Hellenistic Period: Polis Decline and Philosophical Shifts
Hellenistic Period: Decline of the Polis
The Hellenistic period marks the decline of the polis as a political form. This decline stemmed from the policies of Alexander the Great (a student of Aristotle), who initiated a campaign to conquer the Greek world and parts of Asia. This context highlights the weakness of the polis for two primary reasons:
- The poleis were too small to adapt to new political and economic requirements, leading to a loss of their main characteristics (self-sufficiency and autonomy).
- They lacked sufficient military force to deal with imperialism. The poleis became territories or provinces within empires.
Hellenistic Monarchy
The government established by Alexander the Great and his successors across the conquered territories is known as the Hellenistic Monarchy:
- The king was identified with the law (a living embodiment of it), and the allegiance of citizens shifted from the polis to the king.
- The king was perceived as an exceptional, charismatic figure, sometimes even as a divine being. This undermined the foundation of the polis, which was based on citizen participation in political life. The former citizen and politician became a subject: a taxpayer under a distant power. This contradicted the classical Greek ideal of being subject to the rule of law, not the arbitrary will of a single man (tyranny).
Philosophical Response to Crisis
This period of crisis extended to the philosophical realm. After Aristotle, key developments included the emergence of Hellenistic schools of thought. These schools prioritized the individual over the community and sought moral solutions to the displacement experienced by former citizens. These schools shared a common trait: they shifted away from philosophical and political theory, focusing instead on moral aspects to address the crisis. The central idea shared by these schools was that the autonomy and self-sufficiency (autarky) previously associated with the polis now applied to the individual. The individual had to create their own rules (self-governance) and satisfy their needs and desires independently (autarky). The main representatives of these schools were the Cynics, Epicureans, and Stoics.
School of the Cynics
The name “Cynics” refers to dogs. This school comprised a dispersed group of thinkers who wrote little. While they were a fringe group in Athens, they were well-known and influential. The most famous Cynic was Diogenes. They held a negative view of the crisis, rejecting the polis, social life, and its conventions. They advocated for a return to nature, meaning abandoning social conventions and allowing individuals to act freely. They also rejected the legitimacy of power. Therefore, the wise man was advised to stay away from politics and remain skeptical of all beliefs.
Epicureans
Epicurus of Samos and his followers, the Epicureans, established a utilitarian basis for individual and social life. The wise man should avoid politics and seek pleasure while avoiding pain or punishment. This pleasure was not necessarily material; it often emphasized values, friendship, education, etc. The most interesting aspect is the idea of spiritual self-reliance combined with austerity. This involves preventing material harm to others and lowering the level of our desires. An austere life, free from great moral or material ambitions, allows us to avoid the suffering caused by unfulfilled expectations. They also held a negative opinion of the current state.
Stoics
The Stoics derived their name from the Stoa (gate) where they met in Athens. They belonged to both the Greek and Roman worlds. There was an ancient Greek Stoa (partly Greek and partly Roman) and a new Roman Stoa. The main authors of the ancient Stoa were Zeno and Chrysippus. They offered a positive contribution to the crisis. They acknowledged the decline of the polis but introduced a new concept: cosmopolis. The wise man is not a citizen of a polis but a citizen of a universal polis. This implies a universal community of scholars who transcend the barriers of space and time. Most importantly, the cosmopolis has its own rules and its own law based on human nature. Their greatest contribution is the idea that all human beings are equal by nature. This breaks down the distinction between Greeks and barbarians, and even between free men and slaves, which was fundamental to the theory of the polis. This gives rise to the idea of a universal law, valid for all human beings, that transcends the positive law of each polis. In Rome, this was called the Law of Nations, and it forms the basis of Natural Law.