F. Measures of life

Perhaps the surest sign of destiny was Athens rise to power, glory and civilization. Along the way, many obstacles, including the reign of tyrants, had to be overcome. It took courage to articulate new forms of measures once it was realized that the Athenians were even in danger of exterminating one another by going simply too far: in the permanent subjection of the people, in their endless feuds and quarrels amongst themselves, and in overdoing it generally. Solon of the 6th century B.C. was of the opinion, that it was time to take measure:

You who are stuffed to the gills with your wealth,

Bloated and swollen with the taste of it,

Take heed that your heads do not swell overmuch,

Lest in the end we spew you out of our mouths.

Solon

Above all, this meant the introduction of new laws, that is to apply more substantial criteria as far as the judgement of the 'community of man' is concerned, namely how many squander away their fortunes, while others rot away in their lives, not only because of being debased and poverty ridden, but more so than slaves permanently in debt and, therefore, not free. Solon introduced many measures such as cancelling of debts, abolishing the privileges of the nobility, and limiting the size of their holdings. It was curtailing the power of wealth which had been created at the expense of the others. The nature of such measures is really 'political wisdom'.

One reason for the wisdom of Solon having such wide ramifications, is that he used these measures not to gain wealth and power for himself, but to bestow dignity upon man:

"But even these laws were less important than the new dignity

which Solon gave to labour. He invested craftsmanship with honour;

and from being a city where a few nobles ruled over a debt-ridden

peasantry, Athens became a city of craftsmen. He made a law that

a son need not support his father in old age unless the father had

taught him a trade. Work was no disgrace: on the contrary, the real

nobleman was the skilled craftsman. In all this he was simply

attempting to bring Athens up to the level of Ionia, where in the space

of a few years remarkable technological advances had been made.

We hear of Anarcharsis the Scythian improving the anchor, and

going on to invent the bellows and the potter's wheel. About this time

Glaucus of Chios is said to have invented the soldering iron and

Theodorus of Samos to have invented the square, the lathe, the

rule, and a new method of casting bronze. The watchword was now

techne, which may be translated as 'skill methodically applied'."

Robert Payne, Ancient Greece, p. 175-6

These changes meant introducing quite a different notion of laws based on observations as to what it takes for men to keep their promises, while realizing that laws are only broken if promises are made that something can be gained from doing that. What followed was the benevolent dictatorship of Peisistratus, responsible among other things that scholars brought the texts of Homer together, and that a temple was build on the Acropolis.

After Peisistratus, there came his sons Hippias and Hipparchus who brought Athens to even greater heights. One example of their 'measures' was the Altar to the Twelve Gods which they build in the area known as the AGORA. As a concept of modern urban planning, they introduced through that equal distances for all roads leading in all directions to the Agora.

What was most hurtful during these times is that tyranny knew no limits to its powers, all the more explainable the consequences. It led to the downfall of the tyrants. This is when Cleisthenes stepped in and brought to Athens DEMOCRACY in 507 B.C.. By this he established a measure of freedom for things to come not only in Ancient Greece, but throughout the 2000 years and plus of Western Civilization.

Democracy means really secularized laws, so that the people are the sovereigns, their voice the prime one to be heard by the state. It means no laws can be passed without having their agreement. The aim of these laws is simple: to ensure the freedom of men. As highest measure of life, and of values to be upkept, standards are set by which to judge both men and their actions.

In the absence of any religion to impose one strict interpretation of laws, an interesting situation is created, since now only real measures count: who can throw the stone how far, what athletes run faster than the others, which horses combined with the skill of their drivers reach their goals first, what ship can cut through the waves better, how many songs do you know to entertain the guests, what stories have something to tell to man, so that wisdom shoves boredom gently, but firmly out of the door? This plurality of wisdom matched by testing man's strength in various disciplines is really a measure of how to upkeep the spirit of a community. As a measure it allows man to know whether or not the community is alive, and not decaying. As such they indicate for the first time measures by which man can judge himself.

The Athenian democracy is an amazing world of self-judgement which opens up itself to everyone willing to see what is going on. There is no more need to emphasize blind following, but rather it is recognized that faith in men is needed in order to restore peace. Only religion refrains from commenting about daily affairs and prefers to speak in terms of analogies, thus helping to avoid any confrontation with truth, that is things to be settled right now and not to be postponed due to an arbitrary assumption about the permanency of strife in man's life. Heraclitus as well as Nietzsche would assume such a position due to their hidden desire for religion as something absolute, yet there is nothing outside of man's own capabilities which could be made into an absolute, and hence have domination over man. In vain religion tries to ignore this basic fact, and even goes further by trying to block developments towards a rationality of the new human community. The latter is based upon comparative, equally compatible terms of human experiences, that is the ability to recognize oneself in what one is doing and to judge whether or not the laws are just. There comes about in this conflict between politics and religion a turning point in the judgement of things. Since then, democracy is driven by the human compassion to ensure that one basic law is upheld, namely that all human beings are created, and treated equal.

Hence the faults of the Ancient Greek societies should not be judged only according to what they failed to do themselves, but rather they should be understood according to the fact, that in having set higher standards, they gave mankind the ability to judge whether or not this life on earth, and within the bounds set by the community of man, was compatible or not with the nature of man? The answer to that is not at all easy to beget, itself a measure of justice and prudence. Shakespeare would agree on that point, even though he would differ in opinion on many things precisely because of a confusion reigning over everything. The latter means to let dominate an odd mixture of simplicity and complexity, without knowing what is understandable, hence agreeable. As a consequence, it erodes the basis of judgement. This state of affairs means that it is not at all easy to reach any common understanding. For things become more complicated, the moment it is not at all easy to dissociate the one task from all the others over time. There is afterall fear, which has been instilled in man for having gone too far. At the same time, there is the wish to free energy, in order to fulfil the tasks lying ahead. These tasks appear to be designated according to fate, but this time the blue-prints for any undertaking are read more carefully than the messages of the oracle. That means, slowly but surely other messages count prior to taking measures to secure life. It is done within the spirit of inquiry, whether or not life leads man to believe that it is worthwhile to be upheld, and whatever actions are undertaken to secure that, this can be justified in terms of practical judgement by the people themselves.

The need to apply measures reflects a new situation when it comes to consulting the oracle. As a reflection of an economy of means available, resorting to them spells out one basic fact: there are fewer alternatives available, despite the oracle being usually vague in terms of recommendations, but precisely because of this ambiguity, really a broadening of the theme as to what can be done within the realms of human self-understanding, proper interpretations have to be sought through wise counsel. As a result, there are many cases when it becomes necessary to seek the counsel of others. Automatically, it leads towards friendships rather than to self-destruction's. Therefore, the greatest measure of political life for Aristotle, and not only for him, was friendship.

It was a fulfilment of the main principle, namely to take a realistic measure of things to come. For instance, when the oracle said to the Athenians 'to hide behind wooden walls when the invading Persians would come', they did not hide behind wooden fortifications build around the city and the linkage to Piraeus. It was wise for them to have interpreted 'wooden walls' as being ships which could be out of range of the shooting arrows with fire. The Athenians acted accordingly, and, therefore, everyone could return after the Persians had left to the burned out city. As Marx would remark with admiration, they could rebuild the city out of memory because they themselves had not been destroyed.

Equally, it would be a mistake to take these lessons as being merely one of interpretations, since the mixture of folly and arrogance can easily upset any community spirit, that is the ability to come together, and to act in accordance with what has been agreed upon. Since this is of utmost importance for the continuity of any community, such accordance's were declared as abstract measures, that is as sacred laws, or as the canons by which people are to live in the community of men. They were designed to secure the equality amongst men and women in such a way that life could remain pure and simple. As a result of such attitudes prevailing in Ancient Greece, knowledge became the key to understand differences between the perfect and not so perfect as it was reflected in the dialogue between Socrates and Parmenides:

Then, said Parmenides, the nature of the beautiful in itself, and

of the good in itself, and all the other Ideas which we suppose to exist

absolutely, are unknown to us?

It would seem so, said Socrates.

I think that even stranger consequences follow?

What are they?

Would you, or would you not say, that absolute knowledge, if it

exists, must be a far more exact knowledge than our knowledge; and

the same beauty, and of the rest?

Yes.

And if there is such a thing as participation in absolute know-

ledge, no one is more likely than God to have this most exact know-

ledge?

Certainly.

But then, will God, having absolute knowledge, have a knowledge

of human beings?

Why not?

Because, Socrates, said Parmenides, we have admitted that the

Ideas are not valid in relation to human beings; nor human beings in

relation to them; for their relations are omitted to their respective spheres.

Yes, we have agreed on that.

So it follows that if God possesses this perfect authority, and perfect

knowledge, his authority cannot rule us, nor his knowledge know us,

nor any human beings; just as our authority does not extend to the gods,

nor our knowledge embrace anything of the divine: whence it follows

that the gods are not our masters, neither do they know the works of

men.

Surely, said Socrates, it is monstrous to deprive God of know-

ledge.

Well, Socrates, said Parmenides, here are a few, but only a few

of the difficulties we are involved in if Ideas really exist and we regard

them as absolute unities.

Quote taken from Robert Payne, Ancient Greece, p. 167-8

As a result there was no place for the gods. It starts an entirely new discussion as to which measures should be recognized so that man can judge himself, happiness included. It is not easy to trace such developments throughout the ages, for history has many odds and turns, but self-recognition as a human being goes hand-in-hand with the ability to judge things, including what one does for what purpose aside from ensuring the human self-consciousness.

So to return to one prime measure of cities, they can be judged whether or not they are open to strangers. That has consequences even at a personal level. If a man does not achieve what he or she has set out to do, then some lessons, indeed consequences have to be drawn out of that before trying to accuse someone else for all the personal failures, in particular the stranger. Equally, no one will understand the continuity of life if the principles used by the community of man are distorted. There are many truths about cities being open or not to strangers. For instance, if no one recognizes inside of the Polis another face, but sees only strangers creating a crowd in which the individual person risks loosing him- or herself, then questions of humanity are at stake. But then who knows what will come next, for no one will know how to react when it is time to open the gates next morning, in order to let either people go out to their fields or else those waiting outside to come in! Equally, fear is based on the notion that still invisible forces affecting the fate of cities can enter as well, hence invisible barriers are constructed, but without really noticing it. This is when many things get in the way without knowing why.

Only out of hindsight can things be told what happened to the fate of such cities, but often when too late. It is said that the dilemmas of man's world had passed silently the guards and entered the city; there they waited in the shadows of the inner walls until it was time to tap on man's shoulders, in order to remind him that the 'unexpected' was equally both friend and foe. Which case applied, depended upon circumstances, and upon the proper responses by man to such ambivalences. Not always did he prove to be innovative and capable of integrating the unexpected. Only if reactions were steered by trust and faith in man, then the continuity of the community of man was guaranteed. Then there was some substantial reason to belief that such urban structures were being created which could facilitate both belonging to the community of man, and accepting being openly challenged by others to still further changes needed in order to accommodate everyone and to find a path into the future.

In the end, possibilities available to man reflect the serious fact that things are not so easily resolved. Things will get worse if uncertainty would lead the city to rule out the 'unexpected'. People would begin to shun that city, while inside its own borders an average life would dominate due to having diminished measures of man. There would remain a very closed society, not at all open to future developments. For if the unexpected is ruled out, then things will be reduced accordingly to that of a mere paradox or dilemma. Life will no longer be filled by many questions and a richness of experiences, but rather be seen like the dilemma formulated by Parmenides: should man remain in the city or else flee into the country side? It is to be expected that due to not coping with complexity and hence heterogeinty, that there would follow such longing for 'unity' but one outcome, namely strife. The real danger would then be to stay for the rest of life without any real communication with other men, since man back in nature cannot make up his mind when to return, that is turn around and retrace steps to the point when things started going wrong. It would mean having to retrace things to such a point, where everything was not as of yet irreversible, the 'Gate of Fate' still in front. But in failing to recognize in time when things go wrong, and not to act when it is time to go back, that means the community will break down and, thereafter, no one will be able to enter any serious relationships with the others. The continuity of the community would cease then. However, that prospect poses too terrible a fate as to be desirable to be lived. It was something the Greek dramas tried to avert in time by creating a kind of 'Polis' in which self-corrections were possible.

Ordinance is like a sweet talk, or a dream lifted by voices singing a holy song until the sounds reach the higher vaults of the majestic building crowning the city. This fate was known later to Constantinople when the final prayers before the fall were resounded in the church of all churches, the Agia Sophia. Destiny of man in the Polis was still unsure and primitive in Ancient Greece, it was even more so thereafter when trying to return to the rule of the Gods. They had to locate within themselves some security, and to follow some destiny, in order to know by which rules they could succeed. In such a way, culture was introduced as a reflection of some sources of higher inspirations, in order to deal with both new forms of primitivism and equally higher demands to cope with daily life. Like the rest of mankind since then, coping with life meant also taking on newer complexities. Yet somehow it was difficult to compare between the past and the future. No one seemed to have the same skills. It was a collectivity without a purpose nor any well founded mechanism of distribution of the goods or richnesses gained through all kinds of adventures. But already some knew how to move better than the others, more silently, and yet very effectively, because they took the time to deliberate about the measures they were about to take in order to establish their power and authority. To a large extend these forces remained unseen by the philosophers and poets, and it explains the tragedy that befell the Ancient Greek cities after having entered the 'Golden Age'.

Later the knowledge of ancient Greece was understood by such artists like Giotto, and even more so by Michelangelo who appreciated so well that the Ancient Spirit moved within the borders of the in- and uncompleted as part of the measures to be learned and applied in the art of living and doing. The search for such art was done in Ancient Greece in the spirit of enabling man to bring together the two most important aspects of life: the measures for and the knowledge of his actions. Since then a sort of blindness has befallen man, but he does seem to notice the losses:

Take one step forward, and two to the side,

indeed, now I can see your face better,

for now my eyes are not blinded by the sun

nor is your hair ablaze when I must look

in the direction your voice is coming from.

- Saying of a blind man

A first measure was that of the cup, which can be formed by the hand to see how much water it holds. Then another measure can be how far can the eyes see, when it is recognized that man, horses and birds have different abilities to cover distances. There is also a difference of a tree in the valley and a tree standing freely, that is on the slopes. Artists like Duerer tried to put that into perspective, and meant really measures linked with perception. Nowhere to go was not known, for it meant either going to the Polis or into exile. The very essence of measure was to find the 'golden mean' while not neglecting the average, that is what man is capable of doing within a definite period of time. The measure for things to come took on as a result more concrete forms of appraisals.

The freedom to measure meant comparing not to ideals, but to man made Gods who liked to tease man until he had been punished enough. Endurance meant not unlimiting enduring of pain. Human proportions added to everything a finite character without disturbing the peace of eternity. That is why the Gods were mortal, woundable, close to man who managed like Odysseus to outwit them at times. It was a first measure of exchange: what gifts to give in order not only to please the Gods, but to obtain the freedom to travel on. The next step was always a limited one.

Never was anything done before with a sense of endless perpetuation of the same. In Ancient Greece, life was experienced as endless changes in which man tried to find something stable. If so practised, that allows for the integration of people into society while respecting life as something which goes beyond mere economic exploitation and, as a result, can take on cultural dimensions, that is a way of doing things: 'prattein'. Hence the problem of relating to others merges into one clear question, why then so many difficulties in doing just practical things?

The main problem, how not only to obtain, but to implement the measure of things, was not clearly resolved. It meant that people were confused by various ideas expressing unity. For instance, there was the life in the village as compared to that in a city-state. It meant then and even today certain virtues, but also hardships. To take it from there to even greater empires as was tried, for instance, by Alexander the Great, that shows man's limited capacity to cope.

As if different political entities mean also different measures of things, man's means to realize things varied from dispositions of power to abilities to co-operate and to communicate until extra energies would be freed, according to Lewis Mumford in "The City in History", in order to tackle greater tasks, e.g. water irrigation systems or even the construction of the Parthenon. From there it was easire to measure the distance still to go before reaching destiny: the freedom of man.

^ Top

« E. Gate of Fate | G. Listening to voices rather than to footsteps »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

F. Measures of life