The Genesis of Social-Philosophical Thought

The Origins of Social-Philosophical Thought

Humanity has always sought to comprehend the nature of society, its origins, to establish social relations grounded in justice and peace, and to determine the best form of public governance. The earliest responses to emerging questions were mythological in nature, manifesting in the personification and deification of the forces of nature and society, and recognizing gods, demons, and heroes as the creators and primary participants in history. For instance, the myths of ancient Sumer recount how the gods fashioned the world and the tools of labor; when it became burdensome to maintain the order they had created, they sculpted humans from clay, assigning them the tasks of tilling the land, herding cattle, and gathering fruits. The origins of the caste system in ancient Indian society are explained in Hindu texts through the narrative of how the gods created the components of the social world by dividing the body of the Cosmic Man—Purusha: from his mouth arose the Brahmins, from his arms the Kshatriyas, from his thighs the Vaishyas, and from his feet the Shudras.

Simultaneously, even in deep antiquity, we find nascent forms of critical reflection on the mythological-religious understanding of the foundations of social life. In literary monuments of ancient Egyptian culture, such as the "Song of the Harpist" (22nd century BCE) and the "Dispute of a Man with His Soul" (22nd-21st century BCE), the existence of an afterlife, the truth of religious doctrines, and the justice of prevailing social orders were called into question. Similar viewpoints emerged in other ancient civilizations. A characteristic example can be found in the Babylonian text "The Dialogue between the Lord and His Servant," which presents a secular perspective on issues of social organization, the origins of ethical norms, and expresses skepticism regarding the utility of sacrifices to the gods, as well as the validity of hopes for another, heavenly life.

Disillusionment with the mythological-religious worldview was generally precipitated by crisis processes that dismantled forms of social order previously deemed unassailable, leading to reflections on the estrangement of the gods from earthly life and the fragility of human existence. Against this backdrop, changes occurred within the mythological and religious worldview systems themselves, expressed in attempts to introduce elements of rational explanations grounded in the interests and motivations of not only higher beings but also ordinary mortals.

For instance, in ancient Indian mythological-religious sources from the first millennium BCE, the history of society is typically divided into two epochs. In the first, there existed an idyllic state of universal happiness and peace, during which all individuals willingly fulfilled their "dharma"—the supreme divine laws of "right living." Then, as a result of humanity's fall from grace, a second epoch ensued—an era of rampant anarchy and selfish caprice, marked by the dominance of the "law of the fish," or the law of might. In these new circumstances, people were compelled to agree upon the establishment of a higher authority tasked with protecting the weak and ensuring adherence to "dharma," seeking the support of the deities in this endeavor. "Those who submitted to the law of the fish (where the large fish devour the small) made Manu, the son of Vivasvan, king and determined one-sixth of the grain and one-tenth of goods and gold as his royal share. With this, supported kings ensure the security of their subjects' property... Kings are the vicegerents of Indra and Yama; they embody wrath and mercy. Whoever disrespects them incurs divine punishment," as noted in the Arthashastra (4th-3rd centuries BCE). In this whimsical manner, mythological-religious beliefs are intertwined with elements of rational reasoning.

An even more secular understanding of the establishment of social orders and the origins of state power can be found in the "Book of Genesis" (a component of the early Buddhist source "Digha Nikaya," 6th century BCE). Initially, humans were bodiless beings; they required neither food nor drink, and there were no disputes or conflicts among them. This was a time of happiness and harmony. One day, they tasted wild rice, which proved delectable, and humans began to consume it in ever-greater quantities. As they ate, they acquired physical substance and the accompanying sensations of hunger and want. Soon, there was not enough wild rice for all, and people began to cultivate it, seizing plots of land for this purpose. In the process, human greed and envy arose, leading to endless conflicts. They then agreed among themselves to establish a higher authority in society tasked with ensuring peace and order. Thus, for the first time in history, albeit in a mythological form, speculations about the role of property in the unfolding of societal contradictions and the emergence of the state were articulated. Based on this, some researchers are inclined to see a precursor to the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Gradually, the boundaries of myth and religion became increasingly constricting for the human spirit, which sought to grasp the natural and social worlds based on empirical observations, logical analysis, generalization, and rational proof. At a certain stage, these boundaries were ruptured, giving rise to philosophical concepts aimed at critically reflecting on their own foundations, persistently overcoming their limitations and relativity. The emergence of philosophy, its distinction from earlier forms of worldview, represented a prolonged process that maintained a continuity between nascent philosophical thought and mythology and religion. A characteristic feature of the philosophical doctrines of ancient times was also the undifferentiated nature of their object. In addressing the problem of comprehending the cosmos as a whole, the early philosophers simultaneously sought answers to questions concerning the essence of society, the place of the individual within social relations, and the optimal structure of governance, among other issues.

Some of the earliest philosophical systems were developed in Ancient China from the 6th to the 3rd centuries BCE. First and foremost, we must consider the views of Laozi—the legendary founder of Daoism and author of the "Dao De Jing" ("Canon of the Way and Virtue"), who lived in the 6th-5th centuries BCE. The central thesis of his philosophy is the idea of spontaneous development as the universal principle of the universe. Phenomena of reality continuously emerge from the "Dao"—the natural form of the realization of the life-giving potential of Dao. From this, elements of dialectical perception of the world are formulated: the unity of being and non-being, the potential and the actual. At the same time, the correct notion of the necessary, universal nature of development was absolutized, which, in particular, manifested in attempts to apply it to explain social life without considering the activity-specific nature of human existence. Thus, Laozi saw the roots of all social ills in humanity's attempts to alter the surrounding world, which distorted the natural rhythms of universal development as determined by the Dao. Consequently, he recommended adhering to the principle of "wu wei" ("non-action") and refraining from any mobilizing efforts or purposeful actions that disrupt the natural flow of life. Instead, the approach to the Dao was associated with "ming"—mystical enlightenment, in which a person is granted insight into metaphysical essences.

The opponent of the Daoist worldview was Confucius (551-479 BCE), whose philosophical teachings significantly influenced the culture of China and Southeast Asia. Adhering to the "Dao," the thinker asserted, becomes possible only through the continuous self-improvement of individuals in accordance with the ideal image of the "junzi" (noble man), who adheres to five principles: "ren" (humaneness), "yi" (justice), "li" (ritual), "zhi" (knowledge, common sense), and "xin" (sincerity, conscientiousness). The first quality, "ren," plays an integrating role as an expression of the universal law of the organic interconnection of all existence. In the social dimension, the essence of "ren" is embodied in the rule: "treat others as you wish to be treated." The naturalness of humaneness is observed in familial relationships, leading to the conclusion that social harmony is possible only if society is organized according to the prototype of the patrilineage (the extended family), where the ruler is the father, the subjects are the children, and the younger ones are subordinate to the elders in all matters. The concept of "li" (ritual) also plays a crucial role, demanding adherence to rules of propriety, customs, and traditions, without which, as Confucius believed, a stable social order becomes impossible.

To transform society according to ancient models and ensure order in the Celestial Empire, it was proposed to employ the method of "zhengming" (rectification of names). The ruler, the official, the father, and the son must not only be called as such but also possess all qualities, rights, and obligations associated with the execution of their respective social roles. This requirement can be interpreted as a moral-ethical limitation on the ruler's power, defining his duty to care for the people as his own children. Furthermore, it can also be viewed as a contemporary form, during Confucius's time, of safeguarding the privileges of the hereditary aristocracy against the encroachments of affluent yet non-aristocratic commoners, who, under existing customary law, had no rights to power.

Against the unyielding subordination to traditions and the assertion of a natural "heavenly" character of social inequality stood Mozi (479—381 BCE). He critically assessed the idea of "rectifying names," arguing that new phenomena of social life should be given new names rather than being aligned with the past. Human activity ought to be open to the new, not restricted to the reproduction of the old. "I believe that all good from antiquity should be preserved, but new useful and good things should also be created. I want goodness to increase…" Justifying the natural equality of all people, this Chinese philosopher pointed out that the heavens are vast and selfless, not dividing people into great and small, but rather "nourishing all." In explaining the existence of social hierarchy and the division of people into "higher" and "lower," he echoed elements of a contractual concept already manifested in ancient Indian texts. "Chaos reigned in the Under Heaven, similar to that among wild beasts. Understanding that the cause of chaos is the absence of governance and hierarchy, people chose the most virtuous and wise among them as the Son of Heaven. Only the Son of Heaven can provide a singular standard of justice, and from that moment order prevailed in the Under Heaven." However, the idea of social consensus as the foundation of power did not develop further. Mozi, living amid the disintegration of patriarchal statehood, extolled societal unity and linked the realization of the "singular standard of justice" with a rigid centralized hierarchy of power, where the ruler alone decides what is right and what is wrong, and subjects are obliged to agree with him. Citizens were expected to report on one another, ensuring the authoritarian regime was upheld, along with a system of rewards and punishments. Although there were caveats about the necessity of correcting and guiding the "Son of Heaven" should he err, a model of a despotic-bureaucratic state was effectively created.

Subsequently, this instrumental view of the state as a machine subordinate to the will of the supreme ruler was further developed by the Legalists (Shen Dao, 395—315 BCE; Shang Yang, 390—338 BCE; Shen Buhai, 385—337 BCE; Han Fei, 280—233 BCE). Practice revealed the limitations of such a perspective, which failed to address the problem of overcoming the alienation of power from society, transforming it into a factor of social disintegration. All of this contributed to the strengthening of Confucian doctrine, transforming it into the official ideology of the Chinese Empire, which sanctified and legitimized imperial power in the spirit of the "junzi" ideal.

Almost simultaneously with the emergence of ancient Chinese philosophy, numerous philosophical concepts also arose in the Greek city-states during the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. Much like in the East, elements of philosophical thought were initially formed within the womb of myth and religion. In the works of the rhapsodes Homer and Hesiod (8th—7th centuries BCE), elements of rational and critical reflections on the content of the concept of "justice," the duties and obligations of true kings and aristocracy were expressed in an epic-mythological form. This tendency is manifest in Hesiod's "Works and Days," which recounts the myth of the gradual deterioration of living conditions and human nature from the Golden Age to the Iron Age. Many scholars have seen in this work one of the earliest concepts of the historical development of humankind and its culture. For instance, Karl Popper detected an approach to the "idea of historicism" here, characterized as an orientation toward historical prediction based on knowledge of the laws and trends of historical development. While agreeing that Hesiod closely approached the liberation of philosophical thought, it should be emphasized that he was unable to make the final leap, remaining ensnared in mythology.

A more evident breakthrough occurred later through the efforts of the first ancient Greek natural philosophers. Thales of Miletus (640—545 BCE) regarded animated water as the primary principle of the universe. The human being, closest to him, was viewed as a bearer of the soul, understood as a subtle, ethereal substance connected to the divine, rational, and beautiful order of things. Thus, knowledge of the macrocosm is inseparable from the knowledge of the microcosm—the inner spiritual world of humanity. Thales' student, Anaximander of Miletus (610—547/540 BCE), also sought the single source of all that exists. He found it in the "apeiron"—the infinite, undying origin characterized by continuous motion. Moreover, he did not distinguish substantively between nature and society; both are subject to the same laws. The primary law is that of justice (dike), which commands that the established natural limits not be violated. However, as phenomena arise from the "apeiron," opposing forces, striving for superiority, violate this law. Consequently, they incur punishment and perish. This is true not only for individual phenomena but also for entire worlds; they are born, mature, age, and ultimately die, only to be reborn again, in an eternal cycle.

The notion of development as an infinite and contradictory process was embraced by Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 520—c. 460 BCE). The source of universal change and development was tied to the internal duality of phenomena on opposing sides and their contradictory interactions. "Strife is the father of all and the king of all." According to this dialectical understanding of the world's dynamism, its primary foundation was identified as the most mobile and vital substance—fire. The latter was defined not merely as a physical phenomenon but as a living and ever-changing cosmos. Its knowledge forms the basis for establishing social justice. However, the ability to comprehend the logos—the rational character of the universe—is not possessed by all; most are prone to act under the influence of impulses and desires. On this basis, conclusions were drawn regarding the natural character of social inequality, the necessity of aristocratic governance, and the ordering of public life through the enactment of laws as expressions of the logos. Such views were evidently not coincidental. The creation of the first natural philosophical concepts occurred during an epoch of the disintegration of tribal relations and the establishment of statehood amid fierce struggles between hereditary patriarchal nobility on one side and simple communalists and immigrant populations on the other. That Heraclitus leaned toward the former may partly be explained by his descent from a lineage of basileis (priest-kings).

An alternative democratic understanding of the essence of justice, laws, and human relations was proposed by the Sophists, who primarily focused on issues of social organization and moral-legal questions. Protagoras of Abdera (490—420 BCE) analyzed the emergence of society using mythical imagery. Originally, before the establishment of the state, people lived as individuals, helpless and perishing at the hands of wild animals. Later, they received fire from Prometheus, who stole it from the gods. Following this, they gradually mastered crafts and began to live in community. When disputes arose among them, the gods granted them feelings of shame and conscience, thus making them all, regardless of their origins and abilities, participants in politics. This laid the groundwork for ideas of social equality and progressive cultural development. The right of every individual to participate in state governance was additionally justified by the relativity of knowledge about the world. Since there is no universally accepted truth or single god, knowledge bearers can be not only specially prepared individuals but any person, regardless of their occupation. Expanding on these ideas, Gorgias of Leontini (483—380 BCE) emphasized the conventionality of notions of justice and virtue, their dependence on the type of activity, gender, time, and place of existence. Accordingly, laws appeared as artificial constructs of humans, the result of social agreements about what is considered just and what is not. The ideas of the Sophists contributed to the strengthening of democracy in the city-states, providing ordinary citizens with ideological tools in their struggle against the hereditary aristocracy for equal political rights. At the same time, they contained a destructive potential of relativism—spreading the selfish inclinations of extreme individualism, devaluing the social significance of value regulators, and attempts to use them as means of conscious manipulation of public opinion. It is in this spirit that the Sophistic argumentation of Thrasymachus of Chalcedon (4th century BCE) interprets justice and laws as expressions of the will of the strongest.

In opposition to the epistemological and axiological relativism of the Sophists stood Socrates (469—399 BCE), whose work marked the transition to classical ancient Greek philosophy. The foundation of Socratic philosophical worldview lay in the idea of the defining role of true knowledge in establishing a society based on justice and harmony. Beginning his search for truth with an awareness of his own ignorance, Socrates sought to determine the unity amidst the diversity of conceptions and norms of morality, legal standards, and political doctrines. On this journey, he opposed tyranny, recognizing external freedom as a mandatory condition for the constitution of the individual, while simultaneously critiquing democracy, pointing to the need to overcome the egoism of citizens and cultivate an awareness of the social significance of democratic freedoms within them. Upholding such views, the philosopher became an unwelcome figure for the demagogues who dominated Athenian democracy, who accused him of not recognizing the state gods and corrupting the youth. Condemned by a court verdict and faced with the dilemma of fleeing or remaining to be executed, he chose the latter, seeking through his death to affirm the priority of civic duty over the interests of the individual.

The distinguished disciple of Socrates, Plato (428/427 — 348/347 BCE), continued the philosophical inquiry initiated by his teacher. In Plato’s philosophical system, existence was divided into several spheres. Primarily, there is the realm of ideas, or Forms, which are immutable essences and archetypes of specific material objects, integrated into a cohesive system centered around the idea of the highest good, serving as a model for beauty, harmony, justice, and truth. Next, there is the world of matter, understood as an inert substrate employed by the divine craftsman to manifest ideal designs. Finally, there exists the realm of changeable, mortal, and sensory objects and phenomena, which reflect vague echoes of these ideal essences. Within this framework, the physical body of a person belongs to the material sphere, while the soul, encompassing reason, will (passion), and desires, simultaneously gravitates toward both the ideal and the sensory-empirical realms. Depending on which element predominates within the soul, individuals are categorized as passionate, seeking to satisfy their sensual desires and whims; courageous, possessing strong will and character; or rational, oriented toward understanding the ideal primary essence of the cosmos.

Thus, in the perfect society described in the dialogue "The Republic," the rational type of individual should be represented by philosopher-rulers, the courageous by warriors and guardians, and the passionate by those engaged in the production of material goods (farmers, artisans, merchants). Social justice, in this case, is defined as “everyone having their own and performing their own.” The cause of societal ills is declared to be a deviation from this principle, particularly when power falls into the hands of unworthy individuals who are far removed from the comprehension of the ideas of good, justice, beauty, and truth, and who are driven solely by their insatiable passions and desires. To overcome this situation, Plato deemed it necessary to prohibit the transition from one class to another, ensuring the selection, education, and consolidation of ruling groups. Specifically, he establishes communal ownership and lifestyle for the guardians and rulers, denies them the right to separate families, mandates collective education for their children, and more. Furthermore, it is proposed to regulate the activities of farmers and artisans, preventing excessive wealth while ensuring a moderate prosperity for all.

In distinguishing the actual forms of states, the thinker characterizes them as various degrees of distortion of the presented ideal image of a perfect society. The least distorted is aristocracy, the rule of the wise and the deserving. Over time, however, the aristocratic elite degenerates due to mingling with representatives of various types of people, with the dominant inclination becoming a passion for gain. This leads to the emergence of private property, some members of society turning into slaves, and the rulers becoming preoccupied with military affairs. Thus arises timocracy—the rule of warriors. Eventually, timocracy transforms into oligarchy, where power is usurped by the wealthy. This form is not stable, as “this kind of state will inevitably be divided, as if there were two states: one of the poor, the other of the rich.” The victory of the poor gives rise to democracy, where all citizens are equal in their rights to participate in governance. However, democratic governance, allowing for the rise of individuals from any profession, breeds disorder and anarchy. As a result, “from extreme freedom arises the greatest and harshest slavery,” as the people find themselves under the rule of a tyrant, prone to arbitrary governance through terror and violence.

Thus, the evolution of forms of governmental power is reproduced as a necessary process, establishing a non-accidental character of moral values that repeat from age to age, limiting the antisocial aspirations of individual members. At the same time, the objectively idealistic transcendent view of the laws governing historical change in adherence to, or "imitation" of, the ideal, eternal, unchanging archetype of perfection is fraught with dangers. It becomes possible to justify a utopian detachment of the world of the desirable from real historical processes, creating a conducive environment for the dogmatization and subjectivization of philosophical concepts and ideas. Plato's model of the perfect society did not allow for the possibility of philosopher-rulers transforming into authoritarian tyrants who oppress their fellow citizens under the guise of possessing knowledge of absolute truth and stifle free creative inquiry into the world. Concurrently, the reservoir of preserved social forms, values, and knowledge is not limitless; at a certain point in history, they cease to meet the demands of societal development and are rejected. At least this happened with Sparta, which perhaps served as the real prototype of Plato’s ideal state.

One of the first critics of Plato's socio-philosophical concept was his distinguished disciple, Aristotle (384 — 322 BCE). Primarily, he criticized the detachment of ideas from materially perceivable phenomena and the possibility of the existence of Forms that are not embodied in specific objects of reality. Instead, he asserted the inseparability of matter and form, where matter is the essence of things in potentiality, while form is the essence of things in actuality. Nevertheless, the idealistic understanding of the world remains unvanquished, as form is interpreted as an internal, unchanging, universal plan of things. Moreover, all possible forms are integrated by God as “the final form” of all that exists.

Simultaneously, in his examination of society, Aristotle sought the foundations of social harmony not in a lofty realm of ideas but in real historical events, practical experiences, and the common sense of people. According to the philosopher, humans experience a natural inclination towards communication and communal life. Initially, these needs were satisfied within the family; as development progressed, separate families united into villages and tribal communities, and ultimately, several tribes formed a state. Hence, “the state belongs to that which exists by nature, and that man by his nature is a political animal.” It is noteworthy that neither Aristotle nor his predecessors differentiated between the concepts of “society” and “state,” meaning that governmental power was regarded as an attribute of society and was not imagined apart from it.

The development of an optimal state constitution, realized in the treatise "Politics," was preceded by a collective study of the political and governmental structure of 158 Greek city-states, conducted under Aristotle's guidance (from this research, only one work has survived to this day—"The Athenian Constitution"). As a result of this effort, a project of “polity” was constructed—a mixed form of state that combines elements of democracy and oligarchy. Oriented towards emulating forms of communal life that had naturally established themselves, the thinker did not accept Plato's ideas regarding the abolition of family and private property. All these institutions, in Aristotle's view, are rooted in human nature, allowing individuals to feel secure and fulfilled. However, recognizing that the economic polarization of society into the rich and the poor is detrimental to the social organism, the philosopher advocated for limiting the accumulation of wealth, expanding the middle classes, and organizing societal activities aimed at strengthening the solidarity between prosperous citizens and the impoverished. In this context, political rights were acknowledged for citizens capable of arming themselves at their own expense and freed from concerns about daily sustenance. Slaves, on the other hand, were deemed completely powerless, regarded as tools of labor with the capacity for speech. Slavery arises from the natural order: if a person possesses physical strength and a weak inclination towards contemplation, they are naturally predisposed to be a slave; conversely, individuals endowed with high qualities of character and mental faculties are naturally destined to be masters.

From the description of the polity provided above, one can discern a model of slave-owning democracy in Ancient Athens. However, it would be unjust to limit its significance solely to the legitimization of existing social-political orders. Ultimately, it represented the most complete form of synthesis of the spiritual and practical achievements of ancient Greek culture in the socio-political sphere, embodying the ideas of citizenship, democracy, and republicanism. A significant contribution of Aristotle’s entire socio-philosophical concept is the formation of a perspective on societal development as a natural-historical process governed by human needs.

In summary, we should note that in antiquity, socio-philosophical thought underwent a substantial evolution, liberating itself from the tight embrace of mythology and constituting a relatively autonomous form of spiritual activity. Thus, the foundations for the development of philosophical reflection on the problems of human social existence were laid for subsequent epochs. Yet, one should not overestimate the maturity of philosophical culture during the ancient period. Even in its highest forms, represented in the works of ancient philosophers, it could not withstand the onslaught of religion, which assumed dominant positions in societal consciousness during the medieval centuries.