Straatism In Ancient Greece
Klever Vasquez
Prof. Mathew Corcoran
Abstract
The political development of ancient Greece brought forth a relationship with the fabrication and further development of the self. As the psyche evolved from the Homeric Era to the Platonic Era, the individual self was faced with internal conflict. Statism had deep roots in Greek government by the Platonic Era; the mind manifested from primordial psyche into platonic/current day psyche given statism’s ability to open doors into individuality. It allowed people to gain individuality through ownership which ramifies past economic affairs and into social affairs. Aristocrats imposed this service by regulating the literary system, which was crucial to statism records, by inhibiting the poor from having any …show more content…
input. The conflicts between the inner self and the self of others manifested itself from the restrictions imposed by the aristocrats on the rabbles in order to maintain them at bay, away from positions of power and ownership which could place the strict oligarchical stratagem at risk. The growth and turmoil of the mind, within the masses, manifested itself from the strict regulation of statism imposed by the aristocrats.
The ancient Greeks, renown for their contributions in the development of future societies, put forth the idea of the mind and body. It is now seen as the fundamental basis of modern day psychology. This nexus between the mind and body is the relationship of internal processes (thought and consciousness) and external processes (physical attributes) having reciprocal influences on each other. Ancient Greece, who laid down the foundation of democratic ideals, This notion of the mind, which is now associated with the self, was foreign and non existent in the antiquity of Greece, but took root here and ramified into our current understanding of the self. Ancient Greece brought forth the genesis and dynamic quality of the self vis a vis the growth of the state.
The concept of the mind, in consensus with today’s view, was first devised in a systematic manner by Plato. He discovered this concept of the mind as an entity relevant to the intrinsic self. The self, “I”, did not reference to the individual but instead focused on the entity that kept men alive (soul) as well as locomotion and the thoughts/ideas that they conjure. Joel Kovel sequences the Greek notion of the self, in his work “ Mind and State in Ancient Greece”, by introducing pre-Platonic ideas that transmitted into Plato’s work. Ideas with fundamental roots in the Homeric Era, Transitional Era, and Platonic Era. Kovel then introduces actions taken by the state which caused detachments and self-contradicting notions in the psyche. H. Backham, in his translated work of “ The Athenian constitution: The Eudemian ethics ; On virtues and vices”, portrays the oppression of the aristocratic class on the poor. Father’s were forced to make the decision between independent farmers or servitudes as thetes which was accompanied by stigma in Greece. Many families were forced into slavery due to their inabilities to pay back their debts acquired from the rent they owed from working on the land of the rich.
The Genesis and Dynamic Qualities of the Psyche
Kovel sequences the dynamic quality of the psyche into three eras. Between the prehistoric and eighth century, ancient Greece underwent through the Homeric Era. This era did not entail any term which directly referenced the self, mind, or body. However the Iliad and the Odyssey had three specific mental attributes which were used to describe certain qualities. The psyche was seen as an innate quality that kept men alive, but left upon death (Kovel, 306). In modern day society, we can associate the soul with this interpretation of psyche. The “thymos” was another mental attribute used to explain the motion of our bodies and the “noos” was used to explain the manifestation of ideas in individuals (Kovel, 306). All three of these mental attributes were equally important in function to a person. At this point, none of the mental attributes ruled over the other in reference to function. Each attribute was seen as a separate entity. Albeit motivation is seen as the incentive for action in the modern day, the Homeric Era described it as being dependent on extrinsic factors (the environment).
The Transitional Era, between the 8th century and the 4th century, depicts the psyche as primordial version of the self for the first time. Psyche transitions into an “inner mental agency” (Kovel, 306) by incorporating the thymos and allowing people to perceive that their motor functions occur due to their will to make it happen. It was no longer perceived as an external force causing these motor capabilities but instead as the persons internal incentive to take that step forward by will. The thought of the “living self” and the “soma” emerged from this new formed notion of the psyche. The soma (body) was added to the list of attributes, referring to the physical aspects of a person’s body, but was not seen as the antagonist of the psyche. This idea that the psyche, an entity that lacked physical boundary, could be used alongside with the soma led many writers of the time, such as Heraclitus, to point out the differences between each other. The psyche was able to differentiate between “ appearance and reality, wakefulness and dreaming” while the soma could not. (Kovel, 306). The psyche dominated over the metaphysical realm of things while the soma was strictly physical. These distinctions set forth an idea of separateness between the psyche and the soma. During the 6th century, for the first time, individuals started writing about themselves. Emphasizing their thoughts of passion, yearning, and most importantly, aloneness (kovel, 306). The Transitional Era ends on a notion of “ self contradicting feelings” becoming evident for the first time due to a lack of order between the mental attributes.
Kovel attributes the last, and current day, form of the psyche to the Platonic Era, which occurred between 427 B.C.E- 348 B.C.E, and set forth the hierarchy of mental attributes. At this point, the psyche is now considered to be the “seat of consciousness”, in which all mental faculties such as though, emotion, drive, and cognition fall under the realm of the self (Kovel, 306). The genesis of our modern day “self” commences at this moment. Plato confronts the forces of psychological conflict, he states that the psyche will only work as a “hierarchically ruled entity” (Kovel, 307) that is dependent on the “subordination” of lower areas to higher areas. Referring to aspects within the psyche which must yield to one another in order to avoid internal conflict.
Disparities between Rabbles and Aristocrats
During the early 6th century B.C.E, the Greek polis started to demonstrate large disparities between its social groups. This tension between the elites and the “rabbles” was absent during the Homeric Era, but instead greatly manifested towards the Platonic Era. The rich aristocrats believed that they were exclusively entitled to their positions based on their birth into nobility, referencing themselves with the term “ hoi agathoi” ( Pomeroy, 116) which means “the good” and referred to everyone born out of nobility as “ hoi kakoi”, the bad. This arrogance also came from the presumption that many of these aristocrats descended from warrior-chiefs of the Homeric Era. Great warriors were only deemed so, dependent on their performance and leadership skills. While aristocrats attributed such greatness through their rights of birth as oppose to righteous acts.
Restrictions on Statism
The power granted to the aristocrats of the Greek Polis allowed them to control the means of expression and literary system. As the political system of ancient Greece allowed for the rise of statism, “a political system which controls social and economic affairs” ( Kovel, 310), its literacy became extremely important. Literacy was required in order to maintain accurate record keeping or documentation of the census, taxes, and military conscription (Kovel, 310). The aristocrats closely guarded the literary discourse in order to inhibit rabbles from legally opposing those in power or the state. Albeit statism can be seen in the Homeric Era, it gave people a rising sense on individuality in the ability of ownership. As social classes became heavily define and the nobility forced the rabbles into a sense of internal conflict.The development and internal conflict of the individual self can be linked to the emergence of statism in the Greek polis.
Thetes And Slavery
Disparities between the elites and rabbles was further enhanced when stigmas arose around the idea of working for others as “a loss of freedom” (Pomeroy, 118), which occurred quite often as the majority of the poor population was forced to work as hired hands known as “thetes” (Pomeroy, 118). Falling into the work of thetes was always a dangerous option. Workers faced an increased likelihood of falling into debt and becoming slaves along with their family. Along with having to endure this stigma, families were torn apart by slavery and treatment of slaves were atrocious. A marble grave stele, around 360 B.C., depicts a bearded man sitting down, behind him stands a veiled women holding the hand of a young child while gazing into the distance without acknowledging the presence of a young women standing before them (Grave stele with a family group) . This younger women standing in front of them stares directly into the eyes of the man. Albeit the statue is suppose to honor the deceased individuals (unclear as to who it is exactly), there is an overwhelming sense of family unity portrayed. The father sits before his family, postured with honor and respect while holding his staff. Had the man of the family fell to the work of thetes, his honor would fall to the stigma of his freedom being stripped, had he not, his family would not be fed.
Ancient Greece thrived on the work emitted by the slaves. Although it was a democracy, a handful of aristocrats held most of the power, leaving commoners to face the harsh reality of the aristocrats’s selfish decisions. Internal conflict within the average commoner arose as they had to decide whether the stigma of a lose of freedom or the possibility of having your family go hungry arose, “ A speaker in an Athenian courtroom had painful things to say about a particularly bad season… the wealthy owned and purchase slaves to exploit their land. They were able to store a surplus of supplies to tide them over in the lean years, and they certainly did not want their slaves to die of starvation… thus, a paradox of Athenian slavery is that sometimes slaves fared better than the free.” ( Pomeroy, 321). The life of a commoner was so tough that they envied Athenian slaves because they didn't suffer from starvation, meanwhile they had to provide for themselves and their families. Statism opened doors to individuality through ownership, but a mere commoner never had the luxury of ownership; they were barely able to provide food for themselves. That sense of individuality was never an option for the commoners which sent many into internal conflict and contempt towards the aristocratic class.
The Dangers of Statism
The Athenian Constitution, a democracy for its era, was an oligarchy due to the power held by the small number of individuals in the upper class. These aristocrats owned much of the land and allowed rabbles to rent pieces of it. Along with rent came a heavy price, if farmers couldn’t pay back their dues, they were liable to arrest along with their families or even condemned into slavery (Rackham, 2 ). These workers were exploited in order to receive minute amounts of food, clothing, and shelter. The vast majority of the population who fell under this false sense of security suppressed a deep anger toward the state, “thus the most grievous and bitter thing in the state of public affairs for the masses was their slavery; not but what they were discontented also about everything else, for they found themselves, virtually without a share in anything” (Rackham, 2). Again, this lack of individuality arises from this notion that they are being deprived ownership. Statism was meant to promote individuality, but with restrictions placed upon the literary system by the aristocrats and documentation being so crucial to statism, but instead built a wall solely of mistrust, contempt, and hate by the rabbles. The Greek polis heavily advocated a sense of democracy and became the fundamental basis for future governments.
But democracy, the way we perceive it today, is an overstatement to what ancient Greece actually was, “… never was there a clearer case of “democracy” (in Athens) of special privilege, based upon the miseries of slave labor “the hardships of slaves in silver mines at Sunium was great)” (Winspear, 67). The aristocrats thrived on their power due to the economic stability slavery imposed on them, “ a fall in the supply of slaves was the ancient equivalent of a fall in the rate of profit and involved serious crisis both in the sphere of economics and in the interrelated spheres of thought” (Winspear, 67). Slavery allowed for the aristocrats to stay in power while forming this looming paradox of how minute the commoners were in society. Their lack of ownership put them in the same level as slaves, except slaves didn't have to fear hunger because their masters wouldn't kill their income, but commoners who's farms didn't yield enough to repay their debts from rent and still provide their families with food were bound into servitude. All the while, never having had a chance of individualization through
ownership.
Plato’s Noble Lie
Plato proposed an idea known as the noble lie. As individuals gained an internal sense of self during the Platonic Era, it became apparent to them that there were vast differences between the class system. Plato’s notion of the noble lie proposed that “ some of you have the power to command, and in the composition of these he (God) has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honor; others he has made silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron” (Richards, 271-272). Plato proposes that our composition and the strict maintenance of the classes would ensure socio-economic stability and order. But this social darwinism, you could say, promulgated a false sense of divine intervention into a person being born into certain classes. Mins Jr invalidates Plato’s notions that advocate social darwinism for peace and stability because Plato didn't want democracy for the state, he wanted “democracy for the aristocracy” (189). Mins Jr states that on an account by Diogenes Laetius, Plato is said to have bought as many copies of his works (Diogenes Laetius) in order to burn them, along with having destroyed the work of many pagan philosophers (189). Mins Jr views Plato’s work as an “aristocratic biased” which promulgated the use of slavery and the reason why nobility have such power. The nobel lie allowed for disparities between the classes, all the while making slavery a glorified socially acceptable entity which is what Greece required in order for its economy to thrive.
The political development of ancient Greece brought forth a relationship with the fabrication and further development of the self. The conflicts between the inner self and the self of others is an imperative reflection of the “ alienation inherent in the political processes acquired by the state” (Kovel, 308). As the psyche evolved from the Homeric Era to the Platonic Era, the individual self was faced with internal conflict. The disparities between the rich and poor became apparent, the aristocrats attained their power via Greece’s incorporation of statism and restrictions upon the literary system which disabled the poor from having a share of the wealth. The dynamics of the Greek Polis enforced the estrangement between the nobility and rabbles. The growth and turmoil of the mind, within the masses, manifested itself from the strict regulation of statism imposed by the aristocrats. The state became the mirror of the mind.
Prof. Mathew Corcoran
Abstract
The political development of ancient Greece brought forth a relationship with the fabrication and further development of the self. As the psyche evolved from the Homeric Era to the Platonic Era, the individual self was faced with internal conflict. Statism had deep roots in Greek government by the Platonic Era; the mind manifested from primordial psyche into platonic/current day psyche given statism’s ability to open doors into individuality. It allowed people to gain individuality through ownership which ramifies past economic affairs and into social affairs. Aristocrats imposed this service by regulating the literary system, which was crucial to statism records, by inhibiting the poor from having any …show more content…
input. The conflicts between the inner self and the self of others manifested itself from the restrictions imposed by the aristocrats on the rabbles in order to maintain them at bay, away from positions of power and ownership which could place the strict oligarchical stratagem at risk. The growth and turmoil of the mind, within the masses, manifested itself from the strict regulation of statism imposed by the aristocrats.
The ancient Greeks, renown for their contributions in the development of future societies, put forth the idea of the mind and body. It is now seen as the fundamental basis of modern day psychology. This nexus between the mind and body is the relationship of internal processes (thought and consciousness) and external processes (physical attributes) having reciprocal influences on each other. Ancient Greece, who laid down the foundation of democratic ideals, This notion of the mind, which is now associated with the self, was foreign and non existent in the antiquity of Greece, but took root here and ramified into our current understanding of the self. Ancient Greece brought forth the genesis and dynamic quality of the self vis a vis the growth of the state.
The concept of the mind, in consensus with today’s view, was first devised in a systematic manner by Plato. He discovered this concept of the mind as an entity relevant to the intrinsic self. The self, “I”, did not reference to the individual but instead focused on the entity that kept men alive (soul) as well as locomotion and the thoughts/ideas that they conjure. Joel Kovel sequences the Greek notion of the self, in his work “ Mind and State in Ancient Greece”, by introducing pre-Platonic ideas that transmitted into Plato’s work. Ideas with fundamental roots in the Homeric Era, Transitional Era, and Platonic Era. Kovel then introduces actions taken by the state which caused detachments and self-contradicting notions in the psyche. H. Backham, in his translated work of “ The Athenian constitution: The Eudemian ethics ; On virtues and vices”, portrays the oppression of the aristocratic class on the poor. Father’s were forced to make the decision between independent farmers or servitudes as thetes which was accompanied by stigma in Greece. Many families were forced into slavery due to their inabilities to pay back their debts acquired from the rent they owed from working on the land of the rich.
The Genesis and Dynamic Qualities of the Psyche
Kovel sequences the dynamic quality of the psyche into three eras. Between the prehistoric and eighth century, ancient Greece underwent through the Homeric Era. This era did not entail any term which directly referenced the self, mind, or body. However the Iliad and the Odyssey had three specific mental attributes which were used to describe certain qualities. The psyche was seen as an innate quality that kept men alive, but left upon death (Kovel, 306). In modern day society, we can associate the soul with this interpretation of psyche. The “thymos” was another mental attribute used to explain the motion of our bodies and the “noos” was used to explain the manifestation of ideas in individuals (Kovel, 306). All three of these mental attributes were equally important in function to a person. At this point, none of the mental attributes ruled over the other in reference to function. Each attribute was seen as a separate entity. Albeit motivation is seen as the incentive for action in the modern day, the Homeric Era described it as being dependent on extrinsic factors (the environment).
The Transitional Era, between the 8th century and the 4th century, depicts the psyche as primordial version of the self for the first time. Psyche transitions into an “inner mental agency” (Kovel, 306) by incorporating the thymos and allowing people to perceive that their motor functions occur due to their will to make it happen. It was no longer perceived as an external force causing these motor capabilities but instead as the persons internal incentive to take that step forward by will. The thought of the “living self” and the “soma” emerged from this new formed notion of the psyche. The soma (body) was added to the list of attributes, referring to the physical aspects of a person’s body, but was not seen as the antagonist of the psyche. This idea that the psyche, an entity that lacked physical boundary, could be used alongside with the soma led many writers of the time, such as Heraclitus, to point out the differences between each other. The psyche was able to differentiate between “ appearance and reality, wakefulness and dreaming” while the soma could not. (Kovel, 306). The psyche dominated over the metaphysical realm of things while the soma was strictly physical. These distinctions set forth an idea of separateness between the psyche and the soma. During the 6th century, for the first time, individuals started writing about themselves. Emphasizing their thoughts of passion, yearning, and most importantly, aloneness (kovel, 306). The Transitional Era ends on a notion of “ self contradicting feelings” becoming evident for the first time due to a lack of order between the mental attributes.
Kovel attributes the last, and current day, form of the psyche to the Platonic Era, which occurred between 427 B.C.E- 348 B.C.E, and set forth the hierarchy of mental attributes. At this point, the psyche is now considered to be the “seat of consciousness”, in which all mental faculties such as though, emotion, drive, and cognition fall under the realm of the self (Kovel, 306). The genesis of our modern day “self” commences at this moment. Plato confronts the forces of psychological conflict, he states that the psyche will only work as a “hierarchically ruled entity” (Kovel, 307) that is dependent on the “subordination” of lower areas to higher areas. Referring to aspects within the psyche which must yield to one another in order to avoid internal conflict.
Disparities between Rabbles and Aristocrats
During the early 6th century B.C.E, the Greek polis started to demonstrate large disparities between its social groups. This tension between the elites and the “rabbles” was absent during the Homeric Era, but instead greatly manifested towards the Platonic Era. The rich aristocrats believed that they were exclusively entitled to their positions based on their birth into nobility, referencing themselves with the term “ hoi agathoi” ( Pomeroy, 116) which means “the good” and referred to everyone born out of nobility as “ hoi kakoi”, the bad. This arrogance also came from the presumption that many of these aristocrats descended from warrior-chiefs of the Homeric Era. Great warriors were only deemed so, dependent on their performance and leadership skills. While aristocrats attributed such greatness through their rights of birth as oppose to righteous acts.
Restrictions on Statism
The power granted to the aristocrats of the Greek Polis allowed them to control the means of expression and literary system. As the political system of ancient Greece allowed for the rise of statism, “a political system which controls social and economic affairs” ( Kovel, 310), its literacy became extremely important. Literacy was required in order to maintain accurate record keeping or documentation of the census, taxes, and military conscription (Kovel, 310). The aristocrats closely guarded the literary discourse in order to inhibit rabbles from legally opposing those in power or the state. Albeit statism can be seen in the Homeric Era, it gave people a rising sense on individuality in the ability of ownership. As social classes became heavily define and the nobility forced the rabbles into a sense of internal conflict.The development and internal conflict of the individual self can be linked to the emergence of statism in the Greek polis.
Thetes And Slavery
Disparities between the elites and rabbles was further enhanced when stigmas arose around the idea of working for others as “a loss of freedom” (Pomeroy, 118), which occurred quite often as the majority of the poor population was forced to work as hired hands known as “thetes” (Pomeroy, 118). Falling into the work of thetes was always a dangerous option. Workers faced an increased likelihood of falling into debt and becoming slaves along with their family. Along with having to endure this stigma, families were torn apart by slavery and treatment of slaves were atrocious. A marble grave stele, around 360 B.C., depicts a bearded man sitting down, behind him stands a veiled women holding the hand of a young child while gazing into the distance without acknowledging the presence of a young women standing before them (Grave stele with a family group) . This younger women standing in front of them stares directly into the eyes of the man. Albeit the statue is suppose to honor the deceased individuals (unclear as to who it is exactly), there is an overwhelming sense of family unity portrayed. The father sits before his family, postured with honor and respect while holding his staff. Had the man of the family fell to the work of thetes, his honor would fall to the stigma of his freedom being stripped, had he not, his family would not be fed.
Ancient Greece thrived on the work emitted by the slaves. Although it was a democracy, a handful of aristocrats held most of the power, leaving commoners to face the harsh reality of the aristocrats’s selfish decisions. Internal conflict within the average commoner arose as they had to decide whether the stigma of a lose of freedom or the possibility of having your family go hungry arose, “ A speaker in an Athenian courtroom had painful things to say about a particularly bad season… the wealthy owned and purchase slaves to exploit their land. They were able to store a surplus of supplies to tide them over in the lean years, and they certainly did not want their slaves to die of starvation… thus, a paradox of Athenian slavery is that sometimes slaves fared better than the free.” ( Pomeroy, 321). The life of a commoner was so tough that they envied Athenian slaves because they didn't suffer from starvation, meanwhile they had to provide for themselves and their families. Statism opened doors to individuality through ownership, but a mere commoner never had the luxury of ownership; they were barely able to provide food for themselves. That sense of individuality was never an option for the commoners which sent many into internal conflict and contempt towards the aristocratic class.
The Dangers of Statism
The Athenian Constitution, a democracy for its era, was an oligarchy due to the power held by the small number of individuals in the upper class. These aristocrats owned much of the land and allowed rabbles to rent pieces of it. Along with rent came a heavy price, if farmers couldn’t pay back their dues, they were liable to arrest along with their families or even condemned into slavery (Rackham, 2 ). These workers were exploited in order to receive minute amounts of food, clothing, and shelter. The vast majority of the population who fell under this false sense of security suppressed a deep anger toward the state, “thus the most grievous and bitter thing in the state of public affairs for the masses was their slavery; not but what they were discontented also about everything else, for they found themselves, virtually without a share in anything” (Rackham, 2). Again, this lack of individuality arises from this notion that they are being deprived ownership. Statism was meant to promote individuality, but with restrictions placed upon the literary system by the aristocrats and documentation being so crucial to statism, but instead built a wall solely of mistrust, contempt, and hate by the rabbles. The Greek polis heavily advocated a sense of democracy and became the fundamental basis for future governments.
But democracy, the way we perceive it today, is an overstatement to what ancient Greece actually was, “… never was there a clearer case of “democracy” (in Athens) of special privilege, based upon the miseries of slave labor “the hardships of slaves in silver mines at Sunium was great)” (Winspear, 67). The aristocrats thrived on their power due to the economic stability slavery imposed on them, “ a fall in the supply of slaves was the ancient equivalent of a fall in the rate of profit and involved serious crisis both in the sphere of economics and in the interrelated spheres of thought” (Winspear, 67). Slavery allowed for the aristocrats to stay in power while forming this looming paradox of how minute the commoners were in society. Their lack of ownership put them in the same level as slaves, except slaves didn't have to fear hunger because their masters wouldn't kill their income, but commoners who's farms didn't yield enough to repay their debts from rent and still provide their families with food were bound into servitude. All the while, never having had a chance of individualization through
ownership.
Plato’s Noble Lie
Plato proposed an idea known as the noble lie. As individuals gained an internal sense of self during the Platonic Era, it became apparent to them that there were vast differences between the class system. Plato’s notion of the noble lie proposed that “ some of you have the power to command, and in the composition of these he (God) has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honor; others he has made silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron” (Richards, 271-272). Plato proposes that our composition and the strict maintenance of the classes would ensure socio-economic stability and order. But this social darwinism, you could say, promulgated a false sense of divine intervention into a person being born into certain classes. Mins Jr invalidates Plato’s notions that advocate social darwinism for peace and stability because Plato didn't want democracy for the state, he wanted “democracy for the aristocracy” (189). Mins Jr states that on an account by Diogenes Laetius, Plato is said to have bought as many copies of his works (Diogenes Laetius) in order to burn them, along with having destroyed the work of many pagan philosophers (189). Mins Jr views Plato’s work as an “aristocratic biased” which promulgated the use of slavery and the reason why nobility have such power. The nobel lie allowed for disparities between the classes, all the while making slavery a glorified socially acceptable entity which is what Greece required in order for its economy to thrive.
The political development of ancient Greece brought forth a relationship with the fabrication and further development of the self. The conflicts between the inner self and the self of others is an imperative reflection of the “ alienation inherent in the political processes acquired by the state” (Kovel, 308). As the psyche evolved from the Homeric Era to the Platonic Era, the individual self was faced with internal conflict. The disparities between the rich and poor became apparent, the aristocrats attained their power via Greece’s incorporation of statism and restrictions upon the literary system which disabled the poor from having a share of the wealth. The dynamics of the Greek Polis enforced the estrangement between the nobility and rabbles. The growth and turmoil of the mind, within the masses, manifested itself from the strict regulation of statism imposed by the aristocrats. The state became the mirror of the mind.