to escape from France. However, they were recognised, at which stage they were both placed under house arrest at the Tuileries Palace and eventually executed.

Despite a "reign of terror" from 1793-1794, when many people were executed for questioning what Robespierre and his supporters did, and the return of a powerful leader/strongman in Napoleon (1769-1821), core liberal values remained.

To this day, the French revolution shapes the modern French Republic – their National Anthem "The Marseille" is revolutionary, their distinctive red, white and blue flag is the flag of the revolution and (unlike most other European countries), to this day there is no royal family in France.

Adam Smith and the Birth of Classical Liberal Economics

During these extraordinary events, in Scotland a talented political theorist called Adam Smith (1723-1790) was constructing a liberal economic framework, the first serious critique of the mechanics underpinning Capitalism.

After completing a work called The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 (which demonstrates a surprisingly positive critique of human altruism), Smith took a tutoring role which allowed him to travelled around Europe, meeting the best brains on the continent. Based on his travels, he returned to Scotland and began work on his magnum opus – the first serious economic treatise ever written.

The Wealth of Nations (1776) was a remarkable work and was perfectly timed for the American Revolution. It was a hit.

In it, Smith provides key liberal concepts which drive and inform economic debate today:

The principle of supply and demand – when supply of a product outweighs demand, prices fall; when demand for a product outstrips supply, prices will rise.

The "invisible hand" of the market –supply and demand in a free market will balance out in the "long-run", provided the State or monarch does not interfere with the workings of the market. This is known as "market equilibrium".

An understanding of property rights and how individual incentive supports a well functioning economy. According to Smith, if property was seized or taxed too heavily, there would be no incentive for capitalists to invest – this reduces overall wealth for a country in the long-term. It was also possible that investment could go offshore to a country where Government was more stable and taxation was lower (a familiar argument today regarding corporate taxation).

The idea that labour should be treated like any other commodity. According to Smith, wages are a price that will rise and fall based on supply and demand. Legal restrictions (such as a minimum wage) and/or collusion between labour (such as collective bargaining through trade unions) could increase wage rates, but this would lead to the demand for labour decreasing, meaning unemployment would rise. This is a critical concept because it is used by liberal economists today to justify reducing wages and restricting union activity on the basis of reducing unemployment.

Smith was one of the first to support free trade on the basis that protectionism blocks countries from importing cheaper, better quality goods. Protectionism may protect domestic producers for a while, but domestically made products will often be less competitive and more expensive if they are protected – basically, producers get lazy and sit behind their tariff walls. As Smith put it, "Those merchants and manufacturers enjoy a sort of monopoly in the country which is so indulgent to them".

Although Smith was also concerned with merchants getting together for the purposes of collusion, mainly through price fixing, this was not a theme in Smith's book which was emphasised by the capitalists.

Smith was the first to introduce the concept of a "free market" which operated efficiently. This was not due to religion, regulation or deliberately altruistic behaviour, but due to each individual pursuing their own self-interest. Government regulation was seen as generally bad by Smith; even legislation which appeared helpful on the surface (such as welfare provisions or the minimum wage) ended up "distorting" the market, reducing worker's incentives and causing problems for industry in the long-term. As noted Economist Robert Heilbroner wrote:

In a sense the whole wonderful world of Adam Smith is a testimony to the eighteenth-century belief in the inevitable triumph of rationality and order over arbitrariness and chaos. Don't try to do good, says Smith. Let good emerge as the by-product of selfishness. How like the philosopher to place such faith in a vast social machinery and to rationalise selfish instincts into social virtues!

– Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, p.54.

The Wealth of Nations fit well with liberal philosophy, particularly in England, France and the U.S. It provided academic support for the philosophy of and a reduction of State power.

The careful scholar David Ricardo (1772-1823) further expanded on these ideas, going so far as to criticise landholders who extracted high rents yet contributed nothing to the economy, while hard working capitalists produced the real wealth through acumen and hard work, either on the farms or (more usually) in the factories.

These basic economic principles were the dominant ones until the Great Depression of the 1930s, where these free market principles did not help to end grinding poverty and get the economy going again.

The great economic genius John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) released The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936, suggesting that Government actually had to intervene during periods of economic downturn to prevent a permanent, long-run slump. This was due to a lack of business confidence to invest and a lack of consumption of goods and services by workers.

The apparent success of Keynesian principles during World War II and after broke Smith's philosophical hold on economics from around 1945 to the 1970s, which represented times of prosperity, full employment and "big Government" in the developed world.

After a global economic slump of 1973/74, Keynesian policies appeared not to work: rather than jumpstarting the economy, State intervention appeared to stimulate both inflation and unemployment (a phenomena known as stagflation).

At this stage, orthodox thinking returned via monetarist economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006). Friedman maintained that a free market, which included limited taxation from the State and tight monetary policy to reduce inflation, was the best way to ensure strong economic growth. This thinking drove the economic booms and slumps of the 1980s (greed is good) and the 1990s (self-interest is better). Only with the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 has the primacy of the market again been questioned.

Conclusion

The changes which occurred in England, the US and France signalled an intellectual and literal revolution.

Capitalists found themselves increasingly free to pursue their own self-interests and to justify this through a liberal philosophy of being born "free into nature", rejecting dominance by the State and Church and the power of the free market to increase general wealth – something the State actually benefited from through increased taxation revenues.

The liberal philosophy penetrated everywhere – but nowhere more so than in America, where the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in the US Constitution. England soon adopted liberalism with some modifications, which are to be found in most Anglo-Saxon countries today (particularly the U.K., New Zealand and, to a much lesser extent, Australia).

Liberalism is a deceptively simple ideology, accepted and taken for granted in most of the democratic world today. It is easy to forget that from humanity's primordial beginnings to the mid-18th Century, the will of God, the State and the community was seen as far more important than that of the individual. The Romans would have thought individual freedom as a second-order concern, with duty to one's family and the State being far more important. The medieval world would have had difficulty even understanding the concept, or would regard it as completely unrealistic.

Once Liberalism was clearly articulated and gained traction, the concept was infectious; once people accepted freedom as a birthright, rather than just another school of philosophy, it was a difficult idea to suppress. Playing to humanity's want of freedom, wealth and specialness, Liberalism spread so quickly that by the 19th century most educated individuals just accepted that most humans were born independent and free, with rights which ought not be transgressed upon by the State or the Church.

The simple concept that individuals should be able to have the freedom to do more or less what they want – subject to not hurting anyone else in the process – is a thoroughly western idea, used to justify everything from development seminars stressing personal empowerment to casual sex, excessive alcohol, drug use (even if the State has made it illegal) and in the U.S., the right for citizens to own automatic weapons.

Notwithstanding some assaults on the principles of liberty post-September 11 (where national security is being used as a conduit to restrict some individual liberties), it is still one of the most dominant philosophies today.

Pros:

  * Liberalism carries a simple idea: people naturally reject tyranny and injustice and want to pursue their own interests. Basically, people just want to be free.

  * Liberalism works well because it does not presuppose others need be compelled to perform some action to make it work. Unlike most philosophies, no communal behaviour is required. It also correctly recognises that people are motivated by material incentives and to an extent, their own self-interest.

  * The approach reduces the arbitrariness of moral standards, ethical norms and social expectations, instead encouraging creative behaviour and independence. This is particularly effective when used to support free markets and innovation under Capitalism.

  * The idea of personal freedom is liberating and highly motivational. It can and has helped individuals achieve personal greatness, through ignoring outside constraints, rejecting criticism and seeking satisfaction from success and hard work.

Cons:

  * Liberalism has a tendency to lack depth. Due its ahistorical approach (particularly calling certain rights "natural" and "inalienable", despite no actual proof) there is a tendency to emphasise the positives and ignore the negatives that pure liberty provides. In particular, important issues such as economic equality, community and family are ignored; the focus is on the individual.

  * Democracy provides a guarantee of certain rights, but not to the extent of Liberalism. The will of the majority (Democracy) is not always compatible with individual freedom (Liberalism). For example, is it appropriate for Liberalism to assert that taxes should be as low as possible, even if most members of society think the wealthy should pay more tax to help fund social services and ensure a fair distribution of wealth?

  * Liberalism is a term often used to justify selfish, narcissistic and unethical behaviour. As long as you don't infringe on people's rights directly you can basically do anything you like, even if it affects them indirectly. It fits in nicely with the competitive reality of free-market Capitalism, but can be ethically shallow. Is greed really good?

Further Reading

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile: or, on Education: Referred to by the author as "the best and most important of all my writings", Emile is a student who is taught how to deal with the corrupting influence of society and maintain absolute freedom and self-reliance. This text had a huge influence on other French writers and contributed to the French Revolution.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations: The classic treatise which started Economics as a discipline. Smith's approach is both familiar and foreign, particularly given he was largely writing about agricultural economies, not industrial ones, which had yet to take shape. The influence of this work has been incalculable in shaping economic theory and public policy. Still a classic – if you can't read it all, even a quick flick-through this large tome is worthwhile.

Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom: The high priest of neoclassical economics, Friedman espouses his core beliefs in this book. His historical focus, concern with Big Government and links between economic and political freedom make this a modern-day guidebook for market-oriented Liberalism.

Chapter Seven: Marxism

Workingmen of all nations Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

– Karl Marx

When most people hear the name Karl Marx, it has the same effect as a Rorschah ink blot test – the reaction is largely based on a preconceived ideas of what Marxism means, rather than what Marx actually said and wrote.

To some, he is a hero who discovered Scientific Socialism and the essence of capitalist exploitation; to others, he is the enemy of freedom, the man who provided a blueprint for tyranny. Depending on your interpretation, he either contributed to workers' rights more than any other person or created the inefficient, corrupt and dictatorial system of Communism, a system which has failed in the 21st century.

Of all the philosophers contained in this book, Marx is easily the most controversial. This is no surprise when one realises that his sophisticated, though far from subtle, philosophy represents a head-on attack against Capitalism – an attack no less violent than the ideas which led to the fall of the Roman Empire or Feudalism.

Marx was the 19th Century oracle who assured dedicated socialists that despite mass exploitation and poverty all would be well in the end. Marx taught that no matter how developed and insurmountable Capitalism may appear, it contained an inherent contradiction which would lead to its eventual demise: Marx's famed Contradiction of Capitalism.

It's pretty complex, but basically revolves around increasing mechanisation (concentration and centralisation of capital) reducing the number of workers needed to produce goods, which then reduces the workers abilities to buy the products capitalist produce (as there are now less workers earning a wage – a reduction in what economists call aggregate demand, or demand for goods). This then spirals negatively until a change is forced on society.

But there's more to it than that. A more detailed explanation is provided below:

  * Capitalists compete with each other by reducing wages (or reducing wages increases) to their workforce, making their products cheaper in the market. Yet it is the workers who are the main consumers of the things Capitalists produce.

  * As wages are not increased as fast as goods and services are produced, people can't buy all the things which are made – leading to an "overproduction" of goods, eventually causing an economic slump.

  * In a slump, some bankrupt firms are bought out by other firms very cheaply, which increases the number of large, monopolistic firms which exist. But every time there is a slump, the number of large firms become smaller and smaller.

  * Eventually, after a number of slumps in the world economy, the last big slump leads to the fall of the last few mega-companies; the only thing left is the Government, which is under pressure from an enormous pool of unemployed workers.

  * The Government then takes control of production to keep Civilisation going – and voila, the system changes into Communism. This usually happens through a violent struggle, where socialists take control of the Government first, but not necessarily.

The way to hasten this inevitable change is for the working class to develop true class consciousness and unite as a class against the bourgeoisie as quickly as possible. This materialist critique does suggest circumstances will inevitably unite the workers against Capitalism anyway, although a lack of active participation may delay the inevitable collapse.

Is active participation in the revolution necessary? Probably not – although Marx suggested participation was certainly necessary, it's unclear exactly why, if such a situation is historically inevitable. Perhaps Marx felt that it was necessary to speed things up through active participation.

Before we dismiss Marx as irrelevant given the fall of the Soviet Union and China's status as the manufacturing engine room of global markets, it's important to realise that without his theories of class conflict, many things we take for granted – such as union participation, minimum wages, free healthcare, accessible education and a welfare system – would probably not exist in their current form. It was the aggressive, anti-capitalist theories of Marx in the 19th and early 20th centuries which pushed reformers on and allowed these changes to occur in a democratic manner.

Let's look at the man who, for better or for worse, really has changed the modern world.

The beginning

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was born in Trier, the oldest city in Germany, before 16 B.C. After being home schooled and attending the Trier Gymnasium (High School), Marx first attended the University of Bonn, enrolling in a law degree based on the insistence of his father, Heinrich Marx, who was also a lawyer.

Like father, like son...or maybe not. At this early stage he did not distinguish himself as the future founder of Communism: his greatest accomplishment at Bonn was to become President of the Trier Tavern Club Drinking Society, where he passed the time imbibing multiple beers and messing around with girls. At this not so illustrious stage in his life, his father forced him to transfer to the University of Berlin due to his poor grades.

The change had effect, but not in the way his father expected. At this point, his intellectual accomplishments increased and although enrolled in law, he became interested in philosophy and history spending most of his time studying these subjects. He mainly studied French enlightenment thinkers (such as Immanuel Kant and Voltaire) and was particularly enamoured with Hegel, so much so that he became a "young Hegelian" – a fashionable left-wing intellectual grouping, much like the Trotskyites in the 1960s or the Green Party on campus today.

After completing his Doctorate in 1841, he cross-bred Hegelian Idealism with Feuerbachian materialism (named after the German philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach) and came up with a theory called Dialectical Materialism, which we will look at later.

This framework was very important as it allowed him to develop his theories and relate them to the development of history and the current Capitalist world.

After moving to Paris he met Friedrich Engels and started writing with him while working on a left-wing newspaper. He was exiled to Brussels for writing The Communist Manifesto in 1848, came back to Paris, wrote more revolutionary articles and was exiled again.

At this stage he went to the politically stable city of London, where he spent endless hours in the British Library (now in the courtyard of the British Museum) and completed his magnum opus, the rarely-read and almost indecipherable Das Kapital (first volume published in 1867).

On the death of his wife Jenny in 1881, Marx's own health took a turn for the worse. He developed a catarrh (inflammation) which contributed to his other health issues (bronchitis and pleurisy), causing his death in 1883. He was buried at Highgate Cemetery in North London as per his wishes and remains there today, where a huge bust can be found on his tomb.

At his funeral, his friend Engels said the following:

On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep – but forever.

– Fredrich Engels

Marx and the dialectic

To begin with an understanding of where Marx's principles come from, it is necessary to examine the complex methodology adopted almost religiously by Marxists called dialectical materialism. It is the theoretical underpinning of Marxism and makes it a closed theoretical system, almost impervious to criticism from the outside.

As mentioned before, Marx was a young Hegelian in his youth. The great German thinker Georg W.H. Hegel (1770 – 1831) was the first to develop an all-encompassing and comprehensive philosophical framework using historical method -the idea that history drives reality.

In doing this, he tied together theories of the State, history, art, religion and philosophy. He thus provided a neat explanation as to why everything had happened the way it has and how the future would unfold. His approach to analysing the world gave him and his supporters absolute certainty as to the nature of reality, something Karl and his supporters (particularly the Leninists) would emulate to the extreme.

Hegel's theories are extremely complex and there are few people on earth with a comprehensive understanding of his highly nuanced work. Nevertheless, we can say a few things about Hegel's approach.

At its most basic, Hegel developed the dialectic, a new way of viewing history based on contradictions between different ideas. Although many post-Cold War Hegelians deny the following classification, Hegel thought history progressed through a dominant thesis (idea) being refuted by its antithesis (opposite idea to the thesis) resulting in a blending, or synthesis (result) of both ideas, which became the new dominant view (a new thesis).

A simple example taken from the 1700s would be the concept of the French Monarchy (this is the thesis, or dominant idea) was challenged by the idea of the 1789 Revolution (the antithesis) leading to the idea of individual liberty for all (the synthesis of the two ideas). Another favourite example of the author's would be the idea of Capitalism (thesis) being challenged by the idea of Socialism (antithesis) leading to the development of the idea of Social Democracy (the synthesis).

In Hegel's schema, this pattern carries on indefinitely, with the new thesis (the previous synthesis) being challenged by a new antithesis, leading to a new synthesis.

While this may look intriguing, there is an important condition: Hegel regarded the dialectic as relating to the development of ideas or concepts which are being challenged and transformed, which in turn change history through their application. According to Hegel, it was not the physical world which was changing, but the ideas behind them. This created eventual change through the application of a new synthesis to the world as an idea which is actively taken up.

This is quite different to Marx's transformation of the dialectic, as we will see. As many Marxists say, Marx "turned Hegel's dialectic on its head".

Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) also influenced Marx. Feuerbach's support of atheism and materialist view suggested one had to observe the world itself to understand reality and develop ideas – ideas did not come around spontaneously, but were derived from interpreting the all too physical reality which surrounds us.

However, Feuerbach tended to see materialism in the context of how man sees God: to him, the physical world was constructed the way it was not due to class conflict, but due to anthropological interpretations of God. The world changed according to how humans interpreted and responded to the idea of God and how this changed their world.

What Marx did brilliantly was to put these two theories together. He combined Hegel with Feuerbach, flipping the ideas-driven dialectic of Hegel and creating dialectical materialism.

According to Marx's dialectic, history changes due to conflict, but the conflict is of a material kind, not of ideas – the dominant economic system of the day (thesis) is replaced because of internal contradictions (antithesis) which breeds conflict and leads to a new system (synthesis).

Put simply, every economic system grows to a state of maximum efficiency and size, while developing internal contradictions which lead to its own eventual demise. These contradictions are not contradictions of ideas, but physical contradictions inherent in the system.

Marx insisted that the ruling class in any system would defend the system to the teeth, mainly to safeguard their own interests. Ultimately, Marx said this would not help, as the contradictions would simply become larger as time went on. Importantly, because an economic system has little to do with idealism, the philosopher has to ignore what the powerful in society say and look at what they do.

On this basis, Marx asserted that the three main economic systems which have existed (the slave economy of Rome, the serf-based economy of Feudalism and the wage-labour economy of Capitalism) contain in them contradictions which lead (or will lead) to their demise. Thus, a new materialist synthesis is born.

The contradictions of various systems and their historical development

Marx was a keen student of history. He carefully examined previous economic systems in order to identify their own internal contradictions. In this way, he sought to explain how hunter-gatherer societies had evolved, how civilisation had developed, and how this had led to present-day Capitalism.

Hunter-gatherer societies: Prior to the development of sophisticated civilisations, pre-Agrarian communities lived in a nomadic and tribal system of relative material equality, referred to by Marx as Primitive Communism. This meant that wealth was reasonably well shared throughout the tribe and class exploitation did not exist, although there wasn't much material wealth to distribute because very little could be saved or accumulated.

The domestication of animals and plants supported an Agrarian Revolution, leading to a significant accumulation of surplus wealth (mainly crops), an increase in wealth, the creation of large settlements (particularly through ancient cities) and the development of a class-based civilisation.

The contradiction of Rome: The basis of Ancient Western civilisation eventually culminated with the Roman Empire. Rome was, like other ancient civilisations, based on the economic model of slavery, the buying and selling of people. According to Marx, the value of the Roman economic system came through the exploitation of slaves working on the land, as Rome was mainly an Agricultural economy.

But there was a contradiction: while slaves do not need to be paid a wage, they do need to be maintained. However, due to their relatively hapless lives, they may work long hours but they are not motivated and are not very productive. Their output doesn't actually increase over time or support the adoption of capital accumulation to increase productivity.

So as the Roman Empire expanded, its economic output remained stagnant; the slave-based, agricultural economy simply couldn't cope and the adventurous (and very successful) Roman armies found themselves overstretched, defending huge territories while experiencing a lack of income to pay their soldiers. Initially this could be avoided through plunder and tribute from defeated regions, but this could not sustain Rome forever. It is arguable that many of the civil wars occurring from the 2nd-5th centuries was based around attempts to secure more resources for certain sections of the military.

As resources declined, the Romans couldn't defend their territories and the system broke down. People in the West sought protection from invading "barbarians" by turning to rich landholders who could support their own private armies – the warlords who became the aristocracy – and Feudalism began.

The contradiction of Feudalism: While Feudalism had less slavery than in the Ancient World, serfdom became the principal economic model of development. The serf would farm a plot of land and provide a portion of his produce to the local Lord, who would, in return, offer protection to the serf's family during wartime (usually the protection of a Castle or fort) for this purpose. Given the dangerous world in which serfs lived, this seemed like a good deal, particularly during the first half of the Middle Ages.

However, Marx saw a contradiction in Feudalism: the serf created a small surplus of produce through excess agricultural production, which could be sold at the market and saved as a small profit. Eventually, over hundreds of years, the serf families that had accumulated enough capital could become merchants, making a profit not through producing goods but through buying and selling commodities.

This merchant class – known as the bourgeoisie – began to grow and challenge the economic power of the dominant class, the Aristocrats. Marx suggested that by the 1500s, there was outright conflict between the dominant but declining landowning class of Aristocrats and the newly emerging productive class of the Bourgeoisie – one class had to fall and that was to be the Aristocrats.

A peculiar form of Capitalism called Mercantilism began to infiltrate the trade-filled city-states of Italy, with ship after ship packed with gold from expeditions to the New World of the Americas. This in turn triggered the buying and selling of new forms of art and knowledge – the Renaissance – and spread throughout Europe, spreading to almost all western countries within 300 years.

Early Capitalism was Mercantilist – a range of adventure-hungry traders pillaging the New World and bringing back goods of enormous value. But by the middle of the 18th century this approach had been exhausted and Capitalism based on production started to kick off.

Of course, by the early 19th century, the Industrial Revolution had created the form of wage-labour based Capitalism we refer to today.

The contradiction of Capitalism: The "freedom" provided under Capitalism allows firms (run by "capitalists") to survive by maximising and increasing their profits – if they cannot, they will be defeated by their faster-growing opponents who will obtain further market share.

Despite what capitalists might say, according to Marx the key to consistently increasing profits across the board is through reducing labour costs, one of the highest costs to firms.

However, as firms across the board reduce real wages (or real wage increases) to increase profitability, this decreases the ability of employees ("workers") to buy items in a Capitalist economy. This decrease is gradual, but eventually leads to an overproduction of goods, resulting in an economic slump.

Now while credit can solve this in the short-term by increasing consumers/workers ability to buy more things initially, as demonstrated by the Global Financial Crisis, credit cannot be extended to everyone forever.

Importantly, in a slump, some bankrupt firms are purchased by other firms very cheaply, which increases the number of large, monopolistic firms which exist. Others just go bankrupt. So the number of large firms decreases during every slump.

Eventually, after a number of booms and slumps in the world economy, the last big slump leads to the fall of the few large firms left; because they are so few and are all connected, they all fall like dominoes. Now the Government, under pressure from almost everyone, either takes over the means of production to keep things going or there is a revolution – either way, Capitalism ceases to exist.

Before dismissing this as ridiculous, it should be remembered that the former situation happened in a very limited way after 2008, when the Global Financial Crisis forced US and European Governments to temporarily take a large share in a range of international banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB, ABN AMRO and Northern Rock. In most cases, this represented a forced (but required) Nationalisation by the Government and there was general support for these actions.

Capitalism in the 19th century was defined as being based on industrial production. Marxists often use the term "Late Capitalism" to define Capitalism at the end of its natural life.

Late Capitalism has a number of characteristics which differentiate it from industrial Capitalism, including the growth in financial markets and in a service-based economy in the developed world, as well as the offshoring of manufacturing to countries with cheaper wage rates and lower conditions.

After Capitalism – Socialism first, then Communism

What happens after this? Well, this is a point of contention amongst Marxists. However, a careful reading of Das Kapital suggests the following.

Once the workers take control of the State, this is not the end of it – a state-run economy operating in the workers' interests Marx referred to as a Socialist economy; this economy replaces Capitalism, but Socialism is only an intermediate step. Eventually, this intermediate socialist system would give way to a fully communal system, which he called Communism.

Communism is actually different to Socialism, in that Communism represents a classless society with no State to support it. Socialism is a transitional situation, where a powerful State reduces class differences and runs things in the medium-term. Put simply, Communism is the end-state; Socialism is the way of achieving it. The Socialist State would slowly "wither away", according to Marx, leaving a fully communal system (Communism).

Although Marx wrote very little regarding what this final stage of society would look like, he did think that Capitalist mechanisms allowing class exploitation would no longer exist. Technology would be truly advanced and liberating, workers would be free to pursue their own interests and even the State would no longer be required.

What makes this all so very confusing is that Marx has constantly been revised and "reinterpreted" by many, usually for their own ends. Here's the most well-known of them:

The great revolutionary and Marxist theorist Vladmir Illich Lenin (1870-1924) proposed a stage before Socialism, a vanguard party to guide and represent the workers, which he called the dictatorship of the proletariat. It certainly helped to justify his initial policies in the "interests of the workers" even if they were considered unpopular by the workers.

It also supported Lenin's belief that in implementing Communism, the ends justifies the means. He felt that only world revolution was ultimately sustainable, as Socialist/Communist states would be militarily and economically attacked by the Capitalist world, until these Capitalist states were defeated. For Lenin, world revolution as fast as possible was critical to the long-term survival of all socialist states, including the Soviet Union.

Unlike Lenin, Josef Stalin (1878-1953) claimed that world expansion was unnecessary, promoting the idea of "Socialism in one country". This had the practical effect of allowing Stalin to appease the West, join the allies during WWII to defeat Hitler and pursue a ruthlessly effective reign of terror against his own people.

Most post-war Soviet satellite states, although referring to their system as Socialist (i.e. "The Peoples' Socialist Republic", rather than "The Peoples' Communist Republic") had or have a Communist Party – it is called Communist, because apparently the Party is working towards goal of stateless Communism.

This confused many in the west, who thought the label Communist represented the economic system USSR claimed to have. For example, the leaders of the People's Republic of China do not refer to China as Communist – based on their theoretical framework, China is in an intermediate Socialist stage, with the Chinese Communist Party trying to bring about the future implementation of stateless Communism (for the record, the author doesn't think any of this is happening, but it is useful to understand the theoretical paradigm the heads of the Chinese Communist Party are operating under!)

By the 1970s, when it was clear the citizens of Russia and the Eastern European satellite states were not living in a worker's paradise, Soviet theorists coined the term "actually existing Socialism" or "real Socialism" to differentiate it from ideal Socialism (which was the type of truly egalitarian and materially abundant Socialism everyone had expected early on).

This was used to justify everyday life in these regimes, along with the deprivation and lack of freedom that existed. This interpretation of Marxist theory suggested that the move from "actually existing Socialism" to the type of Socialism everyone wanted was just a short time away – as long as everyone sacrificed just a little more and lined up at the bread queues for a little bit longer.

This is all pretty high-level stuff and rather contradictory. Marx and Engels claimed to have uncovered the natural laws demonstrating Socialism would inevitably supersede Capitalism. This quasi-scientific approach led to much dogmatism and inflexibility, particularly after the Russian Revolution of 1917. And it means that Karl Marx's Marxism is not Marxism as we know it!

What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist.

– Karl Marx in Engels' Letter to Bernstein, 1882

Was Marx a Reformist?

One of the most biting debates comes from the difference in opinion between revolutionary Marxists (Leninists) and reformist Marxists (Democratic Socialists, known as Kautskyites prior to WWII).

Put simply, revolutionary Marxists believe the State under Capitalism will always represents the interests of the bourgeoisie, even if necessary concessions are made to workers; reformists think the State can be used to limit the powers of the bourgeoisie and gradually implement Socialism through democratic processes.

This means that most revolutionaries think democracy is a sham or ineffective and support violent revolution in order to "smash the State" and replace it outright (e.g. Lenin). On the other hand, reformists value democracy and think real change can be implemented through parliament, thus supporting a gradual and peaceful transition to Socialism.

This represents a very different response to the question of how to implement Marxism. So what views did Marx and Engels actually hold? Were they revolutionaries, or did they believe the system could be changed via the ballot box?

It is quite clear the early Marx did not look upon the democratic institutions of the Industrial Revolution too kindly. He sympathised with the Jacobin ideals of the French Revolution, even if he did not agree with their methods. The young firebrand thought that as the Capitalist State worked in the interests of the bourgeoisie, the only practical method of achieving change was through revolution, not democracy:

The revolution is necessary, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

– Marx, The German Ideology, 1845

It is certainly understandable why Marx held this view in 1845. At the time, most of Europe had no health and safety laws, no minimum wage laws, no welfare payments and no free education. The main approach the Government took to promoting social stability was through vagrancy laws, which represented nothing more than absurdly harsh penalties for minor crimes. This included capital punishment, large prison sentences and deportation of criminals to the colonies, mostly aimed at keeping the poor in their place.

Having said this, the young Engels did allow some limited scope for a peaceful transition, while still suggesting revolution may be the most practical and straightforward way to achieve lasting change:

Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

– Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847

Around this time there were a series of political disturbances across Europe known as the Revolutions of 1848. This was most significantly demonstrated with the French Revolution of the Paris Commune, but most countries in Europe were affected. Marx fully expected a protracted and drawn-out series of violent revolutions at the time, which would break the power of the bourgeoisie and allow the proletariat to intellectually develop and take power. Marx was to be disappointed, as most of the revolts were broken by various Governments within the year.

After this, Marx's writings became less impassioned and more systematic. Although he still saw revolution as the most likely outcome, later in life he conceded that under certain circumstances and in certain countries, a democratic path to Socialism may be possible:

We know that we must take into consideration the institutions, the habits and the customs of different regions, and we do not deny that there are countries like America, England and – if I knew your institutions better I would perhaps add Holland – where the workers can attain their objective by peaceful means. But such is not the case in all other countries.

– Marx 1872 in Kautsky, Social Democracy vs Communism

Late in his life, Engels also seems to suggest Reformism can be an effective intermediate step towards Socialism, even if reforms are taken incrementally:

Because today, as I write these lines, the European and American Proletariat is reviewing its fighting forces, mobilised for the first time, mobilised as one army, under one flag, for one immediate aim: the standard eight-hour working day to be established by legal enactment...and todays spectacle will open the eyes of the capitalists and landlords of all countries to the fact that today the working men of all countries are united indeed. If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!

– Engels, Preface to the German edition of the Communist Manifesto, 1890

Post-Marx: Lenin vs Kautsky

At the beginning of the 20th century there was to be a sharp split between the revolutionaries, represented by Lenin and Trotsky (1879-1940), and the reformists, represented by Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932) and Karl Kautsky (1854-1938).

Lenin thought that reformism represented capitulation to the bourgeoisie and that only revolutionary change represented the true spirit of Marx. According to this stream of thought, workers' power cannot be democratically achieved in a Capitalist state because the power of the State is always used to support the bourgeoisie:

We have already said above, and shall show more fully later, that the theory of Marx and Engels of the inevitability of a violent revolution refers to the bourgeois state. The latter cannot be superseded by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through the process of 'withering away", but, as a general rule, only through a violent revolution.

– Lenin, State and Revolution, 1917

And this is what Lenin said about the character of democratic left-wing political parties:

The [British] Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers.

– Lenin, Minutes of the Second Congress of the Communist International,Thirteenth Session, August 6th

But what of the significant social policy gains made by Labour and social democratic parties in the developed world, through increasing minimum wages, sick pay, annual leave, providing free healthcare, accessible education and even welfare payments? How could these significant economic gains for workers be in the interests of the bourgeoisie?

Most Leninists regard these changes as positive, but view them as reluctant concessions made by a segment of the bourgeoisie themselves to slow the inevitability of a Revolution. If the workers are arcing up, butter them up some small gains – healthcare here, a small wage rise there – and this will put off full-frontal attacks on Capitalism. That is why Lenin refers to the British Labour Party above as an organization existing to "systematically dupe the workers".

Social democratic critics like Karl Kautsky countered that gains made through parliament can be real – and that Socialism without democracy will lead to dictatorship. A friend of Engels, Kautsky was convinced that left-wing democratic parties could make a difference in parliament and implement workers' rights through peaceful means.

He suggested that democracy was not a sham at all: democracy was necessary to keep people in check and hold politicians accountable to the people they claimed to represent. This accountability extended to socialist representatives just as much as bourgeois ones. This was the approach taken my many European Marxists, particularly those in the Nordic countries, who became active in Labour or Social Democratic parties and contributed greatly to social democracy.

Put clearly, Kautsky suggested that Socialism without democracy, no matter how well-meaning, will inevitably lead to State-led oppression of the people:

Upon the ruins of democracy, for which Lenin had fought until 1917, he erected his political power. Upon these ruins he set up a new militarist-bureaucratic police machinery of state, a new autocracy. This gave him weapons against the other Socialists even more potent than shameless lies. He now had in his hands all the instruments of repression which czarism had used, adding to these weapons also those instruments of oppression which the capitalist, as the owner of the means of production, uses against wage slaves. Lenin now commanded all the means of production, utilizing his state power for the erection of his state capitalism.

– Kautsky in Social democracy vs Communism

Rosa Luxembourg, a German socialist who was sympathetic to Lenin, also doubted the revolutionary approach:

To be sure, every democratic institution has its faults and limitations, which it has in common with all human institutions. But the remedy discovered by Lenin and Trotsky, the abolition of democracy, is worse than the evil it is supposed to cure, for it shuts off the lifespring from which can come the cure for all the inadequacies of social institutions.

– Rosa Luxembourg in Kautsky, Social democracy vs Communism

Conclusion

Despite any personal views you may have of Marx – as a revolutionary Leninist, a social-democratic Kautskyite, a free-market Libertarian or anywhere in-between – there is no doubt the influence Marxism has had on the 20th Century. The fall of the Iron Curtain probably better allows the real Marx to understood, free from the constraints of Soviet propaganda.

The ongoing questions regarding Marxism are these:

  * Is there an inherent contradiction in Capitalism which will lead to its downfall?

  * If so, is it inevitable that this will lead to a transition from Capitalism to Communism as Marx envisaged?

  * Will this transition happen through a World Revolution (as a young Marx and Lenin thought), democratic change (as Kautsky thought) or a combination of the two (as the elder Marx and Engels implied) – if at all?

  * Is the end of Capitalism just around the corner or will it take time, gradually being adopted through democratic change over many years (as Kautsky suggested)?

The author would not dare begin to provide a response to these highly debatable questions. However, it can be observed that despite Lenin and many of his followers (e.g. Trotsky) being very committed and generally well-meaning, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" did lead to some ruthless dictators coming to power the world has ever seen.

This included Stalin in Russia, Mao Tse-Tung in China, the ruthless regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia and Soviet-backed dictators such as Mohamar Gadaffi in Lybia, who only lost power after their death, or through a bloody confrontation.

To provide a personal opinion, it is difficult to understand why many young and often intelligent University-educated Marxists fanatically support the Leninist Revolution, yet do not recognise that Stalin's opportunism and ruthlessness was only possible due to the lack of checks and balances inherent in this revolutionary system from the very beginning.

Marx said "it is the masses that get written out of history", referring to the idea that it is the masses that create historical change rather than heroic individuals. Yet under Stalin, Soviet life changed into a horrible dystopia due to the whim of one psychotic individual. This is not meant to happen under Marxism-Leninism, where the Socialist State should operate transitionally on behalf of the workers.

Marx did not want his theory to become a religion: he welcomed criticism of his ideas and was sometimes wrong, one example being his prediction for the likely timing of the European revolutions (the early Marx suggested these would happen between 1848 and 1850 – this is clearly and demonstrably false). He also did not foresee the growth the hugely influential middle class after his death – a class which do not own the means of production, but have some control over the means of production, even if this control is on behalf of the bourgeoisie. This class also has a good standard of living and some disposable cash, so no real reason to rock the system.

Marx was not an oracle – he was a highly intelligent man who thought systemically and carefully but made mistakes. However, it is important not to discard his central contribution to philosophical theory – despite wars, famines, suffering and divisions, decisive action can be taken to change the world into something far better – and according to Marx, this change is virtually inevitable.

Pros:

  * Marx was the first to boldly describe the mechanics of Capitalism with a critical eye. In doing so, he challenged the liberal theories of Adam Smith and other classical economists directly, demonstrating that society is class-based and works in the interests of the wealthiest. His scathing critique, particularly regarding the mode of exploitation (the selling of labour power at a cheap and exploitative rate) has led to revolution or social reform in virtually every country on earth.

  * The theories of Marx break sharply from philosophical idealism, as he proposed a materialistic way of looking at society. There is a sense of hard-headedness in his work which is different to previous, largely utopian attempts to critique the negative effects of Capitalism.

  * A careful reading of Marx's work attests to its breadth, power and contemporary relevance, particularly regarding the effects wages have on consumption to keep the system going.

Cons:

  * A prima facie reading of Marx reveals the youthful confidence of his early writings – this changed later, but makes much of his early work solid but dogmatic. Also, Marx's heavy Teutonic German translates clunkily into English and has an almost oracular-like quality. Combined with Marx's sweeping descriptions which echo scientific discoveries (so-called "Scientific Socialism"), it produces a sense of dogmatic irrefutability. Even professional academics have fallen for this trap – modern-day Leninists have a particularly bad habit of referring to any useful update of Marxism as "revisionism" and "deviationism", thereby shutting down any form of debate concerning the application of Marx to the modern world.

  * This dogmatic quality of Marx's early works can lead to support for a violent workers' Revolution, despite history clearly demonstrating Leninism and Maoism did not work as intended. Revolutionary Marxism has historically led to the ends being used to justify the means and any attempt to question such methods can be labelled "bourgeois" and can lead to great bloodshed if left unchecked.

  * It is this unquestioning approach which allowed Soviet and Chinese propaganda to denounce democratic measures of accountability as "bourgeois" and, through Stalin and Mao, cover up the many atrocities committed to millions of people (lesson here: don't accept any theory dogmatically!).

Further Reading

Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847): Although most readers will start with The Communist Manifesto, a more informative pamphlet is this one. Written by the early Marx in 1847, it represents a short but considered analysis of how Capitalism works and why it is exploitative to workers. It is also far shorter and easier to understand than the average writing by Marx.

Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848): Okay, read it if you must! It demonstrates the political principles underpinning Marx at the time and is bold, though heavy on the propaganda in parts.

Ruis, Marx for Beginners (1976): One of the first "Beginners..." series of books, written by Mexican writer and cartoonist Ruis and edited for the English reader by Richard Appignanesi in 1976. It provides a very strong introduction to Marx in a humorous format, although his clear support for revolutionary Marxism slants his interpretation, particularly when critiquing non-Marxist intellectuals. Still well worth reading if you can pick up an old copy.

Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy vs. Communism (1937): the clearest expression of Marxism as Democratic Socialism (or social democratic). Despite being labelled "revisionist" by Leninists at the time, Kautsky expertly applies the materialist analysis of history to show the consequences of revolution and that Marxism and democracy are not incompatible. This work led to much theoretical research being conducted into social democracy in the 1930s, which has affected the development of most European countries (particularly the left-wing Nordic states of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland).

Chapter Eight: Existentialism

The ultimate meaning of life is to accept your own death

We do not know what we want and yet are responsible for what we are – that is the fact.

– Jean-Paul Sartre

After the exhaustive duel between Liberalism and Marxism, philosophy in Europe split into two streams – and neither of them concerned the structure of the world economy.

The English focused on analytic philosophy, a body of work largely content with language analysis, which ended up going down the dead-end path known as linguistic philosophy – unfortunately, many University faculties are especially good at focusing on this dry stuff.

On the other hand, in continental Europe things drifted towards the far more compelling and personal philosophy of Existentialism. Philosophy had again gone from changing the world to focussing on the individual.

Existentialism was a challenge to the empiricism of analytic approaches. It rejected the power of philosophers to pursue truths as a scientist would and instead asked, "what does it mean to be?" and "how can I live authentically, given the absurdity, pain and boredom I will face in the world?".

There is much focus in this philosophy on the insecurity and boredom most people feel in their everyday lives, which many existential philosophers argue is not to be fixed through psychological techniques, distractions, alcohol or drugs because it is part of our being. Our existence is seen as a philosophical issue, particularly given our own mortality and personal anxiety over the fact that one day, we will be no more.

Beginning in the mid-19th Century, Existentialism reached its high point in the 1950s with most self-respecting left-wing intellectuals having great sympathy for the movement. Along with other popular post-war intellectual movements such as Psychoanalysis, Existential thought was parodied extensively in the 1970s and largely discarded in favour of more certain and assertive philosophies such as revised Liberalism in the 1980s and Epicureanism in the 1990s.

Despite this, since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, many have reconsidered that "elephant in the room"; the omnipresent issue of our own mortality and purpose as human beings.

Can Existentialism solve these problems, or at least help us to understand and live with them?

Fear and Trembling with Kierkegaard

Although attempts to find human meaning goes to the heart of philosophy, most historical approaches were either of the metaphysical type (our soul is immortal and will exist after death, as per Platonism and Christianity) or that our death is inevitable, but not a big deal (e.g. Epicureanism and Marxism).

The father of Existentialism, the emotionally volatile Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), provided a radically different way of viewing the nature of our existence.

To most thinkers of the time, anxiety over the meaning of life and our role in it was considered to be a psychological issue or perhaps indicating a lack of faith; for Kierkegaard, a state of anxiety and doubt concerning life represents the norm.

According to Kierkegaard, everyday anxiety about life is an emotional expression of our attempt to find out how life can be meaningful, while being absolutely uncertain if life had any meaning at all.

Such doubt towards life's meaning and purpose was unusual given Kierkegaard was religious and did believe in a higher power. Early on, he wrote:

What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. ... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.

– Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835

Although he believed there was a higher purpose to life, there was no way of proving it. Rationalism cannot prove that life has meaning, and it is mainly this lack of proof which causes real doubt in humans, despite what we believe.

As a theologian, Kierkegaard solved this problem by suggesting that to derive meaning in one's life, one's individuality has to be lost. Through bringing immediate, ego-driven desires under a moral law, life paradoxically becomes personally meaningful, through the sacrifice of the individual will to the common good.

This of course provides a strong intellectual justification for the Christian ideal of sacrificing one's time or personal wealth for others, as well as the spiritually uplifting nature of such a sacrifice (altruism).

But this brings up another existential issue. Great people in history have achieved greatness through individual acts and their own strength of will, not through group-think. Further, there are a great many people throughout history who have acted in a highly moral way, but have not been supported by the society around them. Kierkegaard asked, without an external frame of reference, how can my morality be truly moral? How can I judge an act to be "good" when the world around me says it is not, even if I feel it is?

Kierkegaard again solved this by way of a theological argument. Personal ethical judgements require a "leap of faith", beyond the judgements of others. In fact, such judgements are not just beyond the beliefs of others, but even beyond rationalism itself. While Kierkegaard did not support the Church as an institution (he actively fought against the Danish National Church in his older years) he did believe that only a higher power could make making some degree of ethical grounding possible.

Nevertheless, he accepted that even the "leap of faith" argument will leave an individual feeling insecure, particularly concerning one's own existence and whether the right decisions or choices have been taken in life.

Kierkegaard was the first philosopher to place philosophical emphasis on the uncertainty and anxiety that comes through living, to the exclusion of other issues. While his religious perspectives allowed resolution of this anxiety, most other existentialists would not have this level of faith – in fact, quite the opposite.

Nietzsche and the death of God

Although Kierkegaard was the first to classify existential anxiety as a serious philosophical problem, it was the Teutonic genius of another philosopher, Fredrick Nietzsche (1844-1900), who lay the groundwork for future Existential philosophers. His rejection of a higher power in determining the meaning of life would lead to a controversial and shocking conclusion.

This energetic, bipolar German with the huge moustache brazenly said what many thinkers at the time felt, but would not admit to: God is dead.

What did he mean?

God, the manifestation of a higher power in Judaism, transferred to Europe through Christianity, was no longer relevant. Nietzsche claimed that we, as an industrial society, had "killed" him, mainly through the application of science and rational thought to our problems; through rational problem solving, God was no longer required.

Even more shockingly, Nietzsche proposed we had to live up to the consequences of this "death" of God, dealing with the uncertainty this brings to life by becoming our own "gods".

Nietzsche's Influences

Nietzsche was bought up in a religious household and studied theology for one term at the University of Bonn, before quickly losing his faith and leaving. His studies were then influenced by another German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and a German sociologist, Friedrich Albert Lange (1828-1875).

From Schopenhauer he took the idea that reality was a reflection of a person's individual will. Schopenhauer had taught him that because life is just a reflection of the individual, human desires can never be fully satisfied.

Lange was concerned with the rise of European Materialism and societies increasing concern with science and rationalism. Lange argued this scientific focus was fuelling a reaction against traditional authority, as all earlier truths came to be questioned. This framed Nietzsche's perception of how humans had historically relied on the concept of God to get them through hard times and how they were re-evaluating the necessity of a higher power in the 19th Century.

To live is to suffer!

Nietzsche's first began to study the Ancients. Delving into Ancient Greek mythology, he carefully examined two of the twelve greatest Gods of Mount Olympus, Apollo (the god of knowledge, truth and prophecy) and Dionysus (the god of wine and ecstacy).

Nietzsche speculated that ancient Greek society, just like society today, gravitated between the Dionysian and Apollonian ideals. Dionysus represented drunken frenzy, pure emotion and abstract ideals, while Apollo represented concrete, intelligible reality. Society is seen to swing backward and forward between these two contrasting ideals, as represented by these two gods in the Ancient World.

According to Nietzsche, Greek Tragedy was the perfect outlet for expressing this contrast. It allowed Ancient playwrights to demonstrate both the Dionysian and Apollonian elements of humanity in one short play, just as many elements of being human can be demonstrated in a tightly scripted movie.

Earlier historians questioned why Greek Tragedy was such a popular art form, given its essentially pessimistic outlook. Nietzsche felt he had discovered the reason: the Ancient Greeks, through combining all elements of human existence, realised that to live is to suffer.

The Greeks appreciated the tragic play because they appreciated the reflection of their own tragic lives depicted on stage. They enjoyed the tragedy before them because they did not pretend life was easy, but appreciated life as it actually was.

This led Nietzsche to fast-forward to the human condition in his time, particularly in Germany. Compared to Ancient Greek playwrights, he thought that his friend and supporter, the composer Richard Wagner (1813-1883), was the only person who could correctly interpret life's existential problems, because the gifted Wagner could reflect the tragedy of life through his musical compositions.

Nietzsche became obsessed: he thought that through Wagner, the German people could be exposed to the tragic nature of existence and be saved. He implored Wagner to produce a range of "Dionysian" operas to balance art, saving Germany and humanity from excessive "Apollonian" rationality. Wagner of course succumbed to this intense flattery and was only too happy to oblige.

A serious effort was made by friends of Wagner to obtain the necessary funds to launch a series of Wagnerian operas. The funds were eventually found and Nietzsche was overjoyed. The first Bayreuth Festival was put together in 1876, showcasing Wagner's "operas of salvation" to a large audience, which included Kaiser Wilhelm II, creator of the modern German state.

Unfortunately, these operas did not change the thinking of humanity overnight and the erratic Nietzsche quickly became disillusioned, disavowing Wagner's operas and seeking other philosophical consolations. While Nietzsche became disillusioned with Wagner almost immediately following the performance of the first operas, the Bayreuth festival enjoys popularity in Germany to this day.

And then Zarathustra Spoke

Nietzsche's boldest work, Thus Spake Zarathustra, was in many ways a response to his rejection of Wagner.

This highly creative work, written as a novel, advanced the radical view that the idea of God as an omnipotent being who guides humanity through good and ill is effectively "dead". God has been "killed" by the rationalism and scientific method we have ourselves created.

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!" As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

– Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Nietzsche was concerned by this, as he felt the "death" of God would lead to the end of a universal way of viewing things; without God, he felt the idea of objective reality would disappear, with concepts such as "truth" and "the meaning of life" becoming completely subjective.

Humanity could respond to this subjectivism in two ways. Either people would choose to believe what they wanted to about life, despite what rational thought suggested (called Perspectivism), or else, people would become nihilistic, regarding life as lacking purpose and importance.

As Nietzsche thought it was more likely the latter would occur (as people tend to take account of what others are saying), it was incumbent on individuals to create their own value-system in order to transcend the insecurities a godless world would bring. In fact, the only way to do this successfully was to transcend God and become supermen (Ubermensch).

It should be noted the term "superman" was later used by Adolf Hitler to describe the German race, which has often led to Nietzsche being unfairly connected with the Third Reich. In fact, despite Nietzsche's pro-German and sometimes bizarre sentiments concerning Nationalism, there is no evidence he would have supported the Nazis use of the term in this way.

The question posed to the reader at the end of Thus Spake Zarathustra was as follows: Were people strong enough to accept the "death" of God, creating and accepting personal meaning in their lives? Could humanity thus transcend God, becoming "supermen" unto themselves? This was Nietzsche's defiant challenge to humanity.

Later life

Despite the triumphalism of Nietzsche's philosophy at this later stage, things quickly went downhill. In 1891, while staying in Turin, Nietzsche did something strange. Seeing a horse being mistreated, he spontaneously wrapped his arms around it, embracing it in an attempt to stop it from being whipped. However, at this point he spontaneously collapsed and was detained by two police officers.

His behaviour then became increasingly erratic. In the next few days, he sent off a number of letters to friends which indicated he was not in the best mental state:

What is unpleasant and a strain on my modesty is that in fact I am every historical personage; and as for the children I have brought into the world, I ponder with some misgiving the possibility that not everyone who enters the "kingdom of God" also comes from God. This fall, blinded as little as possible, I twice witnessed my funeral...

Do not take the case of Prado too seriously. I am Prado, I'm also Prado's father, and I venture to say I'm Lesseps too. I wanted to give my Parisians, whom I love, a new concept—that of a decent criminal. I'm Chambige too—also a decent criminal [Prado and Chambige were criminals condemned to death; Lesseps was a French diplomat and pioneer of the Suez Canal]

– Nietzsche, letters, 1891

After initially being committed to psychiatric care, he was eventually looked after by his sister until his death. Nietzsche passed away on August 25th, 1900.

Most now regard his madness and eventual death as a consequence of advanced syphilis, particularly given Nietzsche himself documented an earlier infection. Some suggested his illness was due to a psychological conflict between his own irreconcilable ideas and beliefs, leading to eventual psychosis. Others in the church commented that illness was inevitable; such a person could not openly attack God forever with impunity.

Whatever the cause, Nietzsche's forceful, cryptic, yet dynamic approach to the concept of God and the meaning of existence has inspired, perplexed and infuriated readers, theologians and intellectuals ever since.

Heidegger: The Question of Being

The next great contributor to existential thought was Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), a follow of Nietzsche who also obsessed over the concept of "being".

Although Heidegger was a significant contributor to existential thought, it is important to realise from the outset his philosophical contributions have been obscured by two things:

  * his esoteric writing style, particularly evident after 1950 and not greatly amenable to translation out of German; and

  * his apparent support for the Nazi regime during the 1930s.

On the first point, his cryptic writings mean that developing a clear and concise summary of his work is difficult. Most books either provide a short descriptive analysis of Heidegger's work, or else give a long, drawn-out synthesis of his major writings.

Because of Heidegger's style, this is in some ways inevitable; as a result, this section will only examine Heidegger's core approach to viewing existence, rather than representing all of his main ideas.

On the second point, while his academic supporters claim that Heidegger's connection to the Third Reich did not cloud his philosophy, others see his membership of the Nazi Party from 1933 to 1945 as deliberate. Nevertheless, most historians accept such support was a "mistake", a misguided attempt of a powerful intellectual to "convert" National Socialism from the inside, possibly because he enjoyed being close to power. One of his most incriminating and widely printed statements was made just after Hitler became Chancellor:

The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Fuhrer.

– Heidegger 1933 in Introducing Heidegger, Cambridge University Press.

In 1966, Heidegger stated that he saw an "awakening" of the German people in 1933 under Hitler, but that after the violent methods of the Nazi party became evident in 1934, he became disillusioned with National Socialism as a political philosophy. Heidegger claimed that through using "doublespeak", he was able to promulgate his ideas rather than that of the government, while holding onto his post as Rector at the University of Freiberg:

The rectorate [at the University of Freiberg] was an attempt to see something in the movement that had come to power, beyond all its failings and crudeness, that was much more far-reaching and that could perhaps one day bring a concentration on the Germans' Western historical essence. It will in no way be denied that at the time I believed in such possibilities and for that reason renounced the actual vocation of thinking in favor of being effective in an official capacity. In no way will what was caused by my own inadequacy in office be played down. But these points of view do not capture what is essential and what moved me to accept the rectorate.

– Heidegger 1982 (published posthumously)

At the end of World War II, Heidegger was excused in the de-Nazification process, being described as a "fellow traveller" or Mitlaufer, but he was banned from teaching indefinitely. The University of Freiburg came to his defence and by 1951 he was given emeritus status at the University and allowed to teach there.

He was then readmitted into German University circles and continued to have significant intellectual influence, particularly on the minds of the French Existentialists. He energetically travelled, taught and wrote until his death at the age of 87.

Heidegger's cryptic philosophy

Heidegger's approach appears strange for someone not familiar with his work. Rather than discussing what the reason for us being here actually is, he focussed his efforts on developing a new methodology for examining the concept of being itself ("Dasein").

Like most philosophers, Heidegger thought that Plato represented the turning point in Western Philosophy, although not for the better. Heidegger defined the history of western thought since Plato as being metaphysical. This provided people with security, but at the cost of really understanding what "being" actually entails.

Heidegger argues that Plato described existence in terms of "a" being, something which was "out there", existing separately and independently of everything else. Using Plato's approach, western thinkers have associated "being" and human existence with an external "thing" (such as a person or object).

While this all sounds logical, Heidegger argued that this approach has led the western world into error, because "being" is not really a thing which can be analysed externally, but (as some of the pre-Socratics hinted), "being" is not external to us but beyond categorisation. It also means that many key concepts of western civilisation (such as "God", "reality" and "logic") are misguided as they are based on a false premise.

According to Heidegger, our ideas of what is "commonsense" are based on human constructs which are at their core metaphysical (again, thanks to Plato). These metaphysical constructs affect the way humans relate to themselves and the world around them.

This is particularly relevant in terms of how society develops technology and the relationship humans have to technology in an industrial society.

So having deconstructed the history of western methodology by dismissing Plato, does Heidegger provide an effective replacement? Not really – having identified the problem of classifying "being" and "existence", Heidegger never seems to provide a clear answer to the question, "what is being?". It's strange that after questioning a methodology which has existed since the early years of civilisation, Heidegger does not seem to replace it with something which is clear and understandable!

The counterargument to this is that perhaps Heidegger thought "being" really wasn't definable and that we shouldn't try to do the impossible. In this, Heidegger identified a problem when dealing with existential questions – it is difficult (or perhaps even impossible) to classify existence using language. It would be a famous and gifted French intellectual who would provide a solution, in the process making people face their worst fears in a way that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger could not.

Jean-Paul Sartre: The meaninglessness of existence.

The name Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) immediately rings bells, as he is still the most well-known French intellectual from any period. Growing up and studying in the elite institutions of Paris, Sartre provided a very Francophile interpretation of existence which would go on to inspire writers, film producers and other intellectuals.

His disgust with the bourgeois system around him combined with a strong support for Socialism and significant literary talents placed him beautifully within the French intellectual movement in the 1950s. It made him immensely popular with his peers and probably the most powerful philosopher of his generation.

Meaningless and being

In 1938, Sartre published his first novel La Nausee (Nausea). This work was judged by many (including himself) to be the best work he produced. That is because it is a powerful work of literature in its own right, and with a little interpretation it is possible to glean one of Sartre's key insights regarding existence.

Written as a fictionalised diary, the novel cleverly documents the account of one Antoine Roquentin, as he begins to realise the world around him is not what it seems.

As a bachelor with a small private income, Roquentin is able to observe the world and undertake work on a biography, but he is faced with a problem: everything he touches and examines makes him feel sick, and what he calls "nausea" affects him and comes and goes in waves. This is a permanent theme throughout the work.

Why is this?

Throughout the novel Mssr. Roquetin attributes his own creeping anxiety and "nausea" to a range of things, including his status in society, the unsatisfactory progress on his own research and (more than anything else) his ex-partner, the love of his life, who he briefly meets again at the end of the book.

Eventually, he finally discovers the real reason for his feeling of nausea: he has realised there is no reason for anything to exist at all.

This goes to the heart of Sartre's work: his strict application of atheism to life. If there is no God, everything that exists is unnecessary. There is no Nietzschean suggestion that we can replace the gods and no humanist ideals about creating meaning and value for ourselves. There is only an acceptance of the absurdity of living.

Sartre says that the idea of pure atheism must be developed to its logical conclusion. If we accept the nonexistence of God, we also have to accept the lack of a higher power in our lives, including the very unpleasant truth that there is no inherent meaning in our lives. Anything else smacks of self-delusion and desperation.

What particularly concerns Sartre is that while life has no inherent meaning, people still have some power, as individual choice and free will logically exist in a godless universe. Further, it is the application of free will which makes people what they are. This makes life tricky, because people never know if they are making the right decisions, causing understandable anxiety throughout one's life.

Human freedom also gives rise to the creation of moral values, something we cannot avoid. The world may be absurd (because it is meaningless), but we can still be judged by others to be doing something "bad" and still feel guilty for it. Ironically, Sartre sees this judgement from society as correct social behaviour, necessary to keep society together and protect individuals. But while society's judgement of what is "good" and "bad" is necessary, it is also paradoxically absurd, given life has no inherent meaning at all.

Sartre also suggests our freedom leads us to the angst-ridden state of self-awareness, self-questioning and self-evaluation.

This is something which we would rather avoid, but which we cannot if we want to live "authentically". Yet if the world is actually devoid of meaning, why do we need concern ourselves with this? Because, according to Sartre, freedom is still real and society still exists (and judges us based on our behaviour).

Existence precedes essence

Unlike physical objects and animals, people make a range of free choices throughout their lives, albeit constrained by circumstance.

In a similar manner to Heidegger, Sartre noted that historically, philosophy has concentrated on "being" in terms of the internal essence of an individual. In this way, people are judged to be morally "good", morally "bad" or somewhere in between. Further, it is assumed that a person's inner self has guided them to good or bad actions, depending on their character.

But in truth, humans are not judged by what they privately think and feel – what Sartre called their essence – but according to what they actually do, what Sartre called their existence. Sartre's famous phrase, existence precedes essence, means that it is only what you do (your existence), not the sort of person you perceive yourself to be (your essence), that makes you who you are. Thinking of yourself as a good or bad person at heart is meaningless; it is only the way you act that makes you a good or bad person.

Sartre also claimed that in a godless world, any idea about being an inherently good person irrespective of your recent actions is pure self-deception.

Because of the anxiety that comes with human freedom, we routinely try to copy others, and often get them to make our decisions for us, rather than making them ourselves. Indeed, we go to great lengths to avoid responsibility.

But avoiding the responsibility of this freedom is one of the worst things we can do, said Sartre, because it amounts to a self-deception in our lives; we will always be uncertain of the choices we make and we just have to accept this. When we give away our freedom due to this uncertainty, we act in "bad faith" and end up "living inauthentically".

Similar to the Stoics, Sartre regarded emotions as not something which overpower us, but something we can control. The mind is always in command, although our self-deception often means we act inauthentically by letting our emotions guide us and then allow ourselves to act on these emotions. Pretending to be controlled by emotions is, according to Sartre, another method of avoiding the uncertainty involved with making free choices, and is a method laced with "bad faith".

Camus: Reality is Absurd

Albert Camus (1913-1959) is the poster boy of French Existentialism. His trenchcoat-wearing, cigarette smoking visage is as well-known in France as the image of Che Guevara is on university campuses around the world.

This Bogartesque character was born into a poor French family in Algeria and completed his thesis at the University of Algiers in 1936 (he wrote about Neo-Platonist Plotinus and his influence on Christian thought).

Although a pacifist at the outset of WWII, the 1941 execution of French freedom fighter Gabriel Peri changed his position. He joined the French Resistance, actively fought against the Nazis and future-proofed his enviable reputation with intellectuals and high-society women alike. As to collaboration with the Germans, he had the following defiant message:

Now the only moral value is courage, which is useful here for judging the puppets and chatterboxes who pretend to speak in the name of the people.

– Camus, Letter to a friend, 1941

After the war he completed his most high profile works, which culminated in him winning the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. As well as being an intellectual hero of the 1950s, he dedicated himself to human rights, including the renunciation of Stalinism – this is something that put him at odds with many others French intellectuals, particularly Sartre. A typical Francophile, while married he also conducted numerous affairs, famously saying he was not cut out for marriage and claiming the institution was unnatural.

On 4 January 1960, Camus was ready to board a train to see his wife and children; with the ticket in his pocket, he ended up accepting a lift from his publisher instead. He was horribly killed in a car accident that day along with his driver. Dying tragically at the age of 46 while still at the height of his literary powers, his image and legacy for the youth of France was permanently established.

While Camus had, from his youth, written probing yet strangely uplifting prose, it was during WWII that he began to write stories which delved into the absurdity of the human condition.

It should be noted that Camus actually did not regard himself as an Existentialist; still, most people would place his brand of "absurdist" philosophy to be existential in nature.

Meaning through solidarity and defying the absurd

Camus' approach was actually very similar to that of Sartre, in that both accepted life was absurd but also free. They also both accepted that in a world without God, life does not have inherent meaning.

Like Sartre, Camus considered happiness ephemeral and life fleeting. But this is not to be interpreted in a negative light, according to Camus, as such an acceptance can lead to greater happiness while we are alive.

Camus was particularly concerned by the apparent following paradoxes behind existence:

  * we value our lives highly, but also know we will eventually die.

  * we regard our personal existence as highly significant, but we also know (or at least suspect) it is meaningless.

While Sartre felt this led to the unsettling conclusion that life had no meaning at all, Camus did not think this meant life as a whole was inherently or necessarily meaningless. Even if we are cogs in the wheel of a system which is beyond us, it is this function of being a cog which ensures meaning, through the collective nature of existence.

The collective nature of society is something Sartre recognised as being important, but he may have overlooked society insofar as attributing meaning to it is concerned. Further, while Sartre's novels demonstrate alienation and meaninglessness, Camus' most well-known novels – particularly The Plague – demonstrate initial alienation being trumped by human solidarity. It is the ability for humans to react to difficult circumstances and unite to make the world a better place which provides a degree of individual meaning.

This provides some upbeat humanity to Camus' work, often absent in Sartre and in the writings of other existentialists like Nietzsche. Camus also rejected nihilism, as to him the reality of human existence is not sufficient to support the idea there should be no point to life at all.

Can we create meaning ourselves?

Having said this, it is important to realise Camus did not think that meaning could be created for oneself, as to him this was just an attempt to avoid the problem. He referred to such attempts as a "logical leap"; an error of thought which sounds nice but is intellectually without foundation.

Atheists make this leap when they make humanistic statements such as "rather than relying on God for meaning, we need to create meaning for ourselves". According to Camus, this sort of statement makes atheists feel better about the world around them, but is logically inconsistent.

Interestingly, Camus classified suicide as another way to deal with the absurdity of life. To escape or avoid this absurdity, suicide represents the ending of the most critical component of existence relevant to oneself – that is, one's own life. However, Camus said that suicide was a waste of time, as it never deals with the real problem. Why is this? Because being dead has no more inherent meaning than being alive, so it fails to fix anything concerning existence.

So how do we deal with our lives? Camus suggested that as individuals we need to entertain the absurdity of life and the reality of death without ever agreeing to it.

To put it another way, we have to accept the truth of such ideas and yet be personally defiant of them. He likened our labours with that of Sisyphus (a mythical Greco-Roman character condemned by the gods to roll a heavy stone up a mountain; once there, the stone rolls down again, making Sisyphus repeat his labours for eternity) but also said that "one thinks Sisyphus must be very happy".

This paradox meant Camus' interpretation of existence is subtle and hints at "active denial" as the secret to enjoying a fulfilling life. This begs the question: is it right to agree with a concept intellectually (i.e. that life has no inherent meaning) but still reject it, either for one's own life or for the greater good of society? Camus suggested this was an inevitable paradox of life, something we have to deal with every day.

Conclusion

Existentialism represents a profound tilt in ethical philosophy. Rather than asking "why are we here" and examining the first principles of the universe to make deductions, Existentialism asks us to question the meaning of existence itself. Brought about by the development of science and technology, philosophers began questioning whether the universe required a higher power to operate or whether the existence of God (or a higher power) is only an historical construct.

Such philosophers attempted to ask questions about human existence from the bravest of perspectives because they challenged the idea that life has inherent meaning, certainty or purpose, in an attempt to find the truth and extract real value from this seemingly negative proposition.

Pros:

  * Previous philosophes have either suggested that the human soul is immortal, or that our death is not an issue. Existential philosophers treat feelings of anxiety regarding our own death as legitimate, rather than dismissing them as incorrect or unphilosophical.

  * Further, most Existentialists do not try to "fix" these emotions, but suggest a modus vivendi in spite of our own (legitimate) anxieties concerning our own existence.

  * There is a degree of honesty in Existential thought and practice. In particular, Sartre states that if one decides Atheism is true, there can be no pretence of external meaning; either there is a higher power (which suggests life has meaning) or there is not (which means life cannot have any inherent meaning). The courageousness of this position – to face up to the meaningless and absurdity of life – requires a psychological toughness that many resolute atheists do not have.

Cons:

  * With the exception of Kierkegaard, most Existentialists are atheists who have discarded the first principles of other philosophical schools while often inadvertently adding in their own. While Sartre suggests that not making choices for oneself and following others is to act in "bad faith", how can Sartre apply value judgements to his world without meaning? Sartre would respond by saying that he was not making a judgement, but "observing behaviour".

  * Similarly, consider Camus' observation that humanity finds meaning in solidarity. Is this meaning actual, or just another example of Sartrean "bad faith", given Camus is applying value to a world which he also argues is meaningless and absurd?

  * Following from the point above, Existentialists tend to ignore areas of their analysis which can be argued to be logically inconsistent, particularly in terms of meaning. With the exception of Kierkegaard, can the analysis and prescriptions Existentialism provides have any meaning if life itself has no inherent meaning?

Further Reading

Fredrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra: If you really want to read Nietzsche, you'll probably want to at least glance at this work. Cryptic as ever, the first page will give you an indication of the compulsive persuaveness of the man; even in translation, you can hear his voice booming out from the pages. Strangely compelling yet difficult to read – if you want to tackle it, make sure you read a summary or analysis of his work on the Internet beforehand.

Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea: Sartre's first and most readable work. Although in the format of a novel, the existential questions posed just ooze out of the book. Both instructive and genuinely touching, this book is a good introduction to the form as well as the content of Existentialism. A compelling read and a modern literary classic.

Albert Camus, the Stranger (AKA the Outsider): French newspaper Le Monde ranked this the most popular work of literature in France in the last 100 years based on a readers' poll. Compact, moving and oddly encouraging, it is packed full of Camus' absurdist philosophy and is still a page-turner 50 years on. It is probably the easiest of the three recommended works to read.
