Civilization and ethics : $b The philosophy of civilization, part 2 — John Shaqi
Civilization and ethics : $b The philosophy of civilization, part 2Schweitzer, Albert
Philosophy
Civilization and ethics : $b The philosophy of civilization, part 2
Schweitzer, Albert
Civilization -- History; Ethics
The nation, too, is not yet recognized as a great entity both natural
and ethical, and therefore no consideration is given to the question
of uniting the various city communities for the joint pursuit of
higher objects. Each remains isolated. Plato thinks he has satisfied
the claims produced by membership of the same nation by requiring that
in wars waged by Greek States against one another the houses shall not
be destroyed nor the fields laid waste, as if the war were against
barbarians.
The idea of humanity as a whole has not yet come in sight. It is,
therefore, not possible for Plato and Aristotle to make their State
work in co-operation with others to promote the general progress of
mankind.
They therefore establish their civilized State on a type which is
hemmed in in every direction by narrow horizons. Moreover, the
political community which they adopt as the type is at the very time
when they are writing already a dying entity. While Aristotle is
writing his _Politics_, his pupil, Alexander the Great, is founding an
empire, and Rome is beginning to subject Italy to her rule.
More important still than all external faults in their ideal [pg 051]
of the civilized State is the fact that these two thinkers are unable
to introduce into the community the energies which are needed for its
maintenance. The idea of the civilized State is present with the
vitality needed, only when the individual is by the impulse contained
in his world-view moved so far as to devote himself to organized
society with enthusiastic activity. Without civic idealism no
civilized State! But to assume anything of that kind in the members of
their State is impossible for Plato and Aristotle, since both have
already reached the ideal of the wise man who withdraws himself
prudently and gracefully from the world.
Plato admits this. His wise citizens who are destined to be rulers
devote themselves to the service of the State only when their turn
comes, and are glad when they are set free and can again in retirement
busy themselves, as wise among wise, with the world of pure Being.
Aristotle, when he raises in the _Politics_ the question whether the
contemplative life is not to be preferred to that of political
activity, decides in theory in favour of the latter. “It is a
mistake,” he says, “to value inactivity higher than activity, since
happiness consists in activity.” But in the doctrine of virtue in the
_Nicomachean Ethics_ there is nothing which could lead the individual
to place his life at the service of the community.
Plato and Aristotle cherish undoubtedly the ancient conviction that
the individual ought to devote himself to the State, but they cannot
find a foundation for it in their world-view. Like Epicurus and the
adherents of the Porch, they are under the spell of an ethic in which
there is present no will to attempt a transformation of the world.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account