Читать книгу Peace and work - Luisa Aurora Viviana Rodal - Страница 9

2. PLATO, ARISTOTLE, ISOCRATES

With Plato and Aristotle, war and slavery shall be elaborated in a founding mode for the Western culture, since they gave the principles for the theory of just war (developed in Middle Ages) and the properties of the citizen as a free man; being the thought of Isocrates a particular case in Greek speculation (necessary to be mentioned because he offers a discourse that dissents with the already mentioned).

Peace in them makes reference to conflict, and in a specific way to war and the pact that ceases it. Work, in its turn, is thought from the ailing tasks of the slave, being the contemplation the goal of leisure of the free citizens of the polis; since then, and not only as chastisement because of sin and the throwing out of Eden, work is suffering. This is the worldview that accompanies the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy.

Nevertheless, since more than three thousand years, Ramses II and the Emperor Hattusiiis III arrived to the older treaties of peace, which ended the Egyptian- Hittite war, which lasted more than eighty years (1276 BC), in Syria. This treaty contains more than twenty principles and obligations for both parties and includes an emergent Right of Peace. The Hittite recognized in a silver tablet the obligation:

“to settle forever among them a good peace and a good fraternity. He is a brother to me and he is at peace with me, and I am a brother to him and I am forever at peace with him... The country of Hatti will be forever in a state of peace and of fraternity as it is with us... peace and fraternity without leaving place among them to any enmity” (53).

So, peace and fraternity are included in the absence of lasting enmity. This involves another obligation: “Neither the Egyptian nor the Hittite should or could occupy the land of the other nation”; hence, the possibility of mutual occupation of land was excluded. It was forged also thus a covenant regarding future wars before a third enemy (54).

The Homeric culture belongs to the warrior mind, creating the heroic ideal, the prestige of the winner (55). Peace is understood from war, including the Olympus piety and the later Roman religion from Ares to Mars (victorious gods in combat) (56). They shared the antique religiosity with Eirene (honoured by Hesiod, Homer, Pindar, Aeschylus, Euripides, Aristophanes, Diodorus of Siculus), whose sculpture set up in Athens and whose festivities were celebrated the eight of January, converted in goddess Pax during the Roman Empire (57).

It is interesting to remember that the Greek god of work, Ponos, was son of Erix, the discord, and he expressly referred to the hard, difficult task. At her time, Erix, was daughter of Nix, the night. Siblings of Ponos were the forgetfulness or Lethe, the lies or Pseudea, the broken oaths or Horkos, the discussions or Neikea, the dispute or Amphilogiai, the tales or Logoi, the homicide or Androkstasiai, the anarchy or Dysnomia, the famine or Limos, the ailing or ALgea, the ruin or Ate. But it is especially noteworthy the relation of Ponos with the battle or Hysmina and the war or Makhai. Ponos was the god of toil, hard difficult work (58). This is shown in the myth of Herakles. Contrary to or in a different way to what I have exposed about Erinia and the Hesiodic discourse of the pacific daily task, Herakles comprehends the idea of heroic work and battle (united in the intention of overcoming proofs and penalties, which notoriously are called work).

The twelve works of Herakles, son of Zeus and the mortal Alkmena, are realized after a madness access he had, killing his wife Megara and his sons. Repented. He leaves for the service of the king Euristeo along twelve years. He imposes him hardly realizable tasks, which do not depend on a culturally apprehended technique as in the work of Hesiod, but of cunning and force. The “works” or feats of Herakles are: strangulating Nemea´s lion, killing Lerna´s hydra, capturing Cerinea´s doe, capturing alive Erimanto´s boar, cleaning Augias´ barn in only one day, killing Estinfalo´s brids with arrow shots, taming Creta´s bull, stealing Diomedes´ mares, stealing Hypolite belt, stealing Gerion´s cattle, stealing the golden apples of Hesperides garden, raping Cerbero dog and showing it to his brother king. They are twelve but only ten prowess because he was payed for one of them and the other was considered to be done by the rivers. It is noteworthy that the retribution for the labour or tour de force provokes the cancellation of it as such, as also its not authorship. Payment and non authorship destitute the honour of the feat, which more than a work is a heroic task or exploit. It is also observable that in this sense no contemporary task, inasmuch as it is profitable, would be considered as work. The Greek term used for these works is ponos, related to the mentioned god, and it is linked to the tragic conception of the heroe (59), making reference to the grief or atonement (60), and it implies the painful effort of it in actions which escape the common measure (61).

Specifically regarding Plato, I wish to quote the observation of H. Syse, who states that it is in the Republic and the Laws “where war... is directly taken... rearing so good soldiers” (62). That is to say, these dialogues offer a comprehension regarding war and its relative, peace. He continues saying that “War and human conflicts are central topics in the Republic”, being the terms polemos (war) and stasis (agitación) used more often than Eirene (peace). The preparation for the war in the ideal city is referred to the moral character and the justice founded in harmony, but mainly to the tripartition of state and soul (philosophers or kings, soldiers, artisans according to the rational, irascible and concupiscible parts of the soul) (63).

Contextually, it is necessary to observe that the Greeks spoke of war in terms of good or just war and incorrect or unjust war, being the nature of the antique Greek society founded upon the notion of justice; nevertheless, it is surprising that it had not been fully articulated the idea of Just War (64).

According to Plato, war is an inevitable consequence of greed, producing public and private harms. The search of luxury and goods is an ever increasing desire which leads to war: it is a damaging impulse that originates war. The accumulation of goods is implicit in it and it is not laudable. This leads to think in the irascible part of the soul, which makes one acting bravely without subsuming the action under reason, without containing reflexion and wisdom. Because of this, in these cases, the irascible part only wants satisfaction of its desires. Plato concludes that the soldiers must educate their concupiscence , fortify it. Militars must be educated in this sense. Prudence and courage must allow them to know when the should fight, to be considered, gentle with who are not to be fought. In this sense, the best kings are those who remain excellent regarding philosophy and war. And this appears to be real when the right ideals are taught.

The brutality of war must be at the service of the wisdom of the philosophers.

The ferocity of the cruel war must be maintained dominating the desires, in a military ethic, at the service of justice. This supposes the control of concupiscence and its excesses as also the intention of noble deeds, with the help of reason; and even the training of the spirit. Due to this, the city is found upon education (paideia). Hence, one must not be delighted in death and brutality. On the other hand, the accumulation of goods is not loable, and this is implied in war. The sole satisfaction of desires, which allows to act bravely, must be done under reason (66). The irascibility of the soldiers must be moderated as courage and temperance. Because of this, Plato notes, the rulers are those who know about philosophy and war, allowing through a good education a military ethic (66). The soul must be rightly exercised, being true soldiers those who act according to reason (67).

A perpetual peace involves the knowledge of the Good, founding of Justice.

In the Book V of the Republic, Plato refers to the laws of the military code which determines the conduct in war. Pillage and havoc must be avoided; only the responsible of a conflict must be considered and chastised as enemies; it must not be enslaved or killed a defeated population; the battle must be effected in a just way and mutually acceptable for peace so that the war does not continue indefinitely. Because of this, the military objective must not be divorced from moral virtue (68). In this sense, the Laws consider that war must serve peace (and, in Aristotle continues this way of thinking which will gravitate in Occident) (69).

It is interesting the observation of Tristan Husby regarding this problem:

“Plato reunites war and justice through his psychology. He, like Thucydides, saw human nature as the primary cause of war. But unlike Thucydides argued that this aggressiveness, thumos, could be controlled, fostered and limited. Limited because otherwise it would destroy the polis, fostered because without it the polis would be conquered... War is primarily necessary to insure that the polis remains independent...” (70).

Because of what has been said, the importance of war in the state-city is reflected in the Republic as a necessary activity within the ideal and completely just society (71).

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that according to Plato “el justo no debe hacer mal a nadie”(72); that is to say, prudence and goodness must direct the just soul (73). Because of this, peace being a politically considered pact to cease war, is also the harmonious conduct of the three parts of the soul, ruled by the reason which permits justice, founded in the idea of Good. From this derived in Western culture not only the idea of Just War, as I already observed. It generated a spiritualist stream of inward tranquillity and peace of mind, generally related to the divine. This last current will be of extreme importance in Middle Ages, and also in Christian religion.

Aristotle develops the platonic concepts from a critical point of view. Virtue and politics will be tightly related, so that the Nichomachean Ethic states that the morality lies upon the social activity of man. In this perspective, war is natural instrument or mean for peace and freedom.

There are three notions to be considered in order to understand war in Aristotle: slavery as a natural state, just war, the necessity of war for peace as the material work for the contemplative leisure (74).

Equality and democracy are not universal in Aristotle´s philosophy. They refer specifically to the free man and the landlord. Woman is submitted to him (75). And some human beings are by nature instruments or tools to the service of handwork and the physical effort, and they are a belonging or property of the free man (76). Their tasks are negligible regarding the political activities and the contemplative leisure of the citizens of the polis. Aristotle says in the Politics: “Therefore that there are cases of people of whom some are free men and others slaves by nature, and for this slavery is an institution expedient and just”(77).

From this viewpoint, peace is relative to war, as work is the opportunity for leisure. In this time, the hard manual work was done by the slaves, meanwhile the war assured the independence of the city state and its tranquillity. Leisure belonged to the free citizen and, according to Aristotle, he must dedicate himself to contemplation and then to politics, since the former was the highest activity which springs from the autarchy and the absence of fatigue; the happy man lives through contemplation a happy live in a divine mode (78).

This kind of comprehension has been already considered in the work of Plato, a worldview which will orientate the personal and social order for more than the Middle Ages (79). Even more, according to Aristotle, the barbarians are not rectors by nature, and , because of this, they must be submitted: war is necessary (80).

The true, free man, being contemplative, practises the virtue of wisdom, the excellence of being human, the arete, The peace of the ethic and dianoethic must be exercised in politics as philosophy, according to the right use of reason (81) , impossible activities for the woman and the slave. I one remembers the distinction , not only Aristotelian but also relative to Western tradition, between the highest and the lowest, ruler and ruled (that is to say, the immovable hierarchy) (82), one may understand that here may be no place in Aristotle´s society of free men for living tools or slaves and women (83).

In this situation, the soldiers are necessary so much as the traders and the workers or servants, since it must be kept the freedom from the slavery of invaders (84). The independence of the state claims for the possibility of war.

Aristotle refers to the revolution in the Politics. It is due to disproportionate inequality, being the desire of equality the reason which directs the rebellion (85). The motifs are the desire of profit, honour, insolence, fear, desire of superiority, intrigues, reject, avarice and others (86). The revolutions may be realized through fraud or force (87). Constitutional governements may be overturned because of a deviation from constitution (89).

Like Plato, Aristotle points out the guardians must not be intemperate (90).

According with the guiding notion that the natural is the just and necessary, Aristotle observes that the war must not be studied to enslave someone but principally for not being enslaved (91): “they should seek to be masters only over those who deserve to be slaves”(92). Even, the legislator must direct his military measures to he provision of leisure and the establishment of peace (93). And this because: “peace is the end of war, and leisure of toil... for truly, the proverb says, “there is no leisure for slaves”, and those who cannot face danger like men are slaves of any invader”(94). Aristotle concludes that war imposes man to be temperate and just (95).

Because of what has been said, Aristotle says in his Nichomachean Ethic:

“The practical virtues are exercised in politics or in warfare, but the pursuits seem to be unleisured. Those of war entirely so, for no one desires to be at war for the sake of being at war, not deliberately takes steps at war... “(96).

One makes war in order to obtain peace (98). This is the central thought of Aristotle. There is war for peace to be.

Now, the happiness consists in leisure, privilege of the free man at the city state. The painful activity of war allows peace in the independent state for the politics and the contemplation which nourish the happiness of the free rational man (99).

The respect for universal human rights, the inclusion of everybody in democracy are absent in this kind of thought. The importance of war in Plato and Aristotle is followed in the Western history of Western culture, and in Christianism, especially, as a fight against sin, passions, temptations, material world. The true peace is thus delayed for the celestial and postapocalyptic world.

It is noteworthy, and impossible not to expose, the discourse of Isocrates, On Peace. Athenian orator (436-338BC), thanks to the good situation of his father he earned a fine education, knowing Gorgias and Socrates. He was witness of the war between Persian and Greeks, rivalries between Greek cities and convulsions at his own city. The war situation impoverished him and he had to dedicate himself to teaching. Isocrates experienced and lived the sorrows of war.

Different from Hesiod, who in the Work and Days praises the works of peace and labour in an olympic pious way, Isocrates shows himself concerned about the consequences of war, the impoverishment and the absence of true union in the Hellas. In this sense, the discourse of Isocrates is political, exhorting to peace for the greatness of Greece, the Panhellenism. On the other hand, his style is philosophically deliberative, trying to persuade through history and reason, orientated to the submission to law and justice in free democracy. Isocrates, who suffered poverty, states that it weakens people, fomenting demagogues. Dedicating himself to education, Isocrates judges that culture is the measure of man.

Because of this, Isocrates believes that peace must found the Panhellenism, that the true enemy are the Persians and that it is best a pacific politics of conciliation rather than the calamities of conflicts. Hence, peace is transformed in a state question in the thought of Isocrates.

He says in the mentioned discourse: “Assemblied to deliberate about War and Peace, which exercise the greatest power over the life of man... Such is the magnitude of the question” (100); Isocrates attributes a relevant importance to the question of war and peace; it exerts a great power over the life of man.

He states:

“it has become plain to all that you will be better pleased with those who summon you to war than those who counsel peace; for the former put into our minds the expectation both of regaining our possessions... and recovering the power which we formerly enjoyed, while the latter hold forth no such hope, insisting rather that we must have peace and not to crave great possessions contrary to justice, but be content with those we have, and that for the great majority of mankind is of all things the most difficult. For we are so dependent on our hopes... so risking the loss of what we have... Wherefore we may subject to this madness”(101).

That is to say, the greedy man is induced by the desire of richness and power to make war, a madness to which he submits himself preferring the one who invokes to war to the one who speaks for peace. But, Isocrates observes that the orators who exhort to peace had never caused suffering and disgrace. Those who without meditating it had driven to war, they have sunk the Hellas in disasters (102). In this, Isocrates is completely resolved: “I shall not desist from what I have in mind to say... I maintain... that we should make peace”(103). To remain in peace, keeping treaties, is to live in safety, cultivating and navigating, without the burden of war. Isocrates says:

“if we make peace, and demean ourselves as our common covenants command us to do, then we will dwell in our city in great security, delivered from war and perils and the turmoil in which are now involved amongst ourselves, and we shall advance day by day to prosperity, relieved of paying taxes... burdens imposed by war, without fear cultivating our lands and sailing the seas and engaging in other occupations... “(104).

Isocrates sees further than these domestic situations that peace makes auspicious. Through peace, humanity would be allied with the Hellas. The universalism depends and is a product of peace and of rational persuasion which is promoted by him, in the belief that war is the use of force. He states:

“Asnd what is more important of al, we shall have all mankind as our allies, allies who will not have been forced, but rather persuaded to join us, who will not welcome our friendship because our power... but who will be disposed toward us. “ (105)

Even more, Isocrates thinks that what has not been obtained through war and great investment, they would get it easier through pacific embassies (106). He proposes, hence, to change the modes and acquire reputation (107).

Isocrates founds peace and this change in piety, virtue and justice, in the practice of moderation (108), qualities which are necessary for happiness and prosperity (109), since disgrace accompanies the depraved who provoke calamities (110). The sobriety must be a property of the individual and the state, avoiding vices. Gods judge and punish those who do not behave so (111).

Concluding the discourse, Isocrates observes:

“It is a noble enterprise for us, in the midst of the injustice and madness of the rest of the world, to be the first to adopt a sane policy and stand forth as the champions of the freedom of the Hellenes, to be acclaimed as their saviours, not their destroyers, and to become illustrious for our virtues and regain the good repute which our ancestors possessed” (112).

Isocrates seriously believes that the supremacy of virtue and justice, in peace, will be the instrument not of slavery but of the salvation of the Hellenes. The paths of right, justice and harmony lead toward prosperity (114).