Dr.. Manos Danezis
Assistant Professor of Astrophysics, University of AthensAs we all know, until the time of Prosokratikon Greek philosophers, the theology of the time, had imposed a theocratic cultural current with all negative results. Such cultural situation, over time, met the reactions of societies which sought the opportunity for a social change. The opportunity was provided through prosokratikon of scientists and philosophers.
The Pre-Socratic philosophers were those physiologists who founded scientific thinking, democratic social structure, but also the belief in a first principle that the later named God. In short they created the foundation of what we now call Western civilization
Shortly afterwards, however, Plato and Aristotle tell the collapse of morality and values of the Republic and the use of the term "Republic" of the rulers and citizens to achieve their utilitarian and morofilodoxous purposes.
The beginning of the birth of Western civilization as we know it today, dates back to the first centuries after Christ. At that time, the Church Fathers-to strengthen the philosophy of the new religion sought-existing philosophical currents that could be incorporated into the doctrines of the Christian faith. At that time there were two main considerations Christian, The first thought that Christianity was a new religion idealistic and therefore should be put on the idealistic Platonic philosophy.
The second trend Christian believed that Christianity was the continuity of Judaism with the prophecy realized on the coming of the Messiah and therefore had to adapt to the Aristotelian philosophy which was much closer to the materialistic Jewish tradition.
Christian Churches in the West, developed in an environment of Jewish tradition, embraced the Aristotelian view. In contrast to the geographical area where the East-was-Hellenistic tradition prevailed Platonic ideokentrismos. These two trends came into conflict with the result, much later, the creation of the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.The Western Church, which, after the fall of Constantinople dominated imposed Aristotelianism as the dominant philosophical, and scientific trend, then in Western Europe.
In this context the European culture was theocratic, if the theology of the Western Church imposed its dogmas, both in terms of social institutions and scientific knowledge.
The culture developed by the clergy of that time, based on all of the levels on "fear rather than love of God." The religious rulers determined all human activities more everyday practices, such as trade and transactions, to relations of social classes. In this way shaped the wider society influencing uneducated societies through fear of divine punishment, or the satisfaction of divine reward.
Natural phenomena were interpreted based on the Aristotelian view which notoriously supported the geocentric system as does the Kabbalah, the unwritten tradition of the Jewish religion. The authority of Aristotelianism oppressed but scientific research. Scientists who makes a different theory viewed as heretics and benefited from a violent response. In this way many of them excommunicated, imprisoned, or burned. All this happened without taking into account the accuracy of the scientific pronouncements, but compatibility with religious doctrine. The materialistic Jewish theology assigns the Aristotelian aisthisiokratiki visa to obtain a religion that was infallible in all versions of Western civilization.
In such a stifling theocratic context, the 16th and 17th century, there has been the second major scientific breakthrough which by an explosion of scientific ideas took to separate theology from science and to enable communities of people to organize various social systems . Science, after winning its own niche in the social horizon, ceased to depend on the church administrative structure, while giving no frontal rift with her. This was achieved advocating that the aim is to explain the events that fall exclusively on human senses and that the non-appreciable is the remit of theology. In this way science has been able to provide the right conditions to develop, if not come into direct conflict with the dominant religious structures.
The innovation introduced in the History of Science, the scientific revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the method of search and exploration of knowledge. For the first time you were introduced to the scientific process of the experiment and the mathematical formalism. Thus, we developed a bidirectional relation between theory and experiment which was used as a code of communication language of mathematics. In such a climate scientist, the social structure aligned with the Aristotelian philosophy of "aristocracy."
The essential meaning of this term arises from the root of the word means the "sovereignty of the optimum." But the concept of 'excellent', over the centuries, was a curmudgeonly treatment and a deliberate misinterpretation. This happened because the "excellence" precondition occupation leadership positions within the social structure of this. Over the years the leadership and authoritarian groups remained although small groups, as well as exclusive, but no longer consisted of 'excellent'.Just the small number of these power groups called themselves coquettish "aristocratic" and imposed on society by any means, to confer this title.
Accepting this reality mutated social philosophy of aristocracy, an oligarchic social system. In this system the concept of aristocratic management team was replaced by the concept of "elite" that does not mean that both were aristocratic. Through this mutation, which was not imposed but naturally violent, had already defined the roots of the collapse of the cultural pillar of social philosophy, since it had lost aftosynepeia and continuity conditions and basic operating principles of this cultural pillar.
The audit of administrative structures of society had fallen in the hands "a few" but not "optimal." This was because the serve and benefit morofilodoxies and neat-barrier-utilitarian pursuits of 'a few', but not 'excellent', was established and perpetuated to the present day.
The consolidation but a social oligarchic governance structure, without aristocratic features created difficulties, if not enjoyed an experiential moral consciousness and acceptance by society. This acceptance was however a prerequisite for a peaceful acceptance by society of the prescribed most often by force, oligarchic leaders. For this reason, replacing the need for a moral consciousness and social acceptance, the acceptance of the primacy of "material wealth".
The introduction, however, the criterion of material wealth to replace the criterion of 'excellent', was a new blow to the structures of pragmatic cultural trend in Western Europe. But because it was obvious and understandable antisocial and immoral structure of this regime, an effort lesion principles and operational rules of Theology and Science in order to serve and cover philosophical and ideological interests ekchydaismenis social structure. It was the time when the Western Christian administrative structures introduce their function within the Judaic standards, secular characteristics. Christianity is the most militaristic, violent vintager material goods, racist and nationalistic, as opposed to all the teachings and directions of the founder. Similarly, science is materialistic, utilitarian and directed. It is accepted by the social structure and financed only if it serves the desire of a few to glory and material gain.
As is apparent from all the foregoing, such a social administrative structure could not be accepted by most of society, since it served the basic needs and not silenced, but instead provide for additional, fears that a culture is supposed to minimize .
Then just enter the time of the collapse of the developed oligarchic structures such as feudalism and monarchies. The collapse could act positively in the recasting of Western civilization, if it were the beginning of a self-cleaning and a substantial recovery of the principle of "Excellent".
The chance but lost due to a brilliant transformation of the oligarchy system. The collapsing oligarchic social structures successfully attempted an astonishing cultural folding. In order to maintain administrative control of society, they adopted - certainly seemingly hypocritically-and the philosophical principle of idealistic cultural trend, the principle of "Democracy".
Citing But some substantial and real social weaknesses, "democracy" rightly replaced by "representative democracy" which in turn gave way to the "multi-party representative democracy." It is true that throughout this period of great social change, made diligent efforts to change the philosophical and ideological orientation of administrative structures. The objective of this effort was the application of the principle of "optimal" selection of 'democratically' elected representatives.
At this point, however, hid the trap of oligarchic structures. Betting on 'human nature', extended numerically the oligarchic circle including therein all relevant elected representatives of the people. These representatives, surrounded by all the oligarchic privileges and admitted to oligarchic circles as equal partners lasted as long as their mandate.
It was almost certainly the passion of power and wealth, pleasure enforcement in the crowd, the popular support that could get through customer basic needs-by legitimate or illicit means-will alienate even the excellent turning them simply to ' lightly ".
The existence of some corruption-free representatives would be the "alibi" and outwardly "good testimony" of the system. Such a development certainly forges the meaningful Republic of turning it into a paradoxical system of "oligarchic representative democracy." Such a social and political system satisfy superficially popular sentiment which was looking for participation in decision making, while essential decisions were taken again from an expanded and entrenched oligarchic group.
A second factor that has remained unchanged in this social mutation was maintaining as a factor in social evaluation of the quantity and quality of material goods. This factor not only maintained, but over time became the basis of the structure of the planned economy. By accepting this political system, rotting structures of civilization had passed the last and most painful phase after longer easily converted into a economistic culture
The structure of the economy, however, is part of the social constitution of a society. The economy is not-at least at the philosophical level-science only to the extent of using a series of scientific avenues, such as sociology, mathematics and psychology.
The economy, ideally, is the strong arm through which a political system, the practice of expression, supports citizens, science and theology. The economic structure of course should be shaped and defined by the content and effect of esoteric philosophy and the scientific worldview of a people. If epikyriarchisei the economy and systems, on any cultural expression then as says Professor of Theology, University of Athens Marios Bezgos: ' no moral barrier, no taboo, no theological limit can not restrain or affect economic activity the individual. In this way risk but private initiative to degenerate into personal ulterior motives. Lost the boundaries between freedom and arbitrariness, initiative and ulterior motives, profit and speculation . "
In today's era rather we reached this final stage of cultural collapse.Greece, however, as the mother of democracy and of European civilization, has an obligation to enliven the values and ethics of the Republic of Prosokratikon philosophers.
Of course, all of us today consider poor, weak, alienated from the glow of temporary wealth. We feel unable to build civilizations. All those answers our great poet Odysseus Elytis:
" And let our cry daydream, my friend, who never felt what iron, what stones, what blood, what fire, build, dream and sing! "
As if they have not understood who our challenge before them, we found in the fire of our pain, value creating cultures, human solidarity. And as it tells the great Yannis Ritsos:
And my brother learned to chat quietly, quietly and simply.
understand, now, do not need more.
And tomorrow I say will become even simpler.
You will find these words takers same weight
in all hearts, in all lips,
so to say anymore figs figs-and-craft boats.
So that others smile and say:
"Such poems I make you a hundred time. "
What we want.
Why do not we sing to distinguish my brother from the world.
We sing to mingle the world .