1. Two Interlocutory Points
Paul’s departure was followed by a council of war. Archie, Moti and Tiger urged me to raise two interlocutory points with the panel. The first concerned my right to delegate the nose punching. The second was whether I could kowtow to or salute the selected person instead of delivering a punch.
The panel readily agreed to the second request. They appreciated that my admiration for St. Paul rendered it difficult for me to punch him. The same type of problem could arise in respect of the remaining, chosen, individuals.
As regards the first issue, they decided that I had the right to delegate the task when accompanied by Archie. Moti’s trunk could result in severe damage to the punchees. Tiger’s claws could lead to blinding.
“But, my Lords, the chosen persons days on earth are over.”
“True,” explained Gabriel, who took the lead on this occasion. “But, you see, we are moving in time to the very era of the person involved. This means that a severe blow or an incurable injury might change history. We are not prepared to risk such a metamorphosis.”
“Oh God,” I exclaimed.
“Did you address me?” asked He himself.
“Not really; it was a mere expression of surprise.”
“Watch your manners then; and don’t use my name in vain!”
2. Considering Future Proceedings
Back in our haven, my three colleagues helped me to plan my next punch. Like me, they sensed that I was running out of options. I had punched Eve, Herodotus, Qin Shi Huang and St. Paul (in whose case Archie delivered a real punch as my delegate). We had to select another three outstanding candidates but were unable to do so. There were too many prodigies to choose from.
Humanity was blessed with brilliant musicians, painters, sculptors and writers. There were also many politicians of genius: Qin, whom I had already punched, was one of them. If I had to select a statesman of the 19th or 20th century, I should have opted for Bismarck or Disraeli.
In the event, Tiger raised a convincing point. I had to select the field and then spot the punchee. Having attended to St. Paul, religious personalities had already been represented. Disciplines like music, art and literature had to be ruled out. They were too crowded with men and women of genius to identify one. In addition, their origin was, in all probability, linked to religion – a discipline covered when I selected St. Paul. ‘Sport’ was too vague and, so Tiger asked, could any human outdo a lion, a tiger or a monkey? Speed and agility were far more common amongst them than in humanity. Further, birds knew how to fly long before mankind acquired the skill. Mathematics were, of course, out of bounds. Archie would take offence if the choice fell on any individual other than his own good self.
At this stage, Moti gave me a useful hint. He wanted to know what demarcates mankind from the animal kingdom? My initial response was that the differentiation was consciousness. This notion was summarily dismissed by Tiger. He opined that all animals had a will to live, which entailed awareness of surroundings. To this extent, they were ‘conscious’.
“But that is a simplification. You confuse mere cognition with the real human trait, which is the search of knowledge for the sake of it. It involves curiosity which is goes beyond the survival instinct.”
“I agree with Peter’le,” chimed in Archie. “For instance, how do you explain my interest in parabolas and hyperbolas? My search and investigation are not triggered by my survival instinct.”
“Neither did this sense motivate your jumping out – stark naked – from a bathtub and running through the streets of Syracuse, chanting ‘Eureka’,” added Tiger with a touch of malice.
“Nobody is able to master impulses in every situation,” Moti stepped in to defend his friend.
“Gentlemen, gentlemen,” chimed Tiger, “we have reached agreement on mankind’s special attribute: search for knowledge triggered off by curiosity. Can we also agree on a discipline which deals with the outcome and nature of this characteristic?”
“I believe it is ‘philosophy,” I stepped in.
“It is, rather,” agreed Archie. “Well, what do we know about this discipline?”
It did not take us long to agree that the first records of philosophy came from Greece. There were the pre-Socratic philosophers, commencing with Thales who believed that water was the original ‘first cause’ (substance) of our globe. Another was Hercalitus, who maintained that everything was in motion (Pantha Rhei), like the water in a stream that kept changing infinitely although, from the bather’ viewpoint, it was always the same river. In a sense, Heraclitus was a fore-runner of relativists. A different view was taken by Permenides, considered the father of metaphysics. In his view “what is is, and what is not cannot be”. Thus, there is no room for change because everything is in existence even if not caught by the senses.
Archie then referred to Pythagoras, who was a mathematical genius. He developed numerology and believed that the orbit of planets and all moving things in the universe was based on numbers. Another of Pythagoras’ premises was the transmutation of souls, a notion he may have picked up during his travels to Mesopotamia and Egypt. Another philosopher – again mentioned by Archie who had studied philosophy – was Protagoras – a leading sophist. His statement that “man is a measure of all things” and his analysis of virtue left its impact on later Greek philosophers. Still, very few written works of these philosophers came down to us.
We then turned to the great trio, comprising Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Archie had read Plato’s dialogues and, in consequence, led the discussion. He pointed out that Socrates had not written any tome. What we knew about him came from three sources: Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes (mainly in The Clouds, which is a parody).
Socrates, explained Archie, was the father of dialectics. He used his often ironic ‘questions and answers’ method to lay the foundation of ethics and epistemology (the analysis of knowledge as derived from senses and perception). Archie stressed that Socrates doubted the democratic government system of Athens, pointing out that its basis, that is, the maintenance that every citizen is entitled to a voice, is false. Realising that people were not equal, Socrates believed that the best government ought to be an oligarchy of ‘philosophers’ or sages. His friendship with Alcibiades, the would-be tyrant, may have coloured his vision. Socrates also doubted the pagan religion of Athens. He preached his message to his disciples of the younger generation. He faced prosecution by the conservative faction of Athens. Having been sentenced to death, he refused to escape from the city and save his life. Believing that flight would indicate fear of death, he willingly drank the cup of poison.
Archie then turned to Plato, a disciple of Socrates, who founded an Academy in Athens. His brilliant dialogues in which Socrates was a leading figure left an everlasting impact on the philosophy of the West. His major contribution was his theory of forms based on pure reason. His writings also influenced Christianity and his political ideas, expressed mainly in his Republic and Atlantis, remained a cornerstone of modern thinking and largely influenced philosophers who led the much later European Enlightenment.
Plato’s pupil, Aristotle, was not only a leading philosopher but also a polymath, who covered many subjects, including physics, biology, zoology, mathematics and, of course politics and ethics. Archie pointed out that Aristotle, whose writings were translated to Latin by Boethius, became the very foundation of Western thought. Notably, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides and Christian philosophers, like Thomas Acquinas, simply referred to him as “the Philosopher”.
“For a man who lived in Syracuse in the third century AD, you are remarkably familiar with modern Western philosophy,” I told Archie.
“I am. Lord Pan provided all the materials. He also drew my attention to Hypatia, one of the few women who played a role in the development of philosophy and mathematics. She was active in Alexandria during the late 4th and early 5th centuries and is regarded an important Hellenistic Neo-Platonian. Still, I was the greatest mathematician and physicist of antiquity!”
“Weren’t you ever,” Moti and I spoke in unison. Tiger nodded his approval sagely.
It was my turn to take over. Patiently I mentioned to them the advent of stoic philosophy. It was founded by Zenon of Citium (‘Zenon Stoa’), who lived in the 3rd century BCE. Its main belief concerned personal ethics and the notion that happiness is found in accepting things in the manner in which they present themselves. According to it “virtue is the only good”. External matters, such as wealth and health, are relevant only to the extent that they further a person’s virtue. Successors of Zeno, such as Seneca and Epictetus, concluded that a true stoic would be emotionally resilient to misfortunes confronting him. Regrettably, this approach often led to calamities. Thus, Marcus Aurelius – an adherent of stoicism – reacted unemotionally to his wife’s infidelities and sanctioned the taking over of the imperial reins by her son Commodus, who might not have been fathered by himself. The decline of the Roman Empire was thereupon sped up.
Noting that the trio was listening to me eagerly, I outlined modern Western philosophy, referring succinctly to Descartes, Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume and, of course, to Emmanuel Kant.
When I finished, Tiger, who had been watching keenly, observed that he sensed that my heart was not in the discipline. He wanted to know the reason. Moti and Archie nodded vigorously.
“Well, you see, the ambit of the discipline keeps changing. Aristo, for instance, dealt, inter alia, with physics, astronomy, politics and medicine. Each of these topics and many others became specialised disciplines. To take but one illustration, physics became a dedicated subject or discipline in its own right. Still, Isaac Newton, writing in 1687, called his major work Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. In later eras he was regarded a physicist and the leading one for that.”
“But has philosophy retained a core?” asked Tiger.
“It did. As from the 20th century it deals mainly with issues of consciousness and existence. It seeks to explain and articulate these two points.”
“Looks to me that you have a cyclical development. Philosophy started as a discipline which seeks to investigate issues arising from or based on human curiosity,” observed Archie. “The same, though, is true about mathematics and the attempt to explain and measure the property of forms like parabolas and hyperbolas. Don’t you really talk about the furthering of abstract thinking?”
“I think that’s correct. Philosophy remains the search; aspects of it become specific areas of enquiry,” I voiced my agreement.
“In that case why don’t you turn to a more clearly defined and limited discipline?” Moti spoke with some hesitation. Nonetheless, his suggestion made sense.
“Moti is right,” pronounced Archie. “Please make your choice, Peter’le.”
“I am really interested in rulers who left their impact on humanity,” I confided.
“You already punched Qin Shi Huang,” pointed out Archie.
“True,” I agreed, “but his influence and lead were confined to the Eastern World.”
“In that case, why not opt for a ruler who left his (or her) impact on the Western World,” opined Tiger and brushed gently against my trousers.
3. Opting for a Politician of the West
It took me a while to find a suitable person. One that came readily to mind was Charles Martel, who stopped the Muslim forces in Tours in 732. Apart from his success on the battle ground, he restored and centralised the government of Francia and re-established the Franks as the masters of Gaul, viz. modern France. However, the real unification of Central Europe under one rule was attained by his grandson, Charlemagne (also known as ‘Carl the Great’), who founded the Carolingian Empire, which became the Holy Roman Empire. It comprised most territories ruled by Western Rome as well as some regions that had never been conquered by it. His reign was known as the Carolingian Renaissance and laid the foundation of much of Western European culture.
Other monarchs who came to mind were Elizabeth Tudor, Catherine the Great of Russia, Peter the Great (also of Russia) and Charles 5th of Spain. All of them, though, influenced a specific region of Europe and did not have a major influence on the West as a whole.
“Peter’le,” observed Archie who had listened patiently to my deliberations “isn’t there a person who laid the foundation of European culture as a whole?”
“Much of it came from Greece and its philosophers and statesmen,” I told him, “but, as you know, Greece was never united. Athens and Sparta fought to the bitter end in the Peloponnesian War documented by Thucydides.”
“Quite so; but then didn’t our culture and orientation leave its mark on Rome? Lord Pan gave me books on European history, which suggest that Rome adopted our mores and outlook.”
“It did, rather,” I conceded.
“So why don’t you go for the lead person of Rome?” asked Tiger forcefully.
It dawned on me that Tiger was right. Western Civilisation, as known in the 20th century, had its roots in the Roman Empire. Rome started its lengthy period of influence as a republic. The civil wars of the late Roman Republic were quenched by Julius Caesar. After his assassination the city-state was governed by a triumvirate comprising Ocatavius, Mark Antony and Lepidus. After the battle of Actium, Octavius seized power and became known as Augustus. His reign was the Roman golden age.
“So, you have identified your hero,” said Archie.
“It’s not that simple. Originally, Octavius was a rough and vengeful character. He became a great and conscientious emperor under the influence of his wife, Livia. The historian Suetonius tells us that Augustus governed Rome but was ruled by Livia.”
“Actually, you have now identified your next candidate,” grinned Tiger. “I should like to accompany you. I want to meet her and find out if she was as fierce as my Tigla.”