Note: I first published this post in a publication on Medium called Live Your Life On Purpose.
Images: 1

In history, it is usually not the individual actors who are important, but instead the processes themselves. This is because similar processes can lead to similar outcomes. In these types of situations, analogies can be quite illuminating. They can help us to recognize the problems and pick potential solutions.

Mapping Step

When coming up with analogies, the first thing you always do is to map the source system to the target system. This means you take concepts from the initial phenomenon that you know well, and then fit them to the things you are trying to analyze. While doing this, you always need to be careful about what you are comparing. When people make historical comparisons, they usually head down the road of comparing individuals that appear similar in these different eras. While mapping the different individuals from the ancient era to the modern era (is Trump the modern Clodius or Crassus?) might be fun, it does not really tell us much about the current world. Instead, it is mapping the underlying processes at play in the two eras that is interesting. This can enlighten us on what is happening in our society today.

When taking lessons from the past, there are certain key things that you should look for. When examining the modern era and Roman times, there are some apparent similarities. Certain actions and conditions lead to certain paths. These are processes that are linked to the conditions in society, and include the widening gap between the segments of society, certain segments of society getting relatively poorer, the process of anger creation, and similar things.

• I described them in more detail in the article on lessons from the ancient commentators that I wrote previously.

The fall of the Republic happened when Rome became the hegemon in its part of the world. The Roman society became richer than ever, with the level of material goods skyrocketing. However, a gap between the richest and the poorest members of society widened, with many of the people on the lower rungs feelings as if their situation was worsening. The state of affairs today is similar, we are living in an era of overall prosperity, however wide sections of the population are feeling as if they are losing out.

When working with historical analogies, what you can map are different behaviors. While culture and technology influence how these behaviors are displayed, the mental processes behind these behaviors are very similar. In one of his iconic statements on the basic nature of the world, Cicero stated that while the Egyptians might worship cats and dogs, the fundamental processes of superstition are the same in all nations. The particulars don’t matter, it is the underlying process that does.

To illustrate this statement with another example, we can look at vanity, a behavior that many humans engage in. In his work, Late Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus described how people were infatuated with creating statues of themselves in ancient Rome. This behavior we can map to the modern trend of people posting selfies of themselves. While, the way the process is implemented is different (statues vs. selfies), the mental behaviors that lead to this stem from the same place.

Moving on, let’s take the process of anger creation as an example for continuing the mapping. What I am mapping here is not particular circumstances of how anger was created, but instead the general patterns. In ancient Rome, the initial process that led to anger, then outrage, and then political violence is the one between the Optimates and the Populares, as the positions between these two factions drifted apart. The similar process today is the battle between the alt-right (and other far right elements), and the alt-left (sometimes joined by other far left elements).

While the ancient process was based more on economic conditions, and the modern one is more about ideas, there are many parallels. What drove both these processes in the background was a perceived fall in status, perceived relative gains and loses, as well as similar structural elements.

Both these processes led to increased polarization in society, with the likelihood of compromise drifting further and further away. These situations also have parallels in how certain individuals are using them to gain power for themselves. Populism was on the rise then, and it is on the rise now.

The reason why these processes can wreak havoc on the political institutions of the countries of the northern hemisphere (like the US, but also the EU), is that the institutions of the Roman Republic have striking similarities to our modern institutions. Whether this was by design (as in the US) or by heritage and evolution (mostly in other countries), the way the state is set up today is close to the way it was set up in the Roman Republic.

Basically, here we are mapping the old Roman institutions to the modern political institutions. The people, the Senate, the executive, the division of powers, all these have parallels in both systems. This means that the processes are quite likely to have similar effects in both cases.

Application Step

With the last statement, we are already moving to the Application Step. With this step, we are applying the mappings to learn something about the system we want to study. And the system we want to study in this case is the current political situation.

However, to be able to apply the mappings correctly, we also need to keep in mind the main differences between the two situations we are studying. These differences will determine which things from the analogy are relevant and which aren’t.

The first factor to keep in mind is the difference in the level of technology in the two societies. This had a huge impact not only on how people lived, on transportation between places, but also on the spread of information. There were also many cultural differences, with one huge difference being that in ancient Rome people had a fundamentally different view of the set up of society. There was the institution of slavery, and women had much less rights than they do now.

One significant element was that the Roman Republic was a libertarian paradise. Everything was provided by private contractors and many things we take for granted now (like a police force or a fire squad) were not there. For example, Crassus used this hole in the market by making his own private fire squad and sometimes using it for nefarious purposes. Some of these things were corrected under the Empire. When he consolidated his rule, Augustus set up a sort of police squad, as well as a fire squad, which were under the control of the state.

There were also differences in the work structure. The population outside of the city of Rome consisted mostly of agrarian farmers, and the presence of slaves was also significant in all aspects of society. Today, the places of work are either in the industry, but more importantly in offices, where people sit all day in front of the computer screen.

While these differences are significant, in my opinion, they do not negate the main point of the argument that the Roman Republic could be used as an analogy for current times. The key to this is that different processes can produce the same mental effects. This means the same outcomes.

People might argue that the institutions of Roman Republic and today are not the same. This might be true, but only on a physical level. On a more conceptual level, the institutions are incredibly similar.

Here we can use concepts from computer science to illustrate. Data modeling in computer science divides data models into conceptual, logical and physical levels. The conceptual level is all about the concepts and ideas, while the lower levels are about how these are implemented in practice. The logical and physical levels are where the actual set-up of the institutions shows up.

For the political system, the conceptual level has things like the people, legislative power (even though in theory the people made the laws, in reality it was the Senate), or the executive power (consuls). The system in the Roman Republic was set up as a way to check the powers of the different institutions and make sure that no one person becomes too powerful. This resulted in a division of powers, which inspired the way modern governments (such as in the US) are set up. While, in ancient Rome, there were consuls, and the US has a president, this does not really matter. On the conceptual level, these institutions are quite similar, as they are the executive powers in the state.

Another interesting parallel is powerful individuals hiding their business dealings behind front men (and making policy to benefit their business dealings). How this process worked was described in some of Cicero’s letters. Reading these writings, it is almost eerie to realize how similar corruption of yesteryear was to that of today. Powerful business interests are often tied to politicians and have quite a big influence on policy.

One important lesson that has parallels in both eras is norm breaking. Since the institutions are similar, the breaking of norms by politicians can destroy the institutions in similar ways. There is an interesting parallel in the strategy used in ancient Rome and the UK a few years: going to the people to decide. Gracchus and other Populares started going around the Senate and implemented people’s plebiscites on many issues. This is quite similar with what happened with the Brexit Referendum in the UK. These processes were easily manipulated.

There is one further point which I would like to map, and which in many ways is a quite abstract analogy. However, it could give clues to why a system that weathers numerous storms for hundreds of years, suddenly falters. There was one fundamental difference between the Rome of 100 BC when things were beginning to unravel, and the Rome of 300 BC or even 200 BC, when things seemed to be functioning.

In 100 BC, Rome was no longer a city-state, but ruled a vast empire, becoming the hegemon of the Mediterranean world. While even in earlier times, it had ruled territories outside the city, even outside of Italy, the scale and circumstances became fundamentally new and different.

These circumstances changed the rules of the game. Rome becoming an imperial power was something so fundamentally new, that the institutions that worked well in the old times were not able to adapt fast enough. A paradigm shift was occurring in the ways the world worked and the Republic collapsed under the strains. The Romans were not able to handle all the different things that were suddenly thrown at them. Chaos was the result.

A similar type of paradigm shift in how the institutions work is happening in today’s world. This is due the changes of technology, with the rise of the internet. Even more radical changes like artificial intelligence are just a stone’s throw away. Systems that are designed to work well in predictable circumstances, can get strained and cease to function properly when a curve ball is thrown at them. For the Roman Republic, this curve ball was empire, for us this curve ball is technology.

Learning Step

In the Learning Step, we come up with a generalization of what this all means for the evolution of human societies. What can we learn from history? There is a common saying that you never step in the same river twice. This is true. The water and everything floating in in is not the same. However, the underlying processes of how the rivers flows, how it deposits sediments, as well as other things are pretty much the same.

So yes, the way the sediments look after they are deposited will not be the same, but you need to look at processes. You examine one spot of the river at one time and then come back a year later. It will look a bit different. While you might not know the specificities, you can describe what general processes made it look different. You won’t be able to predict the precise way that spot will look one year from now, but you can guess what processes will affect it (sediment deposits, wind, water erosion…etc.). Of course, we also need to keep in mind the possibility of big unpredictable events, which can mess all this up. Maybe a major storm might hit and destroy everything. As history often reminds us, “black swan” events can often out of nowhere and totally change the course of history.

There is also the question of the inevitability of outcomes. What we need to distinguish here are the role of trends versus human agency. Here you can use counterfactuals to judge what if scenarios. What would have happened if Sulla had not taken his army to Rome? It is likely that at some point some other general would have done it. This is because there were strong trends in place, which made this quite inevitable. With armies in the field after the Social War and these armies becoming more loyal to their commanders than the state after the reforms of Marius, it was just a matter of time before one or the other ambitious general used them for his own interests.

What role can you attribute to humans in the course of events? Some events are likely to happen no matter which person actually triggers it, but some are highly dependent on the person. For example World War I. was triggered after the assassination of archduke Ferdinand, but even if that had not happened, something else would have triggered it. The conditions were ripe. Once the tipping point is reached, almost anything can set off the spark to start the conflict.

However the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander were highly dependent on Alexander, since he was the one who came up with the idea (or rather his father Philip). If Alexander had not been in charge of Macedonia, it is quite unlikely that another person would have attempted to conquer the Persian Empire.

Another important thing to keep in mind is the question of causes versus symptoms. What is the cause of an event and what is its symptom? This can be quite hard to distinguish, but causes are usually large processes, fed by feedback loops, while symptoms are specific manifestations of these processes. For example, Trump is a symptom of the current malaise. This means that even if he didn’t show up, someone else like him would likely have come along and taken advantage of the situation. There are different brands of populists across the world today, but they are all using similar underlying processes that carry them to power.

However, the arrival of someone like Trump further destabilizes the situation, which then creates greater chaos. This is because the different feedback loops working in the background are reflexive, meaning that they reinforce each other. Both the causes and effects affect each other, with no one being able to tell which is the cause and which is the effect after a while.

What is the answer to all these problems? For the ancients it was using reason (using system 2 in the words of modern psychology researchers). However the questions remains, can we beat out the pitfalls of human nature by using the brain?

There are specific conditions in our modern societies today, that are giving rise to specific behaviors. This is quite similar to what was happening in the ancient Roman Republic. People argue whether nature or nurture is more influential in human behavior. The bell curve model that I explained is agnostic to whether character comes from nature, individual willpower, or nurture.

I believe that all these have an effect on how a human behaves. Nature gives each individual human certain predispositions for behavior and certain traits, however individual willpower and nurture can push these to the background and sometimes even change them.

I am a big believer that as an individual you are not just a slave to your genetic predispositions, but through your own willpower can rise above them to a certain extent. Virtuous character and acting right for the right reasons can be maintained under any circumstances. Yes, it can be shaken, and you will sometimes have to make some moral concessions, but overall there is never a need to descent to the pits of evil.

What is key is to build a resilient system, one that can withstand the swings of human nature. History has cycles, but with certain measures it should be possible to stop these cycles or at least diminish them. According to Polybius, the mixed form of government of Rome was able to diminish the functioning of these cycles, and prevented wanna-be kings from arising.

Turns out that this wasn’t enough. Even the most resilient systems can succumb to powerful forces. The separation of powers in the US has been able to keep the country stable for a long time, however as can be seen from things like the Civil War, certain processes can overwhelm even the best of systems.

Things don’t have to only go from bad to worse. There is precedence for societies changing for the better. One example is the lessening of corruption in Sweden. Sweden went from one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, one where everything was for sale, to one of the least corrupt ones.

On the other hand, the Roman Republic entered a vicious cycle, where it went from one of the least corrupt societies in the Mediterranean, one based on honor, to a corrupt, hedonistic cesspool. Decadence took over, which had a negative effect on how people behaved in society.

This brings us to the concept of a behavioral sink. The environment around you has a huge influence on how people act, which can be seen from some pretty unusual experiments that were undertaken in the 1950s and 60s. Researchers built a series of rat and mouse paradises, habitats which were meant to provide all the food and housing needs of its inhabitants and keep them free from predators. Then they introduced a small number of rats (in some experiments it was mice) into these habitats and watched what happened.

After a time of exploration, the rats settled in and started reproducing. Since all their needs were provided for, their populations exploded rapidly. However, after a time, weird things started happening. Dominant males built their harems, which consisted of a lot of females and a small number of select males who completely withdrew from doing anything productive and just ended up spending the entire day grooming themselves. The rest of the rejected males started congregating in some sections of the habitats. Some of them withdrew from society entirely, while others became violent and attacked anything that moved.

Decadence set in and rat society started disintegrating. The differences between the males were huge. Some had access to harems of females, while the majority did not have access to even one. With many of the rats congregating around a select number of feeding stations, social interactions became stressful.

After a while, all out war erupted, and even the alpha males had trouble defending their harems and territories. In these chaotic times, the females stopped building nests and even threw out their babies. At one point, no more babies survived into adulthood. Society disintegrated and collapsed.

Yet, there was no problem with food, predators, or shelter. These habitats provided for all of them, creating a prosperous society. Instead of calming everyone down, stress pervaded everywhere. The same rats that acted normally before, started behaving in abnormal ways.

The Roman Republic also underwent its behavioral sink. After the Punic Wars, it became a prosperous society overall, and its outside threats were eliminated. The population increased exponentially. Yet the social divisions grew worse too. The rich hoarded all the money and resources, while the poor got poorer. The select number of alpha rats monopolized most of the females and the best locations, while most of the other male rats ended up with nothing. The elites in Rome monopolized the farmlands and other resources, while many sections of the populations were kicked off their lands and couldn’t even find work.

The fact that the population skyrocketed and the space was limited, meant that the population had to battle over limited space and resources. The historians who came up with the theory of cliodynamics proposed that elite competition was an important factor in the downfall of the Republic. The population of the nobles grew, yet the number of places at the top was as limited as ever. There were still only a limited number of senators, and a small number of magistrate positions, including two consuls every year. While in the past, many of these nobles would be able to satisfy their ambitions in rising up the hierarchy, in a situation where there are a lot of them, this was no longer guaranteed. Battles for positions started.

We might be experiencing a behavioral sink now. While, there are significant differences between humans and rats, what happened in the rat utopias can serve as a warning sign. Certain conditions changed the behavior of the inhabitants, which led to a collapse of the society. Even though the utopias had all the resources needed for their inhabitants and protected them from outside predators, decadence set in and social interactions helped start a vicious circle, which spiraled down until society was destroyed.

We live in societies which are the most prosperous in history, yet the conditions seem to be stuck in a vicious cycle which is spiraling down. Social interactions are stressful, causing many people to withdraw from society, while others become more aggressive. The differences between the haves and have-nots are getting wider and wider, not just in terms of money, but also in social dynamics for many guys (a small percentage has harems of women, while others struggle to even get a date). City life is further adding to the every day stresses of large parts of the population, and the rise of social media is taking over social interactions.

This all leads to more and more frustration, which can lead to anger, and the rise of dark forces like populism, which further polarize society, leading it down to potentially bad places.

Read More:
This is Part 2 of a series on using historical analogies to describe current events. Read Part 1 here:
Why the fall of the Roman Republic is a good analogy for today’s chaotic time – Part 1.

Further articles to read:

Article 1:
The dangerous trends that are shaking up the world today.

Article 2:
11 lessons from the fall of the Roman Republic. It is disturbing how relevant they are for today.

Article 3:
At what point of the fall of the Roman Republic are we?

Article on forming analogies:
The method to create good analogies.

Images: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

In August 2002, Donald Rumsfeld, the then US Secretary of Defense, drew a parallel between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. This is the type of thinking that drove the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, with colossal consequences.

A bad historical analogy can blind the thinking of the decision makers and put them on a path for disaster. Comparing Hussein and Hitler gave the leaders a set path to follow. Either bring down Hussein or be faced with a genocidal world war in the future.

Turns out, Saddam, the homicidal maniac that he was, was no Hitler. He had no weapons of mass destruction and barely controlled his own country. However, the fact that the decision makers in the US administration thought of him as Hitler, gave them tunnel vision. It was certainly a huge factor for the fatal decision to invade Iraq.

Leaders, whether in the government or business, are often faced with tough decisions. A strategy that they frequently employ to get out of this conundrum is the use of historical analogies. This can be a flash of brilliance or a complete disaster. The success of the decision these leaders make is very dependent on the analogy picked.

Some analogies are very close matches, while other analogies might seem very enticing, but in reality are far from similar. Under the surface, there could be many crucial, underlying differences. It is deciding which analogy is a close match, and which is just a mirage, that will determine whether you succeed or fail.

The historical analogies that are often thrown around when describing certain situations are vast. In the US, the most common ones are Vietnam (and being stuck in an unwinnable war), the Marshall Plan (giving aid to countries to rebuild them after a catastrophe), or even the Thucydides Trap (to describe the power relationships between countries).

Especially the Thucydides Trap has been getting a lot of traction lately to describe the current relationship between China and the US. This analogy is based on this quote from ancient Greek historian Thucydides when writing about what caused the Peloponnesian War.

“What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta.”
from “History of the Peloponnesian War” by Thucydides

The danger here is that this type of thinking can drive US policy on a collision course with China. Whether it applies in this case or not is up for debate.

However, in today’s world we are faced with many other problems. One of these is the increasing polarization of societies, and the rise of populism, which could spell danger for democracy.

Here, I have tried to use the fall of the Roman Republic analogy in order to inform us on the situation of today. Sometimes, people use the analogy of the fall of the Western Roman Empire for this, but for me, there are some distinctions between the two cases that don’t make it a perfect analogy (although some things are relevant for today as well). The fall of the Roman Republic is a much better analogy to use.

So far, I have written three articles that use the analogy of the fall of the Roman Republic as the basis.

The first article, of over 20 thousand words, has a more direct comparison and a detailed description of today’s situation, with lessons learnt.
The dangerous trends that are shaking up the world today.

The second article, of over 40 thousand words, goes back to the ancient sources themselves, and tries to look at the fall through their eyes, drawing lessons from their insights. Here I have gone through many of the writings of the authors that survived from Antiquity and gather their wisdom, so that we can benefit from it even today. It is worth the read.
11 lessons from the fall of the Roman Republic. It is disturbing how relevant they are for today.

The third article, is a short and fun one, where I try to situate the current events on a timeline of the fall of the Roman Republic.
At what point of the fall of the Roman Republic are we?

Why is the fall of the Roman Republic an incredibly relevant analogy for today?

In an article on how to solve problems using analogies, I described the different steps needed to form a good analogy in order to solve a problem. Most people do this subconsciously in their heads, but you can sometimes do these steps overtly as well.

When you do this more overt deliberate reasoning, it is easier to determine whether the analogy you are using is the right one or not. However, before doing that, let’s take a step back and look at the initial assumptions that are key to this. These assumptions are very important in judging whether the analogy makes sense or not. You always have to keep in mind the assumptions that you are making when drawing up your model.

My first assumption is that humans are not rational actors. This can be proven quite easily by the fact that we still buy lottery tickets (despite the fact that the probability of winning the jackpot is miniscule), we still gamble (despite the fact that the game is rigged in the casino’s favor), and we still fall for bubbles (despite the fact that in the past few decades we have been burned by real estate bubbles, Dot.Com bubbles, and financial stock bubbles).

My second assumption is that human nature is the same as it was 2000 years ago. Sure, technology and society has changed, but the underlying processes in the brain haven’t. Sure, culture does have an effect on how you act, but the underlying processes of human nature still have a much stronger, determining pull.

Even if some aspects of culture are different in the different eras, the way humans work is still fundamentally the same. As Cicero stated, it does not matter that the Egyptians worship cats and dogs, and the Romans something else, the underlying process of superstition is the same in both nations.

The third assumption I am making is that due to the fact that human nature is quite irrational, and that there is a heavy negativity bias in the actions of most humans, there is a tendency for conditions in society to degenerate.

The way this works can be shown using game theory. When you have two people, they have two options either to cheat or not to cheat. In the first round of the game, one person cheats, and the other doesn’t. The person who cheats wins. This then pushes the other person to cheat in the next round of the game as well, since by staying honest, he would lose.

Another example of this type of process is the so-called tragedy of the commons. As Aristotle already noted millennia ago:

“What is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest.”
from “Politics” by Aristotle

In each of these examples, a race to the bottom starts and negative forces keep on gaining momentum. At some point, there is so much cheating in the system that the system collapses and resets itself. However, that takes a long time.

Human nature doesn’t change, just different traits and behaviors get activated based on specific situations. Similar types of processes can also be used to model the rise of altruistic behavior. Unfortunately as this type of behavior rises, cheaters will start popping up, which once again will start a race to the bottom. History is just a continuous cycle of these ebbs and flows.

Another model that we can use to show what happens in society during a fall is the bell curve. Let’s imagine that the different traits of human nature are spread out in a normal distribution, with a small number of selfish psychopaths on the total extreme right of the curve, and the selfless altruists on the extreme right of the curve. Most people would tend to be spread around the middle, neither too selfish or too altruistic.

The conditions in society at this time are normal, and so they don’t activate the more extreme behaviors among most people. Recent research on epigenetics has shown that even if you have a gene that gives you a certain tendency, it doesn’t mean that this tendency will arise. Usually an outside push from the environment around you is needed to trigger it.

Then, something in the outside environment changes, which awakens these traits among certain people in the population, which pushes the bell curve to the right. The result is more people in the population with more extreme traits and behaviors, which can have unforeseen negative consequences on society. If you apply the principles of chaos theory to this situation, you can see that a slight shift can have a huge effect in what happens next.

Let’s use the analogy of climate change to get a better picture of what can happen. You start off with a bell curve where you have a certain number of very cold days, and a certain number of very hot days, but most days tend to fall into the middle range. However, noxious gases and pollution in the environment changes things and pushes the bell curve to shift to the right.

Now you have a larger number of really hot days, the number of really cold days goes down, and the average is slightly more overall. However, this change can have a huge impact on the environment. Rivers can dry up, fields can yield less crops, which all then has an effect on nature and the humans living in that area. These changes then further accelerate the negative environment around, and degrade everything even more.

Slight shifts in the bell curve of normal human behavior can have huge impacts on what happens in society. Just like a slight shift of the temperature bell curve produces big changes in the environment, so can slight shifts of the way humans behave in society have a big impact on the course of events in a country.

Some series on TV explore this really well. In “The Walking Dead”, the series starts off in the normal world. The main characters have normal jobs as accountants, lawyers, policemen, or storekeepers. However, when the zombie apocalypse hits, they are forced to trigger some traits that in a normal situation would never get triggered. So a quiet accountant in normal society ends up being a sadistic dictator in a zombie infested world.

Experiments on human psychology, especially on social influence, have demonstrated how things like this can happen. In the Milgram experiment, the subject was told to push buttons to give electric shocks to people. Just because an authority was telling them to do that, many people complied. Even more striking is the Stanford prison experiment, which divided up students into groups of guards and prisoners. These roles ended up triggering many latent traits and encouraging some despicable behaviors among the different participants, including some of the guards turning quite sadistic.

There have been more recent experiments, which have looked at the impact of corruption. A group of researchers conducted a game of dice in 23 countries in order to measure the propensity to cheat among different societies. There was a strong correlation between the propensity to stretch the truth and the level of corruption in the country where the player comes from. The conclusion was that it was likely that the pervasive corruption in a society had an influence on how people viewed it and on their behavior.

All these studies and experiments show that it is not just the normal every day personality that defines how a person acts, but the situation and the environment have a huge effect as well. This is quite important for further developments in a society. Even if overall, some people might have a strong character, and despite situational and environmental pressures manage to keep it, other people might falter under these pressures.

Even if the number of additional people who succumb to these influences is small, this can have a huge effect on the overall state of affairs in society. This is due to the fact that numerous feedback loops create themselves, further reinforcing the effect, piling on top of each other, just like a snowball piles on more snow as it rolls downhill.

When you are looking at the fall of the Roman Republic, or the current state of affairs in politics in the modern world, you are looking at systems. Numerous factors and players are interacting in different ways, causing changes. The feedback loop is an important concept to keep in mind. A positive feedback loop amplifies the changes in a system, while a negative feedback loop tries to keep the status quo.

Let’s take an example from ecology in order to illustrate these two concepts. Imagine a population of rabbits is introduced into a territory where it didn’t exist before. They find the environment promising, with plenty of food and good weather. The rabbits start breeding, the kids grow up, and produce more rabbits. The more adults you have, the more kids you will have, which then creates a loop that keeps reproducing itself and reinforcing the exponential growth of the population. This is a positive feedback loop.

However, at one point the population outgrows the food supply, which causes mass starvation among the rabbits. Furthermore, the rabbits are easy food for predators, which attracts plenty of them to the area. These factors then start working on lowering the population of the rabbits. This is a negative feedback loop.

What you need to remember about feedback loops is that the causal relationships between the different parts of the system are often hard to determine. One part of the system reinforces another part of the system, which then reinforces a third one, which then ends up augmenting the first one. In this way, the different factors work together to create a final effect.

Positive feedback loops can create vicious circles, which make bad things even worse. Humans have often been compared to herds, since they frequently behave like one. Just like in any herd, one small thing can be the start of a massive panic. In a cattle herd, a small number of cows can get freaked out and start running, seeing this, other cows start running. The more cows are running, the more of an effect this will have on the other cows, who will start running as well. All this works on reinforcing the panic.

Just like in the environment, feedback loops are behind what happens in human societies. Some of these feedback loops work to keep the status quo, while other ones cause massive changes to the society. With positive feedback loops, different factors come together to magnify the shifts. These feedback loops are the mechanisms which move the bell curve to the left or right, or keep it stable.

This is how we can explain what happened in Roman society at the time that led to the fall of the Republic. In previous times of Roman history, human traits like greed, envy, ambition, but also altruism were all there. They still drove how people behaved, but the bell curve was shifted to the left, so the overall environment tended to trigger more positive behaviors. The situation in Rome after the Punic Wars shifted the bell curve to the right, which ended up triggering negative behaviors much more, with the resultant chaos bringing about the fall of the Republic.

This analogy of the Roman Republic has an incredible demonstration power for what is happening in the world today. In the past decades, the bell curve has shifted to the right, which has triggered more negative traits among large sections of the population. The bone-headedness was always there, but now it is just more prominent. This could spell trouble for the future.

What is interesting for us to observe, is how things in Roman society degenerated and led to the rise of one man rule. It was not a quick process, but took over a hundred years of gradual change, with small changes, such as the breaking of norms, piling up on top of each other, until at one point the country ended up in civil war. In no way does this mean that we are heading to a civil war as well, instead we should look at the events of that era as a warning sign and adjust course so that history does not repeat itself.

This is Part 1 of the series on using historical analogies for current events. Read Part 2 here:
Analogy fall of Roman Republic and current events – Part 2.

Read More:
Article 1:
The dangerous trends that are shaking up the world today.

Article 2:
11 lessons from the fall of the Roman Republic. It is disturbing how relevant they are for today.

Article 3:
At what point of the fall of the Roman Republic are we?

Article on forming analogies:
The method to create good analogies.

Images: 1, 2

The process took over a hundred years to complete, but once the momentum was strong enough, it became almost impossible to stop. Despite the wishful thinking of some individuals, who thought they could still save the old ways, things had degenerated so much that one man rule became almost inevitable.

Some historians label the Social War of 91 – 88 BC as the point of no return. The war left ambitious Roman generals with armies in the field, and in a city where political norms had been slipping for decades, it didn’t take long for these generals to start using their soldiers against other Romans. The era of civil wars had started.

The thing is, that despite all the chaos, few people could predict that their Republic would die, especially in the early stages of the process.

There are striking parallels between what is happening now, in the US and many other countries around the world, and what happened then. Of course, the analogy is not perfect. Our world has evolved since that time. We have new types of norms, and more advanced technologies.

However, human nature is still the same as it was two thousand years ago. Similar processes can provoke similar responses. Paradoxically, all the advanced technology that we have, actually magnifies the effect. Polarization is creeping up on us, and we need to wake up before it is too late.

It is fun to compare different eras and see where we are on the timeline. While no era is the same, we cannot ignore the striking similarities. So at what point of the fall of the Roman Republic are we?

I had previously written two articles that go into the parallels between the fall of the Roman Republic and today in much greater detail.

I had carefully gone through many of the ancient sources into the fall of the Roman Republic and tried to pick out some insights that we could use to learn lessons.

Ancient historians, politicians, and philosophers left some valuable writings that can help us understand what went wrong. In this post I quote from the ancients themselves:

11 lessons from the fall of the Roman Republic.

In another post (which is around 21 000 words), I try to analyze in greater detail the time of the fall of the Republic, the forces at play, and then compare and contrast them with today:

The dangerous trends that are shaking up the world today.

The fall of the Roman Republic did not happen overnight, but after a series of events that spanned over a century. Most ancient commentators agree that the initial conditions that facilitated the chaos came after Rome’s greatest triump, and that is the defeat of Carthage.

Enormous riches were brought into the city, and Rome became the predominant power in the Mediterranean. This worsened the income disparities, as the rich got richer beyond their wildest dreams, and the poor got poorer with no hope of getting back up on their feet. Grievances started appearing.

In this tense atmosphere, politicians became divided into camps. Some tried to come up with solutions to try to lessen the income disparities. However, greater polarization was the result and in order to get their way, some of these politicians started going around the traditional political norms of the Republic.

Little by little, what used to be an orderly process, turned into chaos, political murders appeared, mobs started rioting in the streets. This culminated in a series of civil wars, where powerful individuals tried to satisfy their ego and ambitions and plunged the Republic into a crisis from which it never recovered.

Polarization in many countries of the northern hemisphere seems to be having similar dynamics as those of the ancient Roman Republic. Polarization is growing, populism is on the rise and demagogues are getting more power. If this trend continues, we could be headed for a much more chaotic time.

Let’s do a fun little exercise and place the current developments on the timeline of ancient Rome. For the US, I think the place that is most similar is around 103 BC, when Saturninus was elected tribune, and entered into an alliance with Marius, who was at the height of his power as a consecutive consul, and later also Glaucia, a powerful senator.

Together, they held the power in the state, supported by mobs made up of plebs and army veterans. Their chief opposition were the conservative senators led by several members of the Metellus family.

This was the time of growing polarization and tensions, and terminated in angry mobs rioting, Saturninus and Glaucia ordering the murder of a popular candidate for consul, and then themselves being arrested and killed by an angry mob.

If you look at other countries, the UK and France seem to have even greater polarization than the US, with France already having angry mobs in the streets setting fire to things. I would say these countries are already after the 100 BC mark.

Russia has already completed the full cycle of anacyclosis, with a very brief period of chaotic democracy (which was anyways dominated by oligarchs) ending around the turn of the millennium, and is in full tyrannical monarchy mode with one man running the show.

The similarities between what happened in the Roman Republic and what is happening now are striking, but they are not perfect parallels. Every age is unique, and for us technology will play a defining role, for the better or the worse.

Whenever you are drawing up a historical analogy, you also always need to keep in mind the differences as well. For as to quote Heraclitus, you never step in the same river twice.

“You cannot step twice into the same river.” Heraclitus

When you are stepping in the river, the water you are feeling is different, there are different things floating in it, and the sediment at the bottom of the river has also moved a bit.

However, there are certain principles that you are sure about, such as the properties of water (H2O), or the rules according to which the river is floating downstream. These principles is what gives you predictive capabilities about the flow of the river in the future, and where analogies of past flows can inform you on the future flows.

What we also cannot forget is the role of unforeseen events. These can strike at any time and swerve the course to totally different directions.

While in the previous post looking at the ancient sources, I had included many different wise ancients, they were all guys who lived through the era of Rome and were familiar with the city.

One ancient source I did not include was Aristotle. His work called “Politics” discussed different states and constitutions. There is an interesting remark in it, that I will quote at length, since it not only summarizes the problem that the Roman Republic later faced, but one that our own world is facing today:

“The boundaries of virtue and vice in the state must also necessarily be the same as in a private person; for the form of government is the life of the city. In every city the people are divided into three sorts; the very rich, the very poor, and those who are between them.

If this is universally admitted, that the mean is best, it is evident that even in point of fortune mediocrity is to be preferred; for that state is most submissive to reason; for those who are very handsome, or very strong, or very noble, or very rich; or, on the contrary; those who are very poor, or very weak, or very mean, with difficulty obey it; for the one are capricious and greatly flagitious, the other rascally and mean, the crimes of each arising from their different excesses: nor will they go through the different offices of the state; which is detrimental to it.

Besides, those who excel in strength, in riches, or friends, or the like, neither know how nor are willing to submit to command: and this begins at home when they are boys; for there they are brought up too delicately to be accustomed to obey their preceptors: as for the very poor, their general and excessive want of what the rich enjoy reduces them to a state too mean: so that the one know not how to command, but to be commanded as slaves, the others know not how to submit to any command, nor to command themselves but with despotic power.

A city composed of such men must therefore consist of slaves and masters, not freemen; where one party must hate, and the other despise, where there could be no possibility of friendship or political community: for community supposes affection; for we do not even on the road associate with our enemies. It is also the genius of a city to be composed as much as possible of equals; which will be most so when the inhabitants are in the middle state: from whence it follows, that that city must be best framed which is composed of those whom we say are naturally its proper members.

It is men of this station also who will be best assured of safety and protection; for they will neither covet what belongs to others, as the poor do; nor will others covet what is theirs, as the poor do what belongs to the rich; and thus, without plotting against any one, or having any one plot against them, they will live free from danger: for which reason Phocylides wisely wishes for the middle state, as being most productive of happiness.

It is plain, then, that the most perfect political community must be amongst those who are in the middle rank, and those states are best instituted wherein these are a larger and more respectable part, if possible, than both the other; or, if that cannot be, at least than either of them separate; so that being thrown into the balance it may prevent either scale from preponderating.

It is therefore the greatest happiness which the citizens can enjoy to possess a moderate and convenient fortune; for when some possess too much, and others nothing at all, the government must either be in the hands of the meanest rabble or else a pure oligarchy; or, from the excesses of both, a tyranny; for this arises from a headstrong democracy or an oligarchy, but very seldom when the members of the community are nearly on an equality with each other. We will assign a reason for this when we come to treat of the alterations which different states are likely to undergo.

 
The middle state is therefore best, as being least liable to those seditions and insurrections which disturb the community; and for the same reason extensive governments are least liable to these inconveniences; for there those in a middle state are very numerous, whereas in small ones it is easy to pass to the two extremes, so as hardly to have any in a medium remaining, but the one half rich, the other poor: and from the same principle it is that democracies are more firmly established and of longer continuance than oligarchies; but even in those when there is a want of a proper number of men of middling fortune, the poor extend their power too far, abuses arise, and the government is soon at an end.”
from “Politics” by Aristotle

Read More:

11 lessons from the fall of the Roman Republic.

The dangerous trends that are shaking up the world today.

After almost 500 years of continuous history, the Roman Republic was no more. A remarkable achievement of human spirit, the Republic had survived many tumultuous events. It presided over the expansion of Rome from an insignificant city-state on the Tiber River to a hegemonic power. Its territories spread on all sides of the Mediterranean Sea.

While not perfect, its rule of law guaranteed Roman citizens certain rights like free speech, and a say in choosing their leaders. Considering that it lasted for so long, this way of arranging public affairs stands out in history. While democracies did appear from time to time, their life under the sun was usually brief. The states reverted back to the usual pattern of autocracy pretty quickly. However, not Rome. For centuries, it stayed a republic.

At that moment, the senators applauding Augustus, and the people cheering outside, did not realize they had signed away their freedom. Under the coming Roman Empire, the people would no longer vote for their leaders. Institutions like the Senate became mere rubber-stamping bodies. The rule by many was replaced by the rule of one man.

After a century of chaos and war, the people probably felt relieved they no longer had to live in the uncertainty of political unrest. This was a temporary illusion. In time, this peace was supplanted by even greater terrors. For the autocratic rulers of the Empire grew more and more despotic, destroying the rights and freedoms the people had previously enjoyed during the times of the Republic.

All this happened more than two thousand years ago, in a time in many ways unlike our own. While many people may regard history as bunk, studying the past is an incredibly relevant subject in any era. A recording of the actions of people under different circumstances and in various eras, it is a real treasure trove of lessons and examples.

“It is the mental transference of similar circumstances to our own times that gives us the means of forming presentiments of what is about to happen, and enables us at certain times to take precautions and at others, by reproducing future conditions to face with more confidence the difficulties that menace us.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

History can teach us a lot about the present, because it can show us analogies from what happened in the past. Human nature stays the same throughout the ages and similar conditions can give rise to similar outcomes. What needs to be kept in mind is that these are not perfect predictions for the future, but instead warning signs of possible troubled times ahead. History can inform us on the choices to make and the policies to enact, but it is up to us to pick the way ahead.

The Roman Republic serves as a telling analogy for the present state of chaos, not only in the United States, but around the world. Reading about the events of two thousand years ago, of times long gone, you get a feeling of how familiar all that is to you. Unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the general grievances of people, increasing polarization between different groups turning into political unrest and violence. This was the Rome of the 1st century BC.

Today, what we are experiencing is the rise of populism and rule by mobs, dangerously undermining our freedom and prosperity, and threatening the very future of our republics. It is almost eerie how many parallels there are between that era and our current times.

“Today is the pupil of yesterday.”
from “Moral Maxims” by Publilius Syrus

While an analysis that examines the chaotic times of today and compares them to the conditions of yesteryear can be quite revealing, a look back at the ancient sources themselves can paint a picture that illuminates the human condition in a much more powerful way. Through the words of ancient politicians, historians, and philosophers, we can get a snapshot of what happened then, and what could happen again, if we are not careful.

The need to study history is reflected in a famous passage from Livy’s monumental history of Rome called “From the Foundation of the City”:

“The subjects to which I would ask each of my readers to devote his earnest attention are these-the life and morals of the community; the men and the qualities by which through domestic policy and foreign war dominion was won and extended. Then as the standard of morality gradually lowers, let him follow the decay of the national character, observing how at first it slowly sinks, then slips downward more and more rapidly, and finally begins to plunge into headlong ruin, until he reaches these days, in which we can neither endure our diseases nor face the remedies needed to cure them.

There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

History can teach us lessons without us having to make the same mistakes as in the past. As ancient historian Polybius noted, there are two ways to learn: from your own mistakes, and from those of others. The second option is much less painful than the first one.

“This I mention for the sake of the improvement of the readers of this history. For there are two ways by which all men can reform themselves, the one through their own mischances, the other through those of others, and of these the former is the more impressive, but the latter less hurtful.

Therefore we should never choose the first method if we can help it, as it corrects by means of great pain and peril, but ever pursue the other, since by it we can discern what is best without suffering hurt. Reflecting on this we should regard as the best discipline for actual life the experience that accrues from serious history.

For this alone makes us, without inflicting any harm on us, the most competent judges of what is best at every time and in every circumstance.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

Polybius described government types as occurring in cycles, a process he called “anacyclosis”. First you have a monarchy, which degenerates into a tyranny, which is then replaced by an aristocracy, which then degenerates into oligarchy. At this stage, the people rebel and create a democracy. However, democracies have a tendency to degenerate into chaos and mob-rule, a state of affairs that Polybius called an “ochlocracy”.

Once this chaotic state of affairs gets unbearable, the people start clamoring for peace and order. Usually one man steps up promising to bring this about and the cycle resets itself back into a monarchy.

This is exactly what happened in Ancient Rome.

“Learn to see in another’s calamity the ills which you should avoid.”
from “Moral Maxims” by Publilius Syrus

1) Large economic disparities can lead to grievances

Large economic disparities between those at the top and those at the bottom are like a powder keg waiting to explode. An unequal distribution of wealth can lead to many social problems, with the poor becoming more and more dissatisfied and voicing their grievances. In countries with greater economic equality, there is more social cohesion and people tend to trust each other more. When the inequalities start growing, this cohesion is lost and trust diminishes.

“Affairs at home and in the field were managed according to the will of a few men, in whose hands were the treasury, the provinces, public offices, glory and triumphs. The people were burdened with military service and poverty. The generals divided the spoils of war with a few friends. Meanwhile the parents or little children of the soldiers, if they had a powerful neighbor, were driven from their homes.

Thus, by the side of power, greed arose, unlimited and unrestrained, violated and devastated everything, respected nothing, and held nothing sacred, until it finally brought about its own downfall. For as soon as nobles were found who preferred true glory to unjust power, the state began to be disturbed and civil dissension to arise like an upheaval of the earth.”
from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

After the end of the Punic Wars, an economic scissor effect came to heed in the Republic. The rich got richer beyond their wildest dreams, while the poor got poorer. After a series of conflicts, soldiers returning to their farms, found them in disarray, had to take on great debt, and then ended up selling them. The buyers came from the rich upper classes, who got vast amounts of money because of the plunder and the trade that came with the Roman control of the Mediterranean Sea.

“Thus certain powerful men became extremely rich and the race of slaves multiplied throughout the country, while the Italian people dwindled in numbers and strength, being oppressed by penury, taxes, and military service. If they had any respite from these evils they passed their time in idleness, because the land was held by the rich, who employed slaves instead of freemen as cultivators.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

While the upper classes acquired new lands to farm, and lots of money, the poor were reduced to dire conditions. After losing their lands, they would often lose their houses as well, and would need to wander around the country in search of work. Unfortunately, work was hard to come by, as many of the tasks were being overwhelmingly done by slaves.

“But they accomplished nothing; for Tiberius, striving to support a measure which was honorable and just with an eloquence that would have adorned even a meaner cause, was formidable and invincible, whenever, with the people crowding around the rostra, he took his stand there and pleaded for the poor:

“The wild beasts that roam over Italy,” he would say, “have every one of them a cave or lair to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy the common air and light, indeed, but nothing else; houseless and homeless they wander about with their wives and children.”

“And it is with lying lips that their imperators exhort the soldiers in their battles to defend sepulchers and shrines from the enemy; for not a man of them has an hereditary altar, not one of all these many Romans an ancestral tomb, but they fight and die to support others in wealth and luxury, and though they are styled masters of the world, they have not a single clod of earth that is their own.””
from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

Early Roman society was composed of citizen farmers, tilling their lands, and making a decent living off their produce. From time to time, they would get called up to serve in the army and defend Rome. While there were divisions between the lower class plebeians, and the upper class patricians, in reality the income disparities between these two classes were not that great. In the advent of the Roman Republic, even the generals farmed the land.

“The fact, we have every reason to believe, that in those days the lands were tilled by the hands of generals even, the soil exulting beneath a plough-share crowned with wreaths of laurel, and guided by a husbandman graced with triumphs.”
from “The Natural History” by Pliny the Elder

This is how it was all throughout history, until the era of the Punic Wars changed things.

The Punic Wars were a series of wars that Rome fought against Carthage, its mortal rival for the control of the western Mediterranean. The first one happened between 264 – 241 and after a prolonged and drawn out struggle ended with the Roman annexation of the island of Sicily. The most famous of the three conflicts is the second one (218 – 201 BC), which was fought when Carthaginian commander Hannibal invaded the Italian peninsula by marching his army through the Alps.

After the defeat of Hannibal’s army, Rome became the strongest power in the Mediterranean area. Carthaginian might diminished greatly, however in the minds of many Romans, it still remained a threat. Cato the Elder ended all his speeches in the Roman Senate by clamoring for the destruction of Carthage and the elimination of this rival once and for all.

In 149 BC, this call was heard and Rome launched a war against the city. Parallel to this, the Republic entered a chain of wars in Greece, fighting Macedonia and then the Achaean League. In 148 BC, the Fourth Macedonian War ended with the subjugation of the Kingdom of Macedon.

The year 146 BC was when Rome emerged as the hegemonic power in the Western world. In that year, it defeated both Carthage and the Achaean League, and marked its dominance by razing the cities of Carthage and Corinth to the ground.

These events on the international stage, also had profound effects on the internal conditions in Rome itself. The Punic Wars marked an end of the old system in the Republic. This state of affairs led to great economic disparities between the different social classes, which caused great discontent among the worse off.

The conditions kept on worsening, and despite the efforts of reformers like the Gracchi brothers, the plebeians continued on getting poorer and poorer.

“The plebeians lost everything, and hence resulted a still further decline in the numbers both of citizens and soldiers, and in the revenue from the land and the distribution thereof and in the allotments themselves; and about fifteen years after the enactment of the law of Gracchus, by reason of a series of lawsuits, the people were reduced to unemployment.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

The Roman Republic went from a country with relative income equality among the different strata of society, to one with greater and greater inequality. The social cohesion and trust between the groups was lost and contributed to growing tensions.

“In former years you were silently indignant that the treasury was pillaged, that kings and free peoples paid tribute to a few nobles, that those nobles possessed supreme glory and vast wealth. Yet they were not satisfied with having committed with impunity these great crimes, and so at last the laws, your sovereignty, and all things human and divine have been delivered to your enemies.

And they who have done these things are neither ashamed nor sorry, but they walk in grandeur before your eyes, some flaunting their priesthoods and consulships, others their triumphs, just as if these were honors and not stolen goods.”
speech of Gaius Memmius from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

Several ancient philosophers had realized that income inequalities can bring great discord to a country. Aristotle in his treatise “Politics” even noted the importance of having a strong middle class for the stability of a state. In ancient Rome, the process that came about after the Punic Wars, not only widened the income disparities between the rich and the poor, but also led to an impoverishment of a large section of people who had in previous times been part of the middle class.

Compare this to the current state of affairs. The amount of wealth controlled by the top levels of society in the world has skyrocketed. Whereas only 30 years ago, the super-wealthy controlled only a relatively small proportion of the total income earned in a country, now the percentage has grown exponentially. This effect is most profound especially in the US, where the top 1% of the population went from earning around 7 or 8% of the total income in 1975 to earning almost 20% of the total income today!

The middle class is also getting squeezed and shrinking not just in the US, but around the world.

2) When a group of people feels that their lot in life has worsened and will keep on worsening, they might be susceptible to demagogues

When people feel that their lot in life is getting worse, simple answers to complex problems, can seem very enticing. It is very easy to be swayed by populist demagogues who promise them the Moon.

It is the relative fall in well-being that is the problem. When people can compare their current status against that of their parents or even their own previously, they are more prone to be unhappy.

“The condition of the poor became even worse than it was before.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

It is not absolute wealth that causes the greatest distress, but instead relative wealth. A person who was born poor, but is no worse off than the previous generations and his lot is stable compared to the wealthier segments of society, might not be dissatisfied and accept how things are.

When a person compares his situation either to that of himself previously or to that of another group, that is when negative feelings set in. You might be perfectly happy when you don’t have a car and neither does your neighbor. At first, you might become happier when you buy an old used car.

However, when you see that your neighbor bought a brand new Mercedes, then feelings of jealousy and unfairness set in. Keeping up with the Joneses can heighten anxiety in the population. This anxiety will get even worse, when you feel that not only are the Joneses getting richer, you are getting poorer.

“And when the rich began to offer larger rents and drove out the poor, a law was enacted forbidding the holding by one person of more than five hundred acres of land. For a short time this enactment gave a check to the rapacity of the rich, and was of assistance to the poor, who remained in their places on the land which they had rented and occupied the allotment which each had held from the outset.

But later on the neighboring rich men, by means of fictitious personages, transferred these rentals to themselves, and finally held most of the land openly in their own names.

Then the poor, who had been ejected from their land, no longer showed themselves eager for military service, and neglected the bringing up of children, so that soon all Italy was conscious of a dearth of freemen, and was filled with gangs of foreign slaves, by whose aid the rich cultivated their estates, from which they had driven away the free citizens.”
from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

In the times of the late Roman Republic, some politicians arose that tried to lessen these disparities. Some of them did have the interests of the people in heart, while others cynically just used this for their own purposes.

“Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, an illustrious man, eager for glory, a most powerful speaker, and for these reasons well known to all, delivered an eloquent discourse, while serving as tribune, concerning the Italian race, lamenting that a people so valiant in war, and related in blood to the Romans, were declining little by little into pauperism and paucity of numbers without any hope of remedy.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

Tiberius Gracchus, the man who started the revolution, was probably a genuine reformer. While he might also have had more personal goals as well, his actions showed real concern for the precarious and downtrodden members of society. However, after him several rabble-rousers arose, charismatic and usually up to no good, with an ability to stir up the masses. Men like Clodius pretended to lend a sympathetic ear to the needs of the downtrodden, while at the same time pursuing their own agendas.

Clodius, being a very innovative populist politician, gained a big popularity with the crowds. He was one of the most recognizable rabble-rousers of the mid-1st century BC. Originally born as a patrician, he realized that leading the plebs might be a better way to power and so organized his own adoption by a plebeian (and a man younger than himself!) in order to become a plebeian himself.

After getting himself elected as plebeian tribune, he promulgated a series of laws that were a mix of common sense checks on powers of the magistrates, populist policies like free grain distribution, and self-serving ones such as the expulsion of Cicero from the city, or making the organization of clubs of semi-political nature (in practice organized gangs) legal.

This act on the organization of gangs unleashed a wave of bloodshed, as rival political gangs started fighting each other in the streets. This ultimately cost Clodius his life, as he died in one of the confrontations against the gang of Milo, a rival gang-leader who supported the aristocrats.

Clodius was described as extremely arrogant and not above using any means necessary to get his way. He was very good at getting the crowds worked up to a fever point, and then having them do his bidding.

He would often use the worsening conditions of the people he was talking to as a way to get them to do what he wanted. In this way, he took advantage of the mental state of the poorer and exploited sections of society to get more power and advance his career.

“They therefore gladly listened to Clodius also, and called him the soldier’s friend. For he pretended to be incensed in their behalf, if there was to be no end of their countless wars and toils, but they were rather to wear out their lives in fighting with every nation and wandering over every land, receiving no suitable reward for such service, but convoying the waggons and camels of Lucullus laden with golden beakers set with precious stones.

All this, while the soldiers of Pompey, citizens now, were snugly ensconced with wives and children in the possession of fertile lands and prosperous cities, — not for having driven Mithridates and Tigranes into uninhabitable deserts, nor for having demolished the royal palaces of Asia, but for having fought with wretched exiles in Spain and runaway slaves in Italy.

“Why, then,” he would cry, “if our campaigns are never to come to an end, do we not reserve what is left of our bodies, and our lives, for a general in whose eyes the wealth of his soldiers is his fairest honor?””
from “The Life of Lucullus” by Plutarch

Clodius was not the only person that was a master at using the negative emotions of the poor crowds. Catiline, the guy who decided to stage a coup d’etat after he lost his election for consul, also got a lot of support from the discontented masses.

“In general the whole plebs approved of Catiline’s undertaking, from an inclination for new things. In this it seemed to act according to its custom. For always in a state those who have no resources envy the propertied, admire evil men, hate established things and long for new ones, and from discontent with their own position they desire everything to be changed.”
from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

It is not just material conditions, loss of money or jobs that are the problem, but also the quality of the jobs. When the prospect of getting a good job, adequate to your level, even after years of study and hard work diminishes, it can have a negative impact on your psyche. This is something that was noticed by Libanius, a teacher of rhetoric, who lived in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, at a time when Christianity was taking over and the conditions in the country were rapidly declining.

While the conditions in late Empire were a bit different from those in the late Republic, what Libanius noticed is pertinent for any era. Even after years of hard studies, him and his pupils could not get the jobs that the previous generations could get. Instead, the jobs went to people with connections, and usually also a lack of education.

“What profit will I gain from these countless labors, by which I must pore through many poets, many orators, and every other kind of written work, if the end result of my sweat and toil is that I myself wander about in dishonor, while another achieves prosperity?”
from “Orations” by Libanius

A sense of injustice or a feeling of vulnerability have been identified as some of the factors that can lead to anxiety. This can result in the idea of being mistreated by a specific group or just the world in general. These types of feelings are usually accompanied by a sense of powerlessness and lack of control.

Populist demagogues can easily take advantage of the negative mindset that sets in a situation of relative loss of status and wealth. They will assure you that it is not your fault and someone else is to blame. They will start offering simple answers on how this can be solved. Most of all, they will make you feel like someone actually cares about your problem. This can become very enticing and can sway many people.

For people when they feel that they are being treated unjustly, become quite desperate, which makes them prone to fall for populist promises.

“For men, when they feel unjustly treated, are wont to become desperate.”
from “Secret History” by Procopius

These feelings of unfair treatment might be justified or not, but it is usually not objective facts that drive a person’s behavior, but rather subjective feelings. A subjective feeling of a fall in well-being can have very similar effects on a person’s sense of things getting worse, as much as an objective, measurable fall in well-being can.

This realization that the subjective interpretation of events plays an important role in human affairs was a key aspect of Stoic teachings. Ancient Stoic philosophers realized that it is usually not the event itself that matters, but how you interpret it. Emotions stir themselves inside everyone, but they work only if you give assent to them.

“If you are pained by any external thing, it is not this thing that disturbs you, but your own judgement about it.”
from “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius

This is how the world works. Most people give assent to their subjective feelings, whether on the emotional interpretation of their perceived problems or on the solutions that are being offered to solve them. On the positive side, emotions can push people to try to do something about a real problem. On the negative side, they can also exaggerate problems to bigger proportions and make some populist solutions seem attractive.

Emotions are a double-edged sword and need to be managed properly, which is something that many of the ancient philosophical schools tried to teach people to do. However, these techniques never entered the tool-belt of most people. It is hard even for a philosopher-king to keep his emotions in check when adversity hits, so when the personal situation of a huge chunk of the population declines (whether in reality or in imagination), you will have trouble ahead.

The problem today is that many people in the developed world feel as if they are worse off than previous generations and that the next generations will be even worse off than now. They feel as if they are losing control. That is why such huge chunks of the population are prone to demagogic politicians.

3) Anger can lead to polarization, which is a step away from violence

Many demagogues use the tactic of swaying emotions to get power. Emotional persuasion is much more effective than logical persuasion. And what is the most powerful emotion? Anger.

The ancient commentators realized the dangers of anger for the individual, but also for society. The reason why this is so, is because this emotion circumvents reason and makes people behave in a brainless way, often leading to aggressiveness. Modern research has confirmed the strong links between anger and aggression.

“Some of the wisest of men have called anger a short madness: for it is equally devoid of self control, regardless of decorum, forgetful of kinship, obstinately engrossed in whatever it begins to do, deaf to reason and advice, excited by trifling causes, awkward at perceiving what is true and just, and very like a falling rock which breaks itself to pieces upon the very thing which it crushes.

That you may know that they whom anger possesses are not sane, look at their appearance; for as there are distinct symptoms which mark madmen, such as a bold and menacing air, a gloomy brow, a stern face, a hurried walk, restless hands, changed color, quick and strongly-drawn breathing; the signs of angry men, too, are the same.”
from “On Anger” by Seneca

The different definitions that the ancients gave of anger were all usually linked to a desire for revenge, even bodily harm. Whether this desire stemmed from just or unjust causes, this emotion was always tied to an aggressive state of mind.

“Anger is the desire to punish one who, we think, has wrongfully done us harm.”
from “The Tusculan Disputations” by Cicero

Anger as an emotion is stronger than gratitude. People often forget all the good things that others might have done for them, and instead focus on the bad things.

“For men do not feel the same way toward those who have injured them and toward their benefactors. They remember their anger even against their will, yet they willingly forget their gratitude.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Often, the people who resort to anger all the time are just overcompensating for their lack of control and their own failures. Their mind is constantly unhappy, and this is their way of dealing with it.

“To be constantly irritated seems to me to be the part of a languid and unhappy mind, conscious of its own feebleness, like folk with diseased bodies covered with sores, who cry out at the lightest touch.”
from “On Anger” by Seneca

In the ancient world, the views on whether anger is ever justified differed quite a bit. While the Stoics stated that anger is never justified, the Peripatetics (followers of Aristotle) had a more nuanced view. They believed that there were certain instances when righteous anger is legitimate. It can move you to try to right a perceived wrong or injustice. However, what both schools agreed on is that too much anger, especially uncontrolled anger, can lead you on the wrong path.

In the last century of the Roman Republic, conditions were ripe for the rise of strong negative emotions. Apprehension spread throughout Roman society. The different groups started professing their grievances, many of which were at odds with the grievances of the other groups. This inflamed the tensions, and created anger.

“They collected together in groups, and made lamentation, and accused the poor of appropriating the results of their tillage, their vineyards, and their dwellings. Some said that they had paid the price of the land to their neighbors. Were they to lose the money with their land? Others said that the graves of their ancestors were in the ground, which had been allotted to them in the division of their fathers’ estates. Others said that their wives’ dowries had been expended on the estates, or that the land had been given to their own daughters as dowry. Money-lenders could show loans made on this security. All kinds of wailing and expressions of indignation were heard at once.

On the other side were heard the lamentations of the poor — that they were being reduced from competence to extreme penury, and from that to childlessness, because they were unable to rear their offspring. They recounted the military services they had rendered, by which this very land had been acquired, and were angry that they should be robbed of their share of the common property. They reproached the rich for employing slaves, who were always faithless and ill-disposed and for that reason unserviceable in war, instead of freemen, citizens, and soldiers.

While these classes were thus lamenting and indulging in mutual accusations, a great number of others, composed of colonists, or inhabitants of the free towns, or persons otherwise interested in the lands and who were under like apprehensions, flocked in and took sides with their respective factions. Emboldened by numbers and exasperated against each other they kindled considerable disturbances, and waited eagerly for the voting on the new law, some intending to prevent its enactment by all means, and others to enact it at all costs.

In addition to personal interest the spirit of rivalry spurred both sides in the preparations they were making against each other for the appointed day.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

Grievances can lead to anger, which can then give rise to moral indignation. Once moral indignation takes over, the mind stops reasoning rationally and can become a slave of the passions. This can result in intense feelings of permanent anger, often turning into full-out rage. It is very easy then to start solving problems using violence.

“Moreover, since the people felt bitterly over the death of Tiberius and were clearly awaiting an opportunity for revenge, and since Nasica was already threatened with prosecutions, the senate, fearing for his safety, voted to send him to Asia, although it had no need of him there.

For when people met Nasica, they did not try to hide their hatred of him, but grew savage and cried out upon him wherever he chanced to be, calling him an accursed man and a tyrant, who had defiled with the murder of an inviolable and sacred person the holiest and most awe-inspiring of the city’s sanctuaries.”
from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

“The nobles then abused their victory to gratify their passions; they put many men out of the way by the sword or by banishment, and thus rendered themselves for the future rather dreaded than powerful.

It is this spirit which has commonly ruined great nations, when one party desires to triumph over another by any and every means and to avenge itself on the vanquished with excessive cruelty.

But if I should attempt to speak of the strife of parties and of the general character of the state in detail or according to the importance of the theme, time would fail me sooner than material.”
from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

When moral indignation sets in, and a person becomes overtaken with anger, even rage, they will believe that they are being wise and that their cause is just. They become blinded by their self-righteousness, but can end up sliding into ruin.

“All those whose madness raises them above human considerations, believe themselves to be inspired with high and sublime ideas; but there is no solid ground beneath, and what is built without foundation is liable to collapse in ruin.

Anger has no ground to stand upon, and does not rise from a firm and enduring foundation, but is a windy, empty quality, as far removed from true magnanimity as fool-hardiness from courage, boastfulness from confidence, gloom from austerity, cruelty from strictness.

There is, I say, a great difference between a lofty and a proud mind: anger brings about nothing grand or beautiful.”
from “On Anger” by Seneca

The problem with anger is that it can bring about cycles of violence and revenge. Even if this anger is based on righteous anger at the beginning, the degeneration into endless bouts of emotional outbursts from both sides can often stop progress in its track. Instead, it can lead to the radicalization of both sides, which makes any hope of a compromise disappear.

“Now no passion is more eager for revenge than anger, and for that very reason is unfit to take it; being unduly ardent and frenzied, as most lusts are, it blocks its own progress to the goal toward which it hastens.”
from “On Anger” by Seneca

The Roman Republic became divided between opposing camps, each accusing the other. Deep polarization led to political violence, and even murder. This then further exasperated the partisanship and led to more violence. Once violence became the norm, it became hard (maybe impossible) to stop.

“The Gracchi by their judiciary law had created a cleavage in the Roman people and had destroyed the unity of the State by giving it two heads. The Roman knights, relying on the extraordinary powers, which placed the fate and fortunes of the leading citizens in their hands, were plundering the State at their pleasure by embezzling the revenues; the Senate, crippled by the exile of Metellus and the condemnation of Rutilius, had lost every appearance of dignity.

In this state of affairs Servilius Caepio and Livius Drusus, men of equal wealth, spirit and dignity — and it was this which inspired the emulation of Livius Drusus — supported, the former the knights, the latter the Senate.

Standards, eagles and banners were, it is true, lacking; but the citizens of one and the same city were as sharply divided as if they formed two camps.”
from “Epitome of Roman History” by Florus

Plutarch noted that anger can often arise from very small beginnings. Society often mirrors the internal makeup of people, and just like in people profound changes can be initiated by the smallest of circumstances, in society chaos can have humble beginnings.

“For anger does not always have great and powerful beginnings; on the contrary, even a jest, a playful word, a burst of laughter or a nod on the part of somebody, and many things of the kind, rouse many persons to anger.”
from “On Controlling Anger” by Plutarch

Sometimes the anger is boiling under the surface, only waiting for a spark to set it off. In Ancient Rome, this spark was the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus. In more modern times, you have the example of the self-immolation of a Tunisian street vendor, which unleashed these bent up emotions and started the so-called Arab Spring.

“Tiberius Gracchus lost his life in consequence of a most excellent design too violently pursued; and this abominable crime, the first that was perpetrated in the public assembly, was seldom without parallels thereafter from time to time. On the subject of the murder of Gracchus the city was divided between sorrow and joy.

Some mourned for themselves and for him, and deplored the present condition of things, believing that the commonwealth no longer existed, but had been supplanted by force and violence. Others considered that their dearest wishes were accomplished.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

Once this spark was set off, things started going downhill. First it was only riots, however once political assassination had been introduced into the system, anger turned to downright hate. When such strong emotions take over, people on both sides throw the gloves off and stop restraining themselves.

“Thus the seditions proceeded from strife and contention to murder, and from murder to open war, and now the first army of her own citizens had invaded Rome as a hostile country. From this time the seditions were decided only by the arbitrament of arms.

There were frequent attacks upon the city and battles before the walls and other calamities incident to war. Henceforth there was no restraint upon violence either from the sense of shame, or regard for law, institutions, or country.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

This state of affairs started, paradoxically, right after Rome had experienced its greatest triumph, and grew worse as the decades passed.

“When the threat from Carthage had been removed, they were free to resume their quarrels. Then there arose frequent riots, revolutions and eventually civil wars. A few influential men, who had gained the support of the majority, sought absolute power, on the specious pretext of defending the nobles or the plebs.

Citizens were not called “good” or “bad” according to their public conduct, because in that respect they were all equally corrupt; but those who were wealthiest, and most able to inflict harm, were considered “good” because they defended the existing state of affairs.”
from “Histories” by Sallust

Seneca called anger a plague, in fact the most destructive one in the history of humanity. One of the victims was the Roman Republic. Anger led to polarization, which led to violence and destruction. It all started from small fires and over time grew to overwhelm society.

“No plague has cost the human race more dear: you will see slaughterings and poisonings, accusations and counter-accusations, sacking of cities, ruin of whole peoples, the persons of princes sold into slavery by auction, torches applied to roofs, and fires not merely confined within city-walls but making whole tracts of country glow with hostile flame. See the foundations of the most celebrated cities hardly now to be discerned; they were ruined by anger.”
from “On Anger” by Seneca

Compare this to today. Society is deeply polarized between two sides. Political divisions seem irreparable. Each side seems to be veering towards more extreme positions.

The extreme attitudes have gotten so bad that significant sections of Republican and Democrat supporters in the US see the other party as a threat to the country. This can be quite dangerous, since if you dehumanize the opposition and see them as a mortal threat, you are much more prone to support more radical measures against them.

The outrage culture seems to be taking over, greatly helped with social media echo chambers.

4) When people are not willing to compromise, the situation will get worse

Extremism makes compromise virtually impossible. When a state of affairs arises that people are not willing to sit down and agree on a reasonable common action, then more extreme measures like violence come to be seen as the only solution to the problem.

“And it is thought that a law dealing with injustice and rapacity so great was never drawn up in milder and gentler terms. For men who ought to have been punished for their disobedience and to have surrendered with payment of a fine the land which they were illegally enjoying, these men it merely ordered to abandon their unjust acquisitions upon being paid the value, and to admit into ownership of them such citizens as needed assistance.

But although the rectification of the wrong was so considerate, the people were satisfied to let bygones be bygones if they could be secure from such wrong in the future; the men of wealth and substance, however, were led by their greed to hate the law, and by their wrath and contentiousness to hate the law-giver, and tried to dissuade the people by alleging that Tiberius was introducing a re-distribution of land for the confusion of the body politic, and was stirring up a general revolution.”
from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

When Tiberius Gracchus proposed his laws on the redistribution of land, the upper classes were vehemently opposed to them. They did not want to even consider any such measures. Instead of finding a compromise solution to very grave problems of society, they started attacking the messenger.

This is opposed to the spirit of compromise that reigned in the times of the early Roman Republic. While there was class conflict between the patricians and the plebeians, little by little the grievances were solved. At the end, they knew that they were part of a common body, and need to compromise for the common good.

“The plebeians and Senate of Rome were often at strife with each other concerning the enactment of laws, the cancelling of debts, the division of lands, or the election of magistrates. Internal discord did not, however, bring them to blows; there were dissensions merely and contests within the limits of the law, which they composed by making mutual concessions, and with much respect for each other.

Once when the plebeians were entering on a campaign they fell into a controversy of the sort, but they did not use the weapons in their hands, but withdrew to the hill, which from that time on was called the Sacred Mount.

Even then no violence was done, but they created a magistrate for their protection and called him the Tribune of the Plebs, to serve especially as a check upon the consuls, who were chosen by the Senate, so that political power should not be exclusively in their hands.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

This tendency to compromise broke down during the latter years of the Republic. One of the biggest problems was that the people on both sides did not understand the situation of the other side. An anecdote captured by Valerius Maximus, shows this divide of perceptions.

“As a young man, Scipio Nasica was running for the political office of the aedile. One day, as was customary for candidates, he was shaking hands with the voters. Taking the hand of a farmer, a hand that was heavily calloused after years of toiling in the countryside, Scipio Nasica jokingly asked him whether he had spent his life walking on his hands.

That statement was heard by many people standing around them. Word of this incident spread among the populace, and caused Scipio Nasica to lose the election.”
from “Memorable Deeds and Sayings” by Valerius Maximus

Scipio Nasica, coming from an ancient patrician family, did not understand the way the common people lived, and their everyday problems. Living in their own social bubble, many of the aristocrats did not know about the lives of the ordinary plebeians. When you keep yourself apart like this, you cannot look at the world from the perspective of the other groups, blinding you to their needs, wants and fears.

On the other hand, the ordinary people sometimes did not want to see how unreasonable some of their demands were. For example, when they were clamoring for free grain, Cicero noted that a huge part of the public expenditures would need to go towards satisfying these policies. This money had to come from somewhere and could not be spent on other things (for example improving Rome’s infrastructure).

“Gaius Gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The Optimates, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw that the state treasury would be exhausted.”
from “Speech in Defense of Sestius” by Cicero

The subsidized grain distribution became a favorite tactic of many populists, who would often propose that the state provide cheaper and cheaper grain, and later bread. Clodius, when he became tribune, even passed a law making it free.

However, there were significant knock-off effects. The money for this grain dole had to come from somewhere, and this meant higher taxes, especially in the provinces. Some of the provinces suffered quite a bit under a heavy tax burden. Also, from time to time, speculators would arise, who would try to artificially reduce the grain supply, causing shortages and thereby increasing its price. This forced the state to either buy the grain at higher prices or get it through other means, wasting even more money.

So the grain dole ended up being a huge burden on the public finances of Rome, and thereby the entire Roman economy. This subsidized grain, however, was something that could not be abolished, as if someone tried to do it, the people of the city of Rome would riot.

Another contentious issue in ancient Rome was debt. Throughout its history, the Roman Republic was plagued with rising debts. At various times, popular movement for the cancellation of this debt arose. However, these things need to be considered carefully. Too much debt can lead to inflation and collapse.

There was a huge debt crisis during Sulla’s ascendancy after the end of the Social War in 88 BC, which caused havoc on the Roman economy. Rome had been through these types of crises before and was always able to overcome them, but in the latter days of the Republic, they multiplied more frequently. Together with all the other events happening, they added pressures on the system and in time overwhelmed it. What happens is that economic shocks can exacerbate the existing problems, and greatly increase the popular discontent. That’s why economic recessions need to be handled with care.

While on one hand, the cancellation of debt can ease the burden on the people who have those debts, this can also have negative consequences. It can be very detrimental to the creditors, who then don’t see their money back. It can also introduce moral hazard into the system and be unfair to the people who did pay off their debts. All these sides of the issue need to be considered whenever enacting any type of policy. This debt issue played a huge role in the affairs of the Roman state, and could have been one of the contributing factors to its collapse.

Cicero, during his consulate, was a big opponent of the abolition of debts.

“What does the establishment of new debt accounts mean other than that you buy a plot of land with my money, that you’re the one who owns it and that I do not have my money? That’s why you have to ensure that there aren’t any debts, which may harm the State.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

However, many populist politicians, like Catiline, used the promise of the abolition of debts, as a way to get support from the masses.

“Thereupon Catiline promised abolition of debts.”
from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

On the political front, the Roman Republic became a battleground between debtors and creditors, which added to all the other contentious issues that had strong partisans on each side. What usually happens in controversies such as these, is that people argue from their own perspective, keeping in mind their own interests.

Very rarely do individuals take a step back and try to see the wider perspective. Instead, they look at the world through narrow blinders, without taking a holistic view of things, and without taking into account various sides of any issue. People usually cannot place themselves in the shoes of others and see things from their point of view.

Empathy is defined as the ability to understand and feel from another person’s point of reference. This type of a mindset is incredibly important, if you want to be able to come to a common understanding. Instead, people blindly push their own perspectives.

For some ancient philosophers, like Hierocles the Stoic, the way to get out of this narrow point of view was to expand your circle of concern. He described how humans have different circles of concern, with the first and foremost being yourself, then in a circle around it, your family, and so on and so on, with the final circle encompassing the whole world.

“For, in short, each of us is, as it were, circumscribed by many circles; some of which are less, but others larger, and some comprehend, but others are comprehended, according to the different and unequal habitudes with respect to each other.

For the first, indeed, and most proximate circle is that which every one describes about his own mind as a center, in which circle the body, and whatever is assumed for the sake of the body, are comprehended. For this is nearly the smallest circle, and almost touches the center itself.

The second from this, and which is at a greater distance from the center, but comprehends the first circle, is that in which parents, brothers, wife, and children are arranged. The third circle from the center is that which contains uncles and aunts, grandfathers and grandmothers, and the children of brothers and sisters.

After this is the circle which comprehends the remaining relatives. Next to this is that which contains the common people, then that which comprehends those of the same tribe, afterwards that which contains the citizens; and then two other circles follow, one being the circle of those that dwell in the vicinity of the city, and the other, of those of the same province.

But the outermost and greatest circle, and which comprehends all the other circles, is that of the whole human race.”
from “On Appropriate Acts” by Hierocles the Stoic

In another one of his works, Hierocles the Stoic explained that this type of view of the world as being in circles of concern comes out of a sense of self-preservation that all animals are born with. The Greek word he used is “oikeiosis” and signifies a perception of belonging to oneself. All the basic impulses of animals, including humans, stem from this. In many ways, this is in line with the modern theory of the selfish gene that some researchers view as the driving force of human behavior.

“An animal, when it has received the first perception of itself, immediately becomes its own and familiar to itself and to its constitution.”
from “The Elements of Ethics” by Hierocles the Stoic

So narrow ways of looking at the world are inherent in how you perceive the world. The way out of this filter bubble is to strive to put all these circles into one big circle, and feel empathy towards everyone.

“It is the province of him who strives to conduct himself properly in each of these connections to collect, in a certain respect, the circles, as it were, to one center, and always to endeavor earnestly to transfer himself from the comprehending circles to the several particulars which they comprehend.”
from “On Appropriate Acts” by Hierocles the Stoic

Unfortunately, most people don’t conduct themselves like this, but instead stay within their circles of concern and their blinded ways of looking at the world. This narrow view of things means that no matter what you do, you can never please everyone. Whenever you conduct a speech or try to enact a policy, you will have those who are pro and those who are against. The same speech can pump up one set of people, while it enrages another group.

“A speaker can satisfy one set of people, while at the same time irritating another set. His speech will as often please, as much as displease.”
from “Against Plato In Defense of Rhetoric” by Aelius Aristides

What happened in Rome is that you had different camps of people forming. These were drifting further and further apart ideologically. As a consequence, attitudes hardened, and anger further exasperated the tense stand-offs. The lack of understanding became more and more extreme as time went by, and extremism flourished. This type of state of affairs often doesn’t arise from day to day, but instead builds up upon differences of opinion, which grow larger and larger as time passes.

The reason why there are so many differences of opinion is because experiences vary under different circumstances. The internal makeup of one person is not always the same as that of another, in terms of character, principles, or history of experiences. It is not just these traits and attitudes that compel a person to act in a certain way, but the particular situation at that moment can also induce the reaction of a person. The same person might react one way in one particular situation, but in another way in another situation.

There are personal factors that influence a person’s reactions and behaviors, but also societal ones. The environment a person lives in matters and affects how a person thinks and acts. Culture can also have an impact on the way person thinks, since people are brought up with different beliefs, customs or in different social conditions.

All these factors influence the way a person perceives a particular issue. Sextus Empiricus, a follower of the ancient school of Pyrrhonian Skepticism, outlined several reasons why perceptions can differ. One analogy that he gave is how seawater is unpleasant and even poisonous for humans to drink, but fish seem to have no problem with it. Just like fish and humans react differently to salty water, two humans can react differently to other types of external objects.

“It is likely that the external objects are perceived differently depending on the differing makeups of the animals. But one can see this more clearly from the preferences and aversions of animals. Thus, perfume seems very pleasant to human beings but intolerable to dung beetles and bees, and the application of olive oil is beneficial to human beings but kills wasps and bees.

And to human beings sea water is unpleasant and even poisonous to drink, while to fish it is most pleasant and potable. And pigs bathe more happily in the worst stinking mud than in clear and pure water.”
from “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” by Sextus Empiricus

The reaction of one person to the same object, can be totally different from that of another person, due to preferences, priorities or life history. One person might have a preference for collecting stamps, while another person finds this boring and instead has a longing for adventure. Priorities can also vary based on an individuals’ goals or outlook.

“There are a thousand species of men; and equally diversified is the pursuit of objects. Each has his own desire; nor do men live with one single wish.”
from “Satires” by Persius

Different people are wired differently, and that’s why they perceive the same thing differently.

“Since no common effect comes about in us, it is rash to say that what appears a certain way to me also appears that way to the next person. For perhaps I am put together in such a way as to be whitened by the thing that strikes me from outside, but the other person has his senses designed so as to be disposed differently.

What is apparent to us, then, is absolutely not common. We are not activated in the same way, given the different designs of our senses.”
from “Against the Logicians” by Sextus Empiricus

One aspect of this internal wiring is a person’s personality, which is defined as a set of usual behavioral patterns, which that person shows consistently across a wide variety of situations. The ancients developed a theory of personality called the four temperaments, which was based on the four humors theory.

According to this theory people fell into four types of temperaments: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic. Of course these categories were not rigid, and individuals could display a wide variety of combinations of these temperaments, but there was always a tendency toward one type. Galen described this personality theory in his work “On the Temperaments”.

According to Galen, the temperaments are based on the four humors inside a person’s body. When one prevails over the other, then there is a tendency for certain behaviors. The ideal would be for all the humors to be in balance, not too much or too little of each, the golden mean.

“The most well-mixed man in respect to his soul, will be precisely in the middle between boldness and cowardice, hesitancy and rashness, pity and envy. Such a person will be good-spirited, affectionate, generous and intelligent.”
from “On the Temperaments” by Galen

However, it is very uncommon for an individual to have a perfect balance of the humors. Instead, certain mixtures prevail and drive how a person responds to outside stimuli. All the mixtures have a positive and negative aspect. For example, a person with a choleric type of personality is an extrovert who is driven, ambitious, and decisive, but also violent, vengeful, stubborn, and short-tempered. Many leaders and politicians fit exactly this profile.

This ancient theory of personality has influenced many of the more modern personality typologies like the Myers-Brigg, or the NLP meta-programs. Most scientists now however prefer to use the Big Five scale, where they divide a person on factors such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (or emotional stability). Some researchers have surmised that some of these traits could play a big role in explaining divisiveness in society.

Having an antagonistic personality paradoxically bodes well for politicians. The politicians who fit here garner more media attention through their antagonistic stances, and are much more likely to get elected than more agreeable ones. According to the researchers, the people who are on the antagonism part of the antagonism-agreeableness spectrum are more likely to push disagreements or believe in conspiracy theories. This also hugely impacts the way they perceive things around them, and makes them much less likely to try to compromise.

It is not just the predetermined internal wiring that makes people perceive things differently, but also their experiences. Life history is incredibly important when it comes to the way people act. A person who grew up in a dangerous neighborhood might have a history of bad experiences with people, while someone who was born rich, pretty, and pampered would end up with a history of good experiences with people. This then affects their opinion of people in general and how they act towards them.

“When the same things are chosen by some people and avoided by others it is logical for us to infer that these people are not affected alike by the same things, since if they were they would alike have chosen and avoided the same things.”
from “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” by Sextus Empiricus

Things like your position in life, your preceding activities, or your particular mood in that instance affects the way you think or act. If a person is poor, they might think one way, but when they become rich, they might start thinking in a different way.

Aesthetic tastes can also differ, based on subjective criteria. As Sextus noted, sexy is in the eye of the beholder.

“And many people who have ugly mistresses think them beautiful. Depending on hunger and satiety, too: since the same food seems very pleasant to the hungry but unpleasant to the sated. And depending on being drunk or sober: since things we consider shameful when we are sober appear to us not to be shameful when we are drunk.”
from “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” by Sextus Empiricus

Based on all these factors, people form opinions on different subjects. Often, they cannot distinguish an opinion from a fact, and end up deceiving themselves. They usually engage in motivated reasoning, where they try to fit the facts to their preconceived notions and not the other way around. Basically, they draw the conclusions that they want to draw and try to find evidence to confirm these inner beliefs.

“The human race, which by nature partakes of wisdom, though it falls short of it through bad judgement and indifference, is inwardly full of opinion and self-deception.”
from “Discourse on Opinion” by Dio Chrysostom

Perceptions and opinions are shaped by, but in turn also shape, one fundamental aspect of how humans view the world: values. A value is a principle or a standard that a person holds as important. Much of how humans see the world is skewed through their values, and these values form the basis for their beliefs. A person’s value is usually also one of the main drivers of their behavior.

While philosophers like Plato argued that there is one objective value for everyone, Protagoras and other philosophers argued that values are subjective. Different people have different values, which can sometimes be opposed to each other.

“Protagoras was the first to maintain that there are two sides to every question, opposed to each other, and he even argued in this fashion, being the first to do so. Furthermore he began a work thus: “Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not.” He used to say that the soul was nothing apart from the senses.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Modern researchers studying the values that people hold came up with the moral foundations theory, which states that people have different types of reasoning on morality. According to this theory, people usually place their values on a spectrum consisting of these five categories: care, loyalty or ingroup, authority, sanctity or purity, and fairness or proportionality.

While all of these categories are important, one of the values that was fought over the most in ancient times was the idea of fairness. Fairness is something which has deep biological roots and so is deeply ingrained in the mind. Many ancient philosophers considered fairness as a component of justice. Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics” discussed the notion of fairness as receiving according to what you put in. So for example, if you go out on a hunt and come back with a kill, then the person who did the most in order to catch the prey should also get the biggest piece of the meat, proportional to his part of the overall effort.

However, this is where we get one of the biggest points of contention. What is fair? Different people have different definitions of fairness, and this has a huge impact on their values. Many people argue that the power structures in a society are not the same, so there needs to be some sort of a mechanism to ensure an equality of opportunity and outcome. This often involves a sort of redistribution of resources, with the aim to promote egalitarianism.

These different ideas of fairness serve as sources of disagreement among different groups of people. Some people base their notions of fairness on a more individualistic definition, focusing on merits, while others have a more societal outlook, focusing on equality. These different ways of looking at fairness are at the core of people’s values, which can then lead to points of contention in what types of policies to enact in order to have a fair and just society.

Polybius in his descriptions of various constitutions of the states of his era noted the different set-ups of the countries. This was a reflection of what the majority of citizens regarded as fair. The Cretans had a more proportional (or meritocratic) definition of fairness, where you could buy as much land as you could afford, with this money being acquired through your work (or that of your ancestors).

“Their laws go as far as possible in letting them acquire land to the extent of their power, as the saying is, and money is held in such high honor among them that its acquisition is not only regarded as necessary, but as most honorable.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

The Spartans, on the other hand, had a more egalitarian notion of fairness.

“For the equal division of landed property and the simple and common diet were calculated to produce temperance in the private lives of the citizens and to secure the commonwealth as a whole from civil strife.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

In the Roman Republic, it is the differing ideas about fairness among the various sections of the population that stoked up polarization and created conflict. One side was fighting for entrenched property rights and had a conservative outlook on society, the other side was calling for land redistribution, capping the size of landholdings, giving out subsidies, and had a more egalitarian radical view of society.

These types of issues can become an aspect of a person’s world-view. Often, this world-view is influenced by a school of thinking, a political party or group, or the authority of an individual.

A person learns about a certain philosophy or ideology, and without thinking much about the wider context, adopts it outright. In this phase, thinking can become rigid for many people.

Many times, this learning comes way before a person is mature, and is influenced by the family the person grows up in, the community around him, as well as the peer groups that the person finds himself hanging around. A person’s world-view is often very much a product of that person’s circumstances and the surrounding society.

“For in the first place, those of the other schools have been bound hand and foot before they were able to judge what was best; and, secondly, before their age or their understanding had come to maturity, they have either followed the opinion of some friend, or been charmed by the eloquence of some one who was the first arguer whom they ever heard, and so have been led to form a judgment on what they did not understand, and now they cling to whatever school they were, as it were, dashed against in a tempest, like sailors clinging to a rock.”
from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

While individual perceptions, reactions and values are important, what shapes the mood in society is the interaction of them with the perceptions, reactions and values of other people. Humans have a tendency to divide themselves into groups, whether tribes, nations, or based on ideology. These divisions are then reinforced through modes of thinking, with each group adopting their own proper rituals or beliefs. Membership in each particular group then fortifies the beliefs that distinguish it from others.

This can create dangerous “us” versus “them” divisions, which can widen over time. When some of these ideas and beliefs of one group are in direct contrast to those of another group, then the potential for intolerance and conflict increases.

“The dogmatists egotistically refuse to allow other people the judgment of the truth, but say that they themselves are the only ones to have discovered this.”
from “Against the Logicians” by Sextus Empiricus

Most people think they are right and the other side is wrong. This is reinforced through the way the brain works. Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias make it that a person usually seeks information that is in line with their opinion and discards the things that are not in line with that.

Even more powerful is the backfire effect, where opposing facts contrary to a person’s opinion, paradoxically make people believe in their opinion even more. This means that most people will not want to learn about the opinions or positions of others, and instead they will discard them automatically.

“The fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!”
from “On the Natural Faculties” by Galen

When people are not willing to walk in the shoes of others, and do not want to understand the problems of the other side, then they won’t see the other side’s arguments as legitimate. Compromise is virtually impossible in situations such as these.

Black or white thinking, which paints both sides in broad strokes has a tendency to take over in times of growing polarization. The partisans of each group start thinking in extremes, painting themselves as all good, and the other side as all bad, with nuances and grey thinking disappearing by the wayside.

This type of closed off mindset is reflected in the differences in descriptions of the same exact events. One example of this is the way that Tiberius Gracchus was described by the two sides. For the Populares, Gracchus was a hero, battling for better social conditions, and some of his partisans even had his picture on their walls. For the Optimates, he was a dangerous upstart hungry for power, wanting to become king. Sometimes it seems as if they lived in alternate universes composed of alternative facts.

In these highly polarized situations, everybody wants to win, and they often want to win at the expense of the other. Instead of trying to find a common position or to arrive at a consensus, the goal is to stick it to the other side, to humiliate them or even destroy them. It sometimes actually gives pleasure to a person to see their moral opponents suffer defeat or humiliation.

“It is pleasant to watch from the land the great struggle of someone else in a sea rendered great by turbulent winds.”
from “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius

Each side thinks it has the moral high ground, and that the other side is evil and beneath them. Civility and respect for your opponents disappear, to be replaced by rudeness and hatred. Often, the language degenerates into shouting and name calling.

“They think they can offend with impunity, and by their nobility easily keep aloof those who are not their equals.”
from “Satires” by Lucilius

However, as noticed by Pliny the Younger, while these people might treat the other as a mortal enemy, both behave in a very similar way. They blame others for all kinds of faults, yet ignore the fact that they themselves are behaving the same way. You can notice this in many political discussions.

People will close their eyes when they discover that someone from their side did a bad thing, but will pounce when it is someone from the other side who did a bad thing. The patterns of behavior are the same on whatever side of the barrier you are sitting, if you are blinded by extreme partisanship and self-righteousness. In these types of discussions, hypocrisy reigns supreme.

“Did you ever come across people who are themselves the slaves of all kinds of passions, yet are so indignant at the vices of others as to appear to grudge them their viciousness – people who show no mercy to those whom they most resemble in character? And this in spite of the fact that those who themselves need the charitable judgment of others ought above all things to be lenient in their judgments!

For my own part, I consider the best and most finished type of man to be the person who is always ready to make allowances for others, on the ground that never a day passes without his being in fault himself, yet who keeps as clear of faults as if he never pardoned them in others. Let this be our rule, then, at home and out-of-doors, and in every department of life, to be remorseless in our judgment of ourselves, yet considerate even to those who are incapable of overlooking faults in any but themselves.”
from “Epistles” by Pliny the Younger

Political radicalization fosters greater cognitive dissonance and doublethink. Everyone believes that they are the good guys, and that they are defending the right cause. In reality, things often turn out differently. What happens is that even people who call for equality or fairness, and believe that they are fighting against oppression, end up themselves oppressing other people or groups.

“True moderation in the defense of political liberties is indeed a difficult thing: pretending to want fair shares for all, every man raises himself by depressing his neighbor; our anxiety to avoid oppression leads us to practice it ourselves; the injustice we repel, we visit in turn upon others, as if there were no choice except either to do it or to suffer it.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

There are different reasons and explanations why people become extremists, including the need for significance and a feeling of importance. Virtue signalling is a good way to gain status in your little group, which gives you a hit of dopamine, which gets you hooked, starting the ride to more radicalization.

Unfortunately as Seneca noted when people are convinced of the fact that they know the ultimate truth, and everyone else who does not subscribe to their world-view is the enemy, things end up going down a bad path. Replace the word “philosophy” with “ideology” or a something similar, and you will understand how powerful this quote really is in describing the current situation.

“When philosophy is wielded with arrogance and stubbornly, it is the cause for the ruin of many. Let philosophy scrape off your own faults, rather than be a way to rail against the faults of others.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

These types of behaviors are similar across the ages. People like to behave in a tribal way, cheering for their own side, demonizing the other side, and being blind to their own faults. At times, the political environment in the country heightens the behaviors and stokes up the tensions. If you couple these effects with people selfishly pushing for their own perceived interests, you have the social conditions which are akin to a volcano waiting to blow up. This was the point that was reached at Rome in the latter days of the Republic. Society was divided, and polarization was at its maximum.

Gridlock and the unwillingness to compromise were also replicated in the Senate. As this institution became one of the main battle grounds between the different political factions, it was witness to many fierce stand-offs.

One of the men responsible for this impasse was Cato the Younger. While, he is remembered as a Stoic and a staunch defender of the principles of the old Republic, he was also incredibly stubborn and not willing to compromise. He was often criticized for this, even by some of his allies, such as Cicero.

Cicero knew that on the political scene, compromise is often necessary. Cato would not budge, even if the moment called for giving a small concession. This lack of expediency for the sake of a greater good, really irked Cicero.

In one of his speeches, Cicero praised and criticized Cato at the same time. He said that Cato was brave, temperate, and just. However, what was missing in Cicero’s speech was the mention of prudence, the last of the four cardinal virtues.

One example that Cicero gives when Cato should have been more prudent was when he was against a bailout (yes, they gave bailouts in Antiquity!) to a company of tax-farmers. These tax-farming companies were basically financial houses, and engaged in many activities, such as tax collecting, but also banking. In one letter to Atticus, a close friend of his, Cicero mentions that while he agreed in principle that the bailout was outrageous, you still need to give it. When considering the next course of action, you always have to look at the bigger context.

Sometimes, it pays off to get off your high-horse and compromise for the sake of the greater good. According to Cicero, this was what Cato should have done.

“While being high-minded and of the utmost loyalty, he nevertheless does harm to the Republic. For he delivers his opinions in the Senate as if he were in Plato’s Republic, and not in the scum of Romulus.”
from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

It became almost impossible to get anything done in the Senate. With this institution becoming locked in gridlock, some of the stalling tactics started bordering on the ridiculous. Cato tried to filibuster legislation. Bibulus, who was a co-consul with Caesar and his bitter opponent, tried to stop legislative proceedings from being carried out by declaring every day a religious holiday. Elections ended up getting postponed several times.

Everything became mired in controversy. The old Roman propensity to compromise disappeared. At some points, the machinery of state almost ground to a halt, as the different factions tried to block the other.

Even before that time, ancient lawgivers knew that growing polarization and lack of compromise could endanger a country, and so they imagined various ways of overcoming the gridlock. One solution was to try to pack both sides with moderates. This would result in them overpowering the radicals and bringing the two sides to an agreement.

“A law of Solon, the result of careful thought and consideration, which at first sight seems unfair and unjust, but on close examination is found to be altogether helpful and salutary.

Among those very early laws of Solon which were inscribed upon wooden tablets at Athens, and which, promulgated by him, the Athenians ratified by penalties and oaths, to ensure their permanence, Aristotle says that there was one to this effect: “If because of strife and disagreement civil dissension shall ensue and a division of the people into two parties, and if for that reason each side, led by their angry feelings, shall take up arms and fight, then if anyone at that time, and in such a condition of civil discord, shall not ally himself with one or the other faction, but by himself and apart shall hold aloof from the common calamity of the State, let him be deprived of his home, his country, and all his property, and be an exile and an outlaw.”

When I read this law of Solon, who was a man of extraordinary wisdom, I was at first filled with something like great amazement, and I asked myself why it was that those who had held themselves aloof from dissension and civil strife were thought to be deserving of punishment. Then those who had profoundly and thoroughly studied the purpose and meaning of the law declared that it was designed, not to increase, but to terminate, dissension.

And that is exactly so. For if all good men, who have been unequal to checking the dissension at the outset, do not abandon the aroused and frenzied people, but divide and ally themselves with one or the other faction, then the result will be, that when they have become members of the two opposing parties, and, being men of more than ordinary influence, have begun to guide and direct those parties, harmony can best be restored and established through the efforts of such men, controlling and soothing as they will the members of their respective factions, and desiring to reconcile rather than destroy their opponents.

The philosopher Favorinus thought that this same course ought to be adopted also with brothers, or with friends, who are at odds; that is, that those who are neutral and kindly disposed towards both parties, if they have had little influence in bringing about a reconciliation because they have not made their friendly feelings evident, should then take sides, some one and some the other, and through this manifestation of devotion pave the way for restoring harmony.

“But as it is,” said he, “most of the friends of both parties make a merit of abandoning the two disputants, leaving them to the tender mercies of ill-disposed or greedy advisers, who, animated by hatred or by avarice, add fuel to their strife and inflame their passions.””
from “Attic Nights” by Aulus Gellius

The other solution was to try stay away from taking sides and instead try to moderate the two sides from the sidelines.

“Now those who are skilled in tending and keeping bees think that the hive which hums loudest and is most full of noise is thriving and in good condition; but he who has been given the care of the rational and political swarm will judge of its happiness chiefly by the quietness and tranquility of the people; he will accept and imitate to the best of his ability the other precepts of Solon, but will wonder in great perplexity why that great man prescribed that in case of factional disorder whoever joined neither faction should be deprived of civic rights.

For in a body afflicted with disease the beginning of a change to health does not come from the diseased parts, but it comes when the condition in the healthy parts gains strength and drives out that which is character to nature; and in a people afflicted with faction, if it is not dangerous and destructive but is destined to cease sometime, there must be a strong, permanent, and permeating admixture of sanity and soundness; for to this element there flows from the men of understanding that which is akin to it, and then it permeates the part which is diseased; but States which have fallen into complete disorder are utterly ruined unless they meet with some external necessity and chastisement Band are thus forcibly compelled by their misfortunes to be reasonable.

Yet certainly it is not fitting in time of disorder to sit without feeling or grief, singing the praises of your own impassiveness and of the inactive and blessed life, and rejoicing in the follies of others; on the contrary, at such times you should by all means put on the buskin of Theramenes, conversing with both parties and joining neither; for you will appear to be, not an outsider by not joining in wrongdoing, but a common partisan of all by coming to their aid; and your not sharing in their misfortunes will not arouse envy, if it is plain that you sympathize with all alike.

But the best thing is to see to it in advance that factional discord shall never arise among them and to regard this as the greatest and noblest function of what may be called the art of statesmanship.”
from “Precepts of Statecraft” by Plutarch

While both of these pieces of advice sound contradictory, in reality they are not. The idea for both of them is for the moderates to take over from the radicals and instead of further polarizing the discourse, they should sit down and try to find common points between the different sides.

The ability to compromise is at the core of having a functioning democracy. Moderates like Cicero understood this aspect, while stubborn extremists like Cato did not. The ability to take a step back and see the issue from multiple sides is fundamental for finding intersections between the different sides, which is a necessary step for forming a lasting agreement.

Cicero was a lawyer by training, and through his studies of argumentation, he became a master of a technique called “utramque partem”. This is the ability to argue from both sides of a contentious issue. It involves checking your biases, getting a holistic overview of the situation, and then seeing the two arguments side by side. Here, like for other matters, a key aspect is keeping your emotions in check.

“The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down – such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator.”
from “On the Orator” by Cicero

The ancient Romans were greatly influenced by the ancient Greeks, who also created different techniques meant to find compromise. One of these can be found in a small treatise called “On Contrasting Arguments” (“dissoi logoi” in ancient Greek), which was found as an appendix to the works of Pyrrhonist Skeptic philosopher Sextus Empiricus.

The aim of this document was for people to gain a deeper understanding of issues by having them look at the issues from different sides, not just their own, but also that of their opponents. Once you have this deeper look at the different sides, it is much easier to reach a compromise.

“All things come into being by a conflict of opposites.”
quoting Heraclitus from “Lives of Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Many ancient philosophers argued that things come into being by a conflict of opposites. This, in a nutshell, is also the idea behind dialectics. Philosophers such as Plato, or later Cicero, structured many of their works as dialogues or discussions between multiple people, where each participant would present a different point of view. Based on this interchange of views, the group would then come up with a common understanding of the topic.

The basic structure of this type of dialectic is first presenting a thesis, then the opposite antithesis, which then results in a synthesis: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. One side presents their argument, then the other side presents theirs, often trying to refute this argument. However, at the end, the final result is a combination of the two propositions.

Just like any technique, this method of reaching a compromise can be abused. It works under the assumption that the two opposing arguments are of equal weight, or at least that they are based on rational thoughts. However, often the two opposing arguments are not of equal weight or even rational.

Putting a person arguing that global warming is caused by human activity, on the same footing as someone arguing that aliens installed giant heaters around the planet, is ludicrous. You cannot give equal time or consideration to someone arguing that the Earth is flat, as you would to someone arguing that the Earth is round. In order to have a rational debate, you need evidence.

The ancient Skeptics, a philosophical school that questioned the certainty of knowledge, preached the concept of “epoche” or suspension of judgment. However for most of them, this did not mean that all opinions were worth the same. Instead, people like Carneades stated that certain impressions are more probable than others, which also means that the possibility that they are true is much higher.

“Carneades holds that there are two classifications of presentations, which under one are divided into those that can be perceived and those that cannot, and under the other into those that are probable and those that are not probable.”
from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

“There is no presentation of such a sort as to result in perception, but many that result in a judgement of probability.”
from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

“Thus, the wise man will make use of whatever apparently probable presentation he encounters, if nothing presents itself that is contrary to that probability, and his whole plan of life will be charted out in this manner.”
from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

Cicero was an adherent of Academic Skepticism, which made him much more flexible at trying to arrive at the truth, and also in trying to facilitate compromise between different factions. Bayesian thinking also works with probabilities when trying to arrive at the truth, and can be adopted as a good framework for any type of discussion.

Agreeing on having a logical discourse based on facts, having open-minded moderates at the core of the policy making process in government, and combining this with striving to reach a compromise, is very important if you want your country to keep on functioning smoothly.

Having extremists drive the agenda on the two sides can cause a deadlock, blocking any way forward. The only way to break this impasse is when a strong man steps in and imposes his will. This is what happened in ancient Rome. However, this type of situation also meant the end of the Republic, and its transformation into an autocratic Empire.

It is incredibly easy for countries to slip into greater and greater polarization due to the effects of group dynamics. Often the discourse gets taken over by a radical minority, while the moderate majority sits silent. Many modern researchers have noted that groups tend to adopt more extreme positions over time, with the term group polarization referring to the tendency of groups to make more extreme decisions than the positions that most of the members started with. That is why the importance of moderate members working to sway the group towards less extreme positions cannot be overstated.

You have to always keep in mind that the other side probably also has a valid reason for saying what they are saying. Sometimes, these reasons might be misguided, but then you cannot get angry at them. Instead, try to understand their point of view and try to teach them instead.

“They are certainly moved toward things because they suppose them to be suitable to their nature and profitable to them. But it is not so. Teach them then, and show them without being angry.”
from “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius

This is why both Aulus Gellius and Plutarch noted the importance of moderates in the situation when a country is getting more and more polarized. Their rational way of thinking should be used in order to cool everything down. Moderates can see commonalities better, which can help in identifying common projects to work on. They can shift the perception of the situation from being seen as zero-sum, and steer the groups towards thinking in terms of win-win.

Scientific research has shown that when two previously antagonistic groups start working towards a common goal in a cooperative task, the antipathy between the groups diminishes. In order to foster this type of reconciliation, you can use either moderates from the particular sides, or moderate independents who are staying on the sidelines, but the final effect should always be the same: an end to polarization and the beginning of compromise.

Unfortunately, none of these two solutions were tried in the latter days of the Republic. What happened is that the radicals from both sides dragged the country towards further chaos. This chaos was then taken advantage of by certain ambitious individuals for their own selfish purposes.

“Those who care for the interests of a part of the citizens and neglect another part, introduce into the civil service a dangerous element — dissension and party strife.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

The situation today has many eerie parallels to the times of the late Roman Republic. People in today’s political climate are less willing to compromise than before. A large chunk of the electorate believes that their side should get what they want without compromising. Polls from the time of the past administration in the US have consistently shown this winner take all attitude. This type of attitude however is not prevalent only in the US, but many other countries as well.

The lack of willingness to compromise between the different sides has in the US also led to the rise of stalling strategies in the US Congress. One of these is the filibuster. Once a very rare tactic, to be used only as an extreme measure in extreme circumstances, the use of the filibuster has now skyrocketed.

5) When money and decadence become prevalent, society becomes ready to be seduced by simple (but wrong) answers to complex problems

When the rich start focusing on drugs and orgies as the point of their existence, and the poor clamor for bread and games, you know that your society is heading for a downfall. When the point of a society becomes to wear fancy clothes, watch someone else do stuff, and to satisfy your instant gratification, then you are doomed. People stop thinking long-term and only care for satisfying their current urge. This makes simple answers seem very appealing.

Rome went from being a city where living a simple life was a virtue, to a city where decadence prevailed. The end of the Punic Wars brought in great luxuries to the city, the temptation of which proved too powerful for many.

“The first of the Scipios opened the way for the world power of the Romans; the second opened the way for luxury. For, when Rome was freed of the fear of Carthage, and her rival in empire was out of her way, the path of virtue was abandoned for that of corruption, not gradually, but in headlong course. The older discipline was discarded to give place to the new. The state passed from vigilance to slumber, from the pursuit of arms to the pursuit of pleasure, from activity to idleness.”
from “The Roman History” by Velleius Paterculus

“From that time onwards the conduct of our ancestors declined, not slowly as previously, but like a torrent. The young men were so corrupted by luxury and wealth that it could justly be said, that they were men who could neither maintain their own family possessions, or allow others to do so.”
from “Histories” by Sallust

Instead of striving to achieve real values, people started to seek vain ways to glorify themselves. This is when virtue loses value, starts being seen as uncool, and instead the way ahead is to post endless selfies of yourself, and dance smashed drunk every day. In the eyes of many people it becomes more important what you wear, than who you are.

“Some of these men eagerly strive for statues, thinking that by them they can be made immortal, as if they would gain a greater reward from senseless brazen images than from the consciousness of honorable and virtuous conduct.

And they take pains to have them overlaid with gold, a fashion first introduced by Acilius Glabrio, after his skill and his arms had overcome King Antiochus. But how noble it is, scorning these slight and trivial honors, to aim to read the long and steep ascent to true glory, as the bard of Ascra expresses it, is made clear by Cato the Censor.

For when he was asked why he alone among many did not have a statue, he replied: “I would rather that the good men should wonder why I did not deserve one than (which is much worse) should mutter ‘Why was he given one?'”

Other men, taking great pride in the coaches higher than common and in ostentatious finery of apparel, sweat under heavy cloaks, which they fasten about their necks and bind around their very throats, while the air blows through them because of the excessive lightness of the material; and they lift them up with both hands and wave them with many gestures, especially with their left hands, in order that the over-long fringes and the tunics embroidered with party-colored threads in multiform figures of animals may be conspicuous.”
from “Roman Antiquities” by Ammianus Marcellinus

Materialism took over ancient Rome when it was at its peak. Ancient physician Galen wrote how people did not value learning and knowledge. The only time when they took notice was when they needed to calculate expenses, build their mansions, or for forecasting how much money they were going to inherit. In fact, most people despised intellectuals.

“Causes of all this in the world lie in the materialism of the rich and powerful in the cities, who honoring pleasure over virtue consider of no account those who possess some finer knowledge and can impart it to others.”
from “On Prognosis” by Galen

Neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus warned about the spiritual dangers of becoming overly attached to physical beauty and the material world. He used the metaphor of Narcissus, to illustrate this.

“Hence, as Narcissus, by catching at the shadow, plunged himself in the stream and disappeared, so he who is captivated by beautiful bodies, and does not depart from their embrace, is precipitated, not with his body, but with his soul, into a darkness profound and repugnant to intellect, the higher soul, through which, remaining blind both here and in Hades, he associates with shadows.”
from “The Enneads” by Plotinus

Plotinus compared someone who is obsessed with physical beauty to Narcissus. In this analogy, “beautiful bodies” represent the allure of the physical world and sensual pleasures. This type of obsession with the physical and materialism is the first step towards decadence.

Seneca the Elder, father of the famous Seneca the Stoic philosopher, a man who lived through the last days of the Republic and the beginning of Empire, summarized how the youths of his days started preferring to spend their time singing and dancing, and worrying more about how their clothes and hair look, instead of what is inside their brains. They were concentrating on superficial things, instead of on things of real substance.

“Look at our young men: they are lazy, their intellects sleep, no one can stay awake to take pains over a single honest pursuit. Sleep, torpor and a perseverance in evil that is more shameful than either have seized hold of their minds.

Libidinous delight in song and dance transfixes these effeminates. Braiding the hair, refining the voice till it is as caressing as a woman’s, competing in bodily softness with women, beautifying themselves with filthy fineries – this is the pattern our youths set themselves.”
from “Controversies” by Seneca the Elder

Society becomes decadent, when money becomes the end goal for everything. Money is not seen as a means to an end anymore, but instead the end itself. Humility is lost and people start bragging and exaggerating their wealth (does this remind you of anyone in the highest offices of the US today?).

“Others, though no one questions them, assume a grave expression and greatly exaggerate their wealth, doubling the annual yield of their fields, well cultivated (as they think), of which they assert that they possess a great number from the rising to the setting sun; they are clearly unaware that their forefathers, through whom the greatness of Rome was so far flung, gained renown, not by riches, but by fierce wars, and not differing from the common soldiers in wealth, mode of life, or simplicity of attire, overcame all obstacles by valor.

For that reason the eminent Valerius Publicola was buried by a contribution of money, and through the aid of her husband’s friends the needy wife of Regulus and her children were supported. And the daughter of Scipio received her dowry from the public treasury, since the nobles blushed to look upon the beauty of this marriageable maiden long unsought because of the absence of a father of modest means.”
from “Roman Antiquities” by Ammianus Marcellinus

Plutarch remarked how the desire for riches is born out of seeking to get the positive opinions of others. When no one wants something, then you don’t want it either. However, once everyone wants it, you want it too.

“Thus the desire of riches does not proceed from a natural passion within us, but arises rather from vulgar out-of-doors opinion of other people.”
from “The Life of Cato the Elder” by Plutarch

The point of riches for many people is to be seen with them. That’s why they post selfies of themselves with expensive cars, or wear expensive things out in public. It is all about posing.

“For people in general reckon that an order not to display their riches is equivalent to the taking away of their riches, because riches are seen much more in superfluous than in necessary things. Indeed this was what excited the wonder of Ariston the philosopher; that we account those who possess superfluous things more happy than those who abound with what is necessary and useful.

But when one of his friends asked Scopas, the rich Thessalian, to give him some article of no great utility, saying that it was not a thing that he had any great need or use for himself: “In truth,” replied he, “it is just these useless and unnecessary things that make my wealth and happiness.””
from “The Life of Cato the Elder” by Plutarch

This posing is tied to the vanity of people. In decadent times, it is not their actions, but instead their possessions that people take pride in.

“Oh how much vanity is there in human affairs!”
from “Satires” by Lucilius

People concentrate on outward appearances, judging other people based on superficial things like what they wear, instead of looking at the substance of a person and their character. When these types of criteria are what counts, then wrong priorities take over.

“But a great majority of mankind, misled by a wrong desire, cry, “No sum is enough; because you are esteemed in proportion to what you possess.””
from “Satires” by Horace

Incidentally, these types of vain priorities and a bad outlook on life cause a lot of mental anguish. It is because of this wrong approach to life that people suffer internally.

“Everything depends on opinion; ambition, luxury, greed, hark back to opinion. It is according to opinion that we suffer.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

Drugs, such as opium or cannabis, were also quite common in ancient Rome. They were legal, and often abused. However, they were also used for medical purposes. Dioscorides, an ancient physician of the 1st century AD, while writing about the positive medical effects, also noted the negative aspects of taking too much opium.

“Taken as a drink too often it hurts, making men lethargic, and it kills.”
from “On Medical Material” by Dioscorides

Galen, the famous physician, described the effects of cannabis, more particularly eating space cakes.

“Hemp cakes, if eaten in moderation, produced a feeling of well-being but, taken to excess, they led to intoxication, dehydration and impotence.”
from “On the Properties of Foodstuffs” by Galen

“The seeds are quite warming, and consequently when they are taken in quantity over a short period they affect the head, sending up to it a vapor that is both warm and like a drug.”
from “On the Properties of Foodstuffs” by Galen

Roman policy towards recreational drugs was quite lax. Drug dealers were only liable for penalties if their wares caused death.

“The expression “injurious poisons” shows that there are certain poisons which are not injurious. Therefore the term is an ambiguous one, and includes what can be used for curing disease as well as for causing death. There also are preparations called love philters. These, however, are only forbidden by this law where they are designed to kill people.

A woman was ordered by a decree of the Senate to be banished, who, not with malicious intent, but offering a bad example, administered for the purpose of producing conception a drug which, having been taken, caused death.”
from “Institutions” by Aelius Marcianus

There was also a short list of controlled substances, where the sellers were liable to penalties.

“It is provided by another Decree of the Senate that dealers in ointments who rashly sell hemlock, salamander, aconite, pine-cones, bu-prestis, mandragora, and give cantharides as a purgative, are liable to the penalty of this law.”
from “Institutions” by Aelius Marcianus

These types of drugs were often mixed in with wine, in order to create a powerful concoction of psychedelic effects!

Rome after the end of the Punic Wars was a hedonistic paradise. When this happens, the moral fibers underpinning the state start to loosen, which invites all kinds of problems later on.

“The first direction taken by Scipio’s ambition to lead a virtuous life, was to attain a reputation for temperance and excel in this respect all the other young men of the same age. This is a high prize indeed and difficult to gain, but it was at this time easy to pursue at Rome owing to the vicious tendencies of most of the youths.

For some of them had abandoned themselves to amours with boys and others to the society of courtesans, and many to musical entertainments and banquets, and the extravagance they involve, having in the course of the war with Perseus been speedily infected by the Greek laxity in these respects. So great in fact was the incontinence that had broken out among the young men in such matters, that many paid a talent for a male favorite and many three hundred drachmas for a jar of caviar.

This aroused the indignation of Cato, who said once in a public speech that it was the surest sign of deterioration in the republic when pretty boys fetch more than fields, and jars of caviar more than ploughmen.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

Roman society even had its own version of Las Vegas, Daytona Beach at spring break, and Ibiza, all rolled into one: Baiae. This was the party capital of the later Republic, and also during the times of Empire. According to the words of Varro, this is where old men came to be boys, boys came to be girls, and unmarried women got gangbanged.

“Baiae is where unmarried women are common property, old men behave like young boys, and lots of young boys act like young girls.”
from “Menippean Satires” by Varro

The Roman poet Propertius wrote a poem about the place when his girlfriend Cynthia was there, urging her to leave. He described it as a coast fatal to chaste girls.

“Only leave corrupt Baiae as soon as you may: that coast will bring discord to many, a coast fatal to chaste girls.”
from “The Love Elegies” by Propertius

The ancient commentators were of the view that the enormous resources and wealth that was brought to Rome spoiled the morals of the people, who now preferred to engage in all kinds of vices and leisurely activities.

This decadence also increased the corruption of the state. The people at the top started competing against each other for more wealth and power, while the people at the bottom seeing this, also wanted to partake. To placate the lower rungs, bread and games were introduced.

“For what else produced these outbreaks of domestic strife but excessive prosperity? It was the conquest of Syria which first corrupted us, followed by the Asiatic inheritance bequeathed by the king of Pergamon.

The resources and wealth thus acquired spoiled the morals of the age and ruined the State, which was engulfed in its own vices as in a common sewer. For what else caused the Roman people to demand from their tribunes land and food except the scarcity which luxury had produced?

Hence arose the first and second Gracchan revolutions and the third raised by Apuleius. What was the cause of the violent division between the equestrian order and the senate on the subject of the judiciary laws except avarice, in order that the revenues of the State and the law-courts themselves might be exploited for profit?

Hence arose the attempt of Drusus and the promise of citizenship to the Latins, which resulted in war with our allies. Again, what brought the servile wars upon us except the excessive size of our establishments? How else could those armies of gladiators have arisen against their masters, save that a profuse expenditure, which aimed at conciliating the favor of the common people by indulging their love of shows, had turned what was originally a method of punishing enemies into a competition of skill?

Again, to touch upon less ugly vices, was not ambition for office also stimulated by wealth? Why, it was from this the Marian and Sullan disturbances arose.

Again, were not the sumptuous extravagance of banquets and the profuse largesses due to a wealth which was bound soon to produce want? It was this too that brought Catiline into collision with his country.”
from “Epitome of Roman History” by Florus

How corruption and decadence go hand in hand can be seen from the fact that after the Punic Wars, many of the upper class nobles did not even want to serve in the army. In earlier times, it was a matter of prestige and honor to fight, however in prosperous times, many of the nobles tried to get exemptions from serving. They tried to use their connections for this, which further undermined the morals and corrupted the state.

There were numerous cases of this type of behavior in the times leading up to the Gracchi, with some tribunes going as far as imprisoning the consuls in order to get exemptions from serving for their friends. You can see how this type of behavior leads to a slipping of norms in the political sphere.

“When consuls Lucius Licinius Lucullus and Aulus Postumius Albinus recruited their army with great strictness and favored no one with an exemption, they were imprisoned by the tribunes of the plebs, because they were unable to obtain exemptions for their friends.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

When money and instant gratification become the thing everyone is striving for, and virtue declines and is even looked at as being stupid, then the state is ready for chaos and decline.

“As soon as riches came to be held in honor, when glory, dominion, and power followed in their train, virtue began to lose its luster, poverty to be considered a disgrace, blamelessness to be termed malevolence.

Therefore as the result of riches, luxury and greed, united with insolence, took possession of our young manhood. They pillaged, squandered; set little value on their own, coveted the goods of others; they disregarded modesty, chastity, everything human and divine; in short, they were utterly thoughtless and reckless.”
from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

“But the love of irregular gratification, open debauchery, and all kinds of luxury, had spread abroad with no less force. Men forgot their sex; women threw off all the restraints of modesty. To gratify appetite, they sought for every kind of production by land and by sea; they slept before there was any inclination for sleep; they no longer waited to feel hunger, thirst, cold, or fatigue, but anticipated them all by luxurious indulgence.

Such propensities drove the youth, when their patrimonies were exhausted, to criminal practices; for their minds, impregnated with evil habits, could not easily abstain from gratifying their passions, and were thus the more inordinately devoted in every way to rapacity and extravagance.”
from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

Sallust in his works describes how the upper classes succumbed to vice in their every day life. They would partake in all kinds of scandalous activities, often losing all their money in the process. Once faced with the fact that they had no more money, many of these youths would then turn to different types of criminal activities to try to continue their easy lifestyle. The reason why this type of dynamic arises is idleness. Idleness has a bad effect on both the rich and poor, but in different ways.

The rich, having access to all the luxuries they want, often get bored and don’t know what to do with themselves. In the modern world, they often turn to things like drugs, just to get a kick. The poor, have nothing to do, but usually for different reasons, often to do with a lack of work or an environment where education is not seen as important or cool, prolonging the vicious cycle of poverty. With nothing to do, these poor youths often turn to a life of crime or other vices.

“For continuous idleness offers food for vice.”
from “The Distichs of Cato” by Dionysius Cato

When a person doesn’t do anything challenging or to be proud of, then there is great temptation for vice. To illustrate a bit how this dynamic plays out, we can point to the lives of underprivileged youths in bad parts of town around the world. When they are just lounging around, there is a big chance that they will turn to petty crime or try to amuse themselves by destroying things around them.

That is why individuals, often coming from these same communities and concerned with the well-being and the future of these kids, set up extra-curricular activities to keep them focused. These can come in the form of sports clubs, music clubs, or other similar types of clubs. Sometimes this works, and the kids who get engaged with these places often stay off the streets and out of trouble. Many successful individuals coming out of these communities have credited these activities with keeping them focused and helping them to not getting caught up in all the bad influences that surrounded them.

The problem is that most people don’t have the willpower to disconnect themselves from instant gratification, or the discipline to push themselves through the pain that is often needed when trying to improve yourself. Taking selfies of yourself all day and posting stuff on social media is easy, going to the gym every day and exercising is hard. With the hard path you often don’t see results straight away and have to toil diligently every day with the hope of at one point reaching your goal.

With posting selfies all day, you get a bunch of likes straight away, giving you a boost to your self-esteem, soothing your fragile ego at least for a moment. Why work hard to try to achieve a goal that might not even come, when you can just lounge around and get empty boosts of dopamine?

This type of dilemma was quite evident to the ancients. In the ancient world, one way to teach people how to behave in their life was through myths and legends. In one ancient myth, Hercules is given a choice of which path to take for his future. The first path is the easy path, full of pleasure and luxury. The second path was the hard path, full of hard work, and would be long and difficult. Hercules chose the second path, because he knew that this was the path to true happiness. You cannot really achieve a full appreciation of life without testing yourself, surmounting obstacles, and learning about yourself in the process.

This is what ancient writers such as Virgil realized: hard work conquers all. This theme was repeated not just in myths and legends that were recounted from ancient times, but also in many poems that were meant to inspire people to try to work hard in order to succeed in life.

“Toil conquered the world, unrelenting toil, and want that pinches when life is hard.”
from “The Georgics” by Virgil

However such is human nature, that most people choose the first path, the easy road. This choice has a great impact on society. While the upper classes pursue debauchery, the lower classes also want to have some fun. This state of affairs distracts the non-thinking masses into living just for spectacles, and neglecting their brains. Juvenal satirized these mindless preoccupations of the plebs perfectly in his works.

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”
from “Satires” by Juvenal

The rise of gladiatorial games and other types of spectator sport in ancient Rome could be dated to the period of the Punic Wars, and their explosion in popularity can be correlated with the period of the fall of the Republic. Initially, fights between gladiators had been part of funeral celebrations for the deceased, but by late Republic times, they had become a type of mass entertainment, often organized by private individuals who wanted to gain political influence and support of the masses. They started to be featured as part of the “ludi”, public games held during public festivals, and drew enormous crowds. The gladiators who participated in these contests were at the beginning lowly slaves or war captives, but by late Republic and Empire times, some of them grew to become veritable superstars, very rich and famous.

Initially, all male Roman citizens could be called up for duty to serve their state, so had to be prepared and do regular exercise. However, with the professionalization of the army, most people no longer had to do that. There was then a general decline in the fitness levels of the population. The people started preferring to watch, rather than do themselves. There are different things at play here. Participation in something like sports has been shown to increase self-esteem and happiness. Just like in ancient Rome, participation in sports has been declining among today’s generation. This most likely has an effect on self-perception and self-esteem.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek historian who spent most of his latter life in Rome and wrote a history to familiarize the Greeks with the early history of Rome, stated that it is courage and exercise, as well as masterdom over your passions, that make a person great and which also have an influence on the greatness of the country. In his analysis, he directly linked these three things to a feeling of having a common cause in the state, as well as a feeling of safety. When the state consists of a large number of people like this, then it will be strong.

“It is other things that preserve cities and make them great from small beginnings: in foreign wars, strength in arms, which is acquired by courage and exercise; and in civil commotions, unanimity among the citizens, and this, he showed, could be most effectually achieved for the commonwealth by the prudent and just life of each citizen.

Those who practice warlike exercises and at the same time are masters of their passions are the greatest ornaments to their country, and these are the men who provide both the commonwealth with impregnable walls and themselves in their private lives with safe refuges.”
from “Roman Antiquities” by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

What is important is to be a master of your passions. Hard work and overcoming challenges help you to acquire self-control and willpower, which is a crucial skill to have when you face temptation or hard times. Some ancient philosophers saw life as a battle between “akrasia” which was the Greek word for lack of self-control (or state of acting against your better judgment), and “enkrateia”, which was the Greek word used to mean power over yourself, over your passions and instincts.

In decadent times, most people cannot control their passions, instead their passions end up controlling them. A self-controlled person has the ability to choose, while for a person who has weak willpower and self-control, their choice is curtailed.

“Who then is free? The wise man, who has dominion over himself; whom neither poverty, nor death, nor chains affright; brave in the checking of his appetites, and in contemning honors; and, perfect in himself, polished and round as a globe.”
from “Satires” by Horace

In his commentary on Aristotle’s principal work on virtue and ethics, Aspasius discusses how a person without self-control acts when he has an appetite, that is without a choice. A person who has self-control has the ability to take a step back and consider his actions, to use reason. A person without self-control acts on impulse and emotions, which can often have disastrous consequences.

“He shows it further on the basis of the uncontrolled and the self-controlled person. ‘For the uncontrolled person acts when he has an appetite, not when he chooses’; hence appetite and choice are not the same thing. The self-controlled person acts in accord with choice, for in fact he does it by having reasoned out what is advantageous, with wishing, which itself too is desire, following upon his reasoning. The uncontrolled person acts contrary to this choice, following his appetite.”
from “Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics” by Aspasius

This is the reason why a decadent society, one concerned only with pleasure, has a tendency to degenerate. In such a society, many people lose power over themselves, becoming slaves to their passions. They end up getting distracted easily, not knowing what is really important, instead focusing on meaningless things.

“The mind when distracted absorbs nothing deeply.”
from “On the Shortness of Life” by Seneca

Both the politicians, as the rulers, and the people, have to exercise self-control. Without it, wantonness results, which often ends up in the ruin of both the state and the people.

“It is essential for the king to exercise self-control over himself and demand self-control of his subjects, to the end that with sober rule and seemly submission there shall be no wantonness on the part of either. For the ruin of the ruler and the citizen alike is wantonness.”
from “Discourses” by Musonius Rufus

What many sociologists and economists have noticed is that events move in circles. This was also the basis of political theory in the ancient world. Polybius described how democracy tends to fall in the third generation after its founding, as people who were raised in prosperity start taking things for granted. This can be observed on other levels as well. For example, the generations that have experienced war and suffering have a different mindset from those that haven’t. These newer generations tend to forget, and then end up repeating the same mistakes that previous generations have done.

“For he who has suffered a defeat has been taught to guard in future against that from which he has suffered, but he who is inexperienced in misfortune has not even learned that it is necessary to guard his success.”
from “The General” by Onasander

All these factors have an effect on the behavior of the people on the political level. When they prefer instant gratification over hard work, then the likelihood that simple answers will appeal to them increases. When people stop doing things themselves and instead turn to watch other people do things, then you have a problem. As the people have been idle for so long, the urge to do something ends up exploding. They get seduced by the simple promises that a few demagogues spout at them, and move into action (either at the ballot box or in the streets). This is exactly when a democracy falls and becomes an ochlocracy. Mob-rule takes over.

“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error.

So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence.

For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

However, it is not just political processes that are at play, but also natural ones. As the population keeps growing, some of the natural resources are depleted, the environment gets degraded, which then sets in motion other negative effects. These types of problems often contribute to, and usually worsen, the political dynamics of society.

For society is a huge system, where different chains of events and feedback loops push events in different directions. When the system gets too far out of whack and the population outstrips its resources, hunger can come in, in order to maintain homeostasis and bring the system back into balance.

“What most frequently meets our view and occasions complaint, is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.”
from “On the Soul” by Tertullian

In Rome, you also found other pathologies, ones which are associated with big city life. At the end of the Republic, Rome had grown to become a city of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. This brought social disconnection and loneliness, something which people in today’s world are very familiar with.

In a big city, you are always surrounded by crowds, but perpetually alone. Many people chase after money and careers, and the social links between individuals are superficial or broken. This can bring on depression, and sometimes even mental instability. Many try to fill this void by engaging in instant gratification, which makes the situation even worse.

“In Rome, you also find one big specificity. If someone dies, even the neighbors don’t know about it. They don’t know how the person died, nor which doctor treated him. The reason for this is because of the large size of the city and the huge number of its inhabitants, as well as the mindless way they chase after making money, positions, and honors.”
from “On Examinations by which the Best Physicians are Recognized” by Galen

Decadence is the instant gratification mindset that pervades society. Coupled with idleness, this can be a dangerous combination. It can establish itself quite easily in a society where a certain amount of prosperity and stability has taken hold. Consumerism and excess can lead to a loss of values, which then has an effect on the behavior of the people. The elites at the top will start vying with each other for pre-eminence, taking advantage of the vegetative state of the people.

“But in these degenerate days, on the contrary, who is there that does not vie with his ancestors in riches and extravagance rather than in uprightness and diligence? Even the “new men,” who in former times already relied upon worth to outdo the nobles, now make their way to power and distinction by intrigue and open fraud rather than by noble practices; just as if a praetorship, a consulship, or anything else of the kind were distinguished and illustrious in and of itself and were not valued according to the merit of those who live up to it.”
from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

“When a state has weathered many great perils and subsequently attains to supremacy and uncontested sovereignty, it is evident that under the influence of long established prosperity, life will become more extravagant and the citizens more fierce in their rivalry regarding office and other objects than they ought to be.

As these defects go on increasing, the beginning of the change for the worse will be due to love of office and the disgrace entailed by obscurity, as well as to extravagance and purse-proud display; and for this change the populace will be responsible when on the one hand they think they have a grievance against certain people who have shown themselves grasping, and when, on the other hand, they are puffed up by the flattery of others who aspire to office.

For now, stirred to fury and swayed by passion in all their counsels, they will no longer consent to obey or even to be the equals of the ruling caste, but will demand the lion’s share for themselves.

When this happens, the state will change its name to the finest sounding of all, freedom and democracy, but will change its nature to the worst thing of all, mob-rule.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

Many of the ancient philosophers called for moderation as the winning strategy in life. This was the credo of the most successful schools of philosophy of the ancient world, such as the Stoics or the Epicureans.

However, the problem is that when there are riches, there are temptations. This creates structural problems, which can sway the human mind towards vices much more easily. When resources are scarce, it is much easier to maintain equality and good morals.

“When resources were moderate, equality was easily maintained; but when the world had been subjugated and rival states or kings destroyed, so that men were free to covet wealth without anxiety, then the first quarrels between patricians and plebeians broke out.

Now the tribunes made trouble, again the consuls usurped too much power; in the city and forum the first essays at civil war were made.”
from “Histories” by Tacitus

One important lesson to learn is that in times of victory and triumph, you should never let your guard down or grow complacent. In times of prosperity, the good times get into people’s heads, which can lead to disaster down the line.

“Prosperous beginnings often have a disastrous ending. There should be no rejoicing over excessive and prolonged prosperity.”
from “Letters to Marcus Aurelius” by Fronto

It is a paradox that the greatest triumph of Rome was also the thing that seeded the downfall of its Republic. However, in many ways it makes sense. When there was a threat, the mind was focused on more important things. When this threat disappears and you have a generation that does not remember the old existential problems, many people forget about the real value of certain things. When this is coupled with an increase in prosperity, the rich can be tempted and spoiled by luxury. With no worries, they end up spending money lavishly on vain pursuits. As can be shown by the stories of many lottery winners, most people don’t know how to handle instant riches. Many are too weak-willed to stop themselves from falling into the instant gratification mindset, especially if they didn’t earn the money they have with hard work.

However in such times, the craving for the latest sneakers or designer handbags, doesn’t hit only the rich. This type of desire also infects the poor, the ones who can’t really afford it. They start spending beyond their means, borrowing money that they can’t afford to pay back, and living like there is no tomorrow. After a while of living like this, the day comes when all this comes crashing down. Many times, poor people end up spending more than they earn, either due to a lack of foresight, weak wills, or poor financial literacy. Usually, it is a combination of all three factors that contribute to this problem.

“The Romans formerly, being governed by good and wholesome laws and customs, gradually grew to such a height of power, that at length they gained the greatest empire of any that history makes mention of. But in later times, after they had conquered many nations, and had long indulged themselves in the enjoyment of an uninterrupted peace, they declined from their ancient manners to wicked and destructive pursuits.

For the young men, enjoying rest and ease from war, with plenty of all things to be fuel to their lusts, gave themselves up to luxury and intemperance; for in the city prodigality was preferred before frugality, and living at ease before military service; and he that wasted all his time in voluptuousness, and not he that was of a virtuous and sober conduct, was accounted by all to be the only happy man.

Therefore sumptuous feasts, most fragrant ointments, flowered and embroidered carpets, rich and stately dining couches, splendidly wrought with gold, silver, ivory, and such like materials, came into fashion everywhere. Wine that was but of an ordinary quality they would not touch, but only Falernian and Chian, and other such fine wines: the choicest fish likewise, and everything of the best sort, was provided to gratify their shameless luxury.

The young men likewise wore garments of the finest and softest wool, woven so fine, that they were even transparent, and, with their flimsy texture, altogether like women’s gowns. All these things, serving to nourish luxury and voluptuousness, (to their ruin and destruction), were generally coveted by all, so that in a short time their prices grew to an excessive level: for a jar of Falernian wine was sold for a hundred drachmas, and a jar of salted Pontic fish for four hundred, skillful cooks were sold for four talents a-piece, and delicate and beautiful boys for many talents.”
from “Historical Library” by Diodorus Siculus

The thing about engaging in too much pleasure is that it will end up biting you in the ass, if that becomes the entire point of your life. As Greek-Egyptian grammarian Athenaeus of Naucratis stated, to go be very eager in the pursuit of pleasure is to be hunting for pain.

“And yet some people say that the desire of pleasure is a natural desire, as may be proved by all animals becoming enslaved by it; as if cowardice, and fear, and all sorts of other passions were not also common to all animals, and yet these are rejected by all who use their reason. Accordingly, to be very eager in the pursuit of pleasure is to go hunting for pain.”
from “The Dinner of Sophists” by Athenaeus of Naucratis

When the society of the late Roman Republic turned to decadence, when the pursuit of pleasure by its population became paramount, then the country went hunting for pain. And pain it received in the form of chaos, violence, and civil wars.

When you pursue too much pleasure, you will receive pain. This was the lesson that many of the ancient stories tried to teach. One of the greatest and most ancient poets of Antiquity, Homer, had this as one of the main lessons of his epics.

“On which account Homer wishing to represent pleasure in an odious light, says that the greatest of the gods receive no advantage from their power, but are even much injured by it, if they will allow themselves to be hurried away by the pursuit of pleasure. For all the anxiety which Zeus, when awake, lavished on the Trojans, was lost in open day, when he abandoned himself to pleasure.”
from “The Dinner of Sophists” by Athenaeus of Naucratis

Living in a hectic, hedonistic age can produce lots of pain. Most people don’t heed the lessons of wise men like Homer, and get stung again and again without learning anything from the experience. However, there are some people that don’t like to live their life that way, and instead try to find other ways of living. That is why they turn to self-help. Many different schools of philosophy arose during that era in order to provide answers.

The absence of pain (“ataraxia” in Greek) was a part of the highest good according to the Epicurean school of philosophy. They were caricatured as hedonists by other later groups for their mantra that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important goal for people, but this image of them was far from the truth.

In fact, most Epicureans lived quite modestly. Their idea of pleasure was very different from what most people conceive of as pleasure. They divided pleasure into three types: pleasure that is both natural and necessary, pleasure that is natural but not necessary, and pleasure that is both not natural and not necessary.

The first category consists of things like food and shelter, without these you would not be able to survive for long. The second category are things like tasty food. While you have a natural desire to eat food that tastes really good, you don’t really need it to survive. Normal food suffices to sustain you. The third category are things which are neither natural, nor necessary. These are things like smoking, but also vain pursuits like wanting fame.

The pursuit of pleasure is a natural thing, as this is one of the ways that your internal mechanisms force you to try to achieve goals. The important thing to keep in mind is the type of pleasure you are seeking. In order to live a good life, you only need to fulfill the first category of pleasures. The rest of them are not necessary for your survival, and often can actually cause you great pain in the long-run.

The problem with society in the late Roman Republic was that most people forgot this important distinction between the types of pleasures. Many people started to binge on pleasures of the second category, and more importantly, they became obsessed about seeking pleasures of the third category, ones that were neither natural, nor necessary. The end result was not pleasure, but great pain.

Philodemus of Gadara, an Epicurean philosopher whose works form the majority of the papyri discovered at the famous Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, wrote an interesting treatise on the proper management of wealth. There he argued that the obsession of many people with getting wealthy is due to empty and wrong beliefs.

This paradoxically, not only causes them great mental pain, but also can lead them to lose this wealth. For a person with the wrong values, money is a fundamental prerequisite for their well-being. This causes great tension, which causes their day to day life to be full of pain, but also makes them prone to making mistakes. A person with the right values, will not only live a happier life, but also be able to procure things in a proper manner.

“Of the recommended activities leading to profits and the maintenance both of these and of the possessions that one had beforehand, one must keep in mind that the principal one consists in managing one’s desires and fears.

For, usually nothing drains and ruins the most illustrious and richest houses so much as extravagance in lifestyle, lechery, ostentatious actions, effeminate behavior, and similar things and, again, the chilling fear of the gods, of death, of pains and of the things that are believed to produce them.

Consequently, if one removes from oneself, to the extent that it is possible, the envy of things that are not to be envied and the fear of things that are not to be feared, one will be able both to procure and to preserve one’s property in the appropriate manner.”
from “On Property Management” by Philodemus of Gadara

The framework that the Epicureans used to classify pleasures can be a good guide to determine the amount of useless activities people engage in. When the balance is shifted heavily towards pleasures that are not necessary and especially ones that are not even natural, then you know there is a problem.

The warning signs are there. Any society can be swayed by the seeking of instant pleasure. This is a constant of human nature.

“You are mistaken, my dear Lucilius, if you think that luxury, neglect of good manners, and other vices of which each man accuses the age in which he lives, are especially characteristic of our own epoch; no, they are the vices of mankind and not of the times. No era in history has ever been free from blame.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

Every era is susceptible to fall for decadence, and things like corruption and other vices are always present in some respect, but some eras and countries end up worse off than others. The thing is, as Seneca stated in another passage, every era produces someone like Clodius, the unscrupulous rabble-rouser of the late Republic, but not every era produces a Cato.

In early Rome, simplicity was considered a virtue. The times of the rise of the Republic produced characters like Cincinnatus, who spent his life working on a farm and when he was chosen to lead the country as dictator, put down his powers the day he defeated the enemy.

Maybe some of these descriptions are romantic views produced by later commentators longing for a long ago golden age, however it is not hard to imagine that there is a large kernel of truth in them. History has many examples of societies changing, decaying and dying, the levels of corruption rising or falling, statistics on crime varying from one era to another.

A society can change for the worse. When the morals decline, and the main driving force is quick pleasure, when a right here, right now attitude prevails, then the country is probably headed for greater problems down the line.

The ancient Cynic philosophers believed that most people lived in a world of smoke (the Greek word they used is “tuphos”), a sort of mental confusion that clouds people’s judgment. People don’t see the world as it really is, and instead end up chasing after empty things that in reality have no value.

Diogenes Laertius in his work “The Lives of Eminent Philosophers” has a section on the Cynics. He quotes from a poem by ancient Greek Cynic philosopher Crates of Thebes, who describes the life on a simple island surrounded by a wide ocean of tuphos, an ocean made up of smoke and vapors, meant to represent human folly. In this way, he denounced society living for mere appearances, a world which has lost its soul.

“Crates, son of Ascondas, was a Theban. The following playful lines are attributed to him:

“There is a city Pera in the wine-dark sea of folly,
Fair, fruitful, passing squalid, owning nought,
Into which sails nor fool nor parasite
Nor glutton, slave of sensual appetite,
But thyme it bears, garlic, and figs and loaves,
For which things’ sake men fight not each with other,
Nor stand to arms for money or for fame.””
from “Lives of Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Pera represented the small island of people that saw beyond the smoke, and instead focused on real values, surrounded by a society of decadence. Roman society of the late Republic came to resemble the sea of folly described by the Cynics. Reading the works of late Republic and early Empire authors like Cicero or Seneca, you can see that people of that period were experiencing a crisis of meaning. Despite the outside trappings of prosperity, many people were seriously unhappy, and tried to make up for that emptiness inside by engaging in instant gratification, or by seeking extreme solutions. Today’s society is unfortunately following in the same footsteps.

“Socrates said, “Bad men live that they may eat and drink, whereas good men eat and drink that they may live.””
from “How to Study Poetry” by Plutarch

Research has shown that people are linked to their social environments and vice versa. Empathy between people in society can decline, which has negative effects on interpersonal relations, and thereby societal trends. Lack of empathy also seems to correlate to short-term thinking and selfishness.

Current society has also fallen into the instant gratification mindset. Bread and games are the drivers of society. Reality TV, drugs, and mindless stuff have taken over. Not only has long-term thinking diminished, but so has empathy.

6) Human nature is the driving force of history

Human nature is the set of character traits and ways of acting that drive the behavior of people. The thing about humans is that they can be generous and altruistic, but also mean, petty, and sometimes outright murderous. Humans can be selfish and hugely competitive, but also cooperative and loving. This means that there is no single definite human nature, but instead certain features of it, that reveal themselves based on the individual, situation, or circumstance.

The ancients viewed morals and virtue as the highest good. Excellence of character, doing the right things for the right reasons, was the ideal way of acting for a person. However, they also knew that very few people will act that way. There are only a very small number of people who strive to have a virtuous character, as most people are slaves to passions, whether due to their internal make-up, the environment they live in, or the circumstances they find themselves in. And this influences how human nature shapes the events in society.

While humans have this wide range of traits and ways of acting, ranging from good to evil, there are certain proclivities that push them in specific directions. Just like the second law of thermodynamics states that in a system without outside interference, the disorder and entropy always increases, a human system has the tendency to degenerate to the lowest common denominator if left alone. This means that in a society, the negative traits of human nature have a tendency to overwhelm the positive ones.

This can be quite easily explained by game theory, since in a system where one person cheats and the other doesn’t, it is the good guy who ends up being the sucker. That is why the assholes tend to win, and over time, most people will degenerate towards the more negative traits. This is what happened in the Roman Republic. The negative parts of human nature, like measureless ambition and lust for power, overwhelmed the system and brought about a fall. In a world where passions take over, this is what will happen.

Luckily, human society is not a completely closed system. Humans have been endowed with something that the ancients prized highly, reason. Reason is the outside force that can prevent a society from sliding down the path of chaos. Unfortunately, very rarely is reason actually used.

“Thus, out of multifarious civil commotions, the Roman state passed into harmony and monarchy. To show how these things came about I have written and compiled this narrative, which is well worth the study of those who wish to know the measureless ambition of men, their dreadful lust of power, their unwearying perseverance, and the countless forms of evil.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

All these problems can be explained by human nature. Humans make decisions and behave the way they do, because of certain factors. Many of these factors are deeply ingrained in the psyche and have been passed down onto us from our more primitive ancestors.

“First of all, Nature has endowed every species of living creature with the instinct of self-preservation, of avoiding what seems likely to cause injury to life or limb, and of procuring and providing everything needful for life — food, shelter, and the like. A common property of all creatures is also the reproductive instinct (the purpose of which is the propagation of the species) and also a certain amount of concern for their offspring.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

Human nature consists of things that are present to an extent in all human beings. They can be called unwritten laws that apply to how humans act.

“There are many things which we are accustomed to call unwritten laws, which are common to all human beings, at any rate those that are not incapacitated.”
from “Supplement to On the Soul” by Alexander of Aphrodisias

Part of human nature are certain instincts, or built-in inclinations towards a number of behaviors. Some of these are complex patterns that occur because of basic drives, while others are triggered by various stimuli.

“Nature likewise by the power of reason associates man with man in the common bonds of speech and life; she implants in him above all, I may say, a strangely tender love for his offspring. She also prompts men to meet in companies, to form public assemblies and to take part in them themselves; and she further dictates, as a consequence of this, the effort on man’s part to provide a store of things that minister to his comforts and wants — and not for himself alone, but for his wife and children and the others whom he holds dear and for whom he ought to provide; and this responsibility also stimulates his courage and makes it stronger for the active duties of life.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

Human nature is universal and applies across all types of people, countries and times. The same mental processes that drove the actions of people in ancient Rome, are also driving the actions of people today. That’s why the lessons that you learn in one context can be applied in another one.

“In short, our minds are all similarly susceptible of inquietudes, joys, desires and fears; and if opinions are not the same in all men, it does not follow, for example, that the people of Egypt who deify dogs and cats, do not labor under superstition in the same way as other nations, though they may differ from them in the forms of its manifestation.”
from “On the Laws” by Cicero

Seneca identified that most of the things that humans do, they do for themselves. A kind of solipsism and preference for yourself is inherent in your behavior.

“First of all, the living being is adapted to itself, for there must be a pattern to which all other things may be referred. I seek pleasure; for whom? For myself. I am therefore looking out for myself.

I shrink from pain; on behalf of whom? Myself. Therefore, I am looking out for myself. Since I gauge all my actions with reference to my own welfare, I am looking out for myself before all else. This quality exists in all living beings – not engrafted but inborn.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

This means a certain level of selfishness is characteristic to all human beings. The basic fundamental drives for humans are to eat, survive and reproduce. However, this is dependent on the person controlling or at least having access to some resources. This is why a specific drive for gaining status is inherent in every human. Ambition is the manifestation of this.

This is stronger and weaker in different people, and the ones vying for the top positions of power are the ones whose ambition is the highest. The top positions can be achieved through different strategies, and if one path is blocked the ambitious individuals will often try to use another means of getting power and status. This is what Tiberius Gracchus did when he found out that actions were estimated not on the basis of worth, but instead chance was the main factor.

“Tiberius Gracchus caused an upheaval of the Roman state notwithstanding the fact that he belonged to one of the foremost families through his grandfather, Africanus, that he possessed a natural endowment worthy of the latter, had received a most thorough course of education, and had a proud spirit. For in direct proportion to the number and magnitude of the advantages he possessed was the allurement they offered him to follow his ambition; and when once he had turned aside from what was best, he drifted, quite in spite of himself, into what was worst.

It began with his being refused a triumph over the Numantines; he had previously been hoping to be honored inasmuch as he had conducted the negotiations, but so far from obtaining any such reward, he actually came near being delivered up. Then he decided that deeds were estimated not on the basis of worth or genuineness, but according to mere chance.

So he abandoned this road to fame as unsafe, and since he desired by all means to become a leader in some way, and believed that he could accomplish this better with the aid of the populace than with that of the senate, he attached himself to the former.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Many of these paths to power are not very savory ones and people often resort to wicked practices in order to secure a personal advantage. Quintus Tullius Cicero, the younger brother of the famous orator Marcus Tullius Cicero, reminded his brother of this fact when he was running for the consulship.

“Deception, intrigue, and treachery are everywhere. This is not the time for a formal disquisition on the indications by which a true friend may be distinguished from a false: all that is in place now is to give you a hint. Your exalted character has compelled many to pretend to be your friends while really jealous of you.”
from “On Running for the Consulship” by Quintus Tullius Cicero

These internal drives are also the reason why people will often try to trip you up or hate you for no reason. This is also one of the most important lessons of life that Marcus Aurelius reminded himself every day when he became emperor two centuries after the fall of the Republic.

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil.”
from “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius

You need to keep in mind that all of these actions happen as interactions between people in a societal context. Early philosophers like Aristotle called humans social or political animals, and saw this as a basic principle underlying what people do. Different philosophers from various philosophical schools took this on-board and made it a basis of their discussions of ethics.

“Man is a social animal, and in need of others.”
from “The Elements of Ethics” by Hierocles the Stoic

However, the relationships within a society composed of individuals are often complex, with different drives at play. People as social animals do need to interact with others, but the social dynamics within groups have certain evident patterns.

The common good often takes a back-seat to narrow personal interests. Humans care much less about things that are common, but they do care a lot about that which is their own. This is reflected in the tragedy of the commons, where shared resources are over-exploited by private individuals for their own interests.

“Human beings do not care about the things that are in common, but rather they care about the things that are their own. It therefore happens that they neglect things that are considered as being held in common.”
from “Commentary on Plato’s Republic” by Proclus

This is quite predictable if you take the selfish gene explanation of evolution as your basis for explaining why living things behave the way they do. A gene wants to survive and propagate. This mechanism does however ensure that there is at least a bit of concern for others, at least ones related to you by blood. While your gene is the most important, part of that gene is also in your relatives and that’s why you have a preference for them over strangers. However this preference for your own kin is also what sets up “us” versus “them” dynamics in society.

These internal drives push people to behave in certain ways. Even if they try to resist initially, the effects of these internal pulls are quite strong. An individual might start off with caring about the common good, sooner or later, they will be swayed by more selfish interests.

“You see the philosopher seems here clearly to distrust and condemn human nature. For he says so in so many words when he asserts that human nature is in no case worthy of such an excess of fortune.

For he thinks that it is too hard for one who is merely human to prefer the general weal of the citizens to his own children; he says that it is not just that one man should rule over many who are his equals; and, finally, he puts the finishing stroke to what he has just said when he asserts that “law is Reason exempt from desire,” and that political affairs ought to be entrusted to Reason alone, and not to any individual man whatever.

For the reason that is in men, however good they may be, is entangled with passion and desire, those most ferocious monsters.”
from “Letter to Themistius the Philosopher” by Julian the Apostate

There are certain internal mechanisms within the body that propagate these patterns of human nature. Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of the Roman Empire outlined some of these drives in a letter to one of his philosopher friends.

What controls human behavior was something that many of the ancient philosophers pondered about. They used different words to signify the thing that drove what you do: soul or psyche. The idea of these concepts varied among the different intellectuals and was initially quite broad and sometimes fuzzy, however in later Hellenistic and early Roman times, their meaning narrowed down to something more mental or psychological, what we in today’s world would understand under the words brain or mind.

The predominant explanation used in the ancient world was called the tripartite theory of the soul (mind). This theory was initially described by Plato, and later expanded upon by other thinkers, such as Galen. The ancient philosophers divided the soul or mind into three parts: the logical, spirited and appetitive. The logical part is equal to reason, while the other two parts deal with emotions. The spirited part is one associated with high emotions and drives. Here you can find all the things associated with the human spirit and status-seeking, like ambition, but also different passions or emotions like fear, or anger. The appetitive part is associated with desires and pleasures.

Galen, one of the ancient world’s greatest physicians, who started off his career as a doctor for a school of gladiators and rose to become a physician for the emperors of Rome, described the emotional part of the brain in this way:

“We have in our souls two irrational powers. The one spirited, has for its task to become angry and wrathful on the spot with those who seem to have treated us ill in some way. It is also a function of this same power to cherish its wrath for a longer period since the passion of anger is greater in proportion to the length of time it endures. The other irrational power in us, the appetitive, is the one by which we are carried forward to what appears to be pleasant before we have considered whether it is helpful and good or harmful and bad.”
from “On the Passions of the Soul” by Galen

In order for a person to behave in the correct way, all these three parts need to be in sync and guided by reason. Plato illustrated this concept by comparing the soul to a chariot. The two emotional parts are horses, which can often behave in irrational ways. What drives them and keeps them in check is the charioteer, the logical part or reason.

Other thinkers, such as the Epicureans, came up with an even simpler explanation of how the mind works. They divided it into two parts: the rational and the irrational, the first one driven by reason, the second by emotions. Modern researchers have come up with a very similar division for the mind. They divide it into a System One and a System Two, with System One being the emotional part that often succumbs to passions and falls for cognitive biases, and System Two being the rational, more deliberative part. So System Two is the charioteer, while System One are the horses.

System One is made up of the spirited and appetitive horses of the chariot, the different types of emotions. In reality, emotions are mental states brought on by chemical changes due to external or internal stimuli. The mechanism behind them developed as a way to guide animals in performing certain actions. Ancient philosophers spent a lot of times discussing what emotions are, how they function, and whether they are beneficial or not. Great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus, all had their take on emotions and how they drive human actions.

One of the most complete classifications of emotions comes from the ancient Stoics. They divided emotions into four basic types based on whether they concerned present or future good, or present or future evil.

“Universal emotions constitute four great classes, grief, fear, desire or craving, pleasure.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Modern researchers even today argue about the nature of emotions, but they have come up with similar lists of emotions, building on top of the theories that were passed down from Antiquity. The ancient Stoics (and ancient thinkers who based their models of emotions on this Stoic classification, like Cicero) further subdivided the four basic classes into more detailed subdivisions.

Grief is an example of a present evil.

“And grief or pain they hold to be an irrational mental contraction. Its species are pity, envy, jealousy, rivalry, heaviness, annoyance, distress, anguish, distraction. Pity is grief felt at undeserved suffering; envy, grief at others’ prosperity; jealousy, grief at the possession by another of that which one desires for oneself; rivalry, pain at the possession by another of what one has oneself.

Heaviness or vexation is grief which weighs us down, annoyance that which coops us up and straitens us for want of room, distress a pain brought on by anxious thought that lasts and increases, anguish painful grief, distraction irrational grief, rasping and hindering us from viewing the situation as a whole.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Fear is the expectation of a future evil.

“Fear is an expectation of evil. Under fear are ranged the following emotions: terror, nervous shrinking, shame, consternation, panic, mental agony. Terror is a fear which produces fright; shame is fear of disgrace; nervous shrinking is a fear that one will have to act; consternation is fear due to a presentation of some unusual occurrence; panic is fear with pressure exercised by sound; mental agony is fear felt when some issue is still in suspense.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Desire is the wanting of a future good.

“Desire is an irrational craving, and under it are ranged the following states: want, hatred, contentiousness, anger, love, wrath, resentment. Want, then, is a craving when it is baulked and, as it were, cut off from its object, but kept at full stretch and attracted towards it in vain. Hatred is a growing and lasting desire or craving that it should go ill with somebody.

Contentiousness is a craving or desire connected with partisanship; anger a craving or desire to punish one who is thought to have done you an undeserved injury. The passion of love is a craving from which good men are free; for it is an effort to win affection due to the visible presence of beauty. Wrath is anger which has long rankled and has become malicious, waiting for its opportunity. Resentment is anger in an early stage.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Pleasure is the feeling of a present good.

“Pleasure is an irrational elation at the accruing of what seems to be choice-worthy; and under it are ranged ravishment, malevolent joy, delight, transport. Ravishment is pleasure which charms the ear. Malevolent joy is pleasure at another’s ills.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

“The different species into which they divide pleasure come under this description; so that malevolence is a pleasure in the misfortunes of another, without any advantage to yourself. Delight is pleasure that soothes the mind by sweet sounds, and by similar sensations through the organs of sight, touch, smell and taste. All feelings of this kind are a sort of melting pleasure that dissolves the mind. Boastfulness is a pleasure that consists in making an appearance, and setting off yourself with insolence.”
from “The Tusculan Disputations” by Cicero

So according to the Stoics, these four basic types of emotions are behind the different aspects of human behavior. You can say that they are the building blocks of human nature. Emotions help humans to make choices, but sometimes they can give false impressions and push people to do the wrong thing.

The rational part of the mind, the charioteer is supposed to steer the horses, the emotions, in the right direction whenever they act up. The problem is that often in humans the charioteer is asleep at the wheel or gone out for lunch. That’s why people tend to succumb to their emotions. Emotions were developed to guide living beings in their actions, but a lot of times they can lead people astray.

Humans are fallible creatures, and one reason for this is the way you take in the world around you through your senses, which can sometimes be deceived. Humans have five senses: sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste. You make sense of the world through the interaction of these senses with the outside environment. This is called perception.

“For if these animals are going to survive, they must also perceive at a distance what to avoid and pursue. That is why the organs of hearing, sight and smell serve this purpose for them.”
from “On Aristotle’s On the Soul” by Themistius

However, these senses are not always accurate. One example that is always given to illustrate this, is how your sense of sight can sometimes fall for optical illusions.

“Sight, then, sometimes needs the confirmation afforded by other senses, for instance, when the object has been deliberately devised to deceive sight, as is the case with a picture. For the aim of painting is to deceive sight, it may be by reliefs and hollows that have no real existence, if the subject lends itself to perspective.

Therefore, to detect a planned illusion, there is need of touch, in the first place, and, in some cases, also of taste and smell, as in that of the wax apple. At other times sight, acting by itself, represents its objects clearly so long as they are not far distant, and then sees as round, if seen a long way off, what is actually a square tower. Sight errs again when we look through mist or smoke or things of that sort that obscure vision.

Looking through troubled water is similar. When one looks at an oar in the sea it appears broken. Similar things happen on looking through some transparent substance, as looking into mirrors, or glass, or anything else of that description, or at an object violently agitated. For swift motion throws vision out, so as to see as round, things that are not round, and as still, things that are rotating.

Vision is thrown out, also, when the mind is preoccupied, as when someone sets out to meet a friend, meets him, and walks right past him, because his thoughts are on other matters. But this is not really a failure of sight so much as of mind. For sight saw and gave notice, but mind would not attend to the notice given.”
from “On Human Nature” by Nemesius

It is not just sight that can err, but the other senses as well.

“Deception is imputed to the sight, because it asserts that oars, when immersed in the water, are inclined or bent, notwithstanding the certainty that they are straight; because, again, it is quite sure that that distant tower with its really quadrangular contour is round; because also it will discredit the fact of the truly parallel fabric of yonder porch or arcade, by supposing it to be narrower and narrower towards its end; and because it will join with the sea the sky which hangs at so great a height above it.

In the same way, our hearing is charged with fallacy: we think, for instance, that that is a noise in the sky which is nothing else than the rumbling of a carriage; or, if you prefer it the other way, when the thunder rolled at a distance, we were quite sure that it was a carriage which made the noise. Thus, too, are our faculties of smell and taste at fault, because the selfsame perfumes and wines lose their value after we have used them awhile.

On the same principle our touch is censured, when the identical pavement which seemed rough to the hands is felt by the feet to be smooth enough; and in the baths a stream of warm water is pronounced to be quite hot at first, and beautifully temperate afterwards. Thus, according to them, our senses deceive us, when all the while we are the cause of the discrepancies, by changing our opinions.

The Stoics are more moderate in their views; for they do not load with the obloquy of deception every one of the senses, and at all times. The Epicureans, again, show still greater consistency, in maintaining that all the senses are equally true in their testimony, and always so—only in a different way. It is not our organs of sensation that are at fault, but our opinion. The senses only experience sensation, they do not exercise opinion; it is the soul that opines. They separated opinion from the senses, and sensation from the soul. Well, but whence comes opinion, if not from the senses?”
from “On the Soul” by Tertullian

The way your brain works is that the senses take in stimuli from the outside, which are then passed onto the brain, which then uses emotions in order to interpret what is happening and what it needs to do next. However, this process is not perfect. People often fall for cognitive biases, which can lead to a distortion of the perception of the world.

Galen recognized the way some of these cognitive biases work. The thing is that humans think that they are right, which is further fortified through the effects of confirmation bias. Paradoxically, it is the guys who are the most convinced about their superman status, that in reality usually err the most.

“It is likely that we do err even if we ourselves should think that we do not, and we can infer this from what follows. We see that all men suppose that they themselves are altogether without fault or that their errors are few and mild and at great intervals. This happens especially in the case of those who, in the eyes of other men, err the most.”
from “On the Passions of the Soul” by Galen

Catullus, one of the most renowned poets of the late Republic, showed the effects of ego-based biases in many of his works. His observation was that humans tend to have a high opinion of themselves. In one of his poems, he makes fun of a mediocre poet who thinks he is world-class. However, that is not the main lesson of his piece. Catullus then turns the words around and shows that we all deceive ourselves in the same way that this poet does.

“He rejoices about himself and admires himself so much. Evidently, we are all deceived the same way.”
from “The Poems of Catullus” by Catullus

Perception can then sway social dynamics and interactions between different individuals. Some cognitive biases play an important role in determining how you view yourself and how you look at other people, which in turn can push you into forming certain opinions which often don’t conform to reality.

One type of cognitive bias is the fundamental attribution error, where people attribute their success to their own personality and willpower, while dismissing their failures as being due to factors outside their control. However, when it comes to other people, their attitudes change. They will attribute other people’s success as due to luck, and proceed onto generalizations. One of these is the tendency to regard the deeds done by another person in one particular moment as reflecting that other person’s overall, normal character.

“To be sure, men have come to believe that it somehow is an attribute of human nature, however selfish that may seem, to resort to deeds of violence; for every one who excels in any respect thinks it right that he should have more than his inferior, and if he meets with any success, he ascribes his success to the force of his own intelligence, whereas if he fails, he lays the blame for his failure upon the influence of the divine will.

But, on the other hand, the man who, in following such a course, resorts to plotting and villainy, is, in the first place, held to be crafty and crooked, malicious, and depraved, — an opinion which I know you would not allow anyone to express or to entertain about you, even if you might rule the whole world by such practices; and, in the second place, if he succeeds, men think that the advantage he has gained is unjust, or if he fails, that his discomfiture is merited.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Emotions often have a more powerful effect on your actions than logic. They work in different ways, sometimes promoting a person’s hubris, while at other times working against their ego. These emotions in themselves are not good or bad, but their effects usually depend on the context. The same type of emotion or tendency can be beneficial in one situation, but destructive in another one.

One strong tendency that humans have is to have an aversion to loss. Losing something affects them a lot more emotionally than gaining that very thing. For example, you will likely have a much more powerful reaction if you lose a hundred dollars or euros, than if you gain the same amount. This doesn’t make much logical sense, but this is how the human brain is wired.

“Men feel the good less intensely than the bad.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

Losing something that is yours can be quite traumatic. The endowment effect is the tendency for humans to ascribe more value to something that they own than to that same thing when they don’t own it. Often your property becomes intertwined with your identity, which makes this effect even more powerful.

The fear of loss drives many actions. What drove many of the aristocratic senators to oppose land redistribution was the fear that they would lose their status and property. What drove many of the urban plebs to call for the expulsion of foreigners from the city of Rome and also to oppose the granting of Roman citizenship to Italian allies, was the fear of losing their jobs to these foreigners, and also the fear of their status being diminished if thousands of non-citizens would suddenly gain citizenship.

Loss aversion is also what drives the strong negative feelings that people have when they see their status decline, as what happened to many of the citizen farmers and other lower classes after the end of the Punic Wars. An actual or potential loss of status for a certain group can trigger a sense of worry, which can in turn lead to more powerful reactions and feelings of threat. This can further strengthen “us” versus “them” group identities, leading to more polarization, especially if the situation starts seeming as a zero-sum game, where a win for one group automatically equals a loss for the other.

The ancient Stoics saw how powerful the fear of loss (and actual loss) was on the human psyche and came up with several techniques to try to lessen it. For example, they preached imagining your potential losses before they happen, so when by chance they do happen, you will be prepared for it.

Plutarch, while not a Stoic (but a Middle Platonist with a propensity to also borrow from other philosophical schools), also saw how hard people can take losing something. He wondered why they don’t look on the bright side and instead rejoice at the fact that they still have other things left?

“For it is the act of a madman to be distressed at what is lost and not rejoice at what is saved, but like little children, who, if someone takes away one of their many toys, will throw away all the rest as well and cry and howl; in the same way, if we are troubled by Fortune in one matter, we make everything else also unprofitable by lamenting and taking it hard.”
from “On Tranquility of Mind” by Plutarch

Modern researchers in psychology have come up with a theory to explain these human behaviors: prospect theory. Under prospect theory, loss aversion is one tendency, but there is another behavior which they call relative positioning. Humans have a tendency to be more interested in relative gains and losses than absolute ones.

The average person will feel much happier if they get a 20% raise and his neighbor gets nothing, than if they both get a 20% raise. This is because in the first case, the person’s relative status as opposed to his neighbor increases, while in the second one it stays the same (even though in both cases you got the same amount of money extra).

Now imagine if you are faced with a situation where not only do you yourself lose your status, but you see other groups vastly improve their situation in life. This relative loss of status is what can drive such strong emotions as anger and indignation.

Emotions work both on an individual level, but also on a societal level. There are some emotions that drive the people towards social cohesion and promote centripetal forces, while other emotions promote bickering which gives rise to centrifugal forces, tearing society apart. Some forces that promote social cohesion can be positive, while others are negative.

For example, in Ancient Rome, the fear of an external enemy, namely Carthage, drove the people together and gave them a common focus. When this external factor disappeared, the togetherness effect diminished. This tendency for society to tear itself apart is even stronger when decadence sets in, and when people stop caring about others and only focus on themselves.

“Shared danger is the strongest of bonds. It will keep men united in spite of mutual dislike and suspicion.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

“Now the institution of parties and factions, with all their attendant evils, originated at Rome a few years before this as the result of peace and of an abundance of everything that mortals prize most highly.

For before the destruction of Carthage the people and Senate of Rome together governed the republic peacefully and with moderation. There was no strife among the citizens either for glory or for power; fear of the enemy preserved the good morals of the state. But when the minds of the people were relieved of that dread, wantonness and arrogance naturally arose, vices which are fostered by prosperity. Thus the peace for which they had longed in time of adversity, after they had gained it proved to be more cruel and bitter than adversity itself.

For the nobles began to abuse their position and the people their liberty, and every man for himself robbed, pillaged, and plundered. Thus the community was split into two parties, and between these the state was torn to pieces.”
from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

The thing about cohesion is that there needs to be some common idea to hold the people together. These can be positive values, but negative emotions are much more powerful. Fear is a strong motivating factor. That is why religion has often been such an effective tool to promote togetherness. Fear of the gods is at the very essence of most religions, and it was deeply ingrained in the religions of the Mediterranean world, including the Greek and Roman ones.

Lucretius, an Epicurean poet, wrote about the power of religion and the fear it instills in the human psyche. He noted how strong the pull of this fear of the supernatural is among even the strongest of characters.

“And there shall come the time when even you, forced by the soothsayer’s terror-tales, shall seek to break from us. Ah, many a dream even now can they concoct to rout your plans of life, and trouble all your fortunes with base fears.”
from “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius

Religions set down certain tenets and rules that people must obey, with the promise of strict punishments coming from the deities if these are not followed. In this way, people have an incentive to follow one common way of doing things, which gives them a certain mindset which is similar to other people around them. The fact that the gods are portrayed as invisible and all-knowing also enforces conformance in a way, as they can see you even if you are alone. They can punish you if you do something against the religious rules, even if you are in private and no human is there to see you.

While religion can have many negative influences on the individual and can lead to many cruelties, there are certain aspects of it that can produce an agreement among the population on how things are and how they should be, which then helps to unite people around a cause.

These parts of religion, ones that really capture the attention of the populace, can play a huge role in fostering a common mindset. Polybius noted this effect of religion on the Roman state. Wrapped in pomp and different ceremonies, it can be used to brainwash the people. In this way, it creates cohesion in the state.

“But the quality in which the Roman commonwealth is most distinctly superior is in my opinion the nature of their religious convictions. I believe that it is the very thing which among other peoples is an object of reproach, I mean superstition, which maintains the cohesion of the Roman State.

These matters are clothed in such pomp and introduced to such an extent into their public and private life that nothing could exceed it, a fact which will surprise many. My own opinion at least is that they have adopted this course for the sake of the common people. It is a course which perhaps would not have been necessary had it been possible to form a state composed of wise men, but as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, the multitude must be held in by invisible terrors and suchlike pageantry.

For this reason I don’t think that the ancients acted rashly and at haphazard in introducing among the people notions concerning the gods and beliefs in the terrors of hell.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

This does foster a strong sense of community, but can cause great anxiety in individuals and at certain times can lead to cruel divisions in societies when some people decide to go against these basic tenets and rules.

However, it is quite natural that some more free thinking people want to break themselves free of this type of totalitarian ideology and do things on their own. In late Hellenistic times, certain philosophies arose that tried to foster a more individualistic approach.

The ancient Epicureans actually based their philosophy on removing this fear of the gods from people. For them, not only would this help people to lead more happy lives, but also remove the cruel behaviors that religion often leads to. This is what Roman poet Lucretius noted in his poem “On the Nature of Things”:

“I fear perhaps you deem that we fare an impious road to realms of thought profane. But it is that same religion that far more often has bred the foul impieties of men.”
from “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius

The discovery of this poem in an old dusty library at the end of the Middle Ages was one of the sparks that started the Renaissance in Europe. It helped open up the minds of certain curious individuals to new possibilities and led them to question the established order of things. From this it was only a small step to the scientific revolution that helped create the modern era. The ideas that this poem talked about had a similar effect on many people in the ancient world as well.

One thing that happened during the late Roman Republic, probably due to the influx of all kinds of immigrants and foreign ideas (such as Epicureanism), was that you had now a variety of convictions and philosophical schools to choose from, which promoted a turn away from traditional Roman religion. While this did result in greater personal freedom, there was no other big idea to replace traditional religion and to hold the people pulling together with one rope for a common cause.

Octavian when he became Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, turned once again to religion in order to promote unity and shore up his rule. He saw that religion can help him to create more social cohesion and also to give him more legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

When Virgil composed his “Aeneid”, he wrote it in a way as to support this religious revivalist project of the first emperor. Through this work, Virgil tried to link the new more pious Augustan age to the old mythological founding traditions of Rome, and thereby augment the status of emperor Augustus as being one with the gods.

Together with this religious revival came the idea of Roman exceptionalism, the argument that the gods had destined Rome to greatness. This was something pushed by Augustus as well as many of the historians and commentators who wrote during his reign.

“But the Fates had, I believe, already decreed the origin of this great city and the foundation of the mightiest empire under heaven.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

The thing about religion is that it can serve to unite, but very often it can also divide. In order to foster unity, you also need to weed out the so-called heretics and other subversives, so a turn to religion can also create persecutions, something that even poets like Ovid felt, when he was banished by Augustus to exile for his activities and works.

Later, emperor Constantine would use a similar tactic to shore up his own rule. This time, however, he saw that the old Roman religion no longer had the cohesive power that could be used to control the populace, but instead turned to Christianity in order to do that. In the process, this unleashed great waves of terror against the adherents of the old religions, as well as Christians who did not adhere to orthodoxy.

These common causes based on fear like religion or a common enemy are not the only ones that can serve to unite a populace, but they are very effective. That is why, wanna-be strongmen rulers often turn to them. These were also the ideas that served to unite the people in the early Roman Republic. When their power waned, nothing else came to replace them.

For many of the ancient philosophers, the way states are organized was a reflection of human nature. Plato’s work “The Republic”, one of the most influential texts on political science in the ancient world, took this as the main assumption for its discussion: states grow out of human characters.

There are underlying aspects of human nature that mold the way society looks like. Human nature makes people act in a certain way in different situations, which then gives rise to different social norms and rules.

This is when culture comes in to shape how people behave in a society. Different social norms and rules, especially ones concerning morality, then try to hem in human behavior into certain bounds.

“Human morality gives us such stifling precepts, and makes indecent what Nature freely allows us!”
from “Metamorphoses” by Ovid

Both nature and nurture have an effect on what humans do, however it is the underlying instincts and drives of human nature, hidden deep in the subconscious, more primitive parts of the brain, that often have a stronger pull on human actions. While they might be stifled underneath by society’s rules and norms, they are bursting to come out, just waiting for the right stimulus to awaken them.

This is of course not discounting the huge effect that culture plays on people’s behavior. The Roman traditions of glory-seeking and the view that individuals need to be engaged in the affairs of the state in prominent positions played a big role in shaping the acts of the politicians. It can be argued that the cultural norms of Roman society actually magnified some of the deeper facets of human nature in certain directions.

Cicero, in his speech defending the right of Roman citizenship for the poet Archias, outlined the core aspects of what it meant to be Roman. The quest for glory, praise and honor were at the basis of Roman culture. These were the personal values that were held dear by the prominent citizens of the city.

“For if I had not persuaded myself from my youth upwards, both by the precepts of many masters and by much reading, that there is nothing in life greatly to be desired, except glory, praise and honor, and that while pursuing those things all tortures of the body, all dangers of death and banishment are to be considered but of small importance, I should never have exposed myself, in defense of your safety, to such numerous and arduous contests, and to these daily attacks of profligate men.”
from “Speech for Aulus Licinius Archias the Poet” by Cicero

However, while culture (and nurture) are quite prominent in shaping how people behave, the deeper aspects of human nature, sometimes stemming from the primitive parts of a human being’s reptilian brain are still the main driver. Culture then affects which of the general traits of human nature rise to the top, in one direction or the other.

In fact, many modern scientists argue that culture is rooted in biology. The patterns of culture arose from the behaviors of our more primitive ancestors and their natures. Human nature often works in an action versus reaction kind of way. When you feel you are wronged, you will try to exact revenge. Certain events can arise based on a series of actions and reactions due to human nature.

“The manner in which these notions come into being is as follows. Men being all naturally inclined to sexual intercourse, and the consequence of this being the birth of children, whenever one of those who have been reared does not on growing up show gratitude to those who reared him or defend them, but on the contrary takes to speaking ill of them or ill treating them, it is evident that he will displease and offend those who have been familiar with his parents and have witnessed the care and pains they spent on attending to and feeding their children.

For seeing that men are distinguished from the other animals by possessing the faculty of reason, it is obviously improbable that such a difference of conduct should escape them, as it escapes the other animals: they will notice the thing and be displeased at what is going on, looking to the future and reflecting that they may all meet with the same treatment.

Again when a man who has been helped or succored when in danger by another does not show gratitude to his preserver, but even goes to the length of attempting to do him injury, it is clear that those who become aware of it will naturally be displeased and offended by such conduct, sharing the resentment of their injured neighbor and imagining themselves in the same situation. From all this there arises in everyone a notion of the meaning and theory of duty, which is the beginning and end of justice.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

Reciprocity is one of the building blocks of morality, which itself is one of the pillars of a well-functioning human society. Studies have shown that primates have a sense of reciprocity, rewarding those that did them favors, and punishing or shunning those that they perceive as having done them wrong. Humans share this behavior and engage in reciprocity in their daily interactions with other humans.

Both positive and negative norms can arise from this type of process. When this is done according to reason, then just laws and good conduct can arise, however when emotions take over, then it is very easy to get set on a negative path. This is what happened in the Republic after the Punic Wars.

One basic human characteristic is the need for self-esteem. This is tied to status-seeking, and manifests itself in many different ways. Both internal and external factors have an impact on a person’s self-esteem, and many of the ancient philosophical schools tried to teach people how to focus on the internal factors, ones that you can actually influence. However, this is quite hard to do, and often, external factors play a much stronger role in determining a person’s sense of self-worth.

People have a desire to be valued, and this need for recognition is often a driving factor in how they behave and what they do. Some modern commentators have looked at Plato’s concept of “thumos”, one of the emotional parts of the mind, and came up with two new concepts in order to explain behavior: “isothymia” and “megalothymia”. Isothymia is about a person’s desire for equal respect, while megalothymia is when people go beyond that and desire to be esteemed above others. This esteem above others is one of the building blocks of ambition.

Most people just want respect, and are quite satisfied when they feel they have it. However, when individuals think that they are not respected, they might start feeling aggrieved, which can later turn to anger. Respect is also tied to the issue of fairness. A sense of fairness is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and comes down from our primordial ancestors. The thing is that it drives actions which don’t always make sense from a logical point of view.

In experiments done with chimpanzees, the apes would throw temper tantrums when they felt that they weren’t getting a fair deal. Humans often go beyond that, and outright reject offers that would make sense from a utility maximalization standpoint. They will not take offers that they deem unfair, instead of pocketing the money. For reasons of pride, they will do things that are irrational from an economics perspective.

A perception of the lack of fairness is not the only mechanism that can trigger feelings of disrespect. Other types of slights can result in people feeling that they are not being respected. These perceptions are highly subjective and can differ not only from person to person, but also according to the situation. Illogical actions like hissy fits can result when you feel like you are not being respected. So if you wanted to know why some people vote for throwing themselves off the cliff, then here is your answer.

However, sometimes there is real mistreatment and legitimate reasons for this type of feeling. When someone really is keeping you down and laughing in your face about it, you can be moved to try to do something about it, for example rebel. This feeling of getting disrespected played a large role in many of the uprisings of the ancient, but also modern world.

“Not only in political life should the powerful behave humanely towards those who are of humble condition, but also in private life the right-minded should not be too harsh on their slaves.

For as in states arrogant behavior leads to civil dissension amongst the citizens, so in each private home, such behavior provokes the slaves against their masters, and gives rise to terrible disorders in the cities. For when those in power act cruelly and wickedly, the character of their subjects is inflamed to reckless action.

Those whom fate has placed in a lowly position will gladly yield to their superiors in honor and glory, but if they are denied the kindness which they deserve, they revolt against the men who act like cruel despots.”
from “Historical Library” by Diodorus Siculus

Self-esteem and the need for recognition are behind many of the behaviors like envy, enmity, or other insecurities. All people exhibit some of these things, but some fall for them worse than others. Especially in ancient Rome, the need for recognition was very important due to cultural factors, and when the leaders felt that they were disrespected or not recognized, they tended to try to rectify that. Many of the ancient politicians wanted to have a feeling not of just being equal to others, but above them.

The conditions in Rome were made worse by the faults of many of its leaders. Old aristocrats like Metellus were arrogant, while the new men like Marius were power hungry. All these traits then fed off each other to make things worse.

“Now, although Metellus possessed in abundance valor, renown, and other qualities to be desired by good men, yet he had a disdainful and arrogant spirit, a common defect in the nobles.

At first then he was astonished at the unusual request, expressed his surprise at Marius’ design, and with feigned friendship advised him not to enter upon so mad a course or to entertain thoughts above his station.

All men, he said, should not covet all things; Marius should be content with his own lot and finally, he must beware of making a request of the Roman people which they would be justified in denying.”
from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

While some of the men coming from the old patrician or other long-established noble families had superiority complexes, where they thought themselves better than others, other men had inferiority complexes. Both of these types of complexes can drive negative action in the individual.

A superiority complex is often associated with arrogance and disdain for others, while an inferiority complex can be tied to envy and jealousy. Each can produce negative actions, and in extreme cases even overwhelm a personality. One well-known inferiority complex is the Napoleonic Complex, named after Napoleon, who tried to overcompensate for his short height by being very aggressive and domineering in social situations.

In ancient times, Cicero as a new man coming from outside of the traditional nobility, had what seems to be a strong impostor syndrome, and often tried to overcompensate for his lack of distinguished ancestry by boasting. Servilius Caepio, coming from an old patrician family, on the other hand suffered from a superiority complex. When he was put under the command of Mallius Maximus, a new man from the lower classes, Caepio refused to cooperate with him. However, when he learned that Mallius might outshine him, he then grew jealous and proceeded on a coarse series of actions which resulted in one of the biggest defeats of a Roman army in history.

“Servilius became the cause of many evils to the army by reason of his jealousy of his colleague; for, though he had in general equal authority, his rank was naturally diminished by the fact that the other was consul.

After the death of Scaurus, Mallius had sent for Servilius; but the latter replied that each of them ought to guard his own province. Then, suspecting that Mallius might gain some success by himself, he grew jealous of him, fearing that he might secure the glory alone, and went to him.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Unfortunately, it is often the least competent individuals in society who have a high opinion of themselves (suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect), believe that they are the best thing since sliced bread and therefore can do everything better than others (who are in reality usually more competent than them). Many of them end up being the leaders in government or business.

“For sometimes men without any ability to perceive what is needful, men who have never given heed to their own welfare in the past, incompetent to manage even a village as it should be managed, but recommended only by wealth or family, undertake the task of government; still others undertake that task in the belief that they are displaying diligence if they merely heap up phrases and string them together in any way at all with greater speed than most men can, although in all else they are in no way superior to anybody else.

And what is most serious is that these men, not for the sake of what is truly best and in the interest of their country itself, but for the sake of reputation and honors and the possession of greater power than their neighbors, in the pursuit of crowns and precedence and purple robes, fixing their gaze upon these things and staking all upon their attainment, do and say such things as will enhance their own reputations.

Consequently one may see in every city many who have been awarded crowns, who sacrifice in public, who come forth arrayed in purple; but a man of probity and wisdom, who is really devoted to his own country, and thinks and speaks the truth, whose influence with the city that follows his advice insures better management and the attainment of some blessing — such a man is hard to find.”
from “Second Tarsic Discourse” by Dio Chrysostom

Envy is one basic negative trait of human nature that often makes its appearance. It shows its head not only in the relationships between the classes, where the poor start envying the rich, and the rich feel entitled and look down on the poor, but especially on the more inter-personal levels, where one neighbor envies the possessions of another, and where one leader envies the status of his rival.

“The excessive power enjoyed by Pompey excited, as often happens, a feeling of envy among the ease-loving citizens. Metellus, because his triumph over Crete was shorn of its splendor, and Cato, who always looked askance upon those in power, began to decry Pompey and clamor against his measures.”
from “Epitome of Roman History” by Florus

Enmity drove many of the inter-personal conflicts that brought down the Republic. Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, as well as many rivalries on a smaller scale quickly became the factors that determined the direction that the Republic would take and brought about horrific events. Not only did the actors on the political stage want to win, they also wanted to see others lose, and lose badly. In Greek this type of behavior is called “pleonexia”, and for many ancient Greek historians it is a primary cause for the downfall of states.

When Polybius was writing his histories, he noticed that pleonexia was widespread among the leaders of the Greek city states and the Carthaginians, but noted its absence among the Romans themselves. This is what in his view made them strong. Paradoxically, just a short time after he wrote these assessments, this type of behavior started appearing among the Romans as well, and grew quite fast.

“Quintus Catulus and Aemilius Lepidus were chosen consuls, the former of the Sullan faction and the latter of the opposite party. They hated each other bitterly and began to quarrel immediately, from which it was plain that fresh troubles were imminent.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

“Caesar’s power now inspired the envy of Pompey, while Pompey’s eminence was offensive to Caesar; Pompey could not brook an equal or Caesar a superior. Oh, the wickedness of it! They strove for the first place, as though the fortunes of a great empire could not find room for both of them.”
from “Epitome of Roman History” by Florus

The power struggles and petty jealousies resulted in the most powerful individuals among the ruling classes, supported by different factions in the Senate, concentrating not on justly ruling the Republic, but instead on trying to undermine their rivals through any means possible.

One example of this is when the Senate, under the influence of Pompey, tried to strip Caesar of his province, and called on him to disband his army. This meant that if he returned to Rome, he would potentially be exposed to prosecution, which at that time could have meant his death.

“This testimony of the unanimous voice of the Senate was very great, and consistent with their former conduct; for the preceding year, when Marcellus attacked Caesar’s dignity, he proposed to the Senate, contrary to the law of Pompey and Crassus, to dispose of Caesar’s province, before the expiration of his command, and when the votes were called for, and Marcellus, who endeavoured to advance his own dignity, by raising envy against Caesar, wanted a division, the full Senate went over to the opposite side.

The spirit of Caesar’s foes was not broken by this, but it taught them, that they ought to strengthen their interest by enlarging their connections, so as to force the Senate to comply with whatever they resolved on.”
from “The Gallic Wars” by Julius Caesar

“Thus most of the Senate, intimidated by the expressions of the consul, by the fears of a present army, and the threats of Pompey’s friends, unwillingly and reluctantly adopted Scipio’s opinion, that Caesar should disband his army by a certain day, and should he not do so, he should be considered as acting against the state.

Marcus Antonius, and Quintus Cassius, tribunes of the people, interposed. The question was immediately put on their interposition. Violent opinions were expressed: whoever spoke with the greatest acrimony and cruelty, was most highly commended by Caesar’s enemies.”
from “The Civil War” by Julius Caesar

Actions bring reactions, and when someone has been wronged, they often plot their revenge. Personal conflicts can be just like wars, resulting in tit for tat waves of retributions.

“Wars bring retribution as they swing back and forth.”
from “Homeric Problems” by Heraclitus the Grammarian

Deception and betrayal also play a big part in human affairs. An individual often suffers the biggest injuries through the deliberate acts of people that they considered their friends and that they trusted. That’s why it is necessary to be on guard not just against your enemies, but your friends as well.

“Toward all men, then, one should be equally on his guard, and not be one whit more trustful even if a person is held to be a friend or a close acquaintance or a blood-relative.”
from “Discourse on Distrust” by Dio Chrysostom

During the times of the fall of the Roman Republic, many of the characters on the big stage met their downfall not through the actions of their enemies, but instead through the actions of former friends. Loyalty is not always adhered to when a supposed friend sees a bigger opportunity for their own selfish gain.

This is something that has been a problem from time immemorial, and even our primate cousins engage in this type of behavior. Caesar and Pompey, Marc Antony and Octavian, were all friends or at least fought on the same side at one point, but of course the most famous betrayal of trust is when Brutus led the gang of senators who assassinated Caesar, a man who considered him a close friend.

“Well, then, let us consider the following question also. By whom have more persons been ruined — by those who are admittedly enemies, or, on the contrary, by those who profess to be friends? As for myself, I observe that of the cities which have been captured those which have been destroyed by traitors are more numerous than those which have been forcibly seized by the foe, and also that with human beings those who lodge complaints against their friends and close acquaintances are altogether more numerous than those who blame their enemies for their misfortunes.”
from “Discourse on Distrust” by Dio Chrysostom

“Accordingly those who wish to live at peace and with some degree of security must beware of fellowship with human beings, must recognize that the average man is by nature prone to let others have a share in any evil, and that, no matter if one claims a thousand times to be a friend, he is not to be trusted. For with human beings there is no constancy or truthfulness at all; on the contrary, any man whom at the moment they prize above everything, even, it may be, above life itself, after a brief interval they deem their bitterest foe, and often they cannot refrain even from attacking his body.”
from “Discourse on Distrust” by Dio Chrysostom

Another thing is that often people pretend to be your friend or like you in order to get something from you, to con you. This especially happens to people in power.

“For there are thousands who willingly, yes, very eagerly, cultivate the rich and influential, and all the world is full of flatterers, who ply that calling with both experience and skill.”
from “Discourse on Envy” by Dio Chrysostom

Sometimes people do bad things without being conscious of it, but often they do them knowingly.

“There is sufficient evidence that some of those who act wrongly do not act wrongly either under compulsion or through ignorance of what is better, in the fact that they are neither distressed at their wrong actions nor regret them. For things that are done involuntarily cause distress and are objects of regret.”
from “Ethical Problems” by Alexander of Aphrodisias

Both character and circumstances have an effect on the actions of people. Some people just have a bad character overall, but for some others, their bad actions are due to circumstances. Even if they know what the right thing to do is, if a disaster strikes their life, they don’t have the willpower necessary to do what is right, but instead they proceed on doing the wrong things.

“It is common enough for people, when they fall into great disasters, to discern what is right, and what they ought to do; but there are but few who in such extremities have the strength to obey their judgment, either in doing what it approves or avoiding what it condemns; and a good many are so weak as to give way to their habits all the more, and are incapable of using their minds.”
from “The Life of Marc Antony” by Plutarch

However, often there doesn’t need to be some sort of a personal disaster in order for you to get pulled in the wrong direction. The simple power of emotions usually suffices. Just look at smokers. In their minds, they know that smoking is bad for them, however they still light one up, because desire is stronger and their willpower is weaker. Ovid captured this effect perfectly in his work “Metamorphoses”, where he has Medea, a female character from Greek mythology, say these words:

“I am dragged along by a strange new force. Desire and reason are pulling in different directions. I see the right way and approve it, but follow the wrong.”
from “Metamorphoses” by Ovid

Sometimes reason never even enters the equation, and impulses take over straight away. One problem is that many people are often prone to anger, to let emotions overtake them, and act before they think. They punch someone, shout out an insult, or send out a tweet. This was one of the problems of Julius Caesar, who would sometimes do rash things at the spur of the moment. Seneca mentions one episode, when he became so overcome with rage over a slight mishap, that he even challenged Jupiter, the supreme god himself, to a fight.

“Gaius Caesar, who when angry with heaven because it interfered with his ballet-dancers, whom he imitated more carefully than he attended to them when they acted, and because it frightened his revels by its thunders, surely ill-directed, challenged Jove to fight, and that to the death, shouting the Homeric verse:— “Carry me off, or I will carry thee!”

How great was his madness! He must have believed either that he could not be hurt even by Jupiter himself, or that he could hurt even Jupiter itself. I imagine that this saying of his had no small weight in nerving the minds of the conspirators for their task: for it seemed to be the height of endurance to bear one who could not bear Jupiter.”
from “On Anger” by Seneca

Wrong-doing can arise from several causes. The character traits of the people with power can be further awakened by the outside conditions. When a person fears for his status or even his life, he can act in ways that he wouldn’t otherwise under other conditions.

“Fear makes men believe the worst.”
from “Histories of Alexander the Great” by Quintus Curtius Rufus

In Ancient Rome, politics ended up being driven by fear, which awakened some of the worst traits of many of the leading men of the Republic.

“Then, too, those very wrongs which people try to inflict on purpose to injure are often the result of fear: that is, he who premeditates injuring another is afraid that, if he does not do so, he may himself be made to suffer some hurt.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

The conditions degenerated so much, that traditional norms ceased to exist and violence became the way things were done. This promoted a state of fear, which further reinforced rule-breaking. Fear of loss of property, or even life was a defining factor for driving the actions of certain people at the end of the Roman Republic.

“But they, being then under the influence of excessive fear, because they thought that those actions and all the events of the preceding year were being undermined by the praetors, and annulled by the Senate and by the chief men of the city, were unwilling to alienate a popular tribune of the people from their interests, and were in the habit of saying that their own dangers touched them more nearly than mine.”
from “Speech in Defense of Sestius” by Cicero

Caesar might not have done some of the things that he did, had this constant danger not been above his head, and had he been able to realize at least some of his ambitions without the threat of being persecuted by his opponents.

A similar fear drove the actions of guys like Tiberius Gracchus. He was afraid that if he was no longer protected by the immunity of his office, his enemies would have a field day with him. In order to protect himself, he decided to break a norm and ran for a second term as tribune.

“Gracchus was proposing certain laws for the benefit of those of the populace serving in the army, and was transferring the courts from the senate to the knights, disturbing and overturning all established customs in order that he might be enabled to lay hold on safety in some wise.

And when not even this proved of advantage to him, but his term of office was drawing to a close, when he would be immediately exposed to the attacks of his enemies, he attempted to secure the tribuneship for the following year also, in company with his brother, and to appoint his father-in‑law consul.

And to obtain this end he did not hesitate to make any statement or promise anything whatsoever to people.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Lucretius in his epic poem “On the Nature of Things” went even further and saw fear, more particularly the fear of death as the primary driver of human action. The inevitability of death is the stark reminder that you lack complete control over your life. Often, you try to do everything in your power to postpone death as far as possible.

“Wherefore it is more fitting to watch a man in doubt and danger, and to learn of what manner he is in adversity; for then at last a real cry is wrung from the bottom of his heart: the mask is torn off, and the truth remains behind.

Moreover, avarice and the blind craving for honors, which constrain wretched men to overleap the boundaries of right, and sometimes as comrades or accomplices in crime to struggle night and day with surpassing toil to rise up to the height of power—these sores in life are fostered in no small degree by the fear of death.”
from “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius

“Some of them come to ruin to win statues and a name; and often through fear of death so deeply does the hatred of life and the sight of the light possess men, that with sorrowing heart they compass their own death, forgetting that it is this fear which is the source of their woes, which assails their honor, which bursts the bonds of friendship, and overturns affection from its lofty throne.”
from “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius

Control and status go hand in hand in the minds of men. If you are poor, then you have less control over your life, and hence are more likely to die. That is why status-seeking is such a dominant factor in driving human affairs.

“For most often scorned disgrace and biting poverty are seen to be far removed from pleasant settled life, and are, as it were, a present dallying before the gates of death; and while men, spurred by a false fear, desire to flee far from them, and to drive them far away, they amass substance by civil bloodshed and greedily multiply their riches, heaping slaughter on slaughter.”
from “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius

Humans want control and will do everything in their power to get it. That’s why religion and superstition have had such a powerful pull, since they help humans keep an illusion of control in their minds. Individuals always want to expand their locus of control, which is the degree to which people believe that they have control over the things happening in their lives.

Ancient Stoic philosophers realized that this need for control was a mechanism that played deeply with the psyche of humans and that’s why their advice focused on one big mantra: keep in mind what you can and cannot control.

The need to control their destiny drove many of the leaders in the Roman Republic to start going around the norms. When you have fear, your sense of control is slipping away, and you try to do everything in your power to regain it. That is why fear as an emotion can push people towards breaking norms.

The feeling of not having enough control in their lives is what starts people chasing after money and power. However, with certain people, this grows beyond any reasonable bounds. Some people end up chasing money and power, just for the sake of getting more money and power.

“Lust of absolute power is more burning than all the passions.”
from “The Annals” by Tacitus

This greed and lust for power can often even grow exponentially, as the person becomes richer and more powerful. When a person becomes obsessed by this, then they are willing to do anything to get what they want. They start behaving in ways that trample any norms.

“The great majority of people, however, when they fall a prey to ambition for either military or civil authority, are carried away by it so completely that they quite lose sight of the claims of justice.

For Ennius says: “There is no fellowship inviolate, no faith is kept, when kingship is concerned.”

And the truth of his words has an uncommonly wide application. For whenever a situation is of such a nature that not more than one can hold pre-eminence in it, competition for it usually becomes so keen that it is an extremely difficult matter to maintain a “fellowship inviolate.”

We saw this proved but now in the effrontery of Gaius Caesar, who, to gain that sovereign power which by a depraved imagination he had conceived in his fancy, trod underfoot all laws of gods and men.

But the trouble about this matter is that it is in the greatest souls and in the most brilliant geniuses that we usually find ambitions for civil and military authority, for power, and for glory, springing; and therefore we must be the more heedful not to go wrong in that direction.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

When this power-hungry individual reaches positions of absolute power, they might start behaving even worse, as it becomes harder to control their desires and impulses.

“When a man holds absolute power, it is difficult for him to control his desires.”
from “History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus” by Herodian of Antioch

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the famous maxim that has been proven true throughout history. The story of Sulla shows this well.

“But after this event he changed so much that one would not say his earlier and his later deeds were those of the same person. Thus it would appear that he could not endure good fortune. For he now committed acts which he had censured in other persons while he was still weak, and a great many others still more outrageous.

He had doubtless always desired to act thus, but revealed himself only in the day of his power. This fact produced a strong conviction in the minds of some that adversity has not a little to do with virtue.

Thus Sulla, as soon as he had conquered the Samnites and thought he had put an end to the war, — for he considered the rest as of no account, — changed his course, and leaving behind his former self, as it were, outside the wall on the field of battle, proceeded to outdo Cinna and Marius and all their successors combined.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

“Sulla now busied himself with slaughter, and murders without number or limit filled the city. Many, too, were killed to gratify private hatreds, although they had no relations with Sulla, but he gave his consent in order to gratify his adherents.”
from “The Life of Sulla” by Plutarch

The reason why power corrupts can be illustrated by a tale of the Ring of Gyges, which Plato used in his work “The Republic”. In it, he has Glaucon use the tale to back up his assertion that people are corruptible creatures and if there is no threat of punishment hanging over them, they will do despicable things.

Gyges has the power of invisibility and thereby he can do whatever he wants with no consequences. He uses it to do bad things. This is the same thing that happens to those in power. Their grip on power gives them a sense of impunity and thereby they get corrupted.

“Once upon a time the earth opened in consequence of heavy rains; Gyges went down into the chasm and saw, so the story goes, a horse of bronze; in its side was a door. On opening this door he saw the body of a dead man of enormous size with a gold ring upon his finger.

He removed this and put it on his own hand and then repaired to an assembly of the shepherds, for he was a shepherd of the king. As often as he turned the bezel of the ring inwards toward the palm of his hand, he became invisible to everyone, while he himself saw everything; but as often as he turned it back to its proper position, he became visible again.

And so, with the advantage which the ring gave him, he debauched the queen, and with her assistance he murdered his royal master and removed all those who he thought stood in his way, without anyone’s being able to detect him in his crimes. Thus, by virtue of the ring, he shortly rose to be king of Lydia.

Now, suppose a wise man had just such a ring, he would not imagine that he was free to do wrongly any more than if he did not have it; for good men aim to secure not secrecy but the right.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

Cicero noted that not everyone succumbs to these temptations and abuse their power. The wise man still follows the path of virtue, no matter what. The defining moment of a person’s character is what they will do when no one is looking. Can the strength of character withstand the circumstances? Yes it can, but it requires a very wise person that is in control of himself, for it is very easy to stray from this road, if the right circumstances present themselves.

Is it nature or nurture that has the greater effect on a person becoming corrupted by power? Unfortunately Plutarch did not answer this question, but debate throughout the ages has weighted in on both sides of the issue. However, modern research has revealed, that both things can be correct. While previously genes were thought as hard-wired, recent discoveries point to the fact that the outside environment can awaken them or keep them dormant. In the future, the new field of epigenetics will probably shine even more light on this topic.

“Naturally, therefore, his conduct fixed a stigma upon offices of great power, which were thought to work a change in men’s previous characters, and render them capricious, vain, and cruel.

However, whether this is a change and reversal of nature, brought about by fortune, or rather a revelation, when a man is in authority, of underlying baseness, were matter for determination in some other treatise.”
from “The Life of Sulla” by Plutarch

The lust for money has also been noted as being a source of evil deeds and often leads men on the path to the dark side. The internal need for control is also what pushes many people to chase after riches. It is true that a certain amount of money is needed if you want to improve your lot in life, however often people take this overboard. They stop viewing money as a means to an end, but instead the end itself.

“But, for the most part, people are led to wrong-doing in order to secure some personal end; in this vice, avarice is generally the controlling motive.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

As Cicero wrote in his work “On Moral Duties”, avarice is also a big driving factor for the actions of people. Making more and more money can become an obsession, pushing people to behave in strange ways. Friends, principles, morality will no longer matter, if they stand in the way of getting more money.

“Wealth, the subject of so much dispute amongst men, sometimes causes great misfortunes to those who long to gain it. It drives them to unjust and criminal actions; it provides fuel for licentiousness, and leads the unwise into shameful behavior.

Thus we see these men fall into the greatest misfortune, and bring disaster on their cities. Such is the pernicious power of gold over men, when they foolishly over-value it. In their insatiable greed, they apply to everything these verses of the poets:

“Blessed gold, most beautiful gift to mortals, greater pleasure than a mother.”

And also:

“Let them call me wicked, as long as I make a profit.””
from “Historical Library” by Diodorus Siculus

“Hence the lust for money first, then for power, grew upon them; these were, I may say, the root of all evils. For avarice destroyed honor, integrity, and all other noble qualities; taught in their place insolence, cruelty, to neglect the gods, to set a price on everything.”
from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

Often, the appetite for money grows the more money you have. When greed overtakes the individual, no amount of money is enough.

“Though the covetous men gain riches in number as the grains of sand by these sea-cliffs, or as the stars that shine of dark nights, he never ceases to bewail his poverty; and though the desire of the wealthy man is glutted with gold and silver and all manner of precious things, yet is the thirst of their greed never quenched, for its bottomless abyss has many empty chambers yet to fill. Who can ever give enough to the frenzy of the covetous? The more that is given him the greater his desire.”
from “The Consolation of Philosophy” by Boethius

In the times of the late Republic, whether due to luck, circumstances or the environment, the leadership positions became filled with people who were driven by avarice and lust for power. Men like Crassus became the most powerful people in the country. Crassus was a real estate magnate who stopped at nothing in order to gain more power and money. In the process of getting to the top, this motive came to overshadow all the rest. When this is the primary motive of your leaders, then the state of the government will reflect this and deteriorate.

“The Romans, it is true, say that the many virtues of Crassus were obscured by his sole vice of avarice; and it is likely that the one vice which became stronger than all the others in him weakened the rest. The chief proofs of his avarice are found in the way he got his property and in the amount of it.”
from “The Life of Crassus” by Plutarch

Positions of governors in provinces, and generals on foreign campaigns were taken up not out of a sense of duty or a public service to the state, but instead to line their own pockets. Governors, together with the tax-farmers and money lenders, would try to extract as much money out of the provinces for themselves as they could. This money was not going to improve the workings of the Roman state, but instead to fund luxurious living and help them get political positions of power back in Rome.

Cicero prosecuted a case against Verres, a notoriously corrupt governor of Sicily. The way Verres went about planning the stewardship of his province was no different from what many other future governors would do.

“Now, as soon as Sicily fell to him by lot as his province, immediately at Rome, while he was yet in the city, before he departed, he began to consider within himself and to deliberate with his friends, by what means he might make the greatest sum of money in that province in one year.

He did not like to learn while he was acting, (though he was not entirely ignorant and inexperienced in the oppression of a province,) but he wished to arrive in Sicily with all his plans for plunder carefully thought of and prepared.”
from “Against Verres” by Cicero

In this case, Verres was convicted, but in many other cases, corrupt governors walked free, often because of all the money they paid in bribes to the judges. However, even relatively honest people like Cicero could not resist the temptation. While he did try to govern in a fair way and did not partake in the usual robbing of the populace like other governors, he still did end up going back to Rome with a significant amount of money. In a world of such political competition, if you did not get any money, you were signing away your political career, such was the environment in Rome.

Some other men were ready to sell out their country and collude with foreign powers, if it brought them riches. Jugurtha was the ruler of a kingdom in North Africa, and he bribed a lot of powerful people in Rome in order to get his way. Rome in his time had become extremely corrupt and you could buy almost anyone if you had pockets deep enough.

“A few, on the other hand, to whom right and justice were more precious than riches, recommended that aid be given to Adherbal and that the death of Hiempsal be severely punished. Conspicuous among these was Aemilius Scaurus, a noble full of energy, a partisan, greedy for power, fame, and riches, but clever in concealing his faults.

As soon as this man saw the king’s bribery, so notorious and so brazen, fearing the usual result in such cases, namely, that such gross corruption would arouse popular resentment, he curbed his habitual cupidity. In spite of all, that faction of the Senate prevailed which rated money and favor higher than justice.”
from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

“Jugurtha, however, although he was clearly responsible for so flagrant a crime, did not cease to resist the evidence, until he realized that the indignation at the deed was too strong even for his influence and his money.

Therefore, although in the first stage of the trial he had given fifty of his friends as sureties, yet having an eye rather to his throne than to the sureties, he sent Bomilcar secretly to Numidia, fearing that if he paid the penalty, the rest of his subjects would fear to obey his orders.

A few days later he himself returned home, being ordered by the senate to leave Italy. After going out of the gates, it is said that he often looked back at Rome in silence and finally said, “A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser!””
from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

The Jugurthine War took place between 112 and 106 BC, and fully exposed the moral stink that was setting into Rome. Jugurtha, the principal actor in this series of events, instigated a coup against his rivals and took over the entire kingdom of Numidia. He managed to stay in power for so long, because of his widespread use of bribes to different Roman officials. This period was also instrumental in the rise of Marius and Sulla, who became the two main catalysts of the civil wars that would grip Rome at a later time.

Several decades later after the Jugurthine War, the state of affairs in the city of Rome had degenerated even worse. Nothing was sacred anymore and in their quest to satisfy their ambitions, some men even tried to overthrow the duly elected government through a coup d’etat planned in secret. Frustrated for not being elected to the consulship, Catiline plotted with some of his friends to take power in the city. In order to carry this out, they even engaged the aid of foreign tribes such as the Allobroges from Gaul.

“From this time Catiline abstained wholly from politics as not leading quickly and surely to absolute power, but as full of the spirit of contention and malice. He procured much money from many women who hoped that they would get their husbands killed in the rising, and he formed a conspiracy with a number of senators and knights, and collected together a body of plebeians, foreign residents, and slaves.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

Many of the people who joined in the plot of Catiline, did it not just to get power, but also to get out of debt. There are often certain individuals who live above their means, suffer frequently from bankruptcies, but always try to get greater power for themselves. This is a phenomenon not restricted to ancient times, but several examples come to mind from recent events as well.

“There is one class of them, who, with enormous debts, have still greater possessions, and who can by no means be detached from their affection to them. Of these men the appearance is most respectable, for they are wealthy, but their intention and their cause are most shameless.”
from “Catiline Orations” by Cicero

“There is another class of them, who, although they are harassed by debt, yet are expecting supreme power; they wish to become masters. They think that when the republic is in confusion they may gain those honours which they despair of when it is in tranquillity.”
from “Catiline Orations” by Cicero

Crime in those times ran rampant in Rome. Walking around the city, especially at night, could get you robbed and even killed. However, this petty robbery at the bottom was accompanied by white-collar crime at the top.

As the ancient Greek Cynic Diogenes of Sinope remarked when he saw high-ranking temple officials take away a petty thief who stole a bowl: the great thieves are leading away the little thief. In the latter days of the Republic, many of the high-ranking magistrates and politicians engaged in many illegal and immoral activities.

“Once he saw the officials of a temple leading away some one who had stolen a bowl belonging to the treasurers, and said, “The great thieves are leading away the little thief.””
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Often, these high-ranking people operated with impunity. It is usually true that the richer, more connected individuals, the ones who know how the system really works and who are not shy of abusing it, get acquitted, while the poorer ones end up rotting in jail for lesser crimes.

“Unprincipled men inflict injuries because the laws are not valid against all classes. A transgressor who belongs to the wealthy class is not punished for his injustice, while a poor man, who doesn’t understand business, pays the legal penalty.”
from “Roman Antiquities” by Ammianus Marcellinus

The political and business interests had become tightly intertwined in the late Roman Republic. Much of the tax collection in the provinces was given out to private contractors, tax-farmers, who had formed consortia, which were early forms of financial institutions. The way it worked was that these consortia would bid on contracts to collect the taxes in the provinces, and the one with the highest bid would win. However once the bid was won, in their quest to get the maximum amount of profits out of their province, they would end up gouging the populations with huge tax burdens. An entire financial market developed around this, as many people, including senators, would buy shares in these companies, and all kinds of financial instruments were developed.

These tax-farming consortia were also usually bribing the local Roman governors to let things slide, which they did most of the time. When, a more honest governor appeared, one who tried to nip these scandalous practices in the bud, the consortia would use their political connections back in Rome to get them removed. This is what happened to Lucullus, when he tried to correct the bad conditions in the Province of Asia. Unfortunately, the financial interests were stronger, and honesty did not pay.

“Lucullus was now busy in looking after the cities of Asia, and having no war to divert his time, spent it in the administration of law and justice, the want of which had for a long time left the province a prey to unspeakable and incredible miseries; so plundered and enslaved by tax-farmers and usurers that private people were compelled to sell their sons in the flower of their youth, and their daughters in their virginity, and the states publicly to sell their consecrated gifts, pictures, and statues.

In the end their lot was to yield themselves up slaves to their creditors, but before this worse troubles befell them, tortures, inflicted with ropes and by horses, standing abroad to be scorched when the sun was hot, and being driven into ice and clay in the cold; insomuch that slavery was no less than a redemption and joy to them. Lucullus in a short time freed the cities from all these evils and oppressions; for, first of all, he ordered there should be no more taken than one per cent.

Secondly, where the interest exceeded the principal, he struck it off. The third and most considerable order was, that the creditor should receive the fourth part of the debtor’s income; but if any lender had added the interest to the principal, it was utterly disallowed. Insomuch, that in the space of four years all debts were paid and lands returned to their right owners. The public debt was contracted when Asia was fined twenty thousand talents by Sylla, but twice as much was paid to the collectors, who by their usury had by this time advanced it to a hundred and twenty thousand talents.

And accordingly they inveighed against Lucullus at Rome, as grossly injured by him, and by their money’s help (as, indeed, they were very powerful, and had many of the statesmen in their debt), they stirred up several leading senators against him.”
from “The Life of Lucullus” by Plutarch

With these financial houses (the individual businessmen who ran them were called the publicans) becoming so powerful, moral hazard was introduced into the system. In order to make more and more money, they took on riskier bids, and their money collection practices became more and more outrageous. When one of these consortia put in a too high bid for tax collection in the Province of Asia, which it could not recuperate, it had to be bailed out by the Roman state.

If this company had gone bankrupt, it could have caused quite an economic crisis in Rome, as many different people had a stake. It was very convenient that Crassus had a financial interest in this company, so he helped to push this bailout through. This was done after the formation of the First Triumvirate between Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, and it was Caesar in his capacity as consul, who got this bill through the Senate, resorting to some shady tactics, such as locking up Cato.

“When the publicans asked for relief, Caesar freed them from a third part of their obligation, and openly warned them in contracting for taxes in the future not to bid too recklessly. He freely granted everything else that anyone took it into his head to ask, either without opposition or by intimidating anyone who tried to object.”
from “The Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius

In parallel to this tax-farming racket, a lending industry rose up. The problem was that the taxes these tax-farmers were collecting were so high, that the people in the provinces did not have the money to pay them. In order to satisfy the tax-farmers, they had to borrow money. Of course, a “friendly” lender would come in and lend them the money, but at rates that amounted to usury. The interesting thing is that the people behind these lenders were often wealthy senators, who could use their influence in the Senate to get some military backups to enforce these usurious loans. Even though technically it was illegal for senators to work in the lending industry, they would often hide their dealings behind front men they secretly controlled.

In one of the letters to his friend Atticus, Cicero describes how as governor of the province of Cilicia, he was approached by two men who worked as money-lenders. They tried to get him to enforce that the people of Salamis, a city in Cyprus, pay back what they borrowed. Of course with a 48% interest on top! After a while, these men told Cicero that they were acting on behalf of another man in the background. This man turned out to be Brutus, the guy who would go down in history as one of the leaders of the group of senators that assassinated Caesar, and a man who had a reputation for being honest, the noblest Roman of them all.

Cicero of course found this rate of interest scandalous, and tried to reason with the lenders. The Senate had originally limited the rate of interest for loans at 12% in order to curb these types of usurious practices. However, Brutus, through his friends got some bills passed in the Senate to get around this law, and also apparently got the army to intervene in Salamis, which ended up causing the death of five local councilmen.

It is interesting to reproduce a large part of the letter, where Cicero describes what went down. You can see quite well how things worked back in that time, which is in many ways similar to modern times. Today, we would call the way that financial consortia pulled the strings on legislation with a telling term: special interests.

“I must now tell you about Brutus. Your friend Brutus is acquainted with certain individuals, by name Marcus Scaptius and Publius Matinius, to whom the people of Salamis, in Cyprus, owe money, and whom he strongly recommended to my good offices.

I know nothing of Matinius, but Scaptius came out to me to the camp. For Brutus’s sake, I promised that I would enforce payment on the Salaminians, for which he thanked me. He asked for some post of command, but I said that I never appointed anybody engaged in money transactions, and that I had explained the same to you before : when Pompey had applied to me I had shown him good reasons for my rule, not to mention Torquatus when he asked for your friend Laenius, as well as many others.

If he wanted the post only for the sake of his bond I would take care he recovered it He thanked me, and took his leave. Now my predecessor Appius had already given a few troops of horse to this Scaptius in order to coerce the Salaminians, and had appointed the man also to a command. He was now putting the screw on the people. I ordered that his troops should leave Cyprus.

Scaptius was greatly aggrieved. Well, not to make a long story, when the Salaminians came to apply to me at Tarsus, and with them Scaptius, I ordered them to pay the money, in fulfillment of my pledge to him. This produced much about the bond itself and the violent proceedings of Scaptius, but I refused to listen. I advised them, even implored them, in return for the favor I had shown their city, to settle the claim ; finally I told them that I must enforce it.

The poor people, so far from refusing, even said they were only paying away what was mine, for as I had not exacted what they had always before had to give to the Governor, they were only giving up what was practically mine, and in fact the debt to Scaptius was considerably less than what their Governor usually exacted. I commended the deputation for this. Very good, said Scaptius, but let us see what the sum amounts to.

Now when I published the usual edict, I had announced that I should maintain the rate of interest at 12 per cent, the interest on default to be added to the principal only at the end of each, year; but Scaptius by the terms of his bond now proceeded to demand 48 per cent. What do you mean? – say I. How can I possibly go against my own edict? Hereupon, he produces a decree of the Senate, dated from the consulship of Lentulus and Philippus, that the Governor of Cilicia for the time being should be required to recognize this bond as valid.

I was horrified at first; in fact, it was absolute ruin for the community. On examination I find two decrees of the Senate dated from that year about the very bond in question. For when the Salaminians wanted to borrow money at Rome they failed, because it was forbidden under Gabinius’s act. Here-upon some friends of Brutus, relying on his powerful protection, were willing to lend the money at four times the usual rate, provided they could obtain security for payment by a special decree.”
from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

The lust for power and greed seemed to have overtaken the leaders after the Punic Wars. This was in stark contrast to the behavior of the Romans of previous generations. What guys like Polybius admired about Rome was the fact that its public officials were honest and incorruptible. One example is that of Fabricius, who when king Pyrrhus of Epirus tried to bribe him, refused the bribe by stating that working for Rome is its own reward.

“The embassy was headed by Caius Fabricius, who, as Cineas reported, was held in highest esteem at Rome as an honorable man and good soldier, but was inordinately poor. To this man, then, Pyrrhus privately showed kindness and tried to induce him to accept gold, not for any base purpose, indeed, but calling it a mark of friendship and hospitality.

But Fabricius rejected the gold, and for that day Pyrrhus let him alone; on the following day, however, wishing to frighten a man who had not yet seen an elephant, he ordered the largest of these animals to be stationed behind a hanging in front of which they stood conversing together.

This was done; and at a given signal the hanging was drawn aside, and the animal raised his trunk, held it over the head of Fabricius, and emitted a harsh and frightful cry. But Fabricius calmly turned and said with a smile to Pyrrhus: “Your gold made no impression on me yesterday, neither does your beast to‑day.””
from “The Life of Pyrrhus” by Plutarch

This honesty of public officials that made the Roman institutions strong in the early stages, was replaced by corruption in the later Roman officials. This corruption grew worse and worse as time went.

In any population, you have people who are more greedy and ambitious than others. However it is the specific conditions that the society finds itself in, that lets these people rise to the top more easily. When things start going downhill, you get a snowball effect. People who in earlier times would not be able to gain power, end up riding the conditions.

“In truth, in such a vast number of citizens, there is a great multitude of those men, who either, from fear of punishment, because they are conscious of their own misdeeds, are anxious for fresh changes and revolutions in the republic.

Or people who, on account of some innate insanity of mind, feed upon the discords and seditions of the citizens; or else who, on account of the embarrassment of their estates and circumstances, had rather burn in one vast common conflagration, than in one which consumed only themselves.

And when these men have found instigators, leaders in and promoters of their own objects and vices, their waves are stirred up in the republic.”
from “Speech in Defense of Sestius” by Cicero

Not only do bad times help certain bad people rise to the top, the environment around you also encourages certain actions. You won’t just tolerate bad actions by other people, you might even engage in some of them yourself.

One example of this is the broken window theory that the New York Police used to clean up the New York City subway of crime, and which helped lessen crime in the city overall. It states that low level crime like vandalism will over time lead to bigger crime. As low level crime becomes more frequent, people get used to it and adjust their behavior to it. As what is considered normal starts slipping, more and more crime starts appearing. This means that if you want to reduce crime, you have to fix broken windows as soon as they appear.

This theory has huge implications on human behavior. Outside conditions can nudge you towards certain actions. Let’s say you just finished your drink and are left with a plastic cup in your hand. If you are in an area where it is considered normal to just throw garbage on the street, you won’t hesitate much and do it as well. If you live in a community with clean streets, and where it is not considered normal to throw things on the ground, you will most likely keep holding that cup. What will promote even more responsible behavior is if you have many garbage cans nearby.

Ancient commentators noticed a similar thing to the broken window theory happening in the ancient Roman Republic. Vice encouraged more vice, a bad environment encouraged people to act badly. Sallust noted how the outside atmosphere and the corrupt morals of the state were part of the reasons why Catiline decided to launch his coup d’etat attempt.

“The corrupt morals of the state, too, which extravagance and selfishness, pernicious and contending vices, rendered thoroughly depraved, furnished him with additional incentives to action.”
from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

Roman historian Florus saw excessive wealth as the main triggering factor for this degeneration of the state of affairs towards loose morals, and a hunt for power and money.

“Finally, whence did the lust for power and domination arise save from excessive wealth? It was this which armed Caesar and Pompey with the fatal torches which kindle the flames that destroyed the State.”
from “Epitome of Roman History” by Florus

This competition between powerful people brought about a deadlock and confrontation, resulting in the destruction of the institutions of state. What made it worse is the fact that you can never satisfy everyone and when the spirit of compromise is lost, then the ones on the losing side will be out for revenge.

This is something that Drusus experienced when he became the tribune of the plebs a short time before the outbreak of the Social War. He started off as a conservative on the side of the Optimates, however later started leaning more and more to the popular side, in such a way that he is remembered as a Populare reformer.

However, his measures ended up dividing up the society even more. They made some groups happy, while others became angry.

“Drusus passed over from being highly regarded to being hated. The plebs who received land were extremely happy, the people who were expelled were really angry, the knights who were inscribed into the Senate were happy, but the ones who didn’t make it were complaining.

The Senate basked that it won the day in the question of the juries, but on the other hand, the old senators couldn’t really stand the fact that now they had to share power with more members coming from the knight class.”
from “On the Illustrious Men of Rome” by Aurelius Victor

Drusus faced a lot of opposition to his measures. One of the things that he promised was citizenship to Rome’s Italian allies. This was something that the Roman urban plebs and the senatorial elites united to oppose.

Drusus was assassinated by an unknown killer before being able to implement the things he was proposing. This immediately sparked the Social War, the war that many historians have labeled as the point of no return for the Republic.

The Italians revolted and fought against Rome. The Social War ended with them getting granted citizenship, but with the different Roman generals having standing armies in the field. It didn’t take long for them to turn their soldiers against Rome and try to get power for themselves.

The crisis that had been sparked decades before by the events around the Gracchi, came to head as full blown chaos. Old rules no longer applied and new rules were being made on the fly, changing literally by the day.

The natural tendency of most individuals when faced with a political crisis is to pretend that it isn’t happening, or that it doesn’t affect them. As the Republic was collapsing, most of the people with power decided to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that they would somehow weather the storm.

“They are such fools that they seem to expect that, though the Republic is lost, their fish-ponds will be safe.”
from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

An insightful passage preserved by the the early Eastern Roman anthologist, Stobaeus, in his great opus the “Anthology” illuminates the processes going on deep down in a person’s mind. This snippet is influenced by an esoteric philosophical tradition called Hermetism (which mixed ancient Egyptian and ancient Greek mythologies and philosophies with esoteric traditions), one of the mystical schools that arose in the chaotic world of Late Antiquity.

The Hermetics had a very cryptic way of interpreting reality, however their teachings were grounded in deep observations of how humans act. They used this to try to connect to higher levels of meaning and that way reach personal transformation and self-actualization.

In the passage, Hermes Trismegistus, the mythological founder of this esoteric school is engaged in a discussion with the gods in order to find out about how humans came to be, what makes them tick, and how these basic drives give rise to numerous faults of human behavior.

“Teach them, then, to have a passion for their projects so that they fear the bleakness of failure, so that they are tamed by biting grief when they fail to obtain their hopes. Let the niggling curiosity of their souls be cut down by lusts, fears, waves of grief, and deceitful hopes. Let continual love affairs take vengeance upon their souls, along with varied hopes, and desires sometimes fulfilled, sometimes shattered so that the sweet bait of success becomes a striving for more perfect evils.”
from “Anthology” by Stobaeus

This imaginary discussion between Hermes and the gods, demonstrates the drives that form the basis of human nature, and the fact that they can take a person down a good path, but also a bad one. All humans have a will for success, which can sometimes warp their behaviors and turn them to evil, whether consciously or subconsciously.

The way a person behaves is dependent on a number of factors. Some have to due with the environment around them, but we cannot forget the role of human agency, an individual’s choice. Even in a bad environment, a person can use their willpower to try to act in a correct way. There is always a war going on inside the brain, one pulling the person one way and then the other. You have to be careful not to fall astray, since succumbing to one vice can make it much easier to succumb to other vices.

“Consider, now, whether the corruption of genius is to be attributed, not to a world-wide tyranny, but rather to the war within us which knows no limit, which engages all our desires, yes, and still further to the bad passions which lay siege to us to-day, and make utter havoc and spoil of our lives.

Are we not enslaved, nay, are not our careers completely shipwrecked, by love of gain, that fever which rages unappeased in us all, and love of pleasure?—one the most debasing, the other the most ignoble of the mind’s diseases. When I consider it I can find no means by which we, who hold in such high honor, or, to speak more correctly, who idolize boundless riches, can close the door of our souls against those evil spirits which grow up with them.

For Wealth unmeasured and unbridled is dogged by Extravagance: she sticks close to him, and treads in his footsteps: and as soon as he opens the gates of cities or of houses she enters with him and makes her abode with him. And after a time they build their nests (to use a wise man’s words) in that corner of life, and speedily set about breeding, and beget Boastfulness, and Vanity, and Wantonness, no base-born children, but their very own.

And if these also, the offspring of Wealth, be allowed to come to their prime, quickly they engender in the soul those pitiless tyrants, Violence, and Lawlessness, and Shamelessness. Whenever a man takes to worshipping what is mortal and irrational in him, and neglects to cherish what is immortal, these are the inevitable results. He never looks up again; he has lost all care for good report; by slow degrees the ruin of his life goes on, until it is consummated all round; all that is great in his soul fades, withers away, and is despised.”
from “On the Sublime” by Longinus

What pushes an individual to personal disaster is when they have the wrong priorities, and are ruled by passions and emotions. Many times they go for things which are vain or out of their power to reach and base their happiness on this. This is the mental state that most people in society have on a day to day basis. When people with these states of mind interact with each other, clashes are inevitable.

“They, that place their desires and their aversions upon such things as are out of a man’s power, must needs fail of prudence and moderation, and cannot have inclinations and aversions grounded upon, and governed by, right reason, which are the only things that make men free, and easy, and happy. For they must of necessity live in subjection to their wild and brutish passions, which lord it over them, like so many cruel master, or enraged tyrants.

They must also live perpetually in a slavish fear of all those men, in whose power it is, either to gratify their hopes, or to obstruct and defeat them; who can intercept the good they wish, or inflict the ills they fear; lest they should exert this power to their prejudice.”
from “Commentary on the Handbook of Epictetus” by Simplicius

Many people are of frivolous nature and read gravity into things that are in fact frivolous.

“Those incapable of thinking gravely read gravity into frivolities which correspond to their own frivolous nature.”
from “The Enneads” by Plotinus

The answer out of this predicament for many ancient philosophers was to use reason. This was the charioteer who is supposed to steer the horses, the irrational parts of the brain. What we see is that very often he is not successful and the horses end up running wild. Cicero in his work “On the Republic”, through the words of Scipio Aemilianus, compares the passions in the brain as a wild monster more powerful than an elephant. Some nations have succeeded in domesticating the elephant, but the challenge of reigning in the deep monster in the mind, is often much harder.

“Thus an Indian or Carthaginian regulates one of these huge animals, and renders him docile and familiar with human manners. But the genius which resides in the mind of man, by whatever name it may be called, is required to rein and tame a monster far more multiform and intractable, whenever it can accomplish it, which indeed is seldom.”
from “On the Republic” by Cicero

Even in ancient times there was discussion on whether people are naturally good or naturally evil, and what place nature or nurture has in shaping their behavior. The answer is that both nature and nurture shape behavior. Circumstances play a big part in how you act and whether you do evil deeds, however the biggest part of a person’s actions is due to themselves. Their inner wiring makes them act in certain ways, and it is up to the individual to be conscious of their tendencies and rise above them.

“It does not seem to Posidonius that evil comes to man from the outside, and that it is not rooted in the soul from which we see it sprout and grow. He believes the opposite, because for him the seed of evil is in ourselves.

Therefore, should we not flee the wicked as much as we should seek men who can make us virtuous and stop the development of evil in us, because all the evil does not come from outside the soul, as the Stoics claim, but the perverse men are responsible themselves for most of the vices that they commit; it’s the smallest part that comes from outside.

It is in this way that bad habits are born in the unreasonable part of the soul, and false opinions in the reasonable part; so when we are brought up by good and honest men, our opinions are true and our habits good. But in the logical part of the soul, the more or less pronounced degree of wisdom or foolishness depends on the temperament, which in turn depends on the basic principles of nature and on habits, these two circumstances helping each other.

A hot temper makes you easy to anger; on the other hand, by this, the innate heat is ignited. To those who have a moderate temperament, and consequently moderate movements of the soul, the equality of character is made easy.”
from “That the Qualities of the Mind Depend on the Temperament of the Body” by Galen

People have different characters and personalities (or temperaments in the classification of Galen), which make them act in certain ways. Some people are naturally shy, while others extroverted, some people are naturally explosive, while others reserved. All these things have an effect on a person’s behavior and give them certain tendencies to do certain things in specific instances. Most people succumb to these internal drives without reflecting. However, there are a few people who don’t, the ones who put virtue and reason (including meta-cognition, and being aware of how you think and why) in the driving seat.

“How is it, then, that certain vices and virtues come naturally to men? It is true that it proceeds from their bodily temperament. For just as men are naturally healthy or sickly by temperament, so some are naturally choleric, some proud, some craven, some lecherous. Nevertheless, some such persons master these tendencies, and prevail.”
from “On Human Nature” by Nemesius

It might be easier for some people to do one thing or the other, or to stay away from doing bad things. There are people who have naturally been endowed with more willpower than others. However this should be no excuse. Just like the 10 thousand hour rule says, practice makes perfect. The man who practices can become better than the talented man who wastes his talents.

“In the case of the skills, one man is better endowed by nature than another for acquiring the disposition for the skill in question, but none of those who are in a natural condition has been disabled with regard to the obtaining and acquisition of it. This is much more so in the case of the virtues, inasmuch as the acquisition of virtues is more natural for man than that of skills.

But if this is true of the acquisition of virtues, it is clear that it also applies to that of vices, if it is through opposed habits to those through which virtues are established that vices are established, and that those who have it in their power to do the one, also have it in their power to do the opposites of these.”
from “Ethical Problems” by Alexander of Aphrodisias

Unfortunately, most people do not heed this wisdom. It is much easier to succumb to passions and negative emotions and live a life of vice than it is to do the right thing. For doing the right thing requires much more effort than just going where your emotions take you.

Using reason, and living a life of virtue are tied together. Virtuous behavior was the cornerstone of character for the ancients. It took hard work and effort to have a good character and live a life of virtue, and people like Cicero and Marcus Aurelius struggled all their lives to achieve this ideal, sometimes succeeding, but often failing. Character is a creature of habit, for it is doing things regularly and repeatedly that define who you are.

“Character, has its name from habit, for those characteristics of which we have the beginnings and seeds from nature, attain perfection by habit and right upbringing, and therefore the study of character is a study of habit and concerns only the animals, and above all man.”
from “Epitome of Didymus” by Arius Didymus

The reality is that most people don’t really strive to live a life of virtue, a life driven by reason. Instead, they are usually overpowered by their emotions. This short-termed thinking driven by passions and looking for instant gratification, often leads to problems. The habits that most people have are frequently negative.

The first step towards living a life guided by reason is to start applying the ancient maxim of knowing yourself. This means having a meta-view of how humans tend to think and behave in general, but also of your own particular circumstances, character, and thought patterns. Most people are not aware of their behaviors, especially their negative traits. As Apuleius said, insanity can no more be sensible of its existence, than blindness can see itself.

“But he who knows what insanity is, is sane; whereas insanity can no more be sensible of its own existence, than blindness can see itself.”
from “The Apology” by Apuleius

There is no easy fix for this. You cannot legislate your way out of the problems of society. While temporarily one remedy might halt the problems, people will always find a way to go around even the best of laws. This would often happen during the times of the Roman Republic. A law would be passed in order to curb the excesses of the time, but after a period, people would start going around that law. People always find ways to get around regulation.

“But when this laudable practice was spoilt by excessive partisanship the House had recourse to the silence of the ballot-box in order to cure the evil, and for a time it did act as a remedy, owing to the novelty of the sudden change. But I am afraid that as time goes on abuses will arise even out of this remedy, for there is a danger that the ballot may be invaded by shameless partiality.”
from “Epistles” by Pliny the Younger

As the ancients noted, nothing is lasting when reason does not rule. When passions take over, then things tend to degenerate.

“Nothing can be lasting when reason does not rule.”
from “Histories of Alexander the Great” by Quintus Curtius Rufus

The common denominator of most societal problems is the innate nature of humans. As Pliny the Elder stated in his enormous work on the natural world, most of humanity’s misfortunes arise because of people.

“With man,—by Hercules! most of his misfortunes are occasioned by man.”
from “The Natural History” by Pliny the Elder

What are we seeing today? The lust for power and the lust for money are going stronger than ever. The perception of corruption in the US among the populace has been steadily rising over the last decade.

While power and money have always been intertwined, and corruption was always there, with the rise of Trump, the US has a president driven by his ego, more so than the previous presidents in recent decades. You see similar processes in other countries as well, where ego-driven politicians have set their nations down on dangerous paths.

7) People are easily fooled

The actions and reactions of the populace can be stirred in two different ways: either through certain external factors and events helping to push the people towards certain ideas and heightening their feelings, or nefarious actors manipulating the passions of different groups in specific directions, ones that are beneficial to their own personal cause. Often, these two ways go hand in hand, and magnify the effect.

Human nature means that people are easily fooled. The mind works by seeking pleasure, trying to get quick answers over correct answers (and falling for cognitive biases), and not using reason very often.

Epictetus the Stoic philosopher, noticed that most people only concern themselves with simple things, and are prone to mistaking their opinions for facts. It is often pointless arguing with them, since facts, arguments or talk of virtue will just go past them.

“And thus the laymen get the better of you; for everywhere judgement is strong, judgement is invincible.”
from “Discourses” by Epictetus (as compiled by Arrian)

However, pitching simple messages that play to the preconceived notions and biases of the masses can work quite well on them.

As Cicero noted, it is very easy to corrupt the mind of a person. The senses can seduce the mind and drive actions. For many ancient philosophers, virtue was sufficient enough for people to live a good life, and acting with virtue was supposed to be the end goal. However, most people do not follow this path and will never follow this path.

“But our delusions are connected with corruption of our mental opinions. And this corruption is either superinduced by those causes of error I have enumerated, which, taking possession of the young and uneducated, betray them into a thousand perversities, or by that voluptuousness which is the mimic of goodness, implicated and interfused through all our senses—the prolific mother of all human disasters.”
from “On the Laws” by Cicero

Things like the halo effect or other biases such as confirmation bias can close the eyes of the populace and lock up their brains. Just like magic tricks can fool you, so do populist demagogues often fool the people. The mind works in such a way as to make it easy for them to do that.

“As to that equality of rights which democracies so loudly boast of, it can never be maintained; for the people themselves, so dissolute and so unbridled, are always inclined to flatter a number of demagogues; and there is in them a very great partiality for certain men and dignities, so that their pretended equality becomes most unfair and iniquitous. For if the same honor is rendered to the most noble and the most infamous, the equity they eulogize becomes most inequitable.”
from “On the Republic” by Cicero

““I know, fellow citizens, that it is by very different methods that most men ask for power at your hands and exercise it after it has been secured; that at first they are industrious, humble and modest, but afterwards they lead lives of indolence and arrogance.

But the right course, in my opinion, is just the opposite; for by as much as the whole commonwealth is of more value than a consulate or a praetorship, so much greater ought to be the care with which it is governed than that which is shown in seeking those offices.”
speech of Marius from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

These politicians were able to capture the crowds. Mobs are not led by reason, but instead by appeal to its base instincts.

“Few men are controlled by reason, and few are pleased by a right purpose. The mob, rather, is led to what was plainly invented for oblivion of its cares. For it supposes that whatever serves its pleasure must also be linked to the happiness of the age.”
from “Various Epistles” by Cassiodorus

The key to winning an election is by promising everything, knowing that you don’t actually have to keep your promises. Big promises, and short, but empty slogans work.

“So true it is that men are more taken by look and words than by actual services.”
from “On Running for the Consulship” by Quintus Tullius Cicero

Demagogues work by promising to solve complex problems in simple ways. Most people buy these solutions without actually thinking about the implications of what the populists are proposing, or whether it is even feasible. In the immortal words of Roman playwright Plautus, they believe that they can eat their cake and have it too.

“You cannot eat your cake and have it too, unless you think your money is immortal. The fool too late, his substance eaten up, reckons the cost.”
from “The Three Coins” by Plautus

This happens because the mind has a propensity to prefer to bypass logic, and instead rely on magical thinking. All laws of causality get broken, rational thought flies out the window, and delusions take over. Irrational beliefs can take hold of even the smartest individuals, which can be shown by the prevalence of superstition among most people.

“Speaking frankly, superstition, which is widespread among the nations, has taken advantage of human weakness to cast its spell over the mind of almost every man.”
from “On Divination” by Cicero

A person’s mind is usually full of all kinds of twisted opinions, which have no basis in reality.

“Man’s nature is a bearer of all sorts of twisted opinions whenever it does not correctly follow common conceptions.”
from “Commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras” by Hierocles of Alexandria

Many people like to follow their favorite ideology or leader to the letter, and without thinking about things in a wider context. They prefer to stubbornly defend their pre-conceived notions, instead of keeping an open mind.

“Having heard the matter mentioned once, they have surrendered themselves to the guidance of some one individual. But, I know not how it is, most people prefer being in error, and defending with the utmost pugnacity that opinion which they have taken a fancy to, instead of inquiring with an open mind and without any stubbornness about that which is said.”
from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

In one of his works, Plato uses the story of a prisoner stuck in a cave as an analogy for how people think in the real world. The prisoner is chained to a wall and cannot turn his head. His entire reality is a bunch of shadows projected on the walls in front of him. He thinks that the shadows are real, but in fact they are just projections of things in the real world.

Proclus, a Neo-Platonist philosopher, living in the last dying decades of Antiquity, summarized the divisions in Plato’s analogy in this way:

“He compares the elements inside the cave to objects of opinion, while those on the outside are compared to knowable objects.”
from “Commentary on Plato’s Republic” by Proclus

If the prisoner manages to escape from his chains and ventures outside of the cave, he would at first be blinded by the light. However, in time he would learn to see things for what they really are.

The problem is that for most people this would be too disturbing and many would rather return to their cave. Many would prefer to see the shadows all their life than face the way things really are. Even, if the person does accept the truth and decides to go back to the cave to tell the other people stuck inside, he would get nowhere. In fact, some would even decide to kill him.

The prisoners chained in the cave are an analogy for normal people in the real world. An average person only sees the shadows on the wall and thinks that what he sees is real. People prefer to live inside their own bubbles, oblivious to the reality outside. They readily gulp up the things that others serve them, instead of thinking for themselves and trying to find out how things really work.

“Some hold for certain facts the most precarious hearsays, others turn facts into falsehood.”
from “The Annals” by Tacitus

Very few people actually take the time to think about their beliefs, to examine what they believe and why. As historian Tacitus noted, very few people bother to distinguish between right and wrong, and what is sound from what is hurtful.

“For it is but few who have the foresight to distinguish right from wrong or what is sound from what is hurtful.”
from “The Annals” by Tacitus

Popular opinion can be quite fickle, often changing according to the moods of the crowds, and usually it is not able to distinguish between what is important and what isn’t.

“What is called popular opinion should be regarded as no better than a shadow, seeing that sometimes the popular view makes much of small matters and little of great ones, and often concerning the same matters it is at one time greater and at another time smaller.”
from “Discourse on Popular Opinion” by Dio Chrysostom

Most people are not moved by issues that impact the entire society, but are far away. Instead they care first and foremost about their own problems and the things that have an effect on them right here, right now. The fact that the rainforest is burning on the other side of the world is not as important, as the fact that the closing of the factory in your town might make you jobless.

“We feel public misfortunes just so far as they affect our private circumstances, and nothing of this nature appeals more directly to us than the loss of money.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

In hard times, the most base traits of humans often shine through, jealousy and ill-will towards others take over the thinking patterns of many people.

“The majority of the people are devoted only to their own interests and hate all their neighbors, regarding the others’ successes as their own losses and the others’ misfortunes as their own gains.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

One common wisdom about humans is that they tend to see faults in others and forget about their own. From time immemorial many maxims have tried to point this out, but usually to no avail. This tendency to see the faults of others, but be blind to your own faults, can be taken advantage of quite easily.

“As Aesop says, we have two sacks suspended from our necks; the one in front is filled with the faults of others; the one behind is filled with our own. This is the reason why we see the faults of others but remain blind to those which concern ourselves.”
from “On the Passions of the Soul” by Galen

Scapegoating is a good strategy to get the crowds on your side. Authoritarian leaders vying for power always like to offer someone to blame. This works quite well, since most people like to blame others for their own problems.

“Men are only too clever at shifting blame from their own shoulders to those of others. Such is the nature of crowds: either they are humble and servile or arrogant and dominating. They are incapable of making moderate use of freedom, which is the middle course, or of keeping it.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

The anxieties that people have can often be exploited in order to build up fear. Anxiety can lead to fear, which can then be used to stoke up anger. This fear does not always have to be based on a real threat, but often an imaginary threat can also serve to create fear.

People often suffer more in their imagination than in reality, magnifying the problems to proportions much larger than they really are.

“There are more things likely to frighten us than there are to crush us; we suffer more often in imagination than in reality.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

Fear as an emotion can serve not only to unite people against an external enemy, but it can also be used to divide people against each other, creating internal enemies and enhancing the “us” versus “them” dynamics in society. The mind can create an enemy out of the “other” very easily.

“The mind at times fashions for itself false shapes of evil when there are no signs that point to any evil; it twists into the worst construction some word of doubtful meaning; or it fancies some personal grudge to be more serious than it really is.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

Falsehoods spread easily when fear is involved.

“What is false is increased through fear.”
from “Histories of Alexander the Great” by Quintus Curtius Rufus

Conspiracy theories and rumors are often used to stoke up the sense of threat. Many people give assent to these theories and rumors without thinking critically about them.

“For it is more often the case that we are troubled by our apprehensions, and that we are mocked by that mocker, rumor, which is wont to settle wars, but much more often settles individuals. We agree too quickly with what people say.

We do not put to the test those things which cause our fear; we do not examine into them; we blench and retreat just like soldiers who are forced to abandon their camp because of a dust-cloud raised by stampeding cattle, or are thrown into a panic by the spreading of some unauthenticated rumor.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

With fake news, lies becomes the truth, and the actual truth gets lost in the tussle.

“Both truth was masked by lies and sometimes false passed for true.”
from “Roman Antiquities” by Ammianus Marcellinus

Virgil in his “Aeneid”, a long epic poem that tells the story of Aeneas, the mythical ancestor of the Romans, recounts the allegory of the goddess Fama, who stands for rumor. He describes her as spreading fast, and gaining strength and dominion the more she spreads. This is a metaphor for how a rumor spreads, and can tell us a lot about the power of fake news. While in ancient times, rumor spread fast, in modern times the advent of social media has made this dynamic even faster and more powerful.

“Rumor! What evil can surpass her speed?
In movement she grows mighty, and achieves
strength and dominion as she swifter flies.
Small first, because afraid, she soon exalts
her stature skyward, stalking through the lands
and mantling in the clouds her baleful brow.”
from “Aeneid” by Virgil

Virgil goes on to describe the goddess of rumor as having a huge number of tongues, lips, and ears, spreading her lies throughout. This picture of rumor by the ancient author shows a terrible creature that can infect people’s ears. This is not far from the way modern researchers have started to model the spread of fake news. They use the analogy of a virus spreading, and just like people are susceptible to be infected by viruses, they can be infected by fake news too.

“An equal number of vociferous tongues,
foul, whispering lips, and ears, that catch at all.
At night she spreads midway ‘twixt earth and heaven
her pinions in the darkness, hissing loud,
nor e’er to happy slumber gives her eyes:
but with the morn she takes her watchful throne
high on the housetops or on lofty towers,
to terrify the nations. She can cling
to vile invention and malignant wrong,
or mingle with her word some tidings true.
She now with changeful story filled men’s ears,
exultant, whether false or true she sung.”
from “Aeneid” by Virgil

The monster with multiple tongues and ears that creates conspiracy theories and rumors has the powerful effect of spreading false information far and wide, and it can do it fast. These fake messages can often heighten tensions and promote fear.

Fear can be manipulated quite easily for nefarious purposes. The masses can start behaving in a mindless way, shouting for things that at the end are counter-productive and against their own interests in the long-run.

“There is nothing that is more often clothed in an attractive garb than a false creed.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

Crowds can often have a negative effect on the behavior of people. They can shut down the reasoning faculties of the individual, and instead make them behave in a mindless matter, just following the crowd. Groupthink, reinforced through herd behavior can seize the day.

“The young character, which cannot hold fast to righteousness, must be rescued from the mob; it is too easy to side with the majority. Even Socrates, Cato, and Laelius might have been shaken in their moral strength by a crowd that was unlike them; so true it is that none of us, no matter how much he cultivates his abilities, can withstand the shock of faults that approach, as it were, with so great a retinue.

Much harm is done by a single case of indulgence or greed; the familiar friend, if he be luxurious, weakens and softens us imperceptibly; the neighbor, if he be rich, rouses our covetousness; the companion, if he be slanderous, rubs off some of his rust upon us, even though we be spotless and sincere.

What then do you think the effect will be on character, when the world at large assaults it! You must either imitate or loathe the world.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

This then creates conditions where the bandwagon effect takes over. Some popular ideas get adopted because of the influence of others, and increase exponentially as more people start adopting them. This can create a negative environment, which further poisons the atmosphere in the society. This can sway the individual into behaving badly, especially if anger adds fuel to the fire.

“To consort with the crowd is harmful; there is no person who does not make some vice attractive to us, or stamp it upon us, or taint us unconsciously therewith. Certainly, the greater the mob with which we mingle, the greater the danger.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

Seneca saw the danger that the mindless behavior of crowds can have on the individual and on the world at large. It is often these mobs that drive the events in society. When an individual becomes part of a crowd, this can lead to a process of de-individualization, where the anonymity leads to disinhibition. Violence can ensue.

In the twilight years of the Roman Republic, many leaders resorted to violent mobs to get their ways. Their speeches stirred their passions, resulting in rampage. Modern psychologists and sociologists who have studied crowds compared their behavior to that of infections. There are three processes at play here that can carry away a mob to act unchained: anonymity, contagion, suggestibility. Being in a crowd provides anonymity, which can cause unrestrainedness, allowing people to act otherwise than they normally would.

Contagion spreads behavior from one part of the crowd to the rest of it, and finally suggestibility allows influential individuals to sway the movements of the group. Sometimes the mobs see themselves in strong men who promise them the Moon. Herd mentality and the wish to be led gains prominence. Most people don’t want to think and prefer that the thinking is done for them. They want to be led.

“Only a few prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.”
from “Histories” by Sallust

It is quite easy to inflame up the passions of the people. According to the ancient rhetoricians, there are three ways to persuade someone. In Greek the words are “ethos”, “pathos”, and “logos”: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, and appeal to logic. Unfortunately, the most powerful ways of persuading a crowd are going through their emotions, and not through logic.

“For there is nothing, of more importance in speaking than that the hearer should be favorable to the speaker, and be himself so strongly moved that he may be influenced more by impulse and excitement of mind, than by judgment or reflection.

For mankind make far more determinations through hatred, or love, or desire, or anger, or grief, or joy, or hope, or fear, or error, or some other affection of mind, than from regard to truth, or any settled maxim, or principle of right, or judicial form, or adherence to the laws.”
from “On the Orator” by Cicero

The most powerful demagogues have mastered not only the appeal to emotions, but also the appeal to authority. They are very good at seeming confident and an authority on the topic, or playing the persona of a man of the people.

The best demagogues have realized that they are playing a character. For them, life is a farce, and by putting on the right mask, you can win. Augustus, the artist formerly known as Octavian, based his entire life philosophy on this premise. Historian Suetonius records his last words as being: from the stage dismiss me with applause.

“After that, calling in his friends and asking whether it seemed to them that he had played the comedy of life fitly, he added the tag: “Since well I’ve played my part, all clap your hands and from the stage dismiss me with applause.””
from “The Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius

A crowd can be moved very easily by a good speaker to want one thing and then another. This was demonstrated quite well in 155 BC, when an Athenian embassy to Rome included three philosophers: Critolaus of the Peripatetic school, Diogenes the Stoic, and Carneades the Skeptic.

It was especially Carneades who caused quite a stir among the Roman public. One day, he got up on stage and delivered a lively speech on the virtue of Roman justice. All the Romans were ecstatic. The next day, he got up on stage again, but this time arguing that everything that he said the day before was not true.

“Report spread far and wide that a Greek of amazing talent, who disarmed all opposition by the magic of his eloquence, had infused a tremendous passion into the youth of the city, in consequence of which they forsook their other pleasures and pursuits and were “possessed” about philosophy.”
from “The Life of Cato the Elder” by Plutarch

The youth of Rome were mesmerized by these Greek philosophers. Struck by this, Cato the Elder realized the potential danger of philosophy and these types of rhetorical techniques that were used in order to persuade, but with no morality as the basis. So he banned them from the city.

“But Cato, at the very outset, when this zeal for discussion came pouring into the city, was distressed, fearing lest the young men, by giving this direction to their ambition, should come to love a reputation based on mere words more than one achieved by martial deeds.”
from “The Life of Cato the Elder” by Plutarch

The ancient Greeks lived in city-states, where being engaged in politics was an important part of public life. Many young men strived to become leaders and started learning rhetoric in order to have the best chance of doing that. To satisfy this need, a class of itinerant teachers of rhetoric called the sophists arose. Their aim was to teach the techniques of speaking and persuasion without looking at the morals.

Despite the efforts of Roman traditionalists like Cato the Elder, all these latest persuasion techniques came to Rome as well. In order to better prepare themselves for a career in politics or law, Roman youths started studying with Greek teachers.

In time, the Romans not only adopted these techniques, but perfected them. During the period of the fall of the Republic, most of the main political actors were skilled speakers, who used this knowledge to get ahead and destroy their rivals.

“The Gracchi who were eloquent, and qualified for speaking by all the helps of nature and of learning, having found the state in a most flourishing condition, both through the counsels of their father, and the arms of their ancestors, brought their country, by means of their oratory, that most excellent ruler of states as you call it, to the verge of ruin.”
from “On the Orator” by Cicero

Cicero lamented that the Gracchi used their public speaking skills to stir up the crowds and bring the state to ruin. However, he himself was no different, using his great rhetorical prowess for good and evil, bringing corrupt officials to justice, but also protecting some quite unsavory characters. Cicero, like other public figures of his era, was able to argue about things from both sides of the issue.

Sometimes being persuasive is just a matter of framing. Just like Plato observed in his dialogue “Theaetetus”, the number 6 appears bigger when you compare it with the number 4, but smaller if you compare it with 12. So if you have 6 dice, then you have more dice than 4, but less than 12.

The thing is that you still have the same amount of dice in both cases, but just framing it in two different ways, you get a different perception of that number. After all, the glass can be both half-full and half-empty. Politicians can frame the same issue in different ways, and thereby get different reactions from the crowd. The framing effect is often used as a powerful tool of deception.

Framing was just one of the tools that the politicians had in their tool-belt. Many of them had also served as lawyers, prosecutors, or advocates for the defense, and in that way honed their skills of persuasion. Many of these tools involved techniques that played with the emotions of the audience.

Quintilian, Roman rhetorician of the early Imperial period, wrote a manual meant to teach these skills, basing himself on materials from the Republic period. In it he outlined many different techniques, with the most efficient being ones that appeal to emotions. The people who knew these things either through natural talent or through training had the ability to play with words and in that way evoke the reactions they desired in their audiences.

“We endeavor to magnify the wrongs by saying that other far lesser ills are intolerable; e.g. “If you had merely struck him, your conduct would have been indefensible. But you did more, you wounded him.” However I will deal with this subject more fully when I come to speak of amplification.

Meanwhile I will content myself with the observation that the aim of appeals to the emotion is not merely to shew the bitter and grievous nature of ills that actually are so, but also at once make ills which are usually regarded as tolerable seem unendurable, as for instance when we represent insulting words as inflicting more grievous injury than an actual blow or represent disgrace as being worse than death.

For the force of eloquence is such that it not merely compels the judge to the conclusion toward which the nature of the facts leads him, but awakens emotions which either do not naturally arise from the case or are stronger than the case would suggest. This is known as “deinosis”, that is to say, language giving additional force to things unjust, cruel or hateful, an accomplishment in which Demosthenes created immense and special effect.”
from “Institutes of Oratory” by Quintilian

Going through these manuals on rhetoric, produced by Quintilian, Cicero, or countless others, gives you a good idea of what types of tricks some of these people vying for office had up their sleeve. Making things up was permitted, if it allowed the speaker to get their point across better.

“We will make things apparent if they are like the truth, and it is even permitted to invent falsely whatever usually happens.”
from “Institutes of Oratory” by Quintilian

Even Cicero and Atticus, who were relatively moral and honest, had a shaky relationship to the truth when it came to words. In one of Cicero’s dialogues, he depicts himself debating with Atticus on how to portray historical events. They both wrote about the death of Corolianus, an ancient Roman general from early times, who was banished from the city and then led foreign armies.

However, they both painted a totally different picture of what happened. Cicero mentions this, but Atticus waves him away by stating that it is the prerogative of the rhetorician to embellish things a little bit. Never have the facts get in the way of a good story!

““For though you, my Atticus, have represented the exit of Coriolanus in a different manner, you must give me leave to dispatch him in the way I have mentioned.”

“You may use your pleasure,” replied Atticus with a smile: “for it is the privilege of rhetoricians to exceed the truth of history, that they may have an opportunity of embellishing the fate of their heroes: and accordingly, Cleitarchus and Stratocles have entertained us with the same pretty fiction about the death of Themistocles, which you have invented for Coriolanus.

Thucydides, indeed, who was himself an Athenian of the highest rank and merit, and lived nearly at the same time, has only informed us that he died, and was privately buried in Attica, adding, that it was suspected by some that he had poisoned himself. But these ingenious writers have assured us, that, having slain a bull at the altar, he caught the blood in a large bowl, and, drinking it off, fell suddenly dead upon the ground.

For this kind of death had a tragic air, and might be described with all the pomp of rhetoric; whereas the ordinary way of dying afforded no opportunity for ornament. As it will, therefore, suit your purpose, that Coriolanus should resemble Themistocles in every thing, I give you leave to introduce the fatal bowl; and you may still farther heighten the catastrophe by a solemn sacrifice, that Coriolanus may appear in all respects to have been a second Themistocles.””
from “Brutus” by Cicero

If a guy like Cicero was not above playing with words and inventing stories in order to get his point across, now imagine how more unscrupulous politicians behaved. Guys like Clodius or Julius Caesar were known as quite adept public speakers and were able to get the crowds on their side. In the latter years of the Republic, many demagogues armed with excellent public speaking skills arose and were able to stir the crowds for their own purposes. These men, protected by angry crowds, were then able to do whatever they wanted to do on the political stage.

One very telling analogy that demonstrates how this works, and why the power of the passions is stronger than logic, is from Plato’s dialogue “Gorgias”. There, he has Socrates, the wise old man who tries to persuade using logic, discuss the issue with Callicles, an advocate of political realism. Callicles is of the view that the institutions of the state and the laws were established by men, who were looking out for their own interests, and not necessarily any higher morality. Socrates shows him that you can never sway a person using logical arguments, when irrational passions are stirring inside them.

For this, he uses an allegory of the Doctor and the Pastry Chef. In the closing phases of the dialogue, Callicles tells Socrates that he would never be able to persuade the crowd of his innocence using his logical methods, even if he were indeed innocent. This would be especially grave, if he were standing against someone who was apt at stirring up emotions in his arguments. Socrates agrees with him, and says that he would be judged as if he were a doctor that were accused in front of a jury of children by a pastry chef.

In this analogy, Plato pitted two types of politicians: the doctor, an honest politician who was trying to use logic and knowledge, and a pastry chef, a politicians who would promise sweet, but unhealthy solutions, enticing the passions.

“So if a doctor and a cook had to compete among children: “So”, he says, “if we muster an audience of unintelligent people, and judge a doctor and a cook before them, the doctor will be ostracized by the children-for children even shudder at the doctor as he often prescribes a fast too-but the cook will be loved as one who aims at their pleasure.””
from “Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias” by Olympiodorus

In the real world, it is usually the pastry chef type of politician that wins out over the doctor type of politician. For the pastry chef serves up delicious illusions, ones which smell good, but at the end will not only make you fat, but destroy your health. On the other hand, the doctor is never popular. While he might be the rational one who serves up the healthy choices, people don’t want to listen to him, because what he proposes is usually painful.

This allegory is a powerful illustration of what happens in the political arena. The pastry chef politicians, the demagogues, use arguments which bypass logic, but play deep down to the irrational soul of the listeners. Their method involves many cheap tricks and falsehoods.

Propaganda and fake news were a big part of the political process in ancient Rome. In fact, when reading the ancient sources, we can never be sure whether what is written actually happened or is fake news. Octavian was a master at spreading fake news, and this skill was instrumental in him damaging the reputation of Marc Antony.

Lucian of Samosata, one of the ancient world’s greatest satirists, spoke one great truth: people enjoy lying and they also enjoy being lied to.

“The men I mean are innocent of any ulterior motive: they prefer a lie to truth, simply on its own merits; they like lying, it is their favorite occupation; there is no necessity in the case.”
from “The Liar” by Lucian of Samosata

Sometimes humor is the best tool to expose how the world really works. Lucian was a great observer of human nature. He noted that some people lie with an objective in mind, but many people lie just for the sake of lying. When people prefer lies to truth, it is no wonder that they can be easily fooled. Ancient politicians often took advantage of this.

Cato the Elder, once compared the Roman people to sheep. He said that when they are alone, they do whatever they want. However when in a group, instead of thinking for themselves, they follow the leader. Often these leaders are people that in a normal situation, you would never want advising you.

“Being once desirous to dissuade the common people of Rome from their unseasonable and impetuous clamor for largesses and distributions of corn, he began thus to harangue them: “It is a difficult task, O citizens, to make speeches to the belly, which has no ears.”

Reproving, also, their sumptuous habits, he said it was hard to preserve a city where a fish sold for more than an ox. He had a saying, also, that the Roman people were like sheep; for they, when single, do not obey, but when altogether in a flock, they follow their leaders:

“So you,” said he, “when you have got together in a body, let yourselves be guided by those whom singly you would never think of being advised by.”
from “The Life of Cato the Elder” by Plutarch

The people are especially prone to falling for new self-professed saviors on the block, always hoping that this is finally the one, only to be deceived yet again.

“For the masses are more ready to accept the beginner because they are so palled and surfeited with those to whom they are accustomed, just as spectators at a show are glad to accept a new performer.”
from “Precepts of Statecraft” by Plutarch

The rabble-rousing politicians know how to tap into the anger that many people feel about real or imagined indignation. They use this agitated state of the people and channel it in certain directions, riling the populace up, and then making it pliable to do their bidding.

Sometimes, the masses can start worshiping individual leaders, feeling that they can do no wrong. They fuse their identity with the leader and the group. This is what happened with Julius Caesar, who was even acclaimed as divine!

“See how they are rushing to meet Caesar, and parading their loyalty to him! Why, the country towns are offering him prayers as though he were a god, and not sham ones, as those offered on behalf of the other when he was ill.”
from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

“Instead of a eulogy the consul Marc Antony caused a herald to recite the decree of the Senate in which it had voted Caesar all divine and human honors at once, and likewise the oath with which they had all pledged themselves to watch over his personal safety.”
from “The Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius

When this type of fusion (either to a person or a group) happens, then the issues become secondary, and the people follow the leader blindly, even if he flip flops on the issue. Studies have shown that people who strongly identify themselves with a particular political group or leader, will like a policy when told that their group or leader supports it, and dislike the same policy when told that their group or leader doesn’t support it.

“You are continually stirred up by your demagogues and roused to fury.”
from “Roman Antiquities” by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

The way things turn out is that by falling for the lies of demagogues, the people lose their freedom. Falling for snake oil that promises to relieve them of their minor pains, the populace instead ends up feeling even greater pain. Horace in one his works, uses one ancient parable that came down to him from much older sources (this parable is known in Greek sources such as Aesop’s Fables, but also in for example Aramaic sources from the Middle East), to show how a person can get tricked into losing his freedom. The parable talks about a horse who tried to enlist the aid of a man in his fight against a stag.

“The stag, superior in fight, drove the horse from the common pasture, till the latter, worsted in the long contest, implored the aid of man and received the bridle; but after he had parted an exulting conqueror from his enemy, he could not shake the rider from his back, nor the bit from his mouth.

So he who, afraid of poverty, forfeits his liberty, more valuable than mines, avaricious wretch, shall carry a master, and shall eternally be a slave, for not knowing how to use a little. When a man’s condition does not suit him, it will be as a shoe at any time; which, if too big for his foot, will throw him down; if too little, will pinch him.”
from “The Epistles” by Horace

The man tricked the horse, first by promising to help him, but then putting a bridle on him, and thereby enslaving him. This is what happens when people fall for the sweet promises of demagogues. Not only does the problem not get solved, they lose their liberty in the process.

The conditions in countries degenerate when the people fall for false prophets. In the words of Antisthenes, an ancient Athenian Cynic philosopher, as quoted by Diogenes Laertius, a country is doomed when its citizens are unable to distinguish the good men from the bad.

“States, said he, are doomed when they are unable to distinguish good men from bad.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

At times, the masses end up unchained, angry at everything, and not willing to listen to reason.

“It is impossible to please the mass of people, so Bion thought, unless one becomes a honey-cake or good Thasian wine. ”
from “Discourse on Reputation” by Dio Chrysostom

Mobs tend to overpower the other more rational parts of society, and destroy not only themselves, but also the people arguing against their irrationality. In this way, their actions bring the state to ruin.

“For the boasted freedom of the mob proves in experience to be the bitterest servitude of the best element to the other and brings upon both a common destruction.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Phaedrus, an ancient Roman fabulist, adapted another one of the tales of Aesop to teach a lesson on what happened in the Roman Republic. In a fable titled “The Frogs who desired a King”, Phaedrus taught a moral lesson: the people aren’t happy with liberty and the conditions that they have, clamoring for someone to rule over them, but end up getting a ruler who eats them all up.

In this tale, the frogs are living in a swamp, but are unhappy with their situation and ask Jupiter, the supreme god, to send them down a ruler. So he obliges and throws a log in the middle of the swamp. First the frogs are a bit cautious, but then the bravest one jumps on the log and seeing that it doesn’t react, starts mocking it. Then all the rest of the frogs join in.

Unhappy with this king, they start asking Jupiter for another king, a real one that would rule them. Jupiter, annoyed at the request, sends them down a water snake. The water snake then eats all the frogs one by one.

“The Frogs, a freeborn people made,
From out their marsh with clamor prayed
That Jove a monarch would assign
With power their manners to refine.

The sovereign smiled, and on their bog
Bent his petitioners a log,
Which, as it dashed upon the place,
At first alarmed the timorous race.

But here it long had lain to cool,
One slyly peeped out of the pool,
And finding it a king in jest,
He boldly summoned all the rest.

Now, void of fear, the tribe advance,
And on the timber leaped and danced,
And having let their fury loose,
In gross affronts and rank abuse,

Of Jove they sought another king,
For useless was this wooden thing.
Then he a water-snake empowered,
Who one by one their race devoured.

They try to make escape in vain,
Nor, dumb through fear, can they complain.
By stealth they Mercury depute,
That Jove would once more hear their suit,

And send their sinking state to save;
But he in wrath this answer gave:
“You scorned the good king that you had,
And therefore you shall bear the bad.””
from “The Fables of Phaedrus” by Phaedrus

One of the lessons that could be taken out of the this fable is that the people who do not appreciate the freedom that they have, will end up with a tyrant ruling over them.

“Bad men rule by the feebleness of the ruled.”
from “The Enneads” by Plotinus

The same thing is happening today, with fiery populists using their public speaking skills to enrage their supporters. Populist politicians (and commentators/activists) whether from the right or the left (although now the far-right is much more influential), like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders were able to catch the imagination of the people.

One thing is for sure: the masses are quite adept at shooting themselves in the foot with such things as Brexit. What is different from the time of ancient Rome is how information is spread. Back in those times, information spread at a much slower pace and came from limited sources. With the advent of mass media a few centuries ago, and now social media taking over, information reaches a much wider audience and much faster, often through conflicting messages and surrounding noise. Scarier times might be ahead, as many social scientists predict that technology will make the usual excesses of human nature even worse in the next years to come.

8) People who put their personal ambitions above the common good are dangerous

Many nations have been ruined by individuals who have put their own ambitions above all else, who have done everything to gain power, money and fame, instead of treading the path of virtue.

“So much more intense is the thirst for fame than for virtue. Who’d embrace virtue simply for itself, if you took away all the reward? Yet nations have been destroyed by the ambition of a few, by their desire for fame and a title, a name that might cling to the stones that guard their ashes, those stones the barren fig tree’s malicious strength is capable of shattering, since even their very sepulchers are granted a limited span by fate.”
from “Satires” by Juvenal

The fact that status-seeking is a primary driver of human behavior, also means that many people will put their own good above the common good. They will put their own personal ambition in front of that of others.

“Marcus Octavius, because of a family feud with Gracchus, willingly became his opponent. Thereafter there was no semblance of moderation; but zealously vying, as they did, each to prevail over the other rather than to benefit the state, they committed many acts of violence more appropriate in a despotism than in a democracy, and suffered many unusual calamities appropriate to war rather than to peace.

For in addition to their individual conflicts there were many who banded together and indulged in bitter abuse and conflicts, not only throughout the city generally, but even in the very Senate-house and the Popular Assembly. They made the proposed law their pretext, but were in reality putting forth every effort in all directions not to be surpassed by each.

The result was that none of the usual business was carried on in an orderly way: the magistrates could not perform their accustomed duties, courts came to a stop, no contract was entered into, and other sorts of confusion and disorder were rife everywhere.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

While it is natural for most people to behave in this way, some people are naturally more ambitious and power-seeking than others. When this ambition is combined with ruthlessness and disregard for the needs of other people, a force for destruction can be unleashed.

“Pompey did not even think it incumbent upon him to abide by the laws which he himself had made, if he might only display the greatness of his power to his friends.”
from “Comparison of Agesilaus and Pompey” by Plutarch

The problem is that most of the leaders were thinking of themselves first. A narcissistic type of thinking prevailed among the men vying for power. This can sometimes be mistaken as confidence, which can be viewed as attractive by others, but deep down it is more linked to sociopathy or even psychopathy in extreme cases.

Many of the people acting out in this quest for the top knew no shame. No act to secure the top was considered embarrassing enough. For guys like Caesar the only thing that was humiliating was not being the leader.

“The only shame he knew was not to win.”
talking about Caesar – from “Pharsalia” by Lucan

The term “narcissism” comes from an ancient myth that was written down by Ovid. This is the story of Narcissus, a hunter who was so pretty that everyone became enamored with him. However, he only loved himself. Narcissus became the prototype of a person who is too full of themselves, a narcissist.

“Narcissus, tired
of hunting and the heated noon, lay down,
attracted by the peaceful solitudes
and by the glassy spring. There as he stooped
to quench his thirst another thirst increased.

While he is drinking he beholds himself
reflected in the mirrored pool—and loves;
loves an imagined body which contains
no substance, for he deems the mirrored shade
a thing of life to love. He cannot move,
for so he marvels at himself, and lies
with countenance unchanged, as if indeed
a statue carved of Parian marble.

Long, supine upon the bank, his gaze is fixed
on his own eyes, twin stars; his fingers shaped
as Bacchus might desire, his flowing hair
as glorious as Apollo’s, and his cheeks
youthful and smooth; his ivory neck, his mouth
dreaming in sweetness, his complexion fair
and blushing as the rose in snow-drift white.

All that is lovely in himself he loves,
and in his witless way he wants himself:—
he who approves is equally approved;
he seeks, is sought, he burns and he is burnt.
And how he kisses the deceitful fount;
and how he thrusts his arms to catch the neck
that’s pictured in the middle of the stream!

Yet never may he wreathe his arms around
that image of himself. He knows not what
he there beholds, but what he sees inflames
his longing, and the error that deceives
allures his eyes. But why, O foolish boy,
so vainly catching at this flitting form?
The cheat that you are seeking has no place.

Avert your gaze and you will lose your love,
for this that holds your eyes is nothing save
the image of yourself reflected back to you.
It comes and waits with you; it has no life;
it will depart if you will only go.”
from “Metamorphoses” by Ovid

The story of Narcissus is the perfect metaphor for the type of people that came to dominate politics during the times of the fall of the Roman Republic. That era saw narcissists take over the show. These men became so enamored with themselves that they spent more time looking in the mirror and reflecting on how to promote themselves, instead of taking a look out the window and coming up with solutions on how to solve the problems of the society around them.

This type of behavior came to prominence especially during the times of the civil wars, when Marius and Sulla, and later Pompey and Caesar battled themselves for the control of government. Glory-seeking drove many of the men of the later Roman Republic. Often their actions became bold and rash, because of this.

However, even in the previous times, when some of the early reformers did have high principles in mind, hot-headed action was quite destructive and served to heighten hostilities. While we have to be careful reading too much into the statements of the ancient commentators (they had their own biases), even the Gracchi brothers ended up drifting into too much ambition.

“Gracchus had the same principles as his brother; only the latter had drifted from excellence into ambition and thence into baseness, whereas this man was naturally turbulent and played the rogue voluntarily; and he far surpassed the other in his gift of language. For these reasons his designs were more mischievous, his daring more spontaneous, and his arrogance greater toward all alike.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

“This was the sort of man who attacked the constitution, and, by assuming no speech or act to be forbidden, in very brief time gained the greatest influence with the populace and the knights. All the nobility and the senatorial party, if he had lived longer, would have been overthrown, but, as it was, his great power caused him to be hated even by his followers, and he was overthrown by his own methods.”
talking about Gaius Gracchus – from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

When personal ambition is the main driving force behind what a politician does, then their actions and the policies they support reflect this. Usually, these involve vanity projects or saying things to make them look more popular.

“They seek therein only to engage in some enterprise out of which they may emerge with added glory for themselves, making that their sole aim.”
from “Second Tarsic Discourse” by Dio Chrysostom

Some of these ambitious individuals believe that rules and normal ways of doing things don’t apply to them, and often end up agitators in public life.

“The more notable a man is for his greatness of spirit, the more ambitious he is to be the foremost citizen, or, I should say rather, to be sole ruler. But when one begins to aspire to pre-eminence, it is difficult to preserve that spirit of fairness which is absolutely essential to justice.

The result is that such men do not allow themselves to be constrained either by argument or by any public and lawful authority; but they only too often prove to be bribers and agitators in public life, seeking to obtain supreme power and to be superiors through force rather than equals through justice.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara observed that many people who are illustrious in wealth and power, don’t like to be criticized. This arises out of a sense of superiority they feel towards others.

“Why is it that, other things being equal, those who are illustrious both in wealth and reputation endure frank speech less than others?”
from “On Frank Criticism” by Philodemus of Gadara

The dangerous thing about arrogant people is that their judgment is impaired, and their reasoning abilities can get clouded.

“Sometimes one worsens one’s ailment into stupidity or madness, if indeed Xerxes’ deeds do not depend upon both rather than one of these qualities— I mean the yoking of the Hellespont and casting fetters into the sea and the other deeds that people tell of him. The same holds of the acts of people who think that they themselves have turned from men into gods, and all the other features of those who behave with unrestrained arrogance.”
from “On Arrogance” by Philodemus of Gadara

Many of the leaders in ancient Rome conducted themselves with arrogance and thought themselves above the rest.

“Caesar returned to Rome, and began to conduct himself with too great arrogance, contrary to the usages of Roman liberty. As he disposed, therefore, at his own pleasure, of those honors, which were before conferred by the people and did not even rise up when the Senate approached him, and exercised regal, or almost tyrannical power.”
from “Abridgment of Roman History” by Eutropius

One thing is to be eloquent. Another thing is to be craving the fame and admiration that stems from this eloquence.

“It is necessary, indeed, that a political leader should prevail by reason of his eloquence, but ignoble for him to admire and crave the fame that springs from his eloquence.”
from “Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero” by Plutarch

One of ancient Rome’s greatest poets, Horace, warned against the dangers of vain glory seeking. In the early Republic, the quest for glory was tied to the betterment of the state, the individual’s ambitions were supposed to be done for the common good of the country. However, in the late Republic this quest for glory shifted to mean personal glory. Men wanted glory for themselves in order to satisfy their ambition, no matter the cost.

“Self-love in partial blindness comes. Vain glory next, with empty head aloft, is wont to pass. And tattling treachery succeeds seen through as clear as glass.”
from “Odes” by Horace

Vain glory seeking and ambition were at the forefront of the actions of the leaders of the state. The Republic came to be dominated by men like Crassus, who only had their own self-interest at heart and did not chicken out of any tactic to get their way.

“For Crassus openly utilized these opportunities as men do agriculture and money-lending. And as for the practices which he denied when on trial, namely, taking bribes for his voice in the Senate, wronging the allies, circumventing weak women with his flatteries, and aiding base men to cloak their iniquities.”
from “Comparison of Nicias and Crassus” by Plutarch

Blind self-interest is what drove the Republic to its doom. The senators were more about preserving their power than anything else. The Senate turned into a playground where the individual senators would not vote according to things that they thought would be good for the common good, but on whether that particular law would benefit them or instead benefit their rivals.

One consequence of this was that even crucial public infrastructure projects like the building of aqueducts to bring water to the city of Rome were halted. In fact, no new aqueduct was built between 125 BC and 33 BC, when Octavian took over the rule of the city towards the end of the Republic. Not only was there a lack of new aqueducts, the existing ones were rarely cleaned. This was the case, even despite the fact that the population of Rome was expanding exponentially and water was crucial for its further development.

The problem was that building a new aqueduct was costly and would bring huge political capital to the censor who oversaw its construction. So the political rivals of the current censors in the Senate would most certainly block anything of that nature. On the other hand, the upkeep of the existing aqueducts themselves would bring very little political capital to the politicians, so the priorities for spending were always found elsewhere.

The story of the building of the Aqua Marcia, the last aqueduct to Rome constructed until the era of Octavian gives us clues on what started to be happening a bit before the time of the rise of the Gracchi. Competition between the elites was intensifying and novel tactics were beginning to be deployed in order to try to block projects that would benefit opponents. In the case of the aqueduct, the tactic of bad omens as a pretext to stop the works was used.

“One hundred and twenty-seven years later, that is in the six hundred and eighth year from the founding of the City, in the consulship of Servius Sulpicius Galba and Lucius Aurelius Cotta, when the conduits of Appia and Old Anio had become leaky by reason of age, and water was also being diverted from them unlawfully by individuals, the Senate commissioned Marcius, who at that time administered the law as praetor between citizens, to reclaim and repair these conduits.

And since the growth of the City was seen to demand a more bountiful supply of water, the same man was charged by the Senate to bring into the City other waters so far as he could. He restored the old channels and brought in a third supply, more wholesome than these, which is called Marcia after the man who introduced it.

We read in Fenestella, that 180,000,000 sesterces were granted to Marcius for these works, and since the term of his praetorship was not sufficient for the completion of the enterprise, it was extended for a second year. At that time the decemvirs, on consulting the Sibylline Books for another purpose, are said to have discovered that it was not right for the Marcian water, or rather the Anio (for tradition more regularly mentions this) to be brought to the Capitol.

The matter is said to have been debated in the Senate, in the consulship of Appius Claudius and Quintus Caecilius, Marcus Lepidus acting as spokesman for the Board of Decemvirs; and three years later the matter is said to have been brought up again by Lucius Lentulus, in the consulship of Gaius Laelius and Quintus Servilius, but on both occasions the influence of Marcius Rex carried the day; and thus the water was brought to the Capitol.”
from “The Roman Aqueducts” by Frontinus

This played on the specificities of the religious traditions of ancient Rome, but the use of different means that have nothing to do with the merits of the case are a generic tactic that apply across generations. The rise of similar types of tactics can be observed in the political process of today.

In 144-140 BC when these discussions around the aqueduct were taking place, the old ways were still strong and a compromise was reached without too much conflict. However, in these initial encounters you can see the seeds of what would later escalate to monstrous proportions.

The politicians became quite jealous and protective of their power and privileges, not wanting to share them with any potential rivals. A spirit of working together that had succeeded in overcoming divisions in previous generations totally disappeared, as the quest for personal power and ambition overwhelmed the running of the state.

“Ambition prompted many to become deceitful; to keep one thing concealed in the breast, and another ready on the tongue; to estimate friendships and enmities, not by their worth, but according to interest; and to carry rather a specious countenance than an honest heart.

At first these vices grew slowly, from time to time they were punished; finally, when the disease had spread like a deadly plague, the state was changed and a government second to none in equity and excellence became cruel and intolerable.”
from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

The senators were always on guard against sharing their power with the other classes, and especially resented the attempts at enlarging the size of the Senate to include more people from the knightly class. Although to be fair, these expansions of the size of the Senate were often attempts by powerful individuals to stuff it with their own supporters.

“This was the plan that he contrived for both of them, but it turned out contrary to his expectations, for the senators were indignant that so large a number should be added to their enrollment at one time and be transferred from knighthood to the highest rank. They thought it not unlikely that they would form a faction in the Senate by themselves and contend against the old senators more powerfully than ever.

The knights, on the other hand, suspected that, by this doctoring, the courts of justice would be transferred from their order to the Senate exclusively. Having acquired a relish for the great gains and power of the judicial office, this suspicion disturbed them. Most of them, too, fell into doubt and distrust toward each other, discussing which of them seemed more worthy than others to be enrolled among the 300; and envy against their betters filled the breasts of the remainder.

Above all the knights were angry at the revival of the charge of bribery, which they thought had been ere this entirely suppressed, so far as they were concerned.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

Gerrymandering was quite prominent in the Roman political process. The laws were usually passed using a series of popular assemblies (including the Centuriate Assembly, the Tribal Assembly, and the Plebeian Assembly), with each of these assemblies being organized a bit differently. For example, the Plebeian Assembly consisted only of the plebeian class, and did not include the patricians. Each of these bodies could be set up in such a way as to favor certain interests.

The Tribal Assembly was made up of 35 tribes, four of which were urban tribes from the city of Rome itself, and the rest were rural tribes coming from the outside. These were of course political tribes, and not based on any previous ancestral affiliations. The way voting worked in this Assembly was that the tribes voted one after another, with the decision of the tribe being decided by a majority within that tribe. The decision of that tribe then counted as one vote for the overall decision.

It did not matter how big that tribe was, its overall vote would only count as 1. This led the composition of the tribes liable for manipulation. You could stuff the tribes that voted early with your supporters, or gerrymander the other tribes in such a way as to put all the supporters of your opponents into a small number of tribes, with the other tribes being dominated by your own supporters.

This voting system was also the reason why many plebs were against immigrants, and also giving citizenship to them (even if they were Italian). One of the things they feared was that their voting power would be diminished with the inclusion of immigrants in the citizen rolls. The most vehement opponents of giving Roman citizenship to foreigners were the poorest Romans.

“Cinna, who belonged to Marius’ party, passed a law to the effect that new citizens, upon receiving Roman citizenship for any reason, should be able to vote amongst the old citizens, with no distinction. He did this to gain the favor of the men who had raised Marius to power by their votes and had granted him the greatest honors; but this law was unfair to the old citizens, who seemed to have lost the benefit of their dignity, by having their votes mixed in with those of the new, less worthy citizens.”
from “Short History of Rome” by Julius Exsuperantius

When after a long struggle, the citizenship was extended to large sections of the Italian allies, there was an attempt to limit their voice through gerrymandering.

“Accordingly, although the citizenship had been given to Italy with the proviso that the new citizens should be enrolled in but eight tribes, so that their power and numbers might not weaken the prestige of the older citizens, and that the beneficiaries might not have greater power than the benefactors, Cinna now promised to distribute them throughout all the tribes. With this object he had brought together into the city a great multitude from all parts of Italy.”
from “The Roman History” by Velleius Paterculus

Many of the leaders fighting for power would switch factions, allies, and tactics when it suited them. Pompey was a Populares for much of his career, using the citizen Assemblies to get his way. However, he later switched over to the Optimate side, gathering support from the most conservative senators. This flip-flopping was a constant of Roman politics in the last decades of the Republic.

The tactics that the politicians used in order to advance their interests, ranged from the merely unethical to some that were downright illegal. For some of them, chaos played right into their hands.

Politicians would instigate trouble when it was opportune for them to do that, or would prolong turmoil, if it was advantageous for them to do that.

“Caesar now rose, and since he was a powerful speaker and wished to increase every change and commotion in the state for his own designs, rather than to allow them to be quenched, he urged many persuasive and humane arguments.”
from “The Life of Cato the Younger” by Plutarch

The utter disregard for the common good, and the narcissistic ambition that drove the leaders of that era, can be seen in this quote from Julius Caesar when he was making the fateful decision to cross the Rubicon and start a civil war.

“”When his course brought him to the river Rubicon, which forms the boundary line of Italy, he stopped and, while gazing at the stream, revolved in his mind the evils that would result, should he cross the river in arms. Recovering himself, he said to those who were present, “My friends, to leave this stream uncrossed will breed manifold distress for me; to cross it, for all mankind.” Thereupon, he crossed with a rush like one inspired, uttering the familiar phrase, “The die is cast: so let it be!””
from “Roman History” by Appian

Instead of trying to be the best leader and putting the interests of the Republic above their own, the main aim of guys like Pompey or Caesar was to be the only leader, to be above the rest.

“Do you remember, then, that ideal “director of the commonwealth” to whom we would refer all questions? In the fifth book, I think it is, Scipio thus speaks: For as the object of a pilot is a successful voyage, of a physician bodily health, of a commander victory, so the object of such a director of the commonwealth is the happiness of the citizens, that it should be secure in means of defense, opulent in material resources, splendid in reputation, untarnished in its virtue. For my idea of him is that he should carry to perfection the work which is the greatest and best among men.

Such a conception never occurred to our friend Gnaeus in former times, and least of all in this controversy. Supremacy has been the object of both; there has been no idea of securing the happiness and virtue of the citizens. Nor, indeed, did he abandon the city because he was unable to protect it, nor Italy because he was driven from it; but his idea from the first was to stir up every land and sea, to rouse foreign princes, to bring barbarous tribes in arms into Italy, to collect the most formidable armies possible. For some time past a kind of royalty like Sulla’s has been the object in view, and this is the eager desire of many who are with him.”
from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

They could have stuck some sort of a bargain or compromise, but instead they pursued their naked ambition to the ruin of the country.

“Do you suppose that some understanding between the two, some bargain has been impossible? Today it is still possible. But the object of neither is our happiness: both want to be kings.”
from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

Ambition came to duly dominate the state, when the politician and general combined into one person. When individuals started using the army to do their bidding and to control politics, that’s when the collapse of the Republic became inevitable.

“The generals of this later time, however, who won their primacy by force, not merit, and who needed their armies for service against one another, rather than against the public enemy, were compelled to merge the general in the demagogue, and then, by purchasing the services of their soldiers with lavish sums to be spent on luxurious living, they unwittingly made their whole country a thing for sale, and themselves slaves of the basest men for the sake of ruling over the better.

This was what drove out Marius, and then brought him back again against Sulla; this made Cinna the assassin of Octavius, and Fimbria of Flaccus. And it was Sulla who, more than any one else, paved the way for these horrors, by making lavish expenditures upon the soldiers under his own command that he might corrupt and win over those whom others commanded, so that in making traitors of the rest, and profligates of his own soldiers, he had need of much money, and especially for this siege.”
from “The Life of Sulla” by Plutarch

The will to power, a notion that some modern philosophers have thought of as the main driving force of humans, has ancient roots as an idea. From Sallust and other historians, it passed onto the thoughts of Augustine of Hippo, whose writings were very influential in the development of the Christian Church. His concept of “libido dominandi” is about the willful need to dominate others that is found in certain individuals.

This type of lust for domination is present in many people, and while sometimes lying dormant, it can be re-awakened by circumstances. The individuals driven by this desire to dominate others, can take different ideologies and paths to power, but deep down underneath, these are only a means to an end, with the end being holding power.

Don’t be fooled by people who are pretending to be speaking for virtue and railing against the current establishment, shouting how corrupt and evil everyone is. When these guys get into power, they will do the same things as those they are disparaging. A lot of times, they might be even worse.

““But he hates those who make an ungoverned use of great power suddenly acquired.” I retort that he will do the same thing as soon as he acquires the same powers. In the case of many men, their vices, being powerless, escape notice; although, as soon as the persons in question have become satisfied with their own strength, the vices will be no less daring than those which prosperity has already disclosed.

These men simply lack the means whereby they may unfold their wickedness. Similarly, one can handle even a poisonous snake while it is stiff with cold; the poison is not lacking; it is merely numbed into inaction.

In the case of many men, their cruelty, ambition, and indulgence only lack the favor of Fortune to make them dare crimes that would match the worst. That their wishes are the same you will in a moment discover, in this way: give them the power equal to their wishes.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

It is important never to underestimate anyone, no matter how harmless they look at the beginning. Cicero compared this to giving a sword to a child. While by himself and left to his own means, the kid cannot harm anyone, with the sword it is completely different.

When Hindenburg was giving power to Hitler in 1933, he also thought he could control him. At the start of the Republican primaries, most people were of the opinion that Trump had no chance. But both were given swords, and you see what happened.

“If you give a sword to a little child, or to a powerless and decrepit old man, he himself by his own violence cannot injure any one, but still if the sword touches the naked body of even the strongest man, it is possible that he may be wounded by the mere sharpness and power of the weapon; in like manner, when the consulship had been given as a sword to enervated and worn-out men, who, of their own strength, would never be able to wound any one, they, armed with the name of supreme command, murdered the republic.

They openly made a treaty with the tribune of the people, to receive from him whatever provinces they chose, and an army, and as much money as they chose, on this condition,—that they themselves were the first to hand over the afflicted republic in fetters to the tribune.”
from “Speech in Defense of Sestius” by Cicero

Many of these people feel no shame, and will do whatever it takes to get to the top. No lie is too small, no act is too illegal, if it helps them to attain their ambition.

“You must not delay or look for help from prayers to the gods; unless haply you hope that Sulla is now weary or ashamed of his tyranny and that what he has criminally seized he will with still greater peril resign.

On the contrary, he has sunk so low that he thinks nothing glorious which is not safe, and regards every means of retaining his supremacy as honorable.”
speech of Aemilius Lepidus from “Histories” by Sallust

Divide and conquer is a common strategy used by these power-hungry unscrupulous demagogues. They thrive in a world of growing “us” versus “them” divisions, in a world where dog eats dog, where chaos reigns supreme. They like to create an environment which forces people to choose between becoming a slave or a master, using rhetoric that paints the game as zero-sum. The “other” must lose, in order for “us” to win.

“Hence that state of repose and tranquillity combined with freedom, which many good men prized more highly than honors attended with toil, is a thing of the past; in these times one must either be slave or master, one must feel fear, citizens, or inspire it.

For what else is left us? What human laws survive? The Roman people, lately ruler of the nations, now stripped of power, repute and rights, without the means to live and an object of contempt, does not even retain the rations of slaves.”
speech of Aemilius Lepidus from “Histories” by Sallust

Playing off different groups against each other is a good way to gain personal power and influence, and one that was often used by the different politicians of the ancient Roman Republic.

“By setting all the classes at variance, he built up personal power for himself; and by using funds from the public treasury for shameful and inopportune expenses, which however bought him favor with others, he made himself the center of everyone’s attention.”
from “Historical Library” by Diodorus Siculus

It becomes difficult to dislodge a wanna-be strongman from his position of power once he builds a wide cult of personality. This is what was happening in times of the latter Roman Republic. Guys like Marius and Sulla claimed favor by the gods, with Pompey starting to build a veritable personality cult around himself. However, it was Julius Caesar who took it to the extreme, being proclaimed an actual living god by the Senate!

“And they decreed that a chariot of his should be placed on the Capitol facing the statue of Jupiter, that his statue in bronze should be mounted upon a likeness of the inhabited world, with an inscription to the effect that he was a demigod, and that his name should be inscribed upon the Capitol.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

This state of affairs, where corrupt and self-interested people were dominating politics, led the honest ones to stay away. People like Titus Pomponius Atticus decided it was too dangerous and too immoral to be in politics.

“He aimed at no offices (though they were open to him as well through his influence as through his high standing), since they could neither be sought in the ancient method, nor be gained without violating the laws in the midst of such unrestrained extravagance of bribery, nor be exercised for the good of the country without danger in so corrupt a state of the public morals.”
from “The Lives of Eminent Commanders” by Cornelius Nepos

Having good leaders is incredibly important, especially in troubled times. Most misfortunes hit states not through fortune or luck, even though these do play a part, but instead through ignorance of a common good, and the incompetence of the leaders. Competent leaders are quite rare.

“If the leaders and statesmen in the cities were competent to hit upon the proper course, all men would always fare handsomely and be free from harm — unless of course some chance misfortune should perversely befall one city or another. But on the contrary, in my opinion, both in former days and at the present time you would find that more dreadful things have happened to cities through ignorance of what is to their interest and through the mistakes of their leaders than the disasters that happen by divine will or through mere chance.”
from “Second Tarsic Discourse” by Dio Chrysostom

It is not just that people can be incompetent, but they can be downright two-faced. Usually, the vilest individuals have their mouths full of talk of justice, but in reality they behave opposite to what they say. People often don’t do what they preach, but this is especially striking among politicians who shout about morality, justice and such things in public, but privately do not act that way.

“The orators are very earnest about justice in their speeches, but not at all in their actions.”
from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

At a time when the Republic was coming to an end, the political conditions deteriorated rapidly and the political class with it. In a place, where the politicians were driven by self-interest above all else, no real statesmen were to be found.

“A genuine statesman is not to be found, even in a dream.”
from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

It is virtue that defines the character of a good man, and it is virtue that needs to be at the core of a good leader’s basic set of principles. Virtue ethics was the foundation of moral philosophy in Antiquity, and philosophers like Plato and Aristotle expounded upon it, but it was Cicero who defined the four cardinal virtues, and made them the key building block of politics.

“Virtue may be defined as a habit of mind in harmony with reason and the order of nature. It has four parts: wisdom, justice, courage, temperance.”
from “On Invention” by Cicero

At the end of his career, when the Republic was engulfed in strife and civil war, Cicero wrote one of his most memorable treatises, “On Moral Duties”. Dedicated to his son, this work tried to outline what a good politician should be. It is a person’s moral virtue that should be regarded as their most important characteristic.

“The more a man is endowed with these finer virtues — temperance, self-control, and that very justice about which so much has already been said — the more he deserves to be favored. I do not mention fortitude, for a courageous spirit in a man who has not attained perfection and ideal wisdom is generally too impetuous; it is those other virtues that seem more particularly to mark the good man.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

A good leader is one who dedicates himself to justice and honor, does not expose anyone to hatred or disrepute by groundless charges, and seeks to promote the common good above his own personal interests.

“All this the citizen who is patriotic, brave, and worthy of a leading place in the state will shun with abhorrence; he will dedicate himself unreservedly to his country, without aiming at influence or power for himself; and he will devote himself to the state in its entirety in such a way as to further the interests of all.

Besides, he will not expose anyone to hatred or disrepute by groundless charges, but he will surely cleave to justice and honor so closely that he will submit to any loss, however heavy, rather than be untrue to them.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

Such a person respects their political rivals and does not indulge in violent anger against them.

“Neither must we listen to those who think that one should indulge in violent anger against one’s political rivals and imagine that such is the attitude of a great-spirited, brave man. For nothing is more commendable, nothing more becoming in a pre-eminently great man than courtesy and forbearance.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

An honest politician does not regard their political rivals as mortal enemies to be put down, even if they disagree on matters of policy.

“A most wretched custom, assuredly, is our electioneering and scrambling for office. Concerning this also we find a fine thought in Plato: “Those who compete against one another,” he says, “to see which of two candidates shall administer the government, are like sailors quarrelling as to which one of them shall do the steering.”

And he likewise lays down the rule that we should regard only those as adversaries who take up arms against the state, not those who strive to have the government administered according to their convictions.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

You always need to keep the interests of the country and the common good above your own personal interests and your own gain.

“All those who would assume the mantle of public affairs would be well advised to heed two of Plato’s rules: first, to keep the best interests of the people so clearly in view that, whatever their own interests, those of the people will guide their conduct; and second, to care for the well being of the whole body politic, and not that of any one political party, especially not one which is prepared to betray the interests of the state for its own gain.

The administration of the affairs of state must be taken like a public trust, to be undertaken for the benefit of those entrusted to one’s care, and not for the benefit of those upon whom the trust is conferred.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

The man of integrity always makes the moral choice, even when it might cost him personally.

“Wherever fate leads, virtue must follow without fear.”
from “Pharsalia” by Lucan

Unfortunately, as historian Livy lamented, luck and a good disposition rarely come together. Often, the person of bad character gets more lucky than the one of good character.

“Good fortune and a good disposition are rarely given to the same man.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

History is filled with bad, but lucky people without scruples rising to the top. However, how do you deal with these types of narcissistic, power-hungry politicians? One has to be careful not to push too hard against these types of individuals. You either don’t give them the chance to get into positions of power in the first place, or once they have power, let them realize their ambitions at least partially, without invoking a sense of threat in them. One reason why Caesar made the decision to cross the Rubicon was because he felt to be under threat of prosecution if he did lay down his arms.

“But Caesar, when he reached Pompey’s ramparts and saw those of the enemy who were already lying dead there and those who were still falling, said with a groan: “They would have it so; they brought me to such a pass that if I, Caius Caesar, after waging successfully the greatest wars, had dismissed my forces, I should have been condemned in their courts.”
from “The Life of Julius Caesar” by Plutarch

The big problem of the political arena of the last century of the Roman Republic was that the politicians were looking at their own bottom-line, hungry for more personal power, always pushing their own interests without taking a more systemic view and doing things to promote the common good. Short-term thinking prevailed over long-term thinking, and narrow-mindedness won over taking a wider perspective.

“Democracies experience something of the same sort as do the seas; for just as the latter are agitated by the winds, though it is their nature to be tranquil, so the former are disturbed by the demagogues, though they have in themselves no evil.”
from “Roman Antiquities” by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

The ancients used to say that character is destiny, and in many ways this holds true. When a populace continuously starts choosing self-absorbed characters and demagogues as its leaders, then the fate of that country starts hanging in the balance. It is then only a matter of time before a tipping point is reached and the nation throws itself over the edge, into an abyss of chaos and violence.

While it has always been a fact that most politicians are in it mostly for their own ego, today’s crop of politicians is extremely egotistical. The common good does not even enter the vocabulary of people like Donald Trump. We can even see the beginnings of personality cult of Donald Trump starting to take root, with his frequent rallies and adoration by fans. Once this becomes strongly grounded in place, it could be difficult to dislodge.

A similar streak can be seen in the ambition of Boris Johnson in the UK and his drive for power, where no principle is so sacred that he can’t change it, and a lie is repeated so often that it ultimately comes to be seen as the truth.

The problem is that when a person is driven by their own ambition and ego, there is nothing to stop them from trying to achieve power through any way possible. After all, the ends justify the means.

9) When those in power start going around the norms, you could be headed for a slippery slope

Once the politicians went around the norms, it became easier to go around another one. This led to a slippery slope. While the first norm that was ignored might be quite innocent, the next one was a bit less, and the next one even less, until you ended up in a situation where the only norm that mattered was who had more soldiers in the field. The rule of law became replaced by the law of the sword.

Norms are an important part of any political system, because they define how things are done. They can be written down in legal documents like constitutions, but often they are a set of traditions, unwritten rules and conventions that determine how a political process should work and how politicians should behave.

Following norms, even if they are not legally binding, ensures the stability of the system, and makes sure that people don’t abuse the power that they are granted by their political positions. A stable system also promotes trust in the entire process of governance of the state among the different actors, but also the populace.

The political system in Rome was founded upon the ancient “mos maiorum”, or ancestral custom. These were different principles, patterns of behavior, and social conventions that were passed on from generation to generation. They were based on tradition, but there were also conventions on how to change and adapt the system to new situations. However, any change to these customs and processes had to be agreed upon by consensus.

“Custom is the tacit consent of the people confirmed by long-established practice.”
from “Rules” by Ulpian

What happened in Rome is that these norms that had governed the political process started to get eroded and then ended up being completely ignored. The first major instances of norms being passed over are usually dated to the time of the Gracchi, when both Tiberius and the people who opposed him, tried to get around the norms in order to get their policies through. Then, Tiberius attempted to go for a second consecutive term as tribune, something which was customarily not done. The faction around the conservative senators tried to stop him in a way that broke the ancient traditions around the institution of the tribuneship, and ended up killing him in the process.

However, if you read through the history of some of the events preceding the times of Tiberius Gracchus, you can see that the norms were slowly being chipped away at by Scipio Aemilianus and others at least since the mid-2nd century BC. What is important is that with the events around Tiberius, consensus finally broke down and the norm erosion became blatant.

When Tiberius proposed his law on land reform, he knew that he was going to be opposed by the Senate. Tradition dictated that any law that was to be voted on by the popular assemblies, was first to be approved by the senators. However, knowing that he would never get the required agreement from the wealthy senators, Tiberius decided to skip this part of the process, and instead went straight to the Plebeian Assembly to vote on the law.

This glaring disregard of the norms started off a spark which led to a fire that kept on spreading and engulfing everything in its path. The senators, enraged at this turn of events, forced another of the tribunes, Marcus Octavius, to interpose his veto on the legislation. This set off a rapid succession of abuses of power from which the Roman Republic never recovered. All the different factors like income inequalities, feelings of loss, anger, and lack of compromise came together to create a multitude of forces that started a race to the bottom, and eventually led to the fall of the Republic.

“Marcus Octavius, however, another tribune, who had been induced by those in possession of the lands to interpose his veto (for among the Romans the negative veto always defeats an affirmative proposal), ordered the clerk to keep silence.

Thereupon Gracchus reproached him severely and adjourned the comitia to the following day. Then he stationed near himself a sufficient guard, as if to force Octavius against his will, and ordered the clerk with threats to read the proposed law to the multitude. He began to read, but when Octavius again forbade he stopped.

Then the tribunes fell to wrangling with each other, and a considerable tumult arose among the people. The leading citizens besought the tribunes to submit their controversy to the Senate for decision. Gracchus seized on the suggestion, believing that the law was acceptable to all well-disposed persons, and hastened to the Senate-house.

But, as he had only a few followers there and was upbraided by the rich, he ran back to the forum and said that he would take the vote at the comitia of the following day, both on the law and on the official rights of Octavius, to determine whether a tribune who was acting contrary to the people’s interest could continue to hold office. And this Gracchus did; for when Octavius, nothing daunted, again interposed, Gracchus proposed to take the vote on him first.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

With some people in Rome, notably the senators and the factions allied with the Optimates (the conservatives), thinking that Tiberius was trying to take over the power in Rome, they sprung into action. Publius Scipio Nasica, the pontifex maximus (the chief religious position in the city), gathered a crowd of supporters and decided to eliminate Gracchus.

Before that time, the institution of the plebeian tribune was sacrosanct. No one could even lay their hand on them or impede them in their actions. Nasica’s deeds totally undermined this institution, one that was set up as a way to protect the plebeians from the abuses of the patricians. With the norms around the office of the tribune no longer respected, a whole can of worms was opened up.

“Wrapping the fold of his toga about his left forearm he stationed himself on the topmost steps of the Capitol and summoned all those who wished for the safety of the state to follow him. Then the Optimates, the Senate, the larger and better part of the equestrian order, and those of the plebs who were not yet infected by pernicious theories rushed upon Gracchus as he stood with his bands in the area of the Capitol and was haranguing a throng assembled from almost every part of Italy.

As Gracchus fled, and was running down the steps which led from the Capitol, he was struck by the fragment of a bench, and ended by an untimely death the life which he might have made a glorious one. This was the beginning in Rome of civil bloodshed, and of the licence of the sword. From this time on right was crushed by might, the most powerful now took precedence in the state, the disputes of the citizens which were once healed by amicable agreements were now settled by arms, and wars were now begun not for good cause but for what profit there was in them.

Nor is this to be wondered at; for precedents do not stop where they begin, but, however narrow the path upon which they enter, they create for themselves a highway whereon they may wander with the utmost latitude; and when once the path of right is abandoned, men are hurried into wrong in headlong haste, nor does anyone think a course is base for himself which has proven profitable to others.”
from “The Roman History” by Velleius Paterculus

At first the norms that were surpassed were relatively minor and most of the actors on both sides had high-minded principles driving them. Cicero, while a supporter of the conservative side, still praised the spirit of the early reformers like the Gracchi brothers. This he contrasted with the state of affairs in his own time, where violent mobs were roaming around, trying to get their way through intimidation.

“Do you think that the Gracchi, or that Saturninus, or that any one of those ancient men who were considered devoted to the interests of the people, had ever any hired fellows in their assemblies? Not one of those men ever stooped to such a course. For the mere liberality of their proposed laws, and the hope of the advantage which was held out to them, excited the multitude sufficiently without any bribery. Therefore, in those times, those men who set up for friends of the people, were hindered in their plans by wise and honorable men, but they were great men in the opinion of the populace, and received every sort of honor from them.”
from “Speech in Defense of Sestius” by Cicero

The slide towards chaos in Cicero’s time, started off with a few minor breaks of the traditional way of doing things. Even small transgressions can have grave consequences. What you think is a one-off tiny infraction of the norms, can set off a chain of events that lead to dangerous places.

“It is such cases as these that sometimes perplex us in our consideration, when the point in which justice is violated does not seem so very significant, but the consequences of such slight transgression seem exceedingly important.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

Precedence is what gives rise to the slippery slope. Once you can point to instances of rules and norms being broken, then you have an argument that breaking another one is nothing big.

People get used to this state of affairs quite quickly. When Sulla decided to march on Rome with his army, it caused quite a shock among his commanders. Except for a small handful, almost all of them resigned their commands in protest. A few decades later, no officer would even bat an eye if their general decided to fight other Romans.

After the times of the Gracchi and Nasica, the Roman Republic entered a period of declining respect for old norms and rules. It became normal to use different shady practices to get your way. Malicious lawsuits against opponents became very common, which would serve to tarnish their reputations and sometimes get them out of the way if the lawsuit was successful.

Character assassination was a regular tactic, used masterfully among others by Cicero. Instead of debating the merit of things, many political speeches were full of ad hominem attacks and invectives. Political attacks against opponents were quite vicious in nature.

Cicero, in a short treatise teaching his son the power of rhetoric, outlines some ways to carry out these invectives.

“In persons, the first things considered are the natural qualities of health, figure, strength, age, and whether they are male or female. And all these concern the body alone. But the qualities of the mind, or how they are affected, depends on virtues, vices, arts, and want of art; or in another sense, on desire, fear, pleasure, or annoyance. And these are the natural circumstances which are principally considered.

In fortune, we look at a man’s race, his friends, his children, his relations, his kinsmen, his wealth, his honors, his power, his estates, his freedom, and also at all the contraries to these circumstances.”
from “A Dialogue Concerning Oratorical Partitions” by Cicero

Attacks on a person’s race or sex were considered fair game!

This type of poisonous atmosphere went hand in hand with other types of unscrupulous practices. Many candidates paid money to secure votes and many people sold their votes eagerly. Lucan, a poet of the early Imperial period, wrote an epic poem on the period of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, where he describes the conditions of that era in striking verse.

“Consul and tribune break the laws alike. Bought are the fasces, and the people sell. For gain their favor: bribery’s fatal curse corrupts the annual contests of the Field. Then covetous usury rose, and interest was greedier than ever as the seasons came.”
from “Pharsalia” by Lucan

Electoral bribery and vote buying grew to monstrous proportions. For example, Milo spent three times his net worth, not just on bribing the voters themselves, but also on spectacles and gladiatorial shows.

“Milo wanted the elections over as soon as possible, and put his trust in the support of the Optimates, because he was opposed to Clodius, and in the people on account of his general bribery and huge expenditure on dramatic spectacles and a gladiatorial show, on which Cicero indicates that he had spent three inheritances.”
from “Commentary on Cicero’s On Behalf of Milo” by Asconius

Many of the candidates borrowed heavily in order to win, which means that they had to recoup this money while in office. This led to further abuses.

Every few years, a law was passed trying to curtail these acts, but each of these laws came to nothing. Bribery and vote buying grew bigger and bigger, and paradoxically prosecution under these laws became just another tactic to smear your opponent.

When power was concerned, unscrupulous practices became the norm. People like Caesar didn’t hesitate to put their opponents in jail, when it came time for crucial votes in the Senate. One case of this came when Cato was trying to filibuster his way through a vote that was important for Caesar. In order to stop this filibuster and get the vote through, Caesar just threw Cato in jail.

“The consul Gaius Caesar called upon Marcus Cato for his opinion. Cato did not wish to have the motion before the house carried, since he did not think it for the public good.

For the purpose of delaying action, he made a long speech and tried to use up the whole day in talking. For it was a senator’s right, when asked his opinion, to speak beforehand on any other subject he wished, and as long as he wished.

Caesar, in his capacity as consul, summoned an attendant, and since Cato would not stop, ordered him to be arrested in the full tide of his speech and taken to prison.”
from “On Senatorial Conduct” by Ateius Capito

The criminalization of opponents became a common practice. It didn’t stop at only putting lawsuits against them, or throwing them in jail, but at times of peak violence, lists of political opponents (as well as others) were drawn up with orders for them to be killed. The so-called proscriptions put a bloody stain on the Republic, and thousands of potential leaders perished in them, robbing the country of some of its ablest politicians. Sulla was the first who put systematic proscriptions in place, but was not to be the last.

“He was the first to set the precedent for proscription — would that he had been the last! The result was that in the very state in which an actor who had been hissed from the stage has legal redress for willful abuse, a premium for the murder of a citizen was now publicly announced; that the richest man was he who had slain the greatest number; that the bounty for slaying an enemy was no greater than that for slaying a citizen; and that each man became the prize set up for his own death. Nor was vengeance wreaked upon those alone who had borne arms against him, but on many innocents as well.”
from “The Roman History” by Velleius Paterculus

When you start denying the legitimacy of your opponents, when you start branding them as criminals without proof, when you start curtailing their political liberties, then you are encouraging an environment where civility of discourse and rules of the game are no longer respected. This can turn violent, even deadly. Unfortunately, ancient Rome experienced this murderous turn.

How do you get from a situation where the normal political process, while heated, functions according to established norms and rules, to a situation where violence, even killing reigns supreme? In the Roman Republic, this occurred through several stages, with fits and starts here and there, short returns to normalcy, followed by outbreaks of violence, even civil wars.

First norms were broken, then violence (even death), then more norms became broken. You went from public officials going for one more term, or shutting down the government over disputes at the beginning, to guys like Sulla marching on Rome itself half a century later.

Going around the rules through any means possible became very common. Old rules and procedures were not respected, and whenever it became convenient new ways of getting around them arose.

Laws were no longer sacred. What worked instead was terror and violence. This slippery slope can be explained by game theory quite well. If one side engages in a tactic, the other side will have to as well, otherwise it will lose out. Nice guys lose and they lose big, unfortunately.

Initially, some politicians, despite the broken norms, tried to play the game by the old rules. Gaius Memmius tried to use the courts to prosecute corruption, bribery, and collusion with foreign countries. He was incensed at some of the injustices that were committed and tried to get the people a bit more riled up to fight for their rights, however in a controlled manner.

“I seem to hear someone say, ‘What then do you advise?’ I reply, ‘Let those who have betrayed their country to the enemy be punished, not by arms or by violence, which it is less becoming for you to inflict than for them to suffer, but by the courts and Jugurtha’s own testimony.”
speech of Gaius Memmius from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

His strategy was to get Jugurtha, the ruler of the kingdom of Numidia, to come to Rome and testify to how he bribed certain high-placed Romans, who then colluded with him. However, due to further corruption, this did not work and Memmius was prevented from questioning the king. The corrupt officials got away scot-free, their deeds going unpunished.

What was worse is that Gaius Memmius himself ended up being killed a few years later in a new wave of political violence unleashed by his opponents. This then showed the futility of playing by the rules. Instead, both sides started resorting more and more to angry mobs.

“The assembly was broken up in terror. Neither laws nor courts nor sense of shame remained. The people ran together in anger the following day intending to kill Apuleius, but he had collected another mob from the country and, with Glaucia and Gaius Saufeius, the quaestor, seized the Capitol.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

It became much easier to get your way through violence than through the normal legislative process. Political violence, something which was unthinkable just half a century before, had become the standard practice.

“The sword was never carried into the assembly, and there was no civil butchery until Tiberius Gracchus, while serving as a tribune and bringing forward new laws, was the first to fall a victim to internal commotion; and with him many others, who were crowded together at the Capitol round the temple, were also slain.

Sedition did not end with this abominable deed. Repeatedly the parties came into open conflict, often carrying daggers; and from time to time in the temples, or the assemblies, or the forum, some tribune, or praetor, or consul, or candidate for these offices, or some person otherwise distinguished, would be slain.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

It is especially in times of intense political competition that norms tend to get broken and one needs to pay attention.

One important litmus test of the status of your political system is the relationship between the opposing groups and politicians. In the late Republic, political opponents were often no longer seen as the honorable opposition, but were increasingly seen as not even being legitimate. When you don’t see your opponents as legitimate, the chance of political violence increases.  With these mortal contests between opponents, the rules of the political game started breaking down.

“These men, accordingly, now that they had the consuls as leaders, made more disturbance than before, and the same was true of the others in the city, as they championed one side or the other.

Many disorderly proceedings were the result, chief of which was that during the very taking of the vote on the measure Clodius, knowing that the multitude would be on Cicero’s side, took the gladiators that his brother held in readiness for the funeral games in honor of Marcus, his relative, and rushing into the assemblage, wounded many and killed many others.

Consequently the measure was not passed, and Clodius, both as the companion of those armed champions and otherwise, was dreaded by all.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Political enemies battled themselves in the streets, rather than in the Senate. At one point, it became not enough just to rely on spontaneous mobs. Instead, guys like Milo and Clodius formed rival organized gangs to cause calculated trouble.

“While contesting this very point Milo caused much disturbance, and at last himself collected some gladiators and others like-minded with himself and kept continually coming to blows with Clodius, so that bloodshed occurred throughout practically the whole city.

Nepos, accordingly, inspired with fear by his colleague and by Pompey and by the other leading men, changed his attitude; and thus the senate decreed, on the motion of Spinther, that Cicero should be restored, and the populace, on the motion of both consuls, passed the measure.

Clodius, to be sure, spoke in opposition to the others, but he had Milo as an opponent, so that he could commit no violence, and Pompey, among others, spoke in favor of the enactment, so that that side proved much the stronger.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

This chaotic state of affairs ended up leading to a series of much larger conflicts, with the turning point being the Social War (91-88 BC). In this war, the Italian allies rebelled against the Roman Republic in order to gain citizenship. Many historians see this war as the point of no return, a spark which led to even larger conflicts and civil wars.

“While they were thus occupied the so‑called Social War, in which many Italian peoples were engaged, broke out. It began unexpectedly, grew rapidly to great proportions and extinguished the Roman sedition for a long time by a new terror.

When it was ended it also gave rise to new seditions under more powerful leaders, who did not work by introducing new laws, or by the tricks of the demagogue, but by matching whole armies against each other. I have treated it in this history because it had its origin in the sedition in Rome and resulted in another much worse.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

Before the Social War, the political violence was just fragmentary. After it, skirmishes in the streets, even fights on the battlefield, became systemic and grew large-scale.

“Hitherto the murders and seditions had been internal and fragmentary. Afterward the chiefs of factions assailed each other with great armies, according to the usage of war, and their country lay as a prize between them. The beginning and origin of these contentions came about directly after the Social War.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

The Social War was just one of the conflicts of the period, which also saw numerous rebellions of the slaves, including one led by Spartacus. However, for the first time in Roman history, you also saw Romans turning their swords against each other in large numbers.

A series of deadly civil wars damaged the Republic beyond repair.

“Unseemly violence prevailed almost constantly, together with shameful contempt for law and justice. As the evil gained in magnitude open insurrections against the government and large warlike expeditions against their country were undertaken by exiles, or criminals, or persons contending against each other for some office or military command.

There arose chiefs of factions quite frequently, aspiring to supreme power, some of them refusing to disband the troops entrusted to them by the people, others even hiring forces against each other on their own account, without public authority. Whenever either side first got possession of the city, the opposition party made war nominally against their own adversaries, but actually against their country.

They assailed it like an enemy’s capital, and ruthless and indiscriminate massacres of citizens were perpetrated. Some were proscribed, others banished, property was confiscated, and prisoners were even subjected to excruciating tortures.”
from “Roman History” by Appian

Rule of law broke down completely, and rule by the sword began. It wasn’t the one who was right who won, but instead the one who had the bigger army.

“At which Pompey said: “Cease quoting laws to us that have swords!””
from “The Life of Pompey” by Plutarch

Special attention has to be paid during times of emergencies. It is very easy to loosen the norms a bit, when things like terrorism or other matters of security have the population scared. In 68 BC, a group of pirates operating out of bases in Asia Minor, attacked and razed down the port of Ostia, Rome’s principal harbor. In the process, not only did they destroy a large part of the Roman navy, but also kidnapped numerous people, including two senators.

The potential effects of future raids could be devastating, which made the average person on the street feel very nervous. Pompey seeing an opportunity to gain power, had one of his allies, the tribune Gabinius pass an emergency measure to deal with the problem. This law would give Pompey unprecedented authority and domain over the entire empire.

“This was what most of all inclined the Romans, who were hard put to it to get provisions and expected a great scarcity, to send out Pompey with a commission to take the sea away from the pirates. Gabinius, one of Pompey’s intimates, drew up a law which gave him, not an admiralty, but an out-and‑out monarchy and irresponsible power over all men.

For the law gave him dominion over the sea this side of the pillars of Hercules, over all the mainland to the distance of four hundred furlongs from the sea. These limits included almost all places in the Roman world, and the greatest nations and most powerful kings were comprised within them.

Besides this, he was empowered to choose fifteen legates from the senate for the several principalities, and to take from the public treasuries and the tax-collectors as much money as he wished, and to have two hundred ships, with full power over the number and levying of soldiers and oarsmen.”
from “The Life of Pompey” by Plutarch

The populace, scared of the potential terror that the pirates could inflict, as well as of the danger that the grain supply could be disrupted, clamored for Pompey to be given the command, and extraordinary powers. Many of the senators protested, fearing what giving this type of power to one man could mean.

“When these provisions of the law were read in the assembly, the people received them with excessive pleasure, but the chief and most influential men of the senate thought that such unlimited and absolute power, while it was beyond the reach of envy, was yet a thing to be feared.

Therefore they all opposed the law, with the exception of Caesar; he advocated the law, not because he cared in the least for Pompey, but because from the outset he sought to ingratiate himself with the people and win their support. The rest vehemently attacked Pompey.”
from “The Life of Pompey” by Plutarch

The law was finally passed, and Pompey went on to eradicate the pirates in just a few short months. However, the final effect of the law was disastrous for the Republic. It went around the usual norms in giving unprecedented power to one man, effectively putting him above the law. A few decades later, this law would serve as a precedent for Octavian, when he himself took over absolute power. In a way, going around the norms in times of fear caused by terror attacks, was one of the key events that set up the eventual fall of the Republic.

In a republic, the slide towards autocracy becomes apparent, when formerly independent institutions become dependent too much on the wants of a particular person. With the rise of strongmen in Rome, you also saw another effect happening, with the numerous senators getting in line and pandering to these individuals. The same men who months before would be railing against the dangers of a potential autocrat, could turn around 180 degrees and become the demagogue’s staunchest supporters.

While privately, many of the senators would still see the danger of guys like Pompey or Caesar and their hunger for power, publicly they would sing their praises and support them unconditionally. Even Cicero was not immune to this from time to time, although towards the end of his life, he did take a strong stand against Marc Antony and his actions. The senators would bestow all kinds of honors on the leading strongman of the day like Caesar, further feeding their vanity.

“For not only did Gaius Julius Caesar accept excessive honors, such as an uninterrupted consulship, the dictatorship for life, and the censorship of public morals, as well as the forename Imperator, the surname of Father of his Country, a statue among those of the kings, and a raised couch in the orchestra; but he also allowed honors to be bestowed on him which were too great for mortal man: a golden throne in the House and on the judgment seat; a chariot and litter in the procession at the circus; temples, altars, and statues beside those of the gods; a special priest, an additional college of the Luperci, and the calling of one of the months by his name. In fact, there were no honors which he did not receive or confer at pleasure.”
from “The Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius

Often, these senators saw these strongmen as vehicles to further their own political agendas. Yet, the pandering undermined the norms further more, and made these types of titles and powers seem legitimate for a single person to hold. When the senators finally decided that enough was enough and assassinated Caesar, it was too late. The wheels had been set in motion and the train was going too fast downhill.

This was starting to happen under the Republic, but came to heed during the Empire. In the Republic, the pandering was only temporary and could be switched from one moment to the next depending on the situation, and was often divided between different competing individuals. The senators at the time were still quite independent, and there was a huge level of competition between the different factions, with each having the tendency to line up behind a leader, only to be dissolved when circumstances changed.

This all shifted radically when Octavian defeated his enemies once and for all by 30 BC and when he instituted the Empire in 27 BC. While outwardly, the first emperors wanted to keep the trappings of a republican government, in reality institutions like the Senate became mere rubber-stamping bodies. The senators now didn’t have any significant agendas of their own, but instead supported anything that the emperor wanted.

The Senate went from being an independent deliberative body to a place that was beholden to the man holding the power in the state. Most senators preferred to put their own political ambitions, their property, and their riches over what was in the interest of the common good. They knew that the strongman could destroy them at any moment, at times even taking their life. It was much easier to keep their head down and overlook any wrongdoing of the leader of the day.

The historian Tacitus in his works showed how low this once noble institution had sunk. In one passage, he describes the speech of senator Curtius Montanus and his admonition of how the senators became complacent and reverent towards the figure of the emperor without showing any sign of their own personal integrity and independence. Instead of trying to stop the illegal actions of the executive, they either kept quiet or condoned them.

At the end he asks, whether they believe that a bloodthirsty ruler like Nero will be their last master? No, more tyrants came, and by being quiet then, they destroyed their own institutions for the generations to come. Autocracy came to reign supreme.

“Even unsuccessful villainy finds some to emulate it: what will happen, if it flourish and be strong? And the man, whom we dare not offend when he holds only quaestor’s rank, are we to see him rise to the dignities of praetor and consul?

Do you suppose that Nero will be the last of the tyrants? Those who survived Tiberius, those who survived Caligula, thought the same; and yet after each there arose another ruler yet more detestable and more cruel.”
speech of Curtius Montanus from “The Annals” by Tacitus

With Pompey, the beginnings of a personality cult could be seen, something which was later brought to a grander scale by Caesar. The personality cult was later institutionalized when Octavian became the sole ruler of Rome, and turned it into a central pillar of the power of the emperor. In less than a hundred years, Rome went from people being allergic to even the mention of a king, to being led by a supreme autocrat who was considered divine. This is how badly the norms had slipped.

Some worried Romans did warn of the dangers to freedom from giving into the wishes of wanna-be strongmen, but unfortunately they were not listened to. In 56 BC, one of the consuls for that year, Lentulus Marcellinus, proclaimed a prophecy that unfortunately came true: protest while you can, for soon you will not be able to do so with impunity.

“When complaints were being registered in an assembly about the excessive power of Pompey the Great, and everyone was loudly proclaiming their agreement, the consul Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus remarked: “Protest while you can, Romans, for soon you will not be able to do so with impunity.””
from “Memorable Deeds and Sayings” by Valerius Maximus

Cicero in his work “On the Republic” noted down one thought from the Roman poet Ennius, who lived in the mid-2nd century BC: the Republic stands upon its norms, morals and its people. However, one has to be careful how to interpret that. Sometimes these types of statements are used by reactionaries to legitimize their causes. They call for a return to some pure golden age, which usually only exists in their own imagination.

What is important is not keeping everything the same as it was centuries ago, but instead being guided by the spirit of moral integrity and an eye on the greater good. Times change and things need to move with them, however what needs to stay the same is a respect for the rules of the game, the norms, and for the legitimacy of the system. The recognition that while you may not agree with your opponents, but that they too have a right to voice their opinion and stand against you, is essential for the political process to function well.

While the “mos maiorum” and tradition guided the functioning of the Roman state, there were provisions built in that allowed the norms to be changed. However, this was done in an organized manner and according to consensus. Sextus Pomponius, a jurist from the 2nd century AD, wrote a short treatise in which he explained the history of Roman law. In it, he noted some of the different crises and problems that precipitated the changes in governance. The early Roman Republic had been mired in struggles between the plebeians and the patricians. Open conflict had been present in the system from the get-go. Yet, for the first four centuries of its existence, the Republic had managed to weather the storms and evolve in an orderly manner.

“Then, because it was difficult for the plebs any longer to assemble, and much more so for the entire body of the people to be collected in such a crowd of persons; necessity caused the government of the commonwealth to be committed to the Senate. Thus the Senate began to take an active part in legislation, and whatever it decreed was observed, and this law was called a senatus consultum.”
from “The Handbook of Pomponius” by Sextus Pomponius

Rules and trust are the fundamental pillars underlying any political system. When these are undermined, then other pieces can start falling off like dominoes. It is dangerous when you start questioning the results of an election, especially without proof. With such actions, trust in the system is diminished, and a Pandora’s Box is opened, which can lead to further destabilization and chaos.

“Ennius told us: “Rome’s Republic in its morals and people stands.”

This verse, both for its precision and its verity, appears to me as if it had issued from an oracle. He justly couples men and manners together, for neither the men, unless the state had adopted certain manners, nor the manners, unless illustrated by the men, could ever have established or maintained, for so many ages, so vast a dominion.

Thus, long before our own times, the force of hereditary manners molded our greatest men, and the most eminent citizens, in return, gave new weight to the venerable customs of our ancestry. Our age, on the contrary, receiving the Commonwealth as a finished picture of another century, already evanescent through the lapse of years — not only has neglected to renew the colors of the original painting, but has not even cared to preserve its general form and prominent lineaments.

Alas! What now remains of those antique manners, on which the poet based our Commonwealth? They are now so superannuated, so obsolete, that they are not only not cultivated, but not even mentioned. As to the men, what shall I say? The manners would never have thus perished, but through a scarcity of patriotic worthies, who should support them. Of which great defect, we are not only called to give an account, but even, as in capital offences, to implore absolution. Thanks to our vices, rather than our misfortunes, we retain our glorious Republic in name only, when we have long since lost the reality.”
from “On the Republic” by Cicero

In a system based on the rule of law, no one is above the law and everyone should answer for their actions. At the end of his career, Scipio Africanus, the man who defeated Hannibal and one of Rome’s greatest generals, found himself in front of a legal process that wanted to investigate some of his actions. While questioning the motives of the accusers (and these might have been at least partially politically motivated), he still submitted to the process.

“All discussion and even recollection of this dispute were lost in the outbreak of a more serious controversy with a greater and more distinguished man. We are told on the authority of Valerius Antias that the two Petillii instituted proceedings against P. Scipio Africanus.

Men put different interpretations on this according to their various dispositions. Some blamed, not the tribunes only, but the whole body of citizens, for letting such a thing be possible; the two greatest cities in the world, they said, had proved themselves, almost at the same time, ungrateful to their foremost men. Rome was the more ungrateful of the two, for whilst Carthage after her defeat drove the defeated Hannibal into exile, Rome would banish the victorious Scipio in the hour of her victory.

Others again took the ground that no single citizen should stand on such an eminence that he could not be required to answer according to law. Nothing contributed more towards maintaining liberty for all than the power of putting the most powerful citizen on his trial. What business, it was asked – not to mention the supreme interests of the State – could be entrusted to any man, if he had not to render an account for it?

If a man cannot submit to laws which are the same for all, no force which may be employed against him is unlawful. So the matter was discussed until the day of trial came.”
from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

Even though Scipio Africanus was incensed at the fact that he was put on trial, instead of trying to play the game of delegitimizing the proceedings, or instituting a coup using the army like his successors a hundred years from that time would do, he chose exile. His accusers, instead of pursuing the matter further and humiliating the man, then withdrew their motion and let him retire with dignity. After the Second Punic War, the old norms were still in place and largely respected. The political battles were often heated, but kept within bounds.

The keeping of norms is about self-restraint on the part of the actors taking part in the political process. Norm-breaking is a dangerous game. Even if technically legal, and for a good cause in the opinion of the norm-breaker, the ends still do not justify the means.

“Does it become virtuous men to do every thing which it is in their power to do? Suppose it to be a base thing? Suppose it to be a mischievous thing? Suppose it be absolutely unlawful to do it? But what can be more base, or more shameful, or more utterly unbecoming, than to lead an army against the senate, against one’s fellow-citizens, against one’s country?

Or what can deserve greater blame than doing that which is unlawful. But it is not lawful for any one to lead an army against his country? If indeed we say that that is lawful which is permitted by the laws or by the usages and established principles of our ancestors. For it does not follow that whatever a man has power to do is lawful for him to do; nor, if he is not hindered, is he on that account permitted to do so.”
from “Philippics” by Cicero

One way to guard against politicians breaking the norms is to force them to account for their actions. In ancient Athens, the officeholders had to be able to explain their actions and be held accountable for them. Cicero, seeing the problems that were destroying the Republic, proposed a system of accountability as a way to make sure that the norms were respected.

“We have no method of protecting the laws themselves, and so the laws are what our clerks want them to be: we get them from scribes, and we have no authenticated public record in the public archives. The Greeks were more careful about this: they created ‘‘guards of the laws’’ who watched over not only the texts (that was customary among our ancestors too) but also men’s actions, and brought them in line with the laws.

This responsibility should be given to the censors, as we want them to exist in the commonwealth at all times. Before them too those who are completing their terms of office should state and explain their actions in office, and the censors should give an opinion about them.

This takes place in Greece with publicly assigned prosecutors; but they cannot be taken seriously unless they are volunteers. For that reason it is better for accounts and explanations to be given before the censors, but the right of prosecution before a court should be preserved intact.”
from “On the Laws” by Cicero

These proposals, however came too late, and were never implemented.

In Cicero’s time, the rules of the game broke down completely, the legitimacy of the system was questioned, and no one respected the norms anymore. When chaos engulfs a republic, then it gets easy for democracy to die, to be replaced by monarchy, or the rule by one man, just like what happened in Rome.

“When after the destruction of Brutus and Cassius there was no longer any army of the Commonwealth, when Sextus Pompey was crushed in Sicily, and when, with Lepidus pushed aside and Antonius slain, even the Julian faction had only Caesar left to lead it, then, dropping the title of triumvir, and giving out that he was a Consul, and was satisfied with a tribune’s authority for the protection of the people, Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws.

He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion, so that, aggrandized by revolution, they preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past.

Nor did the provinces dislike that condition of affairs, for they distrusted the government of the Senate and the people, because of the rivalries between the leading men and the rapacity of the officials, while the protection of the laws was unavailing, as they were continually deranged by violence, intrigue, and finally by corruption.”
from “The Annals” by Tacitus

Later historians like Zosimus, writing in the twilight of the Roman Empire, and armed with the hindsight knowledge of the rule of many emperors, reflected upon what having a single absolute ruler meant for the country in reality. Such a rule is destined to failure, as it is highly dependent upon the character of the ruler. However, even a ruler who tries to rule justly, will have problems doing so, and the tendency is for power to corrupt.

In such a political system, all kinds of scheming, parasitic, incompetent people rise to positions of power, while the honest and modest men do not. That is why we should always be reminded why preserving a republic based on democratic ideals and with a system of checks and balances is important. In the words of one British politician, while democracy is a bad system of government, it is better than all the rest.

“But the commonwealth being ruined by the civil wars between Sylla and Marius, and between Julius Caesar and Pompey, the aristocracy, or government of the nobles, was set aside, and Octavian chosen dictator. The entire administration of affairs was thus committed to him alone, without the consideration, that it was like throwing the hopes and interests of all the people on the hazard of a die, and placing that vast empire at the risk of the inclination and authority of a single ruler.

For were it the inclination of such a ruler to govern according to justice and moderation, he could not hope to give satisfaction to all, not being able to protect such as were at a considerable distance in any convenient time, nor to select so many officers, that would fear the disgrace of not performing their duty; nor could he suit his own disposition to the different humors of so many.

But if he should wish to break through the bonds of imperial and regal government, and exercise absolute tyranny, by subverting the existing establishments, conniving at great crimes, selling of justice, and regarding his subjects as slaves (as most, and indeed with a few exceptions, almost all the emperors have done), it must of necessity follow, that his unbounded savage authority would prove a common calamity.

It is the very nature of such a despotism, that fawning miscreants and parasites are preferred to situations of the greatest trust, whilst modest quiet men, who are averse to so base a manner of living, resent with justice that they themselves cannot enjoy similar benefits. Hence cities are filled with sedition and tumult; for when all offices, both civil and military, are conferred upon ill disposed magistrates, it both renders the citizens restless in peace, and discourages the soldiers in war.”
from “New History” by Zosimus

The Republic fell, to be replaced by the Empire, but the Empire fell too. While it can be argued that the fall of the Empire was also more of a transformation, it can’t be denied that society entered a dark age, where learning diminished and became confined to tiny dots spread out far from each other. History continues, and what is today will soon be yesterday.

Writing at a time when the old pagan social order was on the verge of disappearing in the 6th century AD, Simplicius, one of the last philosophers of Antiquity, noted down one memorable thought from Heraclitus, a philosopher from the dawn of Greek philosophy more than a millennia before his time. This statement is quite profound, since it captures one essential aspect of how history works: things flow.

“Everything flows and never stays the same.”
from “Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics” by Simplicius

Things change, but it can’t be helped that some evident patterns emerge out of the apparent chaos. You will never step in the same river twice, as the water keeps on flowing downstream, but the mechanisms behind the way the water moves are predictable. While all the events of the future will be new and unique, certain things will repeat themselves. There are some forces that push society in certain directions, no matter the era. The good thing is that humans have the ability to learn and adapt. It is up to us not to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Eastern Roman administrator, John Lydus, gave a very metaphysical summary of how time and the laws of nature drove the growth of the Roman state (both the Republic, and the Empire), but also its decline. The same processes come and go throughout history, appearing and disappearing, leading the regeneration of a state, but also its collapse.

“All the things that exist come into being and exist in conformance to the nature of the good. The things that exist exist, as they exist, while the things that come into being do not exist perpetually, nor do they exist in the same manner, but they revolve through generation to corruption.

Then from the latter to generation, and with respect to existing they are perdurative, but with respect to undergoing change they are somewhat different; for, whenever they retire into themselves, they exist by means of substance but come into being by means of corruption because nature preserves them with itself and brings them forth again into manifestation.”
from “The Magistracies of the Roman State” by John Lydus

The Roman Republic had declined, pushed by corruption and the dismantling of common norms that guided the political process. These common norms are the rules of the game that ensure that the game of politics happens in a fair way. The politicians can disagree on the particular policies that should be implemented, but they need to agree on and respect the way that the political process itself is done. If these norms are undermined, then corruption and chaos sets in and eats away at the foundations of the state.

Look at the current state of affairs in the US and the world today. Norms have been surpassed many times, in the US and in other countries. From the Republicans refusing to seat a new Supreme Court justice through filibustering, to Democrats using character assassination against candidates (even their own), to Trump shutting down government to get his pet project through. It has come so far, that Trump has even indirectly threatened to use the police and military, and even unleash vigilante groups like the Bikers for Trump against his opponents. This is very dangerous language indeed. Trump even questioned the legitimacy of the way the elections were run and the results themselves, alleging that somehow millions of illegal votes were counted for his opponent.

You also have a lack of the Republican establishment taking Donald Trump to account for his actions. The Republican voices that critique him are being marginalized, and even formerly vocal opponents of Trump in the Party are lining up behind him, pretending that they don’t see his wrongdoings. While the nature of politics in the ancient world was in many ways different from the way things are done in the US and around the world today, what you are seeing is fear and a narrow vision of your own personal gains taking over looking at the wider picture. At least in Rome, the people pandering to the autocrats had a legitimate fear of losing their life and property if they didn’t conform, for modern lawmakers in the US the cost of non-conformance is just potential ridicule from the President and maybe losing their seat in the legislature.

In France, you are already seeing political violence becoming quite influential in the streets. Months of protests have resulted in deadlock, burned out national monuments, and fights in the streets. The anger among certain sections of society seems not to be diminishing and certain cynical rabble-rousers are starting to see opportunities in steering these movements in their own directions. Other countries are also experiencing polarization and the rise of populists who use lying and cheating as their primary tactics to gain power. Unless, this norm breaking is kept in check, the world can be headed for a slippery slope of more chaos and violence.

The US still doesn’t have wanna-be strongman politician generals running around commanding their private armies and battling other wanna-be strongmen. However, for the Romans living in the times of the Gracchi, it would also have been hard to imagine that just 50 years later, Romans would be slaughtering other Romans in gruesome civil wars.

What is worrying is the rise of support for authoritarianism in established democracies around the world. Parallel to that the percentage of people who see living in a democratic system as important has declined significantly. In the US, it has been declining every decade.

What is even more worrying is that the support for rule by the military has been rising in most countries around the world. In the US, it has gone up from around 6% in 1995 to 18% today and rising.

10) It is very easy to destroy working structures, but it is extremely hard to build them back up

The thing about destructive politics is that it is very easy to destroy structures than to build them back up. You can take hours to build a house of Legos, but can destroy it in one sweep of the hand. Institutions are the same way.

“Fortune is of sluggish growth, but ruin is rapid.”
from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

In the ancient Roman Republic, guys like Sulla destroyed something which took centuries to build. He marched on Rome and took power with his army, something that was never done before. He did try to rebuild the institutions back up through his Sullan Constitution, but it crumbled just days after his death. He reaped what he sowed, and it was men who had actually before benefited greatly under his rule that were instrumental in its undoing. Once you let the genie out the bottle, it is very hard to get him back in.

“At any rate, much of Sulla’s legislation began to be undone while he was yet alive.”
from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Crassus and Pompey dealt the final death knell to the reforms of Sulla, when they reversed his most important decisions, in order to secure their positions as consuls.

“In the senate, Crassus had more weight; but among the people the power of Pompey was great. For he gave them back their tribunate, and suffered the courts of justice to be transferred again to the knights by law.”
from “The Life of Pompey” by Plutarch

Sulla had tried to rebuild the institutions, but previously with his actions he had unleashed chaos. The people lost respect for the institutions, and the leaders started using them as chess pieces, building them up and dismantling them in order as they saw fit, not to improve the functioning of the state, but instead to improve their own position in it.

“I give notice to you, of what I am well assured, that this most seasonable opportunity has been given to you by the favor of the gods, for the purpose of delivering your whole order from hatred, from unpopularity, from infamy, and from disgrace. There is no severity believed to exist ill the tribunals, nor any scruples with regard to religion; in short, there are not believed to be any tribunals at all.

Therefore we are despised and scorned by the Roman people; we are branded with a heavy and now a long standing infamy. Nor, in fact, is there any other reason for which the Roman people has with so much earnestness sought the restoration of the tribunitian power: but when it was demanding that in words, it seemed to be asking for that, but in reality it was asking for tribunes which it could trust.

And this did not escape the notice of Quintus Catulus, a most sagacious and honorable man, who, when Gnaeus Pompey, a most gallant and illustrious man, made a motion about the tribunitian power, and when he was asked his opinion, begin his speech in this manner, speaking with the greatest authority, “that the conscript fathers presided over the courts of justice badly and wickedly; but if in deciding judicial trials they had been willing to satisfy the expectations of the Roman people, men would not so greatly regret the tribunitian power?”

Lastly, when Gnaeus Pompey himself, when first he delivered an address to the people as consul elect, mentioned (what seemed above all things to be watched for) that he would restore the power of the tribunes, a great shout was raised at his words, and a grateful murmur pervaded the assembly.”
from “Against Verres” by Cicero

Even the most secure institutions can crumble if care is not taken to preserve them. The Roman Republic was established around the balance of power, with different office holders and institutions being set up in such a way, as to prevent individuals from gaining too much power and abusing it. Polybius described the division of powers in Rome in this way:

“As for the Roman constitution, it had three elements, each of them possessing sovereign powers: and their respective share of power in the whole state had been regulated with such a scrupulous regard to equality and equilibrium.”
from “Histories” by Polybius

The division of powers and the system of checks and balances held in the Roman Republic for hundreds of years, sometimes coming under strain, but always bouncing back. However, in any political system, there is the principal agent problem, which is best summarized by Juvenal’s observation about guardians.

“Who will guard the guards themselves?”
from “Satires” by Juvenal

This quote was initially a quip about a woman’s infidelity in marriage, but has now acquired a meaning in the political context. You can set up guardians in order to watch over the political actors, but who will take these guardians to account? You can create all kinds of oversights to ensure that things function well, but there is always a weak link. That is why personal self-restraint plays an important role in keeping the system strong.

The rule of law is fundamental for the proper functioning of a Republic. Norms underpinning this need to be respected and no man should be above the law.

“We are all servants of the laws in order to be free.”
from “For Cluentius” by Cicero

It is this respect for the rule of law and the norms that govern the political process that give it credibility. However, in the Republic the norms were no longer respected and the rule of law disappeared.

As the chaos in the Republic degenerated, the elections themselves started coming into question and the abuse of the election process escalated. Elections were regularly postponed, periods without elected officials multiplied, bribery and vote buying grew to enormous proportions, and the election results themselves were often disputed. Later, the winners were picked outright by the powerful men of the state. The basic process that was behind the functioning of the Republic was undermined, and trust in the system diminished.

Trust and good faith are the pillars that cement a community together. If these are lost, then the state will likely fall. In the latter parts of the Roman Republic, trust and good faith disappeared, to be replaced by disorder and confusion.

“For there is nothing that holds a political community together like good faith.”
from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

Once chaos had been unleashed, not even statesmen like Cicero, with all his intellectual prowess, could stop the fall of the institutions of the Republic.

Trust in governmental institutions has been steadily falling over the last few years around the world. In the US, trust in the executive branch has been in free fall since the year 2000, and trust in the legislative branch was at a record low just a few years ago. Even thought this indicator has rebounded a bit in the past few years, it is still nowhere near what it was even fifteen years ago, not to mention the levels of a few decades ago.

There are various reasons for this fall in trust, but one is quite worrying. Many people are starting to question the legitimacy of the system, and see it as rigged. This type of view is seen predominantly on the right, but increasingly also on the left.

For the right-wingers, the state is captured by a group of faceless bureaucrats, while other institutions like universities are under the sway of radical left-wing ideologists. On the left, there has always been a traditional view of the state as being dominated by a group of rich folks and their interests. However, this is increasingly being supplanted by a shift towards race and gender, with calls that the entire system is dominated by some sort of a “white” or “male privilege”.

Many of the people on both sides are starting to view the system not just as being rigged, but illegitimate. When this type of viewpoint wins out, the only answer for many of these folks is to bring down the entire system.

This fall in the trust for governmental institutions has also been accompanied by a rise in political trolls, guys who damage the system and make people lose trust in it. It is very easy to criticize and rejoice when things go wrong, but it is very hard to offer workable alternatives. Guys like Nigel Farage or Donald Trump are very good at criticizing, but have shown to not be very good at building things up after they destroy the previous ways of working. Trolling is easy, but actual statesmanship is hard.

11) A republic can fall slowly, one small action at a time

History teaches us that a republic can fall slowly. The people who were living in the early stages of the fall, were not aware of the wheels that had been set in motion. Even late into the fall, guys like Cicero, Cato, or Brutus believed that the Republic could be saved.

We are living in a similar moment. All the signs point to chaos ahead. On the global level, the problems with resources and the environment seem to be getting worse. All this adds further stress to the unraveling that we are experiencing in the political sphere.

Will the world pay attention to these predictions? Or are we just preaching to the wind? In ancient mythology, Cassandra was the daughter of the king of Troy, cursed with the power to foresee the future, but to be never believed by anyone.

“One heart was steadfast, and one soul clear-eyed, Cassandra. Never her words were unfulfilled; yet was their utter truth, by Fate’s decree, ever as idle wind in the hearers’ ears, that no bar to Troy’s ruin might be set. She saw those evil portents all through Troy conspiring to one end; loud rang her cry, as roars a lioness that mid the brakes a hunter has stabbed or shot, whereat her heart maddens, and down the long hills rolls her roar, and her might waxes tenfold; so with heart aflame with prophecy came she forth her bower.

Over her snowy shoulders tossed her hair streaming far down, and wildly blazed her eyes. Her neck writhed, like a sapling in the wind shaken, as moaned and shrieked that noble maid: “O wretches! into the Land of Darkness now we are passing; for all round us full of fire and blood and dismal moan the city is. Everywhere portents of calamity Gods show: destruction yawns before your feet.

Fools! ye know not your doom: still ye rejoice with one consent in madness, who to Troy have brought the Argive Horse where ruin lurks! Oh, ye believe not me, though ne’er so loud I cry! The Erinyes and the ruthless Fates, for Helen’s spousals madly wroth, through Troy dart on wild wings. And ye, ye are banqueting there in your last feast, on meats befouled with gore, when now your feet are on the Path of Ghosts!””
from “The Fall of Troy” by Quintus Smyrnaeus

She foresaw the fall of Troy, only to be made fun of by the people.

“So scoffed a Trojan: others in like sort cried shame on her, and said she spoke but lies, saying that ruin and Fate’s heavy stroke were hard at hand. They knew not their own doom, and mocked, and thrust her back from that huge Horse for fain she was to smite its beams apart, or burn with ravening fire.”
from “The Fall of Troy” by Quintus Smyrnaeus

A series of actions can set in motion a chain of events, which through feedback loops can keep on intensifying. We are starting to see the same types of factors that were present when the Roman Republic started its decline and eventually fell. It took over a hundred years, but fall it did. Let’s hope that I don’t end up like Cassandra, to foresee the signs of what will happen, only to be ignored. It is imperative that people take notice and adjust this course of action.

A sword of Damocles is hanging over our societies today. Held up only by a horse-hair, it could fall at any moment, chopping off the neck from the body, destroying our democracy for a long time to come. We need to take lessons from what happened in the past, in order not to repeat the same mistakes. If we don’t heed these warnings, then we are doomed to reset the cycle of ochlocracy.

A republic, and democracy, are very brittle, and just like glass, they can break easily. In the words of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America: A republic, if you can keep it.

Read More:
If you want to learn more about this topic, I have written an article on the lessons from the fall of the Roman Republic which is almost 21 000 words long! The future is not set in stone, but history is. If you want to prevent that it repeats itself, you need to act now:
What we can learn today from the fall of the Roman Republic.

The work you have read now took tremendous effort on my part to put together. I had to read through huge amounts of sources from the period in question and comb out relevant material, with the aim of finding those pieces of information that would help us understand not only what happened in those final days of the Roman Republic, but also to help us formulate some general insights into human nature and the dynamics of societies. These insights can then be applied to better help us understand what our current world is experiencing and where we might be headed in the future.

Images: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12

The people of that era did not know that the Empire would eventually fall, and even in the times of chaos that would later come, the fall of such a superpower appeared unthinkable. The end did arrive and the Empire crumbled, ushering in an era of darkness from which it took a long time for civilization to wake up.

In hindsight, this collapse appears inevitable. The structure on which the state was based was clearly eroding slowly but surely, until one day it was no more. History can often serve as a mirror on which to reflect our own times and that’s why it is useful to take lessons from the things that happened in the past. What is alarming is that the same types of cracks that slowly brought down Rome have started seeping into our own modern structures.

As the Cold War was coming to an end, Francis Fukuyama triumphantly declared “The End of History”. From that point onward things were going to move in only direction: the direction of progress, peace, and unlimited hamburgers. However, just as the wise fortune tellers were popping open bottles of champagne to celebrate this momentous occasion, new menacing creatures were starting to crawl out of their dark caves, foreboding a new era of unimaginable terrors.

The current age brings with it numerous seemingly new challenges. Decisions need to be taken in order to set a course through these troubled waters. It might seem frightening, but for the student of history, some of these challenges are far from new. They have been here before. What was old is new again, and what is new will become old. It is up to us to construct the correct path, so that in the future our epoch does not become a warning sign, talked about by our descendants as a lesson in what not to do.

While the time of the Roman Empire can teach us many valuable lessons, I would argue that it is a preceding era in Rome’s history that can serve as a better analogy for our modern era, and offer us many illuminating parallels to what is happening today. It is in fact the fall of the Roman Republic, that is in many ways very similar to the situation in the present day.

This is because our own modern institutions are modeled on those of the ancient Roman Republic. The so-called Founding Fathers of the United States studied that era in great detail and set up the newly independent republic to resemble Ancient Rome. While the United States has the closest parallels, other countries (Europe, but also elsewhere), also owe much to their Roman heritage. That is why if you want to better understand the processes at play today and where they can lead us, you should look at what happened in Rome after the Punic Wars.

Yes, you can argue that the analogy is not perfect. After all, our modern era differs greatly from that of Ancient Rome in multiple ways. However, human nature has not changed since that time. If you dropped a baby born in that era into the 21st century and have it grow up in one of the countries of today, they would not differ from anyone else. The point of a historical analogy is not to model perfectly, but instead to teach us lessons and show us potential dangers.

Polybius was an ancient Greek historian who spent much of his later life in Rome and wrote an extensive history of that city. He is also credited with developing a cyclical theory of political evolution called anacyclosis. According to the theory, states undergo cycles of development going from monarchy, to tyranny, then to aristocracy, which gives way to an oligarchy, which is then replaced by a democracy, which then degenerates into an ochlocracy (or mob-rule). Once this is completed, the cycle resets itself and goes back to a monarchy.

This is a powerful model that gives us predictive capabilities. Polybius wrote his “Histories” at the height of the Roman Republic, when its greatest rival had been vanquished, and riches beyond imagination began pouring into the city of Rome. Yet of one thing he was certain: Rome too would one day fall. Amid the triumph, he was starting to see the first signs of the problems that would lead to the eventual collapse of the Roman Republic.

Have we hit up Ochlocracy?

As the clock ticked down the last moments of 2018, and fireworks around the world welcomed in the new year, the headlines in the leading global newspapers were dominated by ominous signs of looming chaos. Trump shuts down the federal government over financing for his pet project, Brexit descends into utter retardedness (even after we thought we had already hit rock bottom in 2016 with the referendum), Putin rattles his sabers against Ukraine, and the first order of business for newly elected Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is the signing away of the rainforest.

What should arguably be humanity’s greatest era is quickly descending into a mix of chaotic protest movements rampaging through national monuments, brain-dead individuals plowing their cars into masses of people, all set to the background tune of the raping of the environment. The solution to petty grievances has often been either shooting yourself in the foot or setting your hair on fire. The camps on both sides are fortifying their positions and building up barricades, leaving normal people stuck in the middle to be hit with the crossfire. Say goodbye to nuance. It is my way or the highway.

According to Polybius, democracy degenerates when citizens become greedy, entitled and corrupt, which then makes them fall prey to various demagogues who try to entice them with seemingly sweet, but ultimately bitter promises. What we are seeing is the rise of bread and games for the unthinking masses, combined with fiery rhetoric promising to solve all their real and imaginary problems.

The solutions that are rising up in popularity are nothing more than a mixture of pipe dreams and delusions. Any normal person should be able to see that they are far from reality, but mind-boggingly some people will still get fooled by the simple, but dangerous messages.

While the solutions offered up by populists are just hot air, they arise because there indeed are real problems:

1) Rising inequality between the rich and poor, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (or at least perceiving themselves getting poorer).
2) Unstable economy driven by greed and corruption.
3) Rising debt levels among the population and countries.
4) Decadence, rise of reality TV and druggie culture, coupled with a loss of real values.
5) Massive migration flows from poorer countries.
6) Wars abroad, and terrorism at home.
7) A degradation of the environment, climate change, and loss of biodiversity.

Yet the years leading up to 2019 have been the best years in humanity’s history. After the end of World War 2, we saw a rise in prosperity for most of the world’s population. At least in the developed world (but also in many parts of the developing world), people had more money, better education, better healthcare, and more leisure time than all the generations preceding them.

Advances in technology have also allowed us to travel to the other side of the world in hours, and share information within seconds. Almost anyone now has access to vast stores of knowledge just with the click of a button. This would be something hard to imagine for the people of any era that came before us.

How come our political institutions are getting messed up then? What are the driving factors of all these worrying trends? To answer these questions, we don’t need any sophisticated analytical tools. We can just look into the past. Ancient history can serve as an analogy to show what can happen when a certain combination of factors start unraveling the deepest fibers of society.

How the Roman Republic won its greatest battle and seeded its own destruction

The defeat of Carthage once and for all in 146 BC had established Rome as the sole superpower in the Mediterranean world. It was now controlling vast swaths of land, and with them enormous resources. The conquest of new territories and the opening up of the trade routes brought in great riches. Rome went from a city-state to a world power almost overnight.

This had a tremendous impact on the social fabric of the Republic. The elites grew enormously wealthy, while a new class of impoverished arose. Traditionally, the city was built around a class of small farmers, who owned their own land and produced crops on it. They were the backbone of society, growing the food, not prosperous by any means, but generally satisfied with their lot in life.

The Roman army was composed of citizen soldiers who would be called up to battle in times of need. As the wars that the Republic fought in started to take place further and further away from, many of these small-time farmers ended up spending many years on campaigns. With no one to work their land back home, their plots would deteriorate. When they came back after the wars, their farms would be in ruins and they would end up racking up debts. Unable to pay those debts, these farmers would then be forced to sell their land and move to the city as landless poor. And who would buy up these plots of land? It would be the aristocratic elites now with deep pockets full of gold from the wars.

What made the problem even worse was that after losing their farms, they were unable to find work. The wars had also brought in many slaves, who ended up doing most of the jobs. The newly landless Romans were not competitive on the job market against these slaves. After all, you can’t really compete with free.

Discontent among this newly impoverished class grew. Social strife was nothing new in the Republic. Since its founding, there had often been periods of social conflict, as the plebeians tried to gain more rights from the patricians. By the time of the Third Punic War, this process had largely been completed, and the plebeians had acquired almost equal rights to the patricians. A new aristocracy composed of the patricians and some newly rich plebeians arose.

However, this new strife was different from the previous struggle between the classes. While in the old conflicts, the main protagonists were the plebeians who were rising up from the bottom with visions of improving their prospects, the new struggle included large sections of people who had been better off before, but lost out.

Of course this was not the only struggle. For centuries now, Rome had been controlling the Italian peninsula through a system of alliances with neighboring cities. These cities provided a large proportion of the Roman armies, but only received a meager portion of the spoils of war. The people of these cities were clamoring for more rights and most of all, to be granted Roman citizenship. They argued that they earned it through their loyal support of Rome. However many current Roman citizens were against this, fearing that they might lose influence.

The tensions between the different classes and groups were growing. The battlelines were hardening. The poor wanted to move up in life, while the rich wanted to keep their privileges.

Then in 134 BC came Tiberius Gracchus. This was a man who came from a wealthy and well-connected family, however his main political aim was to reform the system and alleviate the struggles of the poor. How much of his acts were due to genuine caring for the down and out of society, and how much of them were due to his own personal ambitions is up for debate. Probably it was a mix of both.

In that year, he was elected one of the plebeian tribunes. This was the position meant to defend the rights of the plebs and thus had wide-ranging powers, including the power of the veto. He had to share these powers with several other guys who were also elected as tribunes for that year.

His main political agenda was to get a land reform passed. The proposal on the table was a quite simple one. A large part of the lands in the Roman Republic were so-called public lands, lands that in theory were owned by the state. In practice, most of these lands were farmed, usually by rich Roman landowners.

The proposal was to limit the amount of public land that could be farmed by a single person to a certain amount, and then redistribute the rest to the landless poor. Yet this was met with strong opposition from many wealthy senators. One reason for this was that they were set to lose lands that they started considering as theirs. Another, and probably more important reason was, that whoever would preside over the land redistribution would become very popular with the people. This would get them many clients, which was incredibly important in the patronage system of Rome.

The Senate blocked this reform. Tiberius was furious and was resolved that the reform was going to be passed in any way possible. Traditionally, the Senate had to register its opinion before the vote would pass onto the people in the Assembly. However, Tiberius decided to bypass the Senate altogether and move directly onto a vote in the Assembly. The senators were furious, and devised a devious plan to block the reform.

The plebeian tribune had the powerful right of being able to block any legislation with a veto. Tiberius was not the only tribune. There were several others. The senators went to one of them, Marcus Octavius, and convinced him to use his veto power to stop the entire process.

Tiberius tried everything in order to unblock the proceeding, including talking to the senators and coming up with some sort of a deal, but it was of no use. He then decided to do a much more radical action. If a tribune is blocking the will of the people, then he should be deposed, he argued. This was something that was never done before, but for Tiberius passing his law was incredibly important. The Assembly voted to depose Marcus Octavius. With him out of the way, the land reform law passed.

The Senate continued to try to derail the implementation of the legislation, but Tiberius always came up with a way to bypass them, often not in a very legal way. The final nail in the coffin was when he decided to run for re-election as tribune. This was never done, and gave the senators proof that he wanted to make himself king.

Kings were detested in Rome due to historical reasons. For some senators it became logical that if Tiberius wanted to make himself king, he should be killed in order to prevent him from doing so. A group of senators gathered up, armed themselves with all kinds of things, got up on stage while Tiberius was speaking and beat him to death, along with many of his supporters. They then dumped the bodies into the Tiber River.

For the senators, this was supposed to be the end of this. They got rid of a potential tyrant and brought back things to normal. Instead, what happened is that this was the start of a shitstorm that a hundred years later ended with the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire.

Personal ambition above all else

On the way to its fall, the Republic became enveloped in further chaos, each round being more and more bloody than the previous one. Slimy characters popped up all over the place, ones who had their own ambitions as the driving force. The slippery slope went through the rivalry of Marius and Sulla, then men like Cinna, Clodius, Crassus, Pompey and Caesar, ending with Octavian becoming Augustus, the first emperor of Rome.

The Republic became divided between two opposing camps, the Optimates, the conservative faction that supported the aristocracy, and the Populares, the popular faction which was on the side of the plebs. These were not parties in the modern sense, but instead loose groupings of people who advocated a certain set of policies.

A rich real estate magnate known for his sex scandals, large ego and entanglements in Syria, Marcus Licinius Crassus is a good example of the type of men that sprung onto the stage in the dying decades of the Republic. Crassus was a man whose primary goal was to look out for Number One. He flip flopped on issues when it suited him, was driven to acquire as much money as was possible and even started building a wall to try to hem in the slaves that revolted under Spartacus.

He is known for building the first fire department in Rome, however the way he used it was not always very ethical. One thing that he did was to have his firefighters come to any area with a fire and before actually starting to take out the fire, they would ask the owners of all the nearby buildings whether they wanted to sell for cheap. If they did, then the firefighters would proceed onto extinguishing the fire. If they didn’t, then they would do nothing and let the buildings burn to the ground.

Crassus was a man without scruples, always out to make a buck or two. Whenever there was an opportunity, he took it. The times of Sulla were dark and dreary. In a fit of murderous rage, Sulla wanted to get rid of his enemies once and for all. Thus began the Proscriptions. Sulla drew up a list of his enemies and offered a large reward to anyone who killed someone on the list.

The list kept getting larger by the day. People close to Sulla kept adding more and more people on it, not just the enemies of Sulla, but other people that they disliked, as well as people who might not have anything to do with politics, but maybe had some nice house or farm. Thousands of people were killed in this way. Crassus took advantage, and ended up buying up many of the properties of these recently executed people for very cheap.

The politicians of that era became extremely opportunistic. Most people stopped being driven by what is good for the state, but instead cared only about what is good for themselves. A typical politician would oppose a law, not based on whether or not he agreed on the policy, but instead based on whether it would help his political opponents or not. Self-interest took precedence over the common good.

The wealthy senators were looking to their own interests and were not willing to compromise. Eventually the events forced them to cede in to many of the demands, but only after violent struggles. On the other side, many of the populist leaders were not above rabble rousing, irresponsibly promising all kinds of things, and the people fell for it. Ochlocracy engulfed the Roman Republic.

Anger is the new driving force

What makes a people sing kumbaya and throw up at the thought of a king one day, and then worship at the feet of the infallible god-emperor just a hundred years later?

Well, the answer lies in what we discovered during the Economic Meltdown of 2008. Humans are very irrational creatures. Even if you don’t give them a gun, they will still find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. Now imagine what happens when you supply them with tons of explosives!

What the model of Econ Man gets right is that humans do have looking out for their self-interest as their main driving force. What that model gets wrong is that they don’t always go about it in a very rational way. They have a tendency to fall for cognitive biases, which can lead them astray.

People perceive the world in a certain way, whether due to nature or nurture. They have certain personality traits, certain principles, and certain ways of thinking. These then lead them to interpret the world in a distinct manner. Cognitive biases can serve to fortify these world-views and drive their actions.

A senator from the patrician class in the 2nd century BC has all his life been taught that things are the way they are for good reasons, and that it is up to him to defend that order of things. The senators feared the loss of their power, their prestige and their possessions. Humans have a tendency to value the things that they own and fear loss above all else. The bias at play here is the endowment effect, where you ascribe more value to things, because you own them.

Evolution has given all living beings certain inner drives. Humans have a status drive, a tendency to try to rise up in status or at least to seek to protect their status quo. When you control things, you have a higher chance of surviving than if you don’t. Some people are naturally more ambitious than others, but a certain level of ambition is always there, since it is one of the basic driving forces of life, passed down from our more primitive ancestors.

Culture also has a big effect on the way you think and act. Due to historical lessons, the Romans were taught to fear people who wanted to become kings. The Republic was set up in 509 BC, when the Romans overthrew their last king, who had been abusing his power. Since that time, king was a dirty word.

Imagine yourself as a senator and you hear that Tiberius Gracchus is doing whatever he wants, ignoring the traditional way of doing things, and amassing crowds of rowdy supporters who are enthralled with him. His prestige among the plebeians is growing by the day, giving him more and more power. You are scared of his ambition, fearing the worst. He probably wants to be king, you think to yourself.

Now confirmation bias starts working its effect. You hear a newsflash on Gracchus, then you hear another one, a slave delivers you the latest gossip on the street. All these things confirm your initial assessment. He does want to be a king. And since you are taught that a king equals the devil, then you need to do something to stop him. With Gracchus attracting large crowds and his speech becoming more fiery, some of the senators came to believe that he wanted to be king. This thought grew stronger with every turn of event, and clouded their judgment. A few of them decided to take the matter into their own hands and ended up killing Tiberius Gracchus.

To picture how a few small events can grow into large misunderstandings and then escalate, imagine yourself on the other side, as a simple urban poor, who has recently been displaced from your farm and have had trouble finding work in the Big City. You hear Tiberius telling you that you might get your farm back. You grow ecstatic. Fuck yeah, that’s my guy!

Then you find out that he was killed. Naturally, you will become angry. You start doing things to voice your anger, joining up numerous other people who have similar feelings as you. You break some things, injure some people, and insult many others. Now the senators and their supporters get angry. This is the point when sparks can start flying.

Plutarch in one of his works painted a powerful imagine of what is behind the state of affairs in this world. He described a scene, with large crowds of people gathering in the middle of the city. At first thought, it seems like a normal every day scene from the market, people going to buy fresh produce for the day.

Here comes the kicker though. Things are not as they appear. All those people are there to sue the shit out of each other. How come? If you use first principles thinking and go back to where it all started, you will find that emotions were the initial culprit of all this. In each of those cases that will be put on trial that day, a single emotion was at the start of all that was was to come after.

Humans are emotional beings. One common, but at most times very dangerous emotion, is anger. Anger leads to moral indignation, which leads to hate, and as every Star Wars fan knows hate leads to the Dark Side.

Anger is the gateway drug to more permanent states of moral indignation or even outrage. This can in some cases be constructive, but if not managed properly, often it can degenerate into something destructive. Moral outrage is just a step away from violence.

Different cognitive biases are once again at play here. The fundamental attribution error occurs quite frequently among people, as they usually explain other people’s behavior by attributing permanent characteristics to them, instead of taking into account the external factors that could have led them to behave the way they behaved. For example, they might see a person respond in an angry manner, and conclude that the person in front of them is an angry person in general, while in fact it was some very rare external stimuli that made him react in an angry way (and in general they are in fact a cheerful and calm person).

When applied on a more general group level, this can lead to stereotyping. Humans are social animals and like to divide themselves into groups. This can lead to dangerous “us” versus “them” divisions. It is quite easy to move from conclusions made on the individual level through the fundamental attribution error, and then come up with generalities on a group level.

This is how this type of rationalization often works: This man did that (you don’t take into account the circumstances), therefore he is bad. He belongs to this group. The men in this group have the same characteristics as this man, so therefore they are all bad. Once you have drawn up this type of stereotype, it makes it much easier to hate. And in advanced states of moral outrage or hate, it is pretty easy for you to justify violence against that particular group.

Emotions played a huge role in how people acted in ancient times and they play a huge role in how people act today. The ancient Greeks and Romans divided the soul into three parts: the rational part, and two emotional parts, the spirited part, and the appetitive part. In many ways, this division resembled Daniel Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 division of thinking, where the first is the fast, emotional thinking, while the second one is the slow, rational thinking. The ancients thought that emotional thinking often leads humans astray. You can argue that the Roman Republic was undone by emotions: anger, ambition, and desire.

The chaos in the Republic degenerated in a spectacular matter, from a few quarrels to violence, from a few traditional norms being broken by the Gracchi and the Senate, to individual political assassinations, to gangs of thugs roughing up the opposition, all the way to Sulla marching on Rome itself, and Pompey later arrogantly stating for magistrates not to quote him laws, since he had a sword. Within a few decades, a once orderly Republic was engulfed in political terror where thousands of political enemies of the powerful were killed through political orders, and then sank into a series of full-on civil wars.

At the end of this tunnel comes a savior who will end this chaos and bloodshed, and bring order to the galaxy. As the turmoil of ochlocracy engulfs the Republic, ordinary people start clamoring for a sense of peace. When one man promises to end this chaotic state of affairs and restore order, the people rally behind him, resulting in one-man rule. Due to the halo effect, people think he can do no wrong. They are willing to trade their freedom for stability. The Empire is born.

Are we experiencing a deja vu?

Economic conditions where certain groups of people perceive themselves as being worse off? Check!

Ambitious politicians using confrontational politics to promote their own narrow personal interests? Check!

Groups of people expressing moral outrage and dividing everyone into “us” versus “them”? Check!

The three main driving forces that led to the fall of the Roman Republic are present and accounted for in the current state of affairs. Incidentally, these three forces are usually also present at other times when society is heading towards catastrophe.

Remember World War 2? You had the collapse of the economic system (which was even worse in Germany and combined with the feelings of loss of national power among the Germans). You had ambitious politicians using confrontational politics to promote their own interests. This created conditions ripe for dividing people into groups, labeling scapegoats, and then expressing moral outrage. Violence was not too far off.

We are not there yet, but the dynamics seem to be heading in a negative direction. The problem with the poor in the Roman Republic after the end of the Punic Wars was not that they were poor, but in that they were relatively worse off than before.

Perception plays a huge role in the way a person reacts to their condition. For example a person in a lower caste in India might be generally satisfied with their life and have the perception that all is just, even though they live in horrible conditions, while a person living in America, who is in all ways richer than that poor Indian might be hugely dissatisfied.

Relativity is what shapes this perception. One type of relativity is when you compare your own situation to other groups. This can play a role. If your welfare level stays the same, and the welfare level of the richer group that you are comparing yourself to also stays the same, then the situation usually doesn’t really rile you up that much. However, when you see your situation as staying the same, while the group you are comparing yourself to is getting richer, that might cause some unease and indignation for you.

The other type of relativity is when your own situation changes, for the worse. You can see that either your own situation or the situation of your parents was better before, and the prospects of you getting back to that level are pretty much non-existent. This is what causes the most amount of anxiety for you. When you add to this a comparison with another group that is getting richer in these times, you have the perfect set-up for moral outrage.

This is what the small-time Roman farmers were experiencing. Their situation was getting relatively worse. They lost their farms, had higher levels of debt, while at the same time had trouble finding other jobs. On the other hand, the level of riches that some sections of Roman society were experiencing was previously unheard of. The situation was ripe for anger and moral outrage.

In Rome, the rise of populism and the support for populist demagogues was a revenge of the people that don’t matter. Soldiers came back after serving their country in wars for many years, but then they were left in ruins. They often ended up losing their farms and couldn’t find work elsewhere. When someone came and offered sympathy to them, they were ready to listen.

The current rise in populism has been often attributed to a revenge of the people that don’t matter. These are regions and groups that have been relatively better off in the past, but have lost much of their prosperity in the last years, which has generated the feelings of no one caring about their plight.

Just like in Ancient Rome, this type of situation is ripe to be exploited by ambitious individuals who are in it just to satisfy their own ego. Fostering divisions and destructive politics (instead of constructive) are their modus operandi.

You have different types of politicians who contribute to the toxic atmosphere:

1) The purely narcissistic types who only think about their own interests and have identified the country as being synonymous with themselves Trump, or Putin
2) You have ones who have a grand vision, but their destructive politics bring about chaos, like Gingrich and Jeremy Corbyn
3) Political trolls like Farage
4) Hybrids like Boris Johnson

Donald Trump is the latest example of populism in the US, but the way for him was paved by a previous generation of political trolls.


The US has its history of nasty partisanship and political violence, however the bulk of that happened in the 19th century. There was some of that in the 20th century as well, but after the nasty interval of McCarthyism, the Congress worked within the paradigm of bipartisan consensus building. Democrats and Republicans had their ideological differences, but in general they were on friendly terms with each other and worked in the spirit of compromise.

Then came the era of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Ronald Reagan got elected President on a campaign of outrage, but once in office he kept his trolling to the international stage, while trying to work with the Democrats in Congress in a bipartisan way. He did shut down the government several times, but every time this happened, both the Democrats and Republicans gave a few concessions to end the stalemate.

Newt was the guy who wanted to blow the entire system up in order to feed his own vanity and sense of grandeur. In the 1980’s, he was only a recently elected congressman, but that did not stop him from causing mischief. His battle plan was to be as nasty as possible, to destroy the consensus building tradition and instead bring about a Republican dominance. He resorted to the practice of name calling, not just the Democrats, but also his own less confrontational Republican Party colleagues. He went about destroying all the different norms and traditions that the lawmakers from the two parties had implicitly agreed upon after the end of the war.

These trolling tactics worked magnificently. They did bring about a Republican victory in Congress, but polarized the country and commenced an era of bickering. Instead of discussing problems that were plaguing the country, millions of dollars were spent investigating where Bill Clinton put his penis.

If you hear Newt Gingrich speak, he talks about his mission to save Western civilization and other such stuff. Many of the Roman senators were also thinking that they were preserving their own civilization. Instead, they were instrumental in destroying it.

With Newt’s trolling, the Democrats started responding in the same way. They brought in Jim Wright as speaker of the House of Representatives. Wright was a guy who enjoyed sticking it to the Republicans and especially relished when he could push something through despite Reagan’s vetoes. He would often clash with Newt Gingrich, whom he called “sociopathic” and beholden to his ambitions. However, he himself was also not a paragon of virtue.

This was the start of the chaos that engulfs the political arena in America today. While guys like Gingrich or Wright, besides their own personal ambitions, might have also had some high-minded principles that they were trying to promote, the newer generation of loud-mouths such as Donald Trump are in it just for themselves. Donald Trump doesn’t really care about anyone or anything besides Donald Trump.

You saw a similar evolution in Ancient Rome. The early consensus breakers such as the Gracchi brothers or the senators were also defending some sort of a policy, whether reformist in the case of the Gracchi or conservative in the case of the senators. However, they ended up giving way to a newer generation of politicians, like our old friend Crassus. Crassus was in it just for Crassus.

It is not just low morals that are gaining ground, but also corruption. In the Roman Republic, as the chaos grew, it became more and more expensive to get elected. Candidates had to spend a lot of money to bribe the electorate, not just with empty promises, but also with games, and even money. Towards the later stages, some guys were buying elections outright. The role of money in the entire crisis is important to note. The Roman elite became very corrupted in their hunt for money and power.

When Jugurtha, the King of Numidia, a kingdom in northern Africa, came to Rome, he brought with him bags full of money and bribed many politicians to get his way. Many of the top political officials ended up colluding with foreign powers. In the hyper-competitive environment of the late Republican Rome, a chicken and the egg problem of money and political power arose. More money meant more political power, and more political power meant more money.

Today, you see similar trends. The cost of campaigning is skyrocketing, with the candidates having to spend more and more money. Often, it is the candidate with the more flashy and expensive campaign that wins. The cost to win a seat in the US House of Representatives increased by 344% from 1986 to 2012, while the cost to win a seat in the US Senate increased by 62% during the same years.

The country has been sliding downhill towards confrontation just as the cost to run an election is increasing exponentially. The system keeps on getting more corrupted. Game theory is a good way to explain why and how this works. Imagine that everyone in the system is moral and does things by the book. Then one day, a guy comes and starts going around the system, buying votes. This guy wins and the honest guys lose. Well, the next time, the guys who were honest before learn their lesson and start corrupting the system.

That’s how a race to the bottom starts. One guy shouts, so the other guy starts shouting louder. One guy starts calling people names, the other guy starts getting even more rude. The problem is that if you want to stay relevant, you need to keep on doing it. It’s just like the classic game theory example with the two robbers who were caught and the police is now trying to get them to confess. If one of the guys rats out the other, and the other guy stays silent, the rat goes home free, while the other guy rots in jail for 5 years. If they both rat each other out, then they both serve 3. If they both stay silent, they will serve 1 year in prison.

The best possible outcome for both of them combined is for them to stay silent. However, staying silent is a huge risk. What if the other guy talks? Betraying the other guy however has huge potential benefits for the cheater, especially if the other guy has honor. In such a system, it is quite logical that both guys will cheat, and if they don’t cheat, they will cheat the next time. In the current political climate, if one side tries to be constructive and the other side keeps on being destructive, then the destructive side will win. That’s why both sides will continue on being more and more destructive. In the current system, the honest, constructive guy has no chance.

It is not just in the US, but in Europe and around the world, similar conditions are being replicated. What you are seeing now is many people from the more traditional parties starting to use populist rhetoric in order to try to outflank the extremists. One example is the Conservative Party in the UK. To beat the loud-mouthed alcohol lovers of UKIP, they started sounding more and more radical, until they created the current mess of Brexit.

There are some interesting trends that parallel the rise of divisive politics and trolling in the US Congress. Analyses show that the rate of cooperation has been in decline in the US since the 1960s. This has also mirrored general trends in the decline in trust for state institutions. At the same time, you have a trend in the rise of economic inequality. According to Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, income inequality declined rapidly in the US during most of the 20th century, until 1970, when it started to increase sharply, reaching levels not seen since the 1920s.

According to a polarization index of political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, the polarization in the US at this point today is the highest in history! Peter Turchin developed a theory, which he calls the Double Helix Theory, where he surmises that whenever you have high inequality, you also have lower levels of well-being. He shows that the levels of relative well-being have been in sharp decline since the 1960s in 3 out of 4 categories: employment, wage relative to GDP, and family (only health increased). The last time you saw such sharp declines in the US was in the period leading up to the Civil War!

Peter Turchin also developed a trans-disciplinary study of history focusing on the major trends, which he termed cliodynamics. He looked at wide cyclical movements in history and the era of the Late Roman Republic has basically the same structural-demographic forces driving political instability as today. These being a drop in relative welfare and the elites engaging in power struggles and competition.

If you take a book on the history of the Roman Republic starting from the end of the Third Punic War until the Marius and Sulla era, and the history of the US Congress from the election of Ronald Reagan to today, and read them in parallel, you will be astounded by how many similarities there are.

A tradition of consensus destroyed by power-hungry individuals pushing their own agendas and not willing to compromise. Growing divisions between polarized sections of society, with the threat of violence looming at every corner: Welcome to deja vu!

Guilty until proven innocent

It is very hard to stop the wheels once they start churning. We have arrived at the edge of a political abyss. Not there yet, but the explosives are in place, ready for a spark to set them off. What haunts us now is the specter of the alt-right and the alt-left. Their antics are what could start the fireworks and push us over the edge.

Identity politics is inherently divisive in its essence. It is pure “us” versus “them” politics, where through confrontational rhetoric an in-group and an out-group are created. Cognitive biases have a field day with this kind of thinking.

Instead of promoting similarities, identity politics emphasizes differences. It actually creates enemies out of people who might be neutral. A person’s identity is not something static and unitary, but instead it is usually multi-layered. One person can be an American, immigrant, Muslim, a man, resident of Michigan, liberal, father, brother, son, a teacher, and all kinds of other identities. They can use these identities in different contexts. With identity politics you are focusing on just one of those identities and this one takes precedence. If that identity is portrayed in a negative light, the person might become defensive and that part of his identity might become dominant.

Once you push a person on the defensive about their identity, then they might buckle down and actually hold onto that part of their identity much more strongly. Identity is at the core of a person’s self-esteem, and the brain has built in mechanisms to fight against the loss of a sense of self-worth. This attack on a person’s identity can hasten the formation of certain political beliefs, which then become intertwined with personal identity.

It’s sort of a chicken and the egg problem. Once a political belief becomes a part of a person’s identity, then every attack on that political belief strengthens that person’s sense of self, and every attack on that person’s identity strengthens that person’s political belief. You get the backfire effect on steroids. This can explain why identity politics provoke such explosive and emotional responses. They shut down the logical part of the brain, and get people into primal survival mode.

What characterizes both the alt-right and the social justice warriors of the alt-left is their black and white view of the world and intolerant discourse. Nuances do not exist for them. You are either with us or against us, meaning that you subscribe fully to all the orthodoxy, and do not dissent. Moderates are cast out, dissident opinions are squashed, and militancy is leading to first signs of violence. Economic factors might have set off the initial discontent, but it is identity politics that are in the driving seat now.

The problem with the alt-right and the alt-left is that they take real existing problems and go full retard on them. Each side harps on their own real or imagined problems and doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of any of the problems that the other side is trying to address. This type of attitude then just catapults moral outrage to astronomical levels, which is further enhanced by the impenetrable bubbles each side encloses itself in order to feed their confirmation bias.

Both these radical movements are increasingly totalitarian, each professing its own orthodoxy which cannot be deviated from or even questioned. If you don’t think all Muslims are terrorists, that all Mexicans are criminals, and that Obama is an Arab born in Kenya, or if you don’t use baking soda instead of deodorant, then you are a cuck, plain and simple. If you don’t subscribe to the notion that gender is a social construct having 0% to do with nature, believe that all men are rapists, or haven’t burned any evolutionary psychology books yet, then you are an evil racist misogynist. Wait, what if you are black? Then you are an uncle Tom. What if you are a woman? Then, you are a man… wait… no, that’s good, we like trans… wait let me check with my superiors on what my official stance towards this should be.

What were are seeing is more and more radical discourse. Both sides are not speaking to each other, but past each other. The aim is not to convince the other side to see their point of view or to come to an agreement on how to solve the problems. Instead, the talk is meant to fortify the ranks, and maybe gain new recruits who have been wavering on the sidelines.

The reinforcement mechanisms the sides use have some very specific peculiarities. The alt-right likes to peddle conspiracy theories. These stories usually involve all kinds of imaginary ghosts and dragons, all coming for you and your family. Conspiracy theories are incredibly seductive to a certain type of people, especially in uncertain times when feelings of anxiety increase. It is comforting to believe that you know what is really going on and that it is not your fault.

Hilary goes to a pizza place, orders a pizza and then goes to watch people have sex with kids. She also apparently sold nuclear materials to Russia. The Podesta emails prove it! Oh yeah, and the chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay.

This is not a joke. Some alt-right people actually believe that this is true! Of course don’t forget George Soros, everyone’s favorite boogeyman. The elites are down to no good and have a secret plan to control you.

This is just a part of the belief set of the alt-right. Someone has an agenda, whether it is the Cultural Marxists (whoever they are), the Jewish-Muslim cabal or the globalists. The more disturbing this conspiracy theory is, the more easy it is to dehumanize its protagonists.

The aim is to get people riled up, to get them angry. Anger sells, as anyone who watches TV knows. As talk show hosts found out back in the 1980s, the more anger you manage to raise in your show, the more people will watch. That’s when the money starts rolling in.

The alt-right are the inheritors of a long tradition of loud conservative pundits such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O’Reilly. Those guys served as the gateway drugs to the more whacky conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, who believes the louder you scream something, the more true it has to be. Listening to Beck and Limbaugh was like getting hooked on marijuana. It gets you high, takes you away from reality and gives you that tingly feeling.

However, at one point you want more kick. So you try a line of coke, the Alex Jones variety. You know it’s bad for your health, you know you will get that weird nose twitch, but hey it lets you see all those illegal immigrants voting for Hilary, so you get addicted.

These alt-right guys have been able to capture a bubble audience, but not in controlling the general discourse. In the US, they hover around in their own safe space, with Fox News being the main TV network that caters to them, but they are increasingly buttressed by a wide constellation of online news sites like Breitbart, conspiracy peddlers like InfoWars, and radical blogs that get more and more extreme.

The alt-right are not the only guys on the far right in the US. They were paved the way by the neo-cons and then the Tea Party movement. What we are also increasingly seeing is the rise of the Christian fundamentalists. Some of these groups are sometimes overlapping, but there is also a certain friction between some of them as well.

While in the US, the alt-right and nationalists are only a niche, in Russia, the biggest country in the world, they have succeeded in capturing almost the whole market. Thanks to the work of Putin and his cronies, most independent media has disappeared, to be replaced by a series of Russian Fox News clones.

In the US, it is the social justice warriors of the alt-left that have been more successful in directing the flow of the mainstream discourse so far. They have a huge influence on what can and cannot be said in public or in private. Their rhetoric has slowly crept into the mainstream media. In many ways they have also affected the normal relations on the street as well, and self-censorship is quickly becoming the norm in today’s society.

The alt-left has weaponized a wide variety of causes, but in a way that has alienated many other segments of society. Legitimate concerns have degenerated into farces, not only undermining the credibility of the message, but also endangering the basic principles that the free world stands for, like free speech and the presumption of innocence.

The MeToo Movement started off as a reasonable reaction to some things that unfortunately some men have done. Rape has been a consistent danger to women, which should concern any man who has a female relative. Behavior like masturbating in front of someone without their consent is also a highly inappropriate behavior and Harvey Weinstein should be shamed for it.

However, this reaction has turned into a downright mean joke. It went from legitimate indignation about Harvey Weinstein’s rapy behavior to the farcical outrage over Aziz Ansari’s awkward date. It went from specific instances of bad behavior to generalizing this type of behavior on all men. The mobs immediately pronounced men as guilty just for the fact that they were born as men, and wanted to continue to be men. A new concept of “toxic masculinity” has been making the rounds, which to many men appears as gender shaming their entire gender.

Presumption of innocence went out the window. Society has internalized that if a man gets accused of sexual misconduct, then it must be true. The word “alleged” gets thrown around lightly, without respect being paid to the founding notion of any just judicial system: innocent, until proven guilty. This type of internalization has wide implications.

On the political scene, this can become a winning tactic. It is easy to get rid of an opponent simply through putting false allegations on him. Even if he gets off, the stain of the allegation will forever be on him. Malicious lawsuits became incredibly common during the period of the fall of the Roman Republic. It was a weapon often used to destroy an opponent’s reputation and credibility. Even if laws were passed to get rid of this practice, they were not very effective, and malicious accusations and lawsuits continued to hamper the functioning of normal political discourse.

This is of course not to say that there aren’t sleazy guys out there. There are plenty of those, and something should be done to stop them. However, it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t get out of control and victimizes innocent guys. Not would this only potentially hurt a lot of normal men, but it would also be a serious problem for real female victims.

Among social justice warriors, the battle against racism has also degenerated into permanent outrage, where anyone who even questions some of the tenets of orthodoxy gets burned at the stake by enraged mobs. A few years ago, a guy named Omar Mahmood, himself a minority, wrote a satire piece in his local college newspaper poking fun at the culture of permanent offense. It was quite soft, but it set off a shitstorm against him. He was verbally harassed, fired from his job at the newspaper, and his dormroom door was vandalized with eggs and gum. Apparently his article was a micro-aggression.

It gets so absurd that a man who says that he got his job based on his qualifications, and that his race shouldn’t be an issue, gets accused of white privilege. He is black. This is not a joke or a singular incident. In other parts of the country, like on the ten University of California campuses, stating that you believe that the most qualified person should get the job, is now classified as a micro-aggression.

It is legitimate to state that some blacks might have been born in poorer circumstances, and that unfortunately some people are still racist and that might affect them at some point. The environment you live in does play a role in the chances that you get. However, the alt-left has framed the issue in giant monolithic blocks, which ends up pitting different groups against each other and leaves no room for nuance. With such a variety of human backgrounds and experiences, how can you make such blanket statements? Not only does this divide people up and create polarization between groups, it is counterproductive to solving the problems that some members of the black communities might be facing.

Privilege is a relative concept. Everyone is privileged in some way and in some ways they are disadvantaged. You cannot boil down privilege to just one factor such as the color of your skin. A good looking person is also privileged, as numerous studies have shown that it is easier for them to get a job or that they are seen as more credible and smart. A tall person also has advantages, even for such things as getting elected to office. Being American has its advantages over being a citizen of many other countries in the world. Are we going to start shaming good looking people, or tall people, or even all Americans?

Your race might matter, or it might not. Your ethnic background might matter, or it might not. Your sex might matter, or it might not. The place you live in or who your parents are, might matter or they might not. The circumstances of all of these might matter, or they might not. With such a multitude of variables going into making every individual person, reducing privilege to only one factor and without context greatly misinterprets the issue.

The thing about gender shaming or getting people to accept their “white privilege” is that it usually has the opposite effect. Imagine being a poor white guy in some town in the middle of nowhere with no money and no job prospects and then getting told to accept your “white privilege”. Or an immigrant from a war-torn place like Bosnia, working all day just to make ends meet, and getting told that you are privileged. How do you think they will react?

Some of these guys might just laugh, shrug it off and continue about their lives. However, some might get angry and the first instances of conversion towards the alt-right will be set in motion. These types of tactics just serve to alienate people from each other. With alienation comes thinking in absolutes and more radical discourse. This can then turn to more radical action. Social dynamics in these instances can degenerate rather quickly. An action can provoke a reaction, which can then provoke another reaction, leading down on a path of increased polarization. This cycle becomes harder to break as political beliefs become a part of a person’s identity.

Herd behavior and mob rule are leading the way. Whoever doesn’t agree 100% with the narrative, gets chewed up and spit out raw, even if they are a progressive supporter of civil rights. At the center of one of these alt-left controversies is another Weinstein. This time named Bret (no relation to Harvey).

He is a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter who taught biology at Evergreen College. He wrote a letter protesting the call for white students and faculty to stay away from the college for one day. Soon thereafter a huge wave of protests erupted on campus, physically intimidating him and forcing him to resign. Stating that he supported the cause, but just didn’t agree with the tactics, made him get vilified by the self-righteous mobs of activists.

What we are seeing is the formation of mob rule to intimidate opponents (or even people on their side who do challenge the orthodoxy) by the alt-left. The same is happening with the alt-right. These incidents point to the radicalization of both sides. Indignation has turned to hate. Once you start on the path of talking about who is oppressing who, you enter dangerous territory. The experiences of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda can speak volumes about the dangers of identity politics in the modern world.

Identity politics by mentally dividing people into monolithic groups is playing a zero-sum game. In zero-sum games, there is always a winner and a loser. By framing the discussion in this way, instead of win-win scenarios, you are inciting negative reactions from the other groups. Nobody wants to be the loser, and they will fight tooth and nail not to be one. More political violence could be around the corner.

Are we on the path to political violence?

The extremes which were until now usually confined to the filter bubbles of the internet, are now being reinforced through increasing group actions in the physical world. The past few years have witnessed several events showing the growing radicalization on both sides.

The Charlottesville Rally of 2017 looked like it came straight out of 1930’s Nazi Germany. The march saw groups of polo wearing white men holding lit-up torches join up with groups of pot-bellied biker-looking dudes with swastikas, sometimes interspersed with shaggy bearded balding specimens of the superior race in full KKK gear. Some of the Trump-described “good people” even went as far as to give Nazi salutes!

The rally turned violent when the marchers clashed with counter-protesters. Over 30 people ended up injured and one person got killed when one of the marchers ran over a counter-protester with his car.

According to the FBI, the dangers of far right terrorism seems to be on the rise. This has always had a presence, from Timothy McVeigh to the bombings of abortion clinics, homemade terrorism has been a constant nuisance. In the current political climate, it is only time before it resurfaces again.

In Europe, there is a promulgation of militant extreme right wing groups. Greece has been a notorious hotbed for years, and Hungary in the past decade has seen the rise of Jobbik, with its para-military wing marching around in uniforms. Germany have seen an upswing as well, with the AfD, the far right party against immigrants, becoming increasingly popular.

Militancy is on the rise on the far left as well. While not as wide-spread as that coming from the extremists on the other side, violent protests like the one at Evergreen College are becoming more and more common. Even political figures are being harassed. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, even had an angry crowd show up in front of her door.

In France, the last few months saw an explosion of civil discontent, with protests against governmental policies, egged on by a feeling of general discontent and economic malaise among some of the lower classes, degenerating into riots. The Yellow Jackets (Gilets Jaunes in French) have protested in various cities around France and also in Belgium.

While the movement deems itself apolitical, both far-right and far-left activists have joined it. It is not sure which way this movement will go, but there are signs that it might be veering towards the far right. Far-right activists, including individuals who fought for the Russian-separatist forces in the Donbass, have infiltrated the movement. And there seem to be great tensions between some of the far-right and far-left groups participating in the protests, some of these leading to violent skirmishes between them.

The question is also whether the political violence will diminish when people find out how effective it is in bringing about political change. In France, people have gotten used to striking often, maybe they will get used to political violence. Chaos could become a political strategy. After all, there is precedent, with the French Revolution or more recently the Protests of 1968.

Incidentally, the dangers of this have encouraged the formation of a movement opposed to the Yellow Jackets. This movement is calling itself the Red Scarves (Foulards Rouges), and has started organizing protests to support the government. It is composed mostly of people from the middle-class, ones who are usually pro-Macron and pro-EU. Do we have the start of a class war in France?

There had been instances of violence in Rome’s history before the last century of the Roman Republic. Even the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom was a violent act. However, they usually tended to die down soon after they started. The period after the Gracchi was different, as the violence did not diminish, but instead became a standard part of political practice.

During the time of the Gracchi, the crowds that gathered were largely spontaneous due to the popularity of the reforms that the brothers were advocating. The reaction of Nasica and his supporters, when they rushed to the Capitol where Tiberius Gracchus and his supporters were gathered was also largely spontaneous, as they had thought he was trying to make himself king. They mostly only armed themselves on the way with anything they could find, such as clubs from the legs of benches or rocks. In the subsequent melee, Tiberius and 300 of his supporters ended up getting killed.

After the events, the reaction of his brother Gaius was moderate and he did not reply with violence, but instead tried to get at the killers through the courts. Ten years later, violence again started up and Gaius was killed along with a number of his supporters. However after this, the violence died down, but the memory of the brothers lived on. Violence only started up again about 20 years later when Saturninus became tribune.

Saturninus formed alliances with two other men, Glauca, a senator and later consul, and Gaius Marius, the recurring consul and the most powerful man in Rome at that time. Together, they tried to pass through a series of laws aiming at redistributing land. These laws would not only redistribute lands to the legionnaires of Marius and other Romans, but also to numerous Italians, who would then gain Roman citizenship. While these measures were popular with ex-soldiers, the rural plebs and Italians, it was strongly opposed by a large part of the Senate and also the urban plebs, who were chiefly against giving Roman citizenship to Italian non-citizens.

There were tensions in the city, as opposing mobs were gathering and threatening each other. To get the potentially violent urban plebs on his side, Saturninus introduced a bill to give them subsidized grain. This had a huge effect on the state finances and the questor (the public official responsible for the treasury) for that year, Caepio, was strongly against it. His view was that the state could not afford it. In this tense atmosphere, one of the other tribunes put in his veto. Vetos by tribunes should usually stop the legislative proceedings, but Saturninus decided to proceed on anyways.

Once Saturninus started calling the people to vote, Caepio came in to stop the entire process through violence. Together with his supporters, he pulled down all the urns and intimidated the people who wanted to come cast their vote. The Senate then tried to get Saturninus to abandon the entire proceedings, as they said that thunder was heard. The Romans were a superstitious people, and sometimes they looked for omens to decide on what course of action to take. Since everything could be misinterpreted as a bad omen, this was often misused in the political process. Saturninus told them to STFU, otherwise that thunder will be followed by hail.

Since he saw that the only way he was going to get his bills passed was through intimidation, Saturninus asked veterans from the army of Gaius Marius, one of the first of Rome’s strongmen, to watch over the proceedings. This threat of violence helped him pass the laws. The significance of this was not really the laws that were passed, but instead the way that the entire process unrolled. Both Saturninus and his opponents were willing to use force to get their way.

From then on, things started to degenerate even more. Political violence escalated, fights between opposing bands became more frequent, and political assassinations started to appear. In 100 BC, in order to get his ally elected as consul, Saturninus ordered the murder of an opposition candidate Gaius Memmius, in plain view of everyone during the voting itself.

This was too much for the Senate, which ordered Marius to take his former ally down using any means necessary. After some initial fighting, Saturninus and his followers barricaded themselves on Capitol Hill. After a round of negotiations, they agreed to capitulate in exchange for a guarantee of safety. Marius locked them all up in one of the Senate buildings, however a crowd of senators and their followers climbed on top of the building and using tiles from the roof started to throw them down at the people below, killing Saturninus and many of his followers.

The 90’s are a decade that we don’t know much about, but it seems that petty intimidation by mobs was occurring from time to time, along with increased polarization in the legislative process. Malicious lawsuits were becoming the norm, just as the political mobs were becoming more hostile. The dominant figure of the late 90’s is a man named Drusus, who became a plebeian tribune. Initially a conservative supported by the Senate, he started championing the cause of the non-citizen Italians, who were clamoring for Roman citizenship and equal rights.

In late 91 BC, he was assassinated. This could have been one of the sparks of the so-called Social War, a rebellion of the disenfranchised Italians against Rome. Frustrated by their standing in the Republic, the Italians decided to take matter into their own hands and solve the it through war. A bloody conflict ensued, which ended when a series of decrees was passed giving the Italians Roman citizenship.

This had profound consequences for politics in Rome. Instantly, the amount of citizens doubled, which caused social tensions. Another problem was that a lot of generals were left with standing armies in the field. Many of them were clamoring for a lucrative expedition to the East in order to fight the armies of Mithridates, the king of Pontus.

Initially, Sulla was chosen to lead this war. As he was preparing to depart for Asia Minor, political violence and machinations in the Senate achieved the overturning of this decision. He was stripped of his command, which was then given to Marius. This pissed him off, and as he still had his armies in the field, he decided to march against Rome itself. This was the first time in history that a Roman general used the legions against the city of Rome itself. It marked a turning point in the history of the fall of the Republic. Now generals in control of armies used their might to control the government. The sword became mightier than the law.

The fighting between Sulla and Marius was the first real civil war of the Roman Republic. This was followed by a series of civil wars, which pitted strongmen like Pompey and Caesar, and later guys like Marc Anthony and Octavian against the assassins of Caesar, and Octavian and Marc Anthony against each other. Mortal combat weakened the political order. At the end, with the victory of Octavian, the Republic died.

Alliances would form, and then disintegrate, former friends became enemies, and former enemies became friends. In the meanwhile, political violence grew in strength as the method to control the power and get laws passed. This violence pitted against each other different groups, coming from different strata of society and with different opinions and interests.

There were cleavages between the urban plebs and the rural plebs, who had different goals and sometimes opposed each other. Writing in 56 BC, Cicero noted that the urban plebs were now more prone to support the Optimates, than it was in the time of the Gracchi and Saturninus, since their economic situation has improved and their needs are largely satisfied.

Cicero’s time saw the rise of the first organized gangs whose goal was to intimidate opponents. In the 60’s, Clodius and Milo organized armed gangs made up of slaves, freedman and gladiators. These gangs would often fight each other in the streets. Before that the mobs that engaged in political violence usually formed spontaneously or were ad hoc, however now intimidation and violence became the primary method of getting anything done and a certain level of professionalization of the mobs made it much more effective. Political violence passed from being an occasional method of getting your way, to becoming the usual method of how things were done.

This is how a Republic falls. Social cohesion and a sense of a common purpose is lost, which leads to greater and greater divisions. Petty squabbles lead to bigger conflicts, which then end up in political violence or even civil war. Mob-rule becomes the driving force of political change, and unscrupulous individuals take advantage of the situation to try to get political power for themselves at any cost.

What can be done to prevent this?

Donald Rumsfeld was inadvertently wise in folly, when he said that there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. The components of any decision include the things that you know, and also the things that you know that you don’t know. However, people often forget that it is the things that you don’t know that you don’t know that often have the biggest impact on a course of events. A single unforeseen event can set in motion things that no one is prepared for.

History can give us guidelines on how humans act in different situations, but each era requires us to be flexible to the unique challenges that are inherent in it. The fall of the Roman Republic is not a perfect analogy to what is happening today, but there are enough similarities as to cause us to worry. If these tendencies are left unchecked, we could be heading towards a disaster. We have left behind the era of democracy, and entered an era of ochlocracy, where passions, ambition, and money rule supreme. When you enter upon the wrong path, it is often very hard to get off of it. You need to backpedal and find the right path.

The First Law of Motion states that an object in motion will remain in motion in a straight line, unless acted upon by an outside force. The same thing applies to human systems. The current system will continue on its path, unless a force acts upon it and changes its direction. That force can only be us, humans.

The problems before us are vast and complicated, requiring us to face against such formidable foes as human nature itself. For the Ancient Romans, general human nature was fallible, selfish, and often cruel, however these faults could be overcome through education, focus on virtue, and reason.

The way to understand these problems is to go back to first principles, form the right questions, and use the right analogies. Only by having a comprehensive and a deep, nuanced understanding of what is happening, can you formulate ways to resolve the problems.

The fundamental issue causing the current state of affairs are divisive politics. The way the game is played now is that everyone wants to win, and win big. The problem is that not only do they want to win, they also want the others to lose. The Ancient Greek commentators called this “pleonexia”, which is a term associated with greed or advantage, but can better be translated as the desire to gain at the expense of another. This they saw as the main reason of why states falter.

Politics today focus on the differences and frame the issues in such a way as to stoke emotions. If this is not changed, then we will continue heading towards disaster. We need to move beyond what divides us and instead focus on what can bring us together. In Ancient Rome, but also in modern countries, it has often been an external enemy or wars that brought people together. However, replacing an internal war with an external one is not the answer, and might even be counter-productive. In today’s world, external wars exacerbate internal problems even more.

This type of a shift does not gel well with human nature. Humans are naturally selfish and afraid of others. What can help is to use an approach advocated by Hierocles, a 2nd century AD Stoic philosopher. He noticed that humans are first and foremost concerned with themselves, then their immediate family, then their extended family, then their city, their nation, and at the end the entire world. He illustrated this by using concentric circles, with an individual being placed in the innermost circle, his family in the circle that encompasses that circle and so on.

We live in our own bubbles if you will. The key is not to keep ourselves huddled down in this bubble, but instead to enlarge the boundaries so that it encompasses everyone else. However how can you do that?

1) Acknowledge that the other side might have legitimate concerns

The first thing is to have empathy with other people and their problems. Even if you don’t agree with your opponents, you need to keep in mind that they might have legitimate concerns.

Things like racism do exist and this cannot be denied like people from the alt-right try to do. People can be quite nasty to you just based on your race, gender, place of origin, or the way you look. This can cause anxiety and feelings of powerlessness, sometimes leading to anger.

On the other hand, what drives some people to the alt-right is that their own problems are not addressed or even taken seriously. For a lot of guys, things are not going well, and I don’t mean only economically. The dating market is skewed. With the rise of lonely city life and Tinder, it is getting harder to meet women, while for a chick she can just swipe for a few minutes and already have a guy lined up for each day of the week. Guys feel disposable. Even if you are nice and a hard worker, and do manage to find a wife, you can be faced with the situation that you come home one day and find your wife in bed with another man.

There are a lot of lonely, single or divorced guys out there. Many live isolated with little interactions (or negative interactions) with the opposite sex, which can have negative impacts on their psyche. An epidemic of loneliness is in full swing among many guys in this world. If society at large doesn’t care, then alt-right ideology can be quite seductive.

We need to keep in mind that the circumstances that you are born in and the environment that you live in has a huge impact on your life. If you don’t have a bit of luck on your side, then you will have difficulties in life. Just acknowledging these things can go a long way towards reconciliation. You need to put yourself in the shoes of someone else before you judge.

The reason why demagogues are so successful is that people who feel left out think that they finally found someone who cares about them and their problems, and wants to offer solutions. It doesn’t matter that he is just using them, but even the feeling a person gets when they think someone is listening can circumvent rational thought.

2) Try to understand the arguments of both sides

There is one technique that you can use to train keeping an open mind and understand the different sides of an argument. This technique is one that the best Roman rhetoricians like Cicero used. What you need to practice, is to give declamations, but arguing from both sides (in utramque partem). You summarize the arguments from one side and argue as a proponent from that side. Then you summarize the arguments from the other side and argue as a proponent of that side.

This type of argumentation can help you to see the complexity that is inherent in proposing any course of action. What should be done in desperate times? The Roman Republic had huge problems in the distribution of income and many citizens fell into poverty. When you do not address the huge income inequalities, then you could have an angry populace on your hands. Sometimes hard working people fell on hard times, through no fault of their own. Soldiers returning from years of serving their country in wars abroad found their farms in ruin and then were not able to sustain themselves. In these types of cases, installing some sort of a safety net can greatly alleviate the pains of the members of society that find themselves in precarious positions.

From the first look it might seem evident that giving into the demands of the Roman lower classes, is the sensible thing to do. After all, the huge income inequalities and the impoverishment of a large section of the population were one of the causal factors for the descent into chaos.

However, the issues are not always so simple. The senators who opposed these types of measures, might not have been just looking out for Number One, but might have had legitimate concerns about what types of effects they might have on the economy.

When you give debt relief, you will create losses for the creditors. They might either go bankrupt themselves or try to recoup their losses elsewhere (and this might lead to further exploitation). You might also introduce moral hazard into the system. With the borrowers knowing that they won’t have to pay back the debt, they might start borrowing more than they can repay. The potential lenders fearing that they might not be able to get back their money, then stop lending, which then causes a credit crunch (and all the associated things like higher interest rates). This then has a negative impact on the economy.

The Populares also started introducing things like subsidized grain. Some even calling for it to be free. However, apart from the arguments that this can leave the population feel entitled and clamoring for even more handouts, these types of policies are incredibly costly. You need to get the money from somewhere, usually through taxes. This then exacerbates other problems like tax collectors taking too much money from people, especially in the provinces.

When Clodius passed a law in 58 BC, which stated that the monthly grain distribution in Rome would be for free, Cicero protested that this would be a huge misuse of public money, apparently costing around a fifth of the entire revenue of the state. Once such measures are introduced, it becomes very hard to take them back. In fact, that is what happened in Ancient Rome. The measures caused the population to feel entitled to them, and they rioted whenever changes to them were proposed. This fixing of the price of grain then became an official policy of the state, which could not be changed. This had many negative effects.

Another thing that comes with allocating money to carry out a certain policy, means that it cannot be used for other projects. Here the trade-off was with investing in Rome’s badly lacking infrastructure. A city of around a million people, did not have the basic amenities like aqueducts, to be able to service such a large population. This means that thousands of people lived in squalor with very limited access to things like clean water.

The measures to help the poor in Rome were incredibly costly and the money to pay for them had to come from somewhere. It came from gouging the provinces.

3) Think in systems

Whenever making any decision, you need to think of the wider implications. There are always various factors that either affect how the decision is implemented or the decision can have an impact on other matters down the line.

For example, let’s have a look at the wider impact of some of the Populare policies. One policy that was introduced was subsidized grain for the population of the city of Rome. Like any policy, you need to find the money to pay for it, and this one was incredibly costly.

Much of the financing for this policy came from taxes from the provinces. The thing about tax collection in the Late Roman Republic was that it was mostly outsourced to private contractors.

There were big conglomerates that would bid on getting these contracts. For example, in order to get the right to collect all the taxes in the Province of Asia for five years, they would bid a certain amount. The advantage of this system, is that the state has the certainty that it will collect a precise amount of money and therefore can start planning its expenditures for the future.

These big conglomerates were financed by numerous people, who would then buy shares. Around this then developed a quite advanced financial market, where people would be able to buy and sell debts and obligations and other financial instruments.

The problem is that the investors will then want to make a profit, which might then lead to exploitation of the population. The tax collecting companies sometimes abused the population by setting exorbitant tax rates and then using harsh methods to collect the money. In theory, it was the role of the Roman governors in the provinces to oversee that these companies don’t abuse the population, however a lot of these governors got bribed a lot of money to turn the blind eye.

Moral hazard was introduced into the system. In order to beat out all the other contractor conglomerates for the right to collect the taxes in a certain province, the contractors started putting up artificially high bids, wildly miscalculating the amount of money they would be able to get. In 60 BC, one of these companies won a bid to collect the taxes in the Province of Asia, but it turned out that that it would not be able to recoup their investment. What ended up happening is that the Roman state, after much debate in the Senate, gave them a rebate. They were too big to fail and some important people had put in a lot of their money into the venture. Bailouts are not a feature of just our modern economy, but were present and accounted for in Ancient Rome as well.

Land redistribution also wasn’t a problem-free policy. While, in the initial stages, you could get unused land or limit the land that the rich landowners are using, but at some point you will run out of land to redistribute. Some of the land that was redistributed to poor Roman citizens, was in fact farmed by Italian allies, who were not very happy. Also when the land in Italy became limited, further land needed to be gained through military conquests.

By using these examples, you can see the need for a systems thinking approach. With any policy, there are many trade-offs that will need to be made, benefits, but also drawbacks. That’s why it is important to have as many of the different actors be present at the negotiating table. This way you can define the best course of action for achieving the common good.

The problem in Ancient Rome was, that many of the actions were quite short-sighted, promoted by politicians who were using them in order to advance their own careers and not thinking how what they do will impact the overall well-being of the Roman Republic.

The same problems are inherent in the political systems of today. Politicians still think short-term, because this is what is most beneficial for their careers. The long-term outlook usually gets pushed to the back-burner. Solutions that will benefit only a small number of constituents get promoted, instead of taking a wider perspective and defining the common good.

This is where the analogy of the Roman Republic is incredibly useful. On it, we can see the big picture, how certain events and decisions might have seemed insignificant at the time, but turned out to be turning points which led further down on the path to destruction. It was not one event or condition that caused things to deteriorate, but a combination of them. It is only on an example from the past that we can see the dynamics play themselves out.

Of course, there are also many differences from those times, chiefly technology and the fact that men and women have been made equal and slavery doesn’t exist. On the lower level, differences include in the way that taxes are collected, but also the fact that the system of police is much more organized than in ancient times.

However, there are some first principles that are quite similar. Human nature is pretty much the same. Cultural conditions might play a role, but deep down the basic instincts are still the same as that of our ancestors. That is why humans have the tendency to react similarly to similar types of conditions.

At the moment, the world is experiencing the same types of stressors that overwhelmed the Roman Republic. The general economic conditions parallel those of the Late Roman Republic era. The key here is not the specific, but the general. A perception of a decline in a person’s economic condition will have similar reactions overall, even if the specificities of what caused these conditions might differ in some ways.

That is because humans have a tendency to fall for the same types of cognitive biases. Behavioral economics allows us to get better perspectives on the irrational way that humans can behave in different circumstances. While we are far from developing anything like the psychohistory that Isaac Asimov described in his novels, these insights into the workings of the human brain do give us a very basic predictive capability.

Trump is not the cause, but the symptom of the problem that the world is experiencing today. To understand the potential evolution of what is happening, you need to look at the underlying conditions that generated this threat.

These conditions are then linked to other conditions, with cause and effect sometimes setting up dependent paths which are hard to get off of. Systems thinking can help in seeing the overall picture.

People need to have a shared conception of what is the common good. This can only come when they realize that they are only a part of a bigger whole.

This will be incredibly hard in the decadent world of today, where people spend hours taking selfies and watching reality TV. Real values have been replaced by instant gratification, and a right here right now, fuck the consequences type of culture.

Cato, the original hardass of two millennia ago, once said in a public speech that the surest sign of deterioration in the Republic is when pretty boys fetch more than fields, and jars of caviar more than ploughmen. The influx of money after the end of the Punic Wars, brought with it a culture of decadence. The rich spent time focusing on getting more money, and living a hedonistic lifestyle. Many of the poor got hooked on this cycle as well, getting addicted to spectacles and gladiator games.

We are in a similar situation today. Decadence is all around us. Many people are just interested in money and showing off their wealth. Materialism and consumerism has reached astronomical levels. Sports stars are millionaires, while teachers and scientists have to do with meager wages. People only think of themselves, which is the reason why identity politics exudes such a strong pull. In such times, it is hard to get people to focus on what really matters. It is hard to get them to stop behaving in a selfish way and to look up and see the world. This task is very nearly impossible, but without it, we are doomed.

The way ahead is to take example of systems thinkers like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Their message was one of unity and not division. Even when they were addressing real problems, they did it in a way that unified and not divided. M. L. King had a dream of a colorblind society, where not the color of your skin mattered, but your abilities.

Nelson Mandela, through his wise actions, saved South Africa from falling into a potential civil war. His message was one of unity and hope. He started off as a militant, but through time realized that this is not the way. If you want a functioning country you need to have a common message for all its inhabitants, even for those that you used to think of as enemies.

Sitting in jail, Mandela would root against the South African rugby team, since this was a cherished symbol of the Afrikaners, who were running the country at that time. After the fall of Apartheid, some of the black activist leaders wanted to dismantle it, but Nelson Mandela saw that this would only serve to antagonize the Afrikaners. Instead, he turned this symbol of a minority, into a symbol of hope and unity for the entire country.

The Roman Republic can give us similar lessons as well. It too had periods of conflict, for example between the plebeian and patrician orders, where the plebeians were fighting for more rights. However, it managed to pull through and not fall into chaos every time.

What differed between that time and the last hundred years of the Republic? We might only guess, since very few records survived from before the Gallic sack of Rome in 390 BC, and what we can draw upon comes from later recounts of the history from Roman historians living hundreds of years after the events. However some things do shine through.

In 494 BC, not that long after the fall of the Roman Kingdom, the young Roman Republic was in a war against several Italic tribes. The government was totally controlled by the patrician order and the plebeians decided that there was no point for them to fight for this state of affairs. The issue was also tied to the high debt rates that some of the plebeians had and the reluctance of the patrician-controlled institutions to address this. So they withdrew to the Sacred Mount, outside of Rome.

What solved the problem was when the Senate sent former consul Agrippa Menenius Lanatus as an envoy to the plebs. He used an interesting analogy to illustrate the interdependence between the different groups. He said that they are just like the body, which is composed of different parts. Just as the body needs both the heart and the stomach to function well, the Republic needs all its groups as well. With one part not functioning well, the body dies, and so does the Republic.

This is a prime example of systems thinking. Both, the patricians and the plebeians realized the need to work together to solve the problems. The patricians agreed to a reform of the state, which gave the plebeians much more rights (for example through the creation of the plebeian tribunes with veto power). The plebeians then went back to work with the patricians in defeating the enemy that was waiting at their gates.

4) Check your opinions

What is also incredibly important is to keep an open mind. You always need to examine the evidence for your assumptions and not fall for cognitive biases. A lot of times the things that people take as true, have actually been invented for a specific purpose or are not the way that they are presented as. We are living in a post-truth fake news era, however fake news has been here since forever, ranging from propaganda to yellow journalism. Even Rome was full of it. In fact, Octavian, who later became Augustus, the first Emperor, was a master at it.

Group identities are often manufactured, created through founding myths. Rome as well came to accept numerous stories in order to explain how it came to be and what it stood for. It came to connect itself with the Trojan War and the strong cast of heroes that fought in it. The later Romans regarded themselves as the descendants of Aeneas, who fled the fall of Troy in order to establish himself on the Italian peninsula. However, this was an invented myth, which started to gain ground only at the time when the Romans were heightening their contacts with the Ancient Greeks. Through these contacts, they adopted much of Greek mythology and tried to connect themselves to it.

This type of identity manufacture occurs as a natural process, but it is also often pushed up from above by a certain group of people in order to aid them in impressing upon others their own view of society. This is one of the things that Augustus did when he set upon creating the Roman Empire. According to the official narrative of his regime, the fall of the Republic and the chaos that tore it down were due to a loss of piety. Famous writers like Virgil were instrumental in helping him craft this new Roman identity. Augustus succeeded in promoting greater religious practice and linked his own era to that of the mythical heroes of ages long gone. In this way, he connected himself to a long lost Golden Age and the Gods.

In modern times, this type of myth creation still occurs on all sides of the political spectrum. One example is the famous “War on Christmas”. Apparently, this long American tradition is under assault. Yet, this is far from the truth and in fact contradictory to the other founding myths of America. That is the story of the Pilgrims, who are viewed as the forefathers of the American nation. Thanksgiving is one of the most celebrated holidays, and was created in order to celebrate a day when the Natives saved the recently arrived Pilgrim immigrants from starvation.

The thing is, that the Pilgrims did not celebrate Christmas. In fact, they banned it. While this stance on Christmas softened through time, in the era of George Washington it was still just another ordinary day. Washington enacted his daring crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas Day 1776, in order to take advantage of the fact that the Hessian troops would probably be celebrating the holiday. Christmas itself did not become a federal holiday until 1870. So much for the War on Christmas myth. The only Christmas warrior was actually George Washington.

These fake myths however have a powerful sway on people and tend to linger in their psyche. They are often used to mobilize them, especially if they are pictured as being threatened. The different sides that are polarizing the political arena often use these myths as a way to stir up discontent and divisions.

Today, one of the most polarizing issues is the one on immigration. There are two sides on this, one accepting immigrants with open arms, the other instead fearing them and wanting to shut the borders. The story of Ancient Rome can be quite illuminating, as immigrants and foreigners in general, were a polarizing issue in those times as well. Late Republican Rome was full of immigrants, from Italy, but also other parts of the world. This was a source of economic growth, but also social tensions. On one hand, the immigrants created new jobs and through their production helped the economy to grow. They also brought to Rome new ideas, which then fused with old Roman ideas to create some of the most enduring philosophical works of the ancient world.

On the other hand, immigrants also brought in crime and their presence stoked social tensions with poor Romans. Immigrants were direct competitors for jobs with the lowest strata of Roman society. One way the Optimates could also sometimes garner populist support from the poor masses, was when they railed against the immigrants and expanding Roman citizenship to other Italians. This meant that immigrants were periodically expelled from Rome from time to time. Many of the urban plebs were also strongly opposed to granting Roman citizenship to Italians, as citizenship was a source of pride for poor Romans and a way to feel morally superior.

Opinion on immigrants and foreigners was also divided among the Roman elites. Some of them gladly accepted new ideas from the outside. Greek education and philosophy greatly influenced Roman life, and many of the most influential Romans adopted them in order to get ahead. On the other hand, other people like Cato, believed that these foreign influences were ruining Roman culture and weakening it.

However, in a few generations, these new ideas became an integral part of Roman culture, and the descendants of these immigrants became Roman fully in language and outlook. Within a short time of the conquest of Gaul, the Roman Senate welcomed its first Gallic senators. Their fathers or grandfathers fought against Rome, their sons and grandsons became its defenders. When emperor Claudius was defending the inclusion of Gauls in the Senate, he did it by reminding the senators that most of their ancestors also came from abroad at one point. Even the ancestors of Julius Caesar and the ruling house of Imperial Rome, the Julii, were originally immigrants from the city of Alba.

Social mobility also existed in Ancient Rome. You have to keep in mind that a large part of the Senate in later Imperial times was made up of the descendants of freedmen, that is former slaves who managed to surpass their former conditions and rise up in society. Just like today in the US, many people whose ancestors were slaves have managed to make great contributions to society and even attained some of the highest posts in it.

Unfortunately, this nuanced view is missing from the Culture Wars that are raging because of the identity politics of today. The fundamental problem is that both sides are on the complete opposites of the nature vs. nature debate. This is the defining question of our age now. The alt-right believes that the basis of humans behavior is 100% nature, while for the alt-left it is 100% nurture. Both sides ignore basic common sense and science.

There is a basic confusion between what is and what ought to be. The alt-right likes to point at evolutionary psychology and say, look this and this happens in nature, so this is the way things should be. They are committing the naturalistic fallacy, equating what exists in nature as being the way things should be. On the other side, the alt-left don’t like evolutionary psychology and try to ignore it. They believe that men and women should be equal, so that means that there are no differences found between them in nature. This is called the moralistic fallacy, mistaking what is for what ought to be. However, no wishful thinking is going to wash away the fact that there are differences between men and women. That does not mean that they shouldn’t be equal, it just means that they don’t always behave in the same way.

Opinions are often just a result of perception. How information is presented matters. Saying the cup is half full or half empty is not going to change the amount of water in the cup, but it can affect the way a person thinks about the content of the cup. Behavioral economics has shown how important framing is to human behavior. If something is framed in a negative way, it can provoke negative thoughts or anger.

The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers realized how destructive anger can be and tried to come up with techniques to keep anger away. For example, Stoics like Seneca or Marcus Aurelius practiced their entire lives to master their emotions. Ancient Skeptics like Sextus Empiricus (cool name, eh?) urged everyone to keep a healthy dose of skepticism towards things, to suspend judgment until you reflect upon the matter at hand.

5) The process matters

However, this still does not address the biggest problem: How to deal with human nature. There will always be people who will try to exploit the system for their personal gain. And there will always be people who will fall for their BS. There is no way to get around it.

For ancient Roman commentators, one of the biggest reasons why the Republic faltered was because people stopped respecting the norms. There was a system put in place that promoted consensus building and moderation. The elaborate system of checks and balances was meant to promote collaboration and prevent people from abusing their power.

The system had no mechanism to prevent people from going around it. Instead it relied on self-control, where all the officeholders would respect the traditional way of doing things. Once people stopped honoring this, there was no way to stop them. Little by little, norms were depassed, each case serving as a precedent for the next. Little by little, the exception became the rules, until at one point there were no rules, until power passed to those who had the swords.

It is important to remember that it is strong institutions that guarantee the stability of the political system. It is robust, independent institutions that are the guarantors of democracy, but also crucial for economic growth. They cannot be dependent on any one person or group in order to make them function.

Just like the old Roman Republic system, modern governmental systems are fragile. That’s why you need to guard against people who try to go around the rules to get their way. There’s a need to speak up when people don’t respect the norms. Trump tries to break the rules as often as he can. For example when he rages against the media and bans reporters from his press conferences, he sets a dangerous precedent. Society needs to take a stance that this is not OK.

What is particularly worrying about Trump is how he delegitimizes the entire electoral process. Numerous times he has stated that millions of voters voted illegally. Calling into question the entire electoral system could have grave repercussions in the future. When an election does not go a person’s way, they could refuse to accept the results. Such a state of affairs could move the country closer to chaos and violence.

If we want to live in a just and stable system, it is not just the results matter, but the process matters too. As Aristotle stated, virtue is doing the right things for the right reasons. It is not Machiavellian ends justify the means that will achieve the optimal result at the end. If you only care about the result and not how you achieved the result, then you will only be able to achieve a Pyrrhic victory. You might win the battle, but lose the war. You might get your legislation passed, but at the end lose the Republic.

Some systems are more fragile than others. For example, the European Union is built around consensus building. In order to get the right policies passed, you need all the participants to be willing to participate in a constructive way. If you get a few bad apples in there, who break the rules and work in a destructive way, the entire system can collapse. This might make some of the trolls happy, but it would be bad news for the citizens.

That’s why it is crucial to have citizens that can determine who is a systemic player and will abide by the rules and try to think of the common good, and someone who is in it just for themselves. Don’t fall for the halo effect. Of course, the reality is that no matter how hard you try to educate, most people will keep on falling for cognitive biases. This means that the most effective way to combat norm-breaking is through putting in place enduring systems that would prevent this. However, it is still important to educate the people and remind them that their actions matter.

Politicians can have different policies and ways of solving problems. That’s a good thing. However one thing that they all need to have in common is integrity. One example is John McCain, when he was running for President, one lady asked him about Obama being dangerous for the country because he’s an Arab Muslim. McCain put her in her place. He stated that while he might disagree with Obama’s policies, he believes that Obama is a good man who wants the best for the country. This is how real statesmen should behave. Honor and respect for the opposition is crucial for a democracy.

When Polybius came to Rome, he was amazed at the strength of the system of checks and balances and the integrity of its officials. While back home in Greece, public official were incredibly corrupt, Roman officials were moral and incorruptible. There is the example of Fabricius during the Pyrrhic Wars. After the defeat of the Roman forces by Pyrrhus, the King of Epirus, at the Battle of Heraclea in southern Italy, Fabricius was sent to negotiate with Pyrrhus for the exchange of prisoners.

While he was a former consul, Fabricius did not have much money. Pyrrhus upon hearing this tried to bribe him with so much money that it would make him the wealthiest person in Rome. Fabricius rebuffed him, saying that public service to Rome provides him with all the honors that he needs. Pyrrhus was apparently so impressed with the honesty and incorruptibility of Fabricius, that he released the Roman prisoners without demanding any ransom.

However, this moral fiber that ran through Roman society got weakened in the 2nd century BC. Money started flooding in and people got a taste for luxuries. Corruption and decadence set in. Ambition and power seeking became the primary driving forces of the politicians. Instead of looking out for the common good, they were more interested in just beating the next guy.

The people in power acted as if what came after them did not matter. Politicians today are behaving the same way. Trump and his arrogant politics, shutting down the government over a pet project. British politicians like Boris Johnson campaigning for Brexit just so that they could get more power for themselves. Recently, Vladimir Putin was doing a question and answer session with the people. Someone asked him about what will happen after he is gone. Putin nonchalantly answered not to worry, that he still isn’t going anywhere for a long time!

Apres moi, le deluge.

6) Don’t offer stop-gap solutions

Do not offer stop-gap solutions, but instead ones that are sustainable over the long term. Constructing a system that addresses the problems and can weather the storms, is much better than just putting band-aids on the wounds. The Ancient Romans realized the downward spiral in their political system and tried to stop it. However, the measures they tried to adopt were weak and faulty, often hampered by partisanship.

The system of checks and balances that was set up in the Roman Republic is a good example of a robust long-term solution that was meant to prevent individuals from gaining too much power. Polybius concluded that the success of Rome was due to its mixed constitution, which combined elements of a monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The consuls were the monarchic element, the Senate was the aristocratic element, while the Popular Assemblies were the democratic element. There were checks on the powers of each of these elements. For example there were two consuls and each could veto the actions of the other, while the tribunes of the plebs also had veto power. This type of a set-up ensured that legislation was done by consensus making and reflected a wider social agreement.

The US system is also based on checks and balances, not just against ambitious individuals, but also against the excesses of the people. People like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson wanted to establish a democracy, but they knew not to give too much power into the hands of the people. That is the reason why the US became a representative democracy, and not a direct one. The people can often be swayed by passions and demagogues, and that’s why a mixed set-up of government is a more stable one. After all, the Athenians democratically voted to put Socrates to death. The people also voted for Brexit. Shooting yourself in the foot is a long-held tradition that will never disappear.

The system in place however will need to be flexible enough, and robust enough to accommodate new developments on the outside. Historian Norbert Rouland has argued that the classic patron-client patronage system broke down in late Roman Republic times. Originally, there were strong links between patrons and clients, sometimes spanning generations, which created strong networks.

However, probably due to the expansion of the Republic to new areas, the expansion of citizenship to cover allies, and the influx of immigrants, these old traditional patronage links broke. On the positive side, this increased the democracy of the system, but on the negative side it loosened cohesiveness and resulted in less ability to create consensus. This encouraged free agency on the side of both the clients and the patrons and increased competition between the elites, leading to greater individual corruption.

One reason why it became possible for loose canons such as Newt Gingrich to become so powerful in the 1980’s, was the demolishing of the old backroom dealing ways and patronage networks that existed in US politics before his time. On the negative side, these behind the scenes networks were not transparent and thus caused problems, but on the other hand, they encouraged deal-making and consensus building. The dismantling of these networks and cutting out all the different middlemen that made this possible, did diminish the petty systemic “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” type of corruption, but unfortunately a new type of individual corruption grew to replace it.

What is a feature of politics is that the systems tend to swing from one side to the other, as new flaws are discovered. These flaws are usually a result of human nature. For example, humans have a tendency to cheat when no one is looking, so a bureaucratic process is introduced in order to control it. However, over time this process becomes too stifling on innovation and is lightened. When it becomes too light, people start cheating, so a new bureaucratic process is introduced to check this. So the system swings like a pendulum, back and forth, over-correcting itself each time.

Another thing that can stress a system is when new elements are introduced. In Rome, it was expansion of the territory, as well as demographic trends. In the US and around the world, the main drivers will be demographic trends, but also new technology. Whatever solutions are put in place to create a stronger system for the future will need to be robust enough to be able handle all these elements, as well as flexible enough to adjust themselves if new elements appear.

However, even the most robust system has its hidden weaknesses, which can be exploited. The weakness of the Roman system was exposed through the events of the 1st century BC, while the weaknesses of the US system are getting exposed now.

The main weakness of even the best systems is human nature. Whether the conscious parts of it, like ambition or greed, or the subconscious parts of it, like cognitive biases, human nature is the driving force of history. However, human nature is the way it is, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it. So we need to take it as given and build systems that take into account its fallibility.

One thing that we do know is that behavior is often dependent on the conditions around you. The same person will behave differently in different situations. The environment that that person lives in can greatly affect how they act. One piece of advice given to people trying to implement good habits is to change the environment around you. For example, if trying to eat more healthy, stock your fridge with healthy foods.

Therefore, if you want people to act in a moral way, then you need to put in an environment that prevents excesses, and instead encourages virtue. Apparently even genes can be overcome to a certain extent. The new science of epigenetics shows that it is possible to affect the phenotype without changing the underlying gene structure. One reason for this is that stimuli from the outside activate certain genes and let others lay dormant.

The systems that we put in place, need to be able to diminish the centrifugal forces that are causing divisions and polarization, and instead activate those cohesive forces that will bring about stability. What will this environment look like?

A big problem is income inequality, where the poor believe that they are getting poorer. A safety net will need to be set up, in order to catch those who have fallen. For the US, that includes things like health insurance for everyone. However, as examples from Europe show, that is not always enough.

Another huge challenge that will need to be resolved has to do with the technological changes in society. It has become much easier to find information, but also to get stuck in your own filter bubble. It is now very easy to subvert the entire electoral process by pumping fake news into these closed off spaces and taking advantage of the way the brain works. This is probably one of the biggest problems leading the world to greater polarization.

The structures that are created need to be able to tear down the filter bubbles and echo chambers that have been created with the rise of social media, but also be able to allow people to vent their frustrations and help identify society’s most pertinent problems. Most importantly, they need to tackle the tribalism that online life has fostered, and instead create shared experiences that highlight commonalities.

Maybe a platform for societal debate needs to be set up. A Big Debate (Grand Debat) has been launched in France by Emmanuel Macron, to discuss the burning questions of today and try to see what the main problems are, as expressed from the point of view of the people. We can only wait and see what this format will produce (update: it seems to be working, but only up to a point, as the violence continues) and whether it will help stabilize the system.

However, the most robust structures will not be created by the government alone, but will have to engage the private sector and the individuals themselves. The solutions will need to tackle some of the technological aspects that underpin this creation of echo chambers.

Algorithms help filter the content that you see. Choice architectures sometimes nudge you subconsciously in certain directions. Part of the answer will lie in new technologies like artificial intelligence, but also in social media platforms reforming how they present information.

However, we have to keep in mind that human nature is the driving force behind all this. People often engage in motivated reasoning, where emotions, instead of logic, drive their actions and thoughts. Just exposing people to more diverse sources of information might not always decrease polarization. The backfire effect is incredibly powerful and happens when people hear facts that counter their long-held belief, but still end up strengthening their previous world-view.

Whatever more permanent structures are created, one thing is clear: These structures cannot be used to stifle free speech.

7) Free speech is fundamental

The freedom of speech is a fundamental prerequisite for freedom and democracy. The ability to express yourself freely, not only lets humans to arrive at the best ideas through the exchange of views, but it also unburdens your psyche from fear. Any democratic system needs to promote free speech and not stifle discourse. Not agreeing with what someone else is saying, but supporting their right to say it, is the bedrock of freedom.

The basic principles that the free world stands for are being undermined by the radicals on both sides. Free speech, presumption of innocence, and the freedom of thought are being challenged. Character assassination has become a method of working. This is further enhanced through modern technologies like Twitter, where the message is amplified and echo chambers are formed.

However, freedom of speech can also be misused. Some despicable people, like far-right extremists, are using the free speech defense to say some pretty evil comments. Can you limit free speech for example for spreading things like Holocaust denial or outright racist speech? Everyone should have the right any stupid thing they want, as long as it doesn’t incite violence. The limit for freedom of speech should be when you are calling for the physical liquidation of others.

The problem with policing speech is who decides what can be said and what can’t be? Everyone has their point of view and that would bias their decision making. The price for a world where no one is afraid to open their mouth is that you will sometimes be exposed to pretty retarded things.

What about things like fake news or climate change denial? This is where it gets tricky. Fake news is a real danger to the stability and credibility of democratic systems. With the advent of social networks, the danger of fake news has grown exponentially. There is much debate on what to do in order to cut down on it, but also not stifle freedom of speech in the process. One has to be careful about defining what fake news actually is, since Donald Trump and other wanna-be dictators around the world are using the term to label any news that they don’t agree with.

With the debate on global warming it is much easier. There is a wide consensus among scientists that it is happening. This is based on evidence from the hard sciences. There might be some debate on the magnitude, but the effect is real. When it comes to hard natural sciences, which work within a single paradigm, you cannot give equal treatment to all the whacky theories out there. If there is a wide consensus among the scientific community, then you need to reflect this in your coverage. You cannot give equal air time to a scientist with a PhD in geology and a proponent of the flat Earth theory. That would be just absurd.

However, things differ when it comes to the social sciences. There, researchers are working within several different paradigms, and only through debate and exposure to different viewpoints, can you get a deeper understanding of how things work. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to censor what Steven Pinker calls “dangerous ideas”. These are not hateful ideologies, but instead inconvenient interpretations backed by evidence and defended by serious scientists. These are things like evolutionary psychology. Unfortunately, many social justice warriors are working hard to try to censor some of these “dangerous ideas”. The thing is, that if you want to make a better world, you need to understand how it really functions. You cannot shut down debate, because you don’t like what someone is saying. There are very real dangers and the consequences of this censorship are being felt.

In August 2017, Google fired James Damore, an engineer, after he wrote an internal memo questioning some of the things taught in the company’s diversity training. He stated that some of the disparities in employment between men and women can be attributed to biological differences. This of course set off a shitstorm, with some people arguing that he was right, while others arguing that he was wrong. David Brooks, journalist for the New York Times, summarized the debate as Damore championing scientific research, while his critics were championing gender equality. However, whether he was right or wrong about the science, a larger issue is at stake. He was fired for merely stating his opinion. This is a serious precedent, which could have serious implications for our rights of freedom of speech down the line. The seriousness of this cannot be understated, the loss of freedom often comes on the coattail of good intentions, and a slippery slope.

An example from the Late Roman Empire can illustrate how freedom of speech can be lost rather quickly with the advent of orthodoxy. In 313 AD, with the Edict of Milan, emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire, thereby putting it on the same level as the traditional Roman religion. However, at that time, Christianity had many different interpretations, with many bishops arguing with each other over the nature of the revelation.

One of the most prominent disputes was the one between Arius, a bishop of North African origins, and Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and thereby the leader of one of the most powerful Christian dioceses. The dispute was quite mind-boggling if you look at it with a pair of open-minded eyes. Arius argued that Jesus was the son of God and so came later, while Alexander and his followers argued for the Holy Trinity, with God and Jesus being simultaneous. Most people were like WTF and Constantine himself was puzzled over this and in a letter tried to reconcile the two sides by writing that it is just a matter of words.

However, it did not continue to be a matter of just words. In 325, the Council of Nicea established orthodoxy, the one correct interpretation of Christianity, and this was based on the Holy Trinity concept, not the ideas of Arius. His thoughts were censored and later banned. His followers ended up getting persecuted and later killed. With censorship and orthodoxy, a former matter of words turned deadly.

Censorship and orthodoxy went hand in hand with greater intolerance and violence. One person who became a victim of this is Hypatia, probably the greatest female philosopher of Antiquity. She was a pagan who taught Neo-Platonist philosophy, but was quite tolerant and had friends among both pagans and Christians. However the atmosphere in Alexandria, and all over the Mediterranean world, was growing more and more intolerant towards those who did not profess the one true Christian faith. In 415 AD, she was attacked by a Christian mob and killed. Within the next hundred years, the last vestiges of paganism and ancient philosophy would die as well, banned by the current holders of the “truth”.

The catering to people’s feelings, and censoring works that might offend someone, could lead to a world akin to Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. In that world, people developed short attention spans and started preferring mindless entertainment. A culture of offense developed and since almost every book had parts which could offend at least one group, the government decided to burn all books. Instead of putting out fires, firemen were tasked to start them.

In one of the most memorable scenes from Bradbury’s book, as he is leaving the house Captain Beatty, the fire chief of the main protagonist of the story – fireman Montag, casually mentions that if a fireman is caught with a book, he will be told to burn it within 24 hours. Otherwise, other firemen will come and burn his house down.

It is still not too late

If we don’t take the lessons of history to heart, our future will not be the peaceful and prosperous Federation of Planets of Star Trek, instead it will be the Galactic Empire of Star Wars. That is if our planet, and our species, survives at all.

Historian Andrew Lintott viewed the Social War as the point of no return. This is what started a chain of events from which the Republic could not recover. Luckily, we have still not hit this point of no return.

The problem is that there are now many people who are trying to blow up the system, without offering any alternatives. History teaches us that it is very easy to destroy working structures, but it is extremely hard to build them up. Once corrosion sets in, it is not easy to apply the brakes and hit the reset button.

Progress is possible. Our time is proof of that. A century ago, planes were a novelty. Now it is pretty common to hop on a plane and within a few hours be a continent away. A hundred years ago, in the United States, you still had people alive that had started off their lives as slaves. Now, there is equality: one person, one vote.

However, the story of Ancient Rome also shows us how fragile systems really are. The Roman Republic was a march of progress for 400 years since the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom. However, it took only around 100 years for that progress to be reversed and the system to collapse like a house of cards.

The Roman Empire then took over, but it too ended up crumbling. When Edward Gibbon described that era as the time in history when people were the happiest and most prosperous, he wasn’t kidding. Only in his time was the level of prosperity catching up to the level of the early Roman Empire. Once it crumbled, it took more than a millennium to get back to the same level.

Read More:
Here is my introduction for the year 2017, where I discuss such things as click-bait and go into the story of fake news:
What’s in store for you in 2017?

The article for 2019 is the second new year introduction piece I have done on this blog. I put a lot of effort into it and it is over 20 000 words long, almost like a book!

Update: Donald Trump has indirectly threatened to use violence against his political opponents, either through the police or military, or through vigilante groups like Bikers for Trump. This is quite dangerous.

Update: While on the far right, the alt-righters are getting quite dangerous, another group, the Christian fundamentalists are also getting more radical. Some have even said that a new civil war might happen over abortion rights. On this issue, some of the most radical ones are not willing to compromise, as they see abortion as something forbidden by God.

Update: The internet is now the biggest factor in how many people in the developed world live their lives. That’s why its freedom needs to be protected. However, in recent years we have seen numerous moves to censor it, not only in authoritarian countries, but in supposedly democratic countries as well. Through attempts to remove net neutrality and through the promotion of draconian copyright laws, the internet is slowly changing for the worse. If nothing is done, we could face censorship.

Update: While the discussion here focuses on the collapse of the Roman Republic and what types of parallels there are with the collapses of modern democracies such as the US, there are also wider societal implications. There is an interesting study done by NASA on societal collapse and which factors can bring it about: climate change, unsustainable resource exploitation, energy and water shortages, overpopulation, agricultural misuse/over-exploitation and of course already mentioned unequal wealth distribution.

Update: Another thing to keep in mind is the role of unforeseen events in history. These can dislodge the direction of societal development unto new, unpredictable paths. Out of many examples of this, one is the explosion of a volcano in Iceland in 1783 might have sparked profound changes in the world, including indirectly the French Revolution.

Update: Here is an interesting article about how over-sensitive false accusations can lead people to the alt-right.

Update: I was also wondering about what role underemployment, especially among college grads, but also high school grads, can play in the rise of populism. Statistics have shown that the underemployment problem had been quite high recently (article, article, article). While, to be fair, underemployment has fallen from its record highs in the past few years, but it still remains quite high.

I believe this is an important issue that needs to be discussed, so please: LIKE, COMMENT, and SHARE!

Images: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9,

However all is not lost. When you and your team are facing a tough opposition, you can apply lessons from the “Strategemata” of Frontinus, an Ancient Roman general and engineer.

One of these lessons can be taken from the acts of Fulvius Nobilior, a Roman general. When facing an enemy superior in numbers compared to his army, he did one trick in order to boost his men’s confidence:

“Fulvius Nobilior, deeming it necessary to fight with a small force against a large army of the Samnites who were flushed with success, pretended that one legion of the enemy had been bribed by him to turn traitor; and to strengthen belief in this story, he commanded the tribunes, the “first rank,” and the centurions to contribute all the ready money they had, or any gold and silver, in order that the price might be paid the traitors at once.

He promised that, when victory was achieved, he would give generous presents besides to those who contributed for this purpose. This assurance brought such ardor and confidence to the Romans that they straightway opened battle and won a glorious victory.”

There are many psychological principles at play here. One of these is fake it till you make it. Many of the cognitive biases work in a way as to boost your ego, or at least keep it from crashing.

This is because many battles are often won or lost in your mind. A person going into a battle believing he will lose, will most likely lose.

It’s not that you can willpower yourself to victory in every case, but having confidence in yourself does give you an extra boost, and in battle every little thing counts.

Often, people need some sort of a mental crutch in order for them to keep on plucking away at their goals. For many people, religion has served that role.

Faced with an absurdity of the world, many studies have proven that people who have a religious belief can often persevere in tough circumstances. This is not because some hidden deity is helping them, but because they believe that even if things seem to be turning out badly, there is always a golden exit at the end of the road.

Fulvius Nobilior realized that if he wanted his men pumped up for battle against a superior enemy, he needed to boost up the level of confidence of his men. He did this by using a little trick.

He made them believe that the other side is not as big and powerful as it seems. By stating that one part of the enemy will defect, Fulvius tricked his men into believing that the odds are not as bad for them as they initially seemed.

This worked in the same way that superstition works. The men started to believe that they have much more control over the situation that they are in, than they really do.

Another trick that Fulvius did was to make many of his men give up their money. Now they had something to lose. They had skin in the game if you will.

One mental trick that some people use in order to push themselves to achieve goals is for example promising that if they don’t achieve their goal, they will have to give up money to someone they hate.

When they start to falter, knowing that this will happen can give them an extra motivation to carry on towards their goal. In other circumstances they might give up.

So what to do when you are again facing overwhelming odds?

First, trick yourself and your team into believing that you have much more control over the situation than you do. Fake it till you make it. Give yourself a perceived mental advantage.

Secondly, put your skin in the game. Promise yourself that if you don’t achieve what you set out to achieve, you will force yourself to give up something valuable.

Thirdly and lastly, Fulvius realized that positive motivation can also have its effects. So besides tricking his men into believing that the odds are much better than perceived, and putting their skin in the game, he also promised great rewards if they win.

Read More:
This short lesson is structured a bit like Robert Greene’s “Laws of Power”. As stated in a previous article I wrote, I am starting off my own series on laws of power based on lessons from history.

You can read about the first lesson or law of power here:
Appear strong when you are weak.

A man can rise or fall just due to the virtues or faults of his character and it is often this that leaves a legacy. Marcus Aurelius is one of these men, who even after almost two thousand years is remembered for the strengths of his character and shown as a role model for conduct in times of difficulties.

Cassius Dio, Roman Senator and historian, who lived through the times of Marcus Aurelius, as well as those of his son, Commodus, had this to say about Marcus:

“He didn’t have the luck which he deserved, but was confronted throughout his reign by a multitude of disasters. That is why I admire him more than any other, for it was amidst these extraordinary and unparalleled difficulties that he was able to survive, and to save the Empire.”

Marcus Aurelius was not perfect, and he himself acknowledged it, but instead of falling prey to temptations, he struggled every day to reach perfection and lead the life of a philosopher. With the word “philosopher” we don’t mean someone who delivers hard to understand discourses on the meaning of life, but instead a man who tries to overcome his faults and live life according to reason, always striving to improve himself.

In order to do that, he kept a personal journal, where he noted down his thoughts and daily lessons. This journal was meant to be private, but did not remain so, and instead has been passed down to us as the “Meditations”. It is full of wisdom, which can be applied to your own life.

What types of things can you learn from the way Marcus conducted himself in daily life and which traits should you adopt? The first Book of the “Meditations” describes well the things that he learned from others.

Marcus Aurelius, just like anyone, was a man who learned from others. It was the people around him who shaped him.

You too were most likely shaped by those closest to you. I was lucky to have a good family, and wrote an article on what I learned from my grandfathers.

This is the first thing that you can take away: be thankful for what you have.

“To the gods I am indebted for having good grandfathers, good parents, a good sister, good teachers, good associates, good kinsmen and friends, nearly everything good.”

Marcus was always thanking his good fortunes. Many people are not so lucky, but even in the worst of times, they can find things to be thankful for.

More than 250 years after the times of Marcus Aurelius, when the Roman Empire in the West had fallen, Boethius, one of the last true Romans of Antiquity, was sitting in jail having an imaginary discussion with himself. He was condemned to die, but realized that even in such a dire situation, he can find positive things. One of these was that his family was OK.

Once you adopt this wider perspective on your situation, going about adopting other positive traits will be made much easier.

So which were the traits that Marcus Aurelius adopted?

Good morals and not raising your temper:

“From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals and the government of my temper.”

Modesty and being manly:

“My father: modesty and a manly character.”

Not doing evil deeds or having evil thoughts and living a simple life:

“From my mother, piety and beneficence, and abstinence, not only from evil deeds, but even from evil thoughts; and further, simplicity in my way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich.”

You need to spend on a good education (education is important):

“From my great-grandfather, not to have frequented public schools, and to have had good teachers at home, and to know that on such things a man should spend liberally.”

Work hard, don’t be afraid to get dirty, and don’t meddle with other people:

“From my governor, from him too I learned endurance of labor, and to want little, and to work with my own hands, and not to meddle with other people’s affairs, and not to be ready to listen to slander.”

Work on improving yourself and having self-discipline:

“From Rusticus I received the impression that my character required improvement and discipline.”

Read books carefully in order to understand them:

“And to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book; nor hastily to give my assent to those who talk overmuch; and I am indebted to him for being acquainted with the discourses of Epictetus, which he communicated to me out of his own collection.”

Have a purpose and pursue it, but also be humble:

“From Apollonius I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason; and to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the loss of a child, and in long illness.

And to see clearly in a living example that the same man can be both most resolute and yielding, and not peevish in giving his instruction; and to have had before my eyes a man who clearly considered his experience and his skill in expounding philosophical principles as the smallest of his merits; and from him I learned how to receive from friends what are esteemed favors, without being either humbled by them or letting them pass unnoticed.“

Have self-control, benevolent disposition, be family oriented, and tolerate ignorant people:

“From Sextus, a benevolent disposition, and the example of a family governed in a fatherly manner, and the idea of living conformably to nature; and gravity without affectation, and to look carefully after the interests of friends, and to tolerate ignorant persons, and those who form opinions without consideration: he had the power of readily accommodating himself to all, so that intercourse with him was more agreeable than any flattery.

And at the same time he was most highly venerated by those who associated with him: and he had the faculty both of discovering and ordering, in an intelligent and methodical way, the principles necessary for life; and he never showed anger or any other passion, but was entirely free from passion, and also most affectionate; and he could express approbation without noisy display, and he possessed much knowledge without ostentation.“

Love justice, respect everyone, and have a disposition to do good:

“From my brother Severus, to love my kin, and to love truth, and to love justice; and through him I learned to know Thrasea, Helvidius, Cato, Dion, Brutus; and from him I received the idea of a polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed.

I learned from him also consistency and undeviating steadiness in my regard for philosophy; and a disposition to do good, and to give to others readily, and to cherish good hopes, and to believe that I am loved by my friends; and in him I observed no concealment of his opinions with respect to those whom he condemned, and that his friends had no need to conjecture what he wished or did not wish, but it was quite plain.“

Practice self-discipline and self-government, and always have a positive mindset:

“From Maximus I learned self-government, and not to be led aside by anything; and cheerfulness in all circumstances, as well as in illness; and a just admixture in the moral character of sweetness and dignity, and to do what was set before me without complaining. I observed that everybody believed that he thought as he spoke, and that in all that he did he never had any bad intention; and he never showed amazement and surprise, and was never in a hurry, and never put off doing a thing, nor was perplexed nor dejected, nor did he ever laugh to disguise his vexation, nor, on the other hand, was he ever passionate or suspicious.

He was accustomed to do acts of beneficence, and was ready to forgive, and was free from all falsehood; and he presented the appearance of a man who could not be diverted from right rather than of a man who had been improved. I observed, too, that no man could ever think that he was despised by Maximus, or ever venture to think himself a better man. He had also the art of being humorous in an agreeable way.“

Have a mild temper, but also be resolute and have perseverance:

“In my father I observed mildness of temper, and unchangeable resolution in the things which he had determined after due deliberation; and no vainglory in those things which men call honors; and a love of labor and perseverance; and a readiness to listen to those who had anything to propose for the common weal; and undeviating firmness in giving to every man according to his deserts; and a knowledge derived from experience of the occasions for vigorous action and for remission.”

The Building Blocks of Character

There are several themes that I caught coming out of those quotes. Out of these themes I managed to create the main building blocks for the character of Marcus Aurelius. Many of them are linked to the four Cardinal Virtues:

1) Prudence: wisdom and the ability to be driven by reason when acting. This is probably one of the most important virtues, as all the other ones are regulated by it.

2) Fortitude: courage and the strength to endure.

3) Temperance: restraint and self-control.

4) Justice: fairness.

Back in Antiquity, these four Cardinal Virtues were considered the most important parts of any moral character. Any man who was to be looked up to, should check the boxes for all four. They also form the basis of all the other building blocks for character that the Ancients, including Marcus Aurelius, possessed.

Strength to endure:

With everything that was happening around him, the primary attribute of Marcus was that he was always striving to endure whatever obstacles came his way. This was in fact the primary goal of all Stoics: persevere through all the challenges that are in your path.

You can never have complete control over things that happen to you, but you can always control what you think about them. It is the frame that you adopt towards the world that will control how you perceive it.

Good Morals:

Another important part of character for Marcus Aurelius was having good morals and to always doing good things for the right reasons. He was a man who loved justice and learned not to do evil deeds or even have evil thoughts.

This also meant having a benevolent disposition towards others, respecting everyone, including tolerating people who were causing him misery. He tried focusing on himself and not meddling with other people. This helped him to have a mild temper and not to raise it (which always helps with keeping your stress levels down in bad situations).

Modesty:

What comes out of the writings of Marcus, is the modesty of the man. Even though he was the Emperor of one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, he tried living a simple life and being humble.

Having a purpose and being driven:

You need to have a purpose and pursue it. You need to be resolute in this and have perseverance when obstacles impede your path. Without a purpose, you will just be drifting through life aimlessly.

This type of drive and sense of purpose was very important for Marcus in his everyday duties. As the Emperor, he had very crucial duties that he needed to carry out. As a man, he also needed to keep himself grounded in order to be able to carry out these duties to the best of his abilities.

Self-discipline and willingness to work hard:

Achieving your goals means having self-discipline and be willing to work hard. You need to have self-control and also not be afraid to get dirty once in a while.

Drive for self-improvement:

The journal that Marcus kept and that later became known as the “Meditations” was part of another important aspect of his life: the drive for self-improvement.

In the journal, he kept daily notes and lessons, which then helped him to improve in his day to day conduct.

One of the things that Marcus noted is that education is important and you need to spend on getting a good education. This should be your priority, not only in terms of money, but also time.

One very important thing that Marcus learned was to read books carefully in order to understand them. This is key in order to get valuable lessons out of them.

This type of focus on education and knowledge helped him to live according to nature and being able to apply reason in his conduct.

Courage:

One definition of courage could be being afraid, but doing it anyways. From the writings of Marcus, you can see that he was not always sure of himself, but that did not stop him from acting.

Tough times had befallen him and he had to spend much of his Emperorship out in the field, fighting. Other Emperors would delegate these tasks to their Generals, but not Marcus. For him, it was his duty and he had to be there.

He had to face the dangers and overcome them. Courage to go forth and tackle the unknown is one of the defining parts of his character. He needed to meet challenges head on and not be shaken by them.

Courage was actually one of the most important character traits for a Roman. This stems from the original meaning of the word virtue. This word in fact comes from the Latin word “virtus”, which in its original sense meant being manly.

This meant having courage, and a certain martial drive. This “virtus” was also very important for his goal of living according to nature.

These building blocks can also be reused by you in order to build a strong and positive character for yourself. Just like Marcus Aurelius embarked on his own personal hero’s journey, anyone can do the same.

Philosophy in the ancient world was not something abstract, but instead had practical applications and was meant to show people how to live. Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics left some tools to help you implement their system in your everyday life. You can train to become a philosopher just like Marcus.

One exercise that the Ancient Stoics used to do is called the Contemplation of the Sage. Here you would pick a person you admire, a role model of yours, and start thinking about what they would do in a certain situation. A great role model to adopt for this is Marcus Aurelius himself. Whenever faced with a difficult situation ask yourself this question:

What would Marcus Aurelius do?

In the next article, I will cover some tools and practical exercises that you can use to gain the same strengths of character that Marcus had, as well as ways to simplify your life.

Read More:
Lessons and quotes from the “Meditations” of Marcus Aurelius:
Marcus Aurelius: How to gather the strength to survive in adversity.

Read Even More:

Boethius – The Consolation of Philosophy and how a man about to die found happiness.

Epictetus – The wisdom of a Stoic master and the secrets to living a good life revealed.

Diogenes of Oinoanda – The secret to happiness and living a life of pleasure.

Marcus Aurelius was the man of reference and role model for character for many Renaissance Men of the past centuries. If you want to be like them, you need to start crafting a vision for yourself. Find out how to do it:
How to craft a Vision for yourself.

One of two things needs to happen in order for philosopher kings to rule:

“Philosophers must become kings, or those now called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophize.“

Unfortunately, most people in power are far from wise and often become less wise the longer they are in power.

However, in history, one man stands out as the archetype of a philosopher king. One man truly reflects the image of a wise ruler. That man is Marcus Aurelius.

Marcus Aurelius was the last of the so-called Five Good Emperors: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. The other four Emperors who preceded him are remembered as the most able administrators and generals that the Empire had ever known and for ruling wisely and justly.

They left a legacy of “Pax Romana”, an era of peace and prosperity that had hardly been rivaled until modern times.

Marcus Aurelius ruled at a time when the Roman Empire was at the peak of its power, although during his time, you could see the first chinks in the imperial armor begin to develop.

Germanic tribes were starting to stir up trouble north of the border and Marcus Aurelius spent a large portion of his life on campaign across the Limes Romanus.

On one bleak day in his camp located on a river which is now called Hron in today’s Slovakia, he started to keep a personal journal in order to reflect on things and to keep himself rooted. This journal later became what we know as the “Meditations”, a series of thoughts and wise sayings collected into 12 books (or chapters).

These were supposed to be only personal lessons and reflections and were not meant to be shared with the outside world, but soon thereafter ended up being published anyways and distributed far and wide.

Their influence was immense, since many of these sayings and thoughts had very practical applications for anyone, irrespective of their social standing or situation in life.

The power of this work stems from the fact that Marcus Aurelius was a man with tremendous responsibilities and power, yet he managed to keep sane and humble amid all the surrounding chaos.

Most people will never get to be in the same position as him, but can find themselves in very similar situations. “Meditations” give solutions to common everyday problems, and can help you gain a wider perspective on things, as well as to develop mental strength and resilience.

They are based on Stoic teachings, but incorporate a wide variety of other influences as well. One source of inspiration for Marcus Aurelius was Epictetus, who we have already visited in a previous article. The fact that an Emperor drew on the wisdom of a former slave just further demonstrates the fact that these teachings can be taken by anyone and applied in any walk of life.

There are some very powerful lessons to be learned and used:

1) Human nature is the way it is. You need to learn to live with it.

One passage that immediately struck me when reading it, was this:

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil.”

Another translation of the same passage reads:

“Begin the morning by saying to yourself: I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil.”

It is amazing how this passage (irrespective of the way it is translated) reflects one of the most common problems that people face in their lives even today.

There will always be people who will try to bring you down. You might be the nicest, most unselfish, most helpful person ever, but there will still be people who will hate you or try to cause you harm.

“No man can rob us of our free will.”

There are bad people everywhere. This is a fact of life. You should remind yourself of this, but don’t let it bother you.

The reason why this is so, is due to the basics of human nature. People are inherently selfish and this is due to inner drives.

Humans, just like any living being, are driven to survive and this means having access to resources in order to be able to do that. This implies behaviors which maximize their own chances.

One of these primal behaviors is status seeking, since being higher in status means having better access to key resources.

These people who are trying to trip you up might see you as a threat to their own ambitions and power.

The entire structure of the brain evolved for you to live through another day, and all the processes that go on inside the human mind are geared for supporting this goal. This survival drive is also probably the reason why status-seeking cognitive biases (as I describe them in my Cognitive Biases Framework) developed and continue to be part of how people behave.

Even if people know they are behaving badly, they often try to rationalize what they do.

“With what are you discontented? Is it with the badness of men? Recall to your mind this conclusion, that rational animals exist for one another, and that to endure is a part of justice, and that men do wrong involuntarily.“

In Book 4, Marcus explores this further. He notes the social nature of people (as well as other animals), and that many of the things that people do are deeply ingrained in the psyche.

I explored this in a bit more detail in the article on my cognitive biases framework, where I have created the categories of ego-based biases, as well as social-animal based biases.

One first principle on which I based my framework is that humans are primarily social animals and the brain developed some internal patterns in order to promote this.

Cognitive biases evolved to be because in many ways they boosted an individual’s chances of survival, and hence are usually involuntary. As Marcus noted, oftentimes men do wrong due to internal processes in their brains and are not really conscious of doing wrong. This is exactly how cognitive biases work.

Another factor that drives a person’s behavior is the internal principles that they have.

In Book 4, Marcus gives this advice:

“Examine men’s ruling principles, even those of the wise, what kind of things they avoid, and what kind they pursue.“

In Book 9, he gives similar advice:

“Penetrate inwards into men’s leading principles, and you will see what judges you are afraid of, and what kind of judges they are of themselves.“

This is very helpful and useful when dealing with other people. Look at people’s principles and you will see what type of a person they are.

When you develop the skill of being able to judge a person’s driving principles, you will be in a better position to be aware of people who are potential threats to you and also to be able to develop a strategy of what to do when they try to bring you down.

“In one respect man is the nearest thing to me, so far as I must do good to men and endure them. But so far as some men make themselves obstacles to my proper acts, man becomes to me one of the things which are indifferent, no less than the sun or wind or a wild beast.

Now it is true that these may impede my action, but they are no impediments to my affects and disposition, which have the power of acting conditionally and changing: for the mind converts and changes every hindrance to its activity into an aid; and so that which is a hindrance is made a furtherance to an act; and that which is an obstacle on the road helps us on this road.“

This passage illustrates Marcus’ thinking on what to do about people who try to bring you down. The first thing was not to give a fuck. Of course, Marcus put it much more eloquently, but essentially, this is what it boils down to.

This is also a good strategy for overcoming obstacles of any kind. You can always spin negative things into something positive. For example you can look at failures as learning opportunities, and this way failures will no longer be obstacles on your road, but instead help you to get to wherever you want to go.

The second part of that above quote is very interesting in terms of what to do when an obstacle comes your way. The translation of this passage by Pierre Hadot in his book “The Inner Citadel” makes this much more clear:

“People can perfectly well prevent me from carrying out such and such an action. Thanks, however, to action “with a reserve clause” and to “turning obstacles upside down,” there can be no obstacle to my intention, nor to my disposition. For my thought can “turn upside down” everything that presents an obstacle to my action, and transform the obstacle into an object toward which my impulse to act ought preferably to tend. That which impeded action thus becomes profitable to action, and that which blocked the road allows me to advance along the road.“

This essentially means turning an obstacle into an opportunity. Learning opportunities are one kind of opportunity, but there are other kinds of opportunities that can arise.

One example is the story of Catulus (which I wrote about in my article on Ancient Roman humor tips) and how he used a vicious verbal attack on himself and instead turned it around to show off his cool and wit. The attacker wanted to make fun of him, but Catulus not only used this as an opportunity to defend himself, but also to make the guy look like a fool.

Marcus further expounds on this in a passage in Book 8:

“But there are some active powers and external obstacles that will hinder me.- Well, but by accepting the hindrance and by being content to transfer your efforts to that which is allowed, another opportunity of action is immediately put before you in place of that which was hindered. Another opportunity will present itself.“

Think of a negative situation that you had experienced in your life? How could you have turned it around and made it into something positive?

Ryan Holiday who wrote the book “The Obstacle is the Way”, which deals with how Stoicism can be applied life, used this quote as the basis for the title of his book. His translation (influenced by a Buddhist saying) is this:

“The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.“

This type of thinking is the key to antifragility, the concept described by Nassim Taleb in his book “Antifragile”. An antifragile thing is something that not only isn’t shaken up by challenges and problems, but actually becomes stronger when they do come up.

Keeping a journal (like Marcus did) and practicing your potential responses to any situation that might arise in the future can be a good way to prepare yourself for when something bad does come your way.

This is the advice that Epictetus gave:

“We do have Epictetus’ advice to write down (as well as to rehearse) daily the sorts of responses one ought to have to situations one encounters, so that one might have them ready at hand (procheiron) when circumstances demand.“

This can be done for various things such as business or your personal life. One technique is called negative visualization.

One way to use it in business is by doing a pre-mortem. Basically, before you start a project, you should imagine what can go wrong. Based on this, you can come up with mitigation strategies.

As Seneca wrote, you always need to keep in mind that things can go wrong:

“Nothing happens to the wise man against his expectation. Nor do all things turn out for him as he wished but as he reckoned—and above all he reckoned that something could block his plans.“

This also applies to personal life. A lot of times, you might encounter situations when bad people put you down. Many of these situations are quite predictable, so you should sit and note down your potential comebacks.

As I wrote in my series on humor and being funny, many of the guys in history who are remembered as quick wits with snappy comebacks like Winston Churchill or Oscar Wilde, actually spent a lot of time memorizing jokes and then practicing the situations when they would use them. So then they were prepared when they needed to be.

However, the most important thing in order to overcome the logs that other people throw under your feet is to always have the right mindset. Your frame will determine how you react to the actions of others. Right after the passage on most humans being ungrateful, deceitful, arrogant pricks, Marcus gives advice on how to act when people want to be jerks to you or to boss you around. You just need to imagine the following scenario:

“You are an old man; no longer let yourself be a slave, no longer be pulled by the strings like a puppet to unsocial movements, no longer either be dissatisfied with your present lot, or shrink away from the future.“

People will try to tell you what to do, some of them might even go about it in nasty ways. However, if you realize that you are the boss of your own impulses, then you won’t let them steer you to react to the actions of other people. You are not a puppet on strings to be made to jump around as other people see fit.

A great summary of how you should go about your life can be found in Book 10:

“If you can see clearly the road ahead, go by this way cheerfully, without turning back. However, if you do not see clearly, stop and take the best advice you can get. But if any other things oppose you, go on ahead according to your powers with due consideration, keeping to that which appears to be just.

For it is best to reach this object, and if you do fail, let your failure be in attempting this. He who follows reason in all things is both tranquil and active at the same time, and also cheerful and collected.“

2) You should act according to nature.

One core tenet of Stoic philosophy and one which Marcus Aurelius repeats consistently is the mantra to live according to nature.

“Observe what your nature requires, so far as you are governed by nature only: then do it and accept it, if your nature, since you are a living being, shall not be made worse by it.“

As a human, you are governed by your nature and you should live in accordance to it.

However what does this mean? For the Stoics, the word “nature” is how things are and how they develop in the world. There is a natural flow to things and this is why the world is as it is.

One part of nature is human nature and the general tendencies of humans to act in certain ways. There are some innate drives that humans have that shape their behavior. The Stoics understood this and it influenced their ideas on how a person should behave in life.

The Ancient Stoics studied physics and formed elaborate theories on how things function. For example, they believed that there are two elements that make up everything in the world: a passive element and an active element.

It is the active elements that act upon the passive elements and shape them. The Stoics believed that air and fire were active elements, while water and earth were passive ones.

However, I think we can turn to modern science to get a clearer explanation of what living according to nature means. Evolution is what shapes the way living things look like and how they behave. The two main goals of every individual is to survive and reproduce.

This is where the inner drives come from. These inner drives are controlled by internal chemical processes deep inside the brain and body.

Different types of processes give rise to emotions, which are one of the primary controllers of human behavior and hence human nature.

However, nature has given humans another very powerful tool, and that is the ability to reason.

This ability to reason was the most important part of “living according to nature” for the Stoics.

“Do you have reason? I have. Why then do you not use it? For if this does its own work, what else should you wish for?“

If you go back to the discussion on cognitive biases and the work of Daniel Kahneman, a researcher in behavioral psychology and a holder of the Nobel Prize in Economics, you will see that humans engage in two types of thinking: what Kahneman calls System 1 and System 2.

System 1 is the fast intuitive type of thinking based on emotions. It is fast, but can often lead to failures (cognitive biases for example). System 2 is the slow deliberative type of thinking: rational thinking.

Marcus Aurelius gave some advice on how to correct the errors and cognitive biases arising from System 1 thinking and to be more rational:

“There are four principal aberrations of the superior faculty against which you should be constantly on your guard, and when you have detected them, you should wipe them out and say on each occasion thus: this thought is not necessary: this tends to destroy social union: this which you are going to say comes not from the real thoughts; for you should consider it among the most absurd of things for a man not to speak from his real thoughts. But the fourth is when you will not reproach yourself for anything, for this is an evidence of the diviner part within you being overpowered and yielding to the less honorable and to the perishable part, the body, and to its gross pleasures.“

According to Marcus, there are four principles of superior faculty. Some of these are linked to lessening the influence of cognitive biases and false thinking on your actions. There are some modern tools which you can use and which can help you with this. For example, you can use Kahneman’s Cognitive Biases Checklist.

There is a group of cognitive biases that work by clouding your ego. One of these is the backfire effect, where a person who is faced with overwhelming evidence that contradicts his worldview, instead of changing his mind after a barrage of facts, ends up believing his own BS even more.

Keeping an open mind and being able to change your opinion after new facts come to light is something you should be able do if you want to be ruled by reason and not emotion.

“A man should always have these two rules in readiness: the one, to do only whatever the reason of the ruling and legislating faculty may suggest for the use of men; the other, to change your opinion, if there is anyone at hand who sets you right and moves you from any opinion. But this change of opinion must proceed only from a certain persuasion, as of what is just or of common advantage, and the like, not because it appears pleasant or brings reputation.“

These are all great general principles to apply, however sometimes you will be faced with particular moments, when strong emotions will overwhelm you. This can happen during heated arguments, when feelings of anger and frustration can take over your rational self.

There are some techniques that you can do to calm yourself down and to get your rational mind to take over from your emotional mind. One of them is distancing.

I discovered the calming effect of physical distancing, when I got into heated arguments with my parents. I would get emotionally overwhelmed and storm out of the room. As soon as I left the room, the strong emotions would die down and I would turn calm.

Besides physical distancing, a technique that can have the same effect is mental distancing. There is a technique that Donald Robertson found while reading Plutarch’s “Moralia” and shared in one of his blog posts.

The Emperor Augustus also had a Stoic philosopher, Athenodorus Cananites, as one of his tutors. You can imagine that as an Emperor he was often faced with situations where he would get angry with certain people.

In order to calm down, Athenodorus told him to repeat the letters of the alphabet to himself.

“Whenever you get angry, Caesar, do not say or do anything before repeating to yourself the twenty-four letters of the alphabet.“

In this way, he mentally distances himself from the present situation and calms down. This then allows him to proceed in a rational matter.

You will often be faced with situations where you won’t be able to keep your emotions bottled up. Having a couple of distancing techniques in your arsenal can help you to overcome this and give control back to your rational mind and reason.

For the Stoics, living according to reason was fundamental. This is the system that they strived to adopt for their lives.

“And next you must observe what your nature requires so far as you are a living being. And all this you may allow yourself, if your nature, so far as you are a rational animal, shall not be made worse by it. But the rational animal is consequently also a political (social) animal. Use these rules, then, and trouble yourself about nothing else.“

Humans by nature are social animals, but they are also rational animals. To live according to nature, you need to observe what nature requires of you (such as satisfying your basic needs), and use your brain when doing things.

Seneca, in one of his “Letters to Lucilius”, goes more into how living according to nature looks like:

“Our motto, as you know, is “Live according to Nature”; but it is quite contrary to nature to torture the body, to hate unlabored elegance, to be dirty on purpose, to eat food that is not only plain, but disgusting and forbidding.“

Living according to nature means living a simple life, but not letting yourself go. You should still take care of your appearance, and try to improve your standing in life.

The key here is moderation in all things. For as Seneca stated:

“Natural desires are limited.”

In Book 11, Marcus Aurelius summarizes nicely what a rational soul is and how to live according to nature:

“These are the properties of the rational soul: it sees itself, analyzes itself, and makes itself such as it chooses; the fruit which it bears itself enjoys- for the fruits of plants and that in animals which corresponds to fruits others enjoy- it obtains its own end, wherever the limit of life may be fixed. Not as in a dance and in a play and in such like things, where the whole action is incomplete, if anything cuts it short; but in every part and wherever it may be stopped, it makes what has been set before it full and complete, so that it can say, I have what is my own.

And further it traverses the whole universe, and the surrounding vacuum, and surveys its form, and it extends itself into the infinity of time, and embraces and comprehends the periodical renovation of all things, and it comprehends that those who come after us will see nothing new, nor have those before us seen anything more, but in a manner he who is forty years old, if he has any understanding at all, has seen by virtue of the uniformity that prevails all things which have been and all that will be.

This too is a property of the rational soul, love of one’s neighbor, and truth and modesty, and to value nothing more than itself, which is also the property of Law. Thus then right reason differs not at all from the reason of justice.“

3) You should focus internally.

One of the main points of the quote is that a rational soul sees itself, analyzes itself and then based on this makes itself as it wants to be.

The idea here is that in order to become the person you want to be, you need to look inwards first.

“Look within. Let neither the peculiar quality of anything nor its value escape you.“

Focusing internally and looking into your own mind is the key to happiness. For as Marcus Aurelius states:

“Through not observing what is in the mind of another a man has seldom been seen to be unhappy; but those who do not observe the movements of their own minds must of necessity be unhappy.“

A lot of times people complain about others, without actually noticing their own faults. For as the classical Biblical saying goes:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?“

Marcus Aurelius has a very similar message:

“Nothing is more wretched than a man who traverses everything in a round, and pries into the things beneath the earth, as the poet says, and seeks by conjecture what is in the minds of his neighbors, without perceiving that it is sufficient to attend to the daemon within him, and to reverence it sincerely. And reverence of the daemon consists in keeping it pure from passion and thoughtlessness, and dissatisfaction with what comes from gods and men.“

Don’t pry into other people’s lives. Attend to your own. Fix your own problems before you go about trying to tell other people what to do.

This is very similar to the classic Biblical saying of not judging other people, if you yourself don’t want to be judged. Also the Koran has a very similar saying:

“Most abominable in the sight of God is that you say what you do not do.“

This advice is not only good from a general societal point view, but also for your own internal mental health. When you don’t focus on how others act, you can also forget about what they think of you.

When you don’t concern yourself with what others think, and only focus on yourself, you can really bury many fears that you have.

“Do not waste the remainder of your life in thoughts about others, when you do not refer your thoughts to some object of common utility. For you lose the opportunity of doing something else when you have these types of thoughts: What is such a person doing, and why, and what is he saying, and what is he thinking of, and what is he contriving, and whatever else of the kind makes us wander away from the observation of our own ruling power.“

When you don’t care about what other people think of you or what you are doing, you gain a certain sense of freedom. You can do things that you want to do.

So how should you act towards people who hate you?

“Suppose any man shall despise me. Let him look to that himself. But I will look to this, that I be not discovered doing or saying anything deserving of contempt. Shall any man hate me? Let him look to it. But I will be mild and benevolent towards every man, and ready to show even him his mistake, not reproachfully, nor yet as making a display of my endurance, but nobly and honestly, like the great Phocion, unless indeed he only assumed it.

For the interior parts ought to be such, and a man ought to be seen by the gods neither dissatisfied with anything nor complaining. For what evil is it to you, if you are now doing what is agreeable to your own nature, and are satisfied with that which at this moment is suitable to the nature of the universe, since you are a human being placed at your post in order that what is for the common advantage may be done in some way?“

Marcus always preached that you should be good with people, even those that hate you. This is made much easier if you have internal, intrinsic motivation for doing things. If you are doing things that you like and you are satisfied with them, why should you care if others hate you?

Modern research has vindicated the ancient Stoic focus on being intrinsically motivated:

“The dedicated and courageous pursuit of one’s interests optimizes personality development by incrementally exposing one to new ideas and challenges, thereby preventing ideological rigidity and fostering learning, growth, and meaning in life. Indeed, various scholars have proposed that intrinsically motivated self-examination plays a key role in the development of the highest human virtues, including wisdom.“

Intrinsic motivation is the key to being persistent and also finishing tasks which are hard. You should be your own judge of the value of what you do and create. Don’t let others be the ones who determine that.

“I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others. If then a god or a wise teacher should present himself to a man and bid him to think of nothing and to design nothing which he would not express as soon as he conceived it, he could not endure it even for a single day. So much more respect have we to what our neighbors shall think of us than to what we shall think of ourselves.“

However this is a very common problem. People often stress much more about what others think. Why do they put so much stock in what others think of them?

Marcus wonders why this is so, since common human nature is to love yourself more than all others (which is pretty logical due to the drivers of evolution).

For Marcus Aurelius, it is not important what others think of you, but instead what is important is to be internally driven and to have intrinsic motivation for things.

In Book 4, he gives an example of this. A thing that is beautiful does not need external praise to be beautiful. The fact that something is praised or blamed does not change it.

“Everything which is in any way beautiful is beautiful in itself, and terminates in itself, not having praise as part of itself. Neither worse then nor better is a thing made by being praised. I affirm this also of the things which are called beautiful by the vulgar, for example, material things and works of art. That which is really beautiful has no need of anything; not more than law, not more than truth, not more than benevolence or modesty. Which of these things is beautiful because it is praised, or spoiled by being blamed? Is such a thing as an emerald made worse than it was, if it is not praised?“

In the article on NLP meta-programs, I wrote about different personality types. One of these meta-programs is having an internal or external reference. Some people have an internal frame of reference, while others an external one. To quote my own article:

“Are you a person who knows by themselves when they did a good job or a bad job and doesn’t need others to tell them? Or are you a person who needs and seeks external validation? This is the basic premise of this schema, which basically describes how you evaluate yourself and different situations.“

Of course no one is 100% in one camp or the other, but instead it is like a continuum and can vary from situation to situation. Luckily, like with any meta-program, your frame of reference can be changed. You can start working on having an internal frame of reference, instead of an external one.

Marcus also gives a case for focusing on knowledge and trying to understand how the world works as something that can give perspective. Once you have this perspective, you can much easily find the intrinsic value in things.

“He who loves fame considers another man’s activity to be his own good; and he who loves pleasure, his own sensations; but he who has understanding, considers his own acts to be his own good.“

This passage can also be translated this way:

“The happiness of those who want to be popular depends on others. The happiness of those who seek pleasure fluctuates with moods outside their control. But the happiness of the wise grows out of their own free acts.“

When you focus on understanding, instead of on things like fame, you can really start knowing what drives and motivates you and do things that give you internal satisfaction. This is the key for intrinsic motivation. So instead of looking at other people and outward things, consider only your own acts.

External things like fame should play no role in determining what you do and how you do it.

“How can our principles become dead, unless the impressions (thoughts) which correspond to them are extinguished? But it is in your power continuously to fan these thoughts into a flame. I can have that opinion about anything, which I ought to have. If I can, why am I disturbed? The things which are external to my mind have no relation at all to my mind. Let this be the state of you affects, and you will stand erect. To recover your life is in your power. Look at things again as you used to look at them; for in this consists the recovery of your life.“

Things that are external to your mind should have no relation to it at all. They can be a byproduct of what you do (and that is great), but they should not be the focus of what you do.

This will be much easier to do when you understand a basic Stoic mantra: there are things that you can control, and those that you cannot.

To quote Epictetus:

“Of all existing things some are in our power, and others are not in our power.“

You should focus on the things that you can control and forget about the rest. Things like fame are outside your control and so your life should not be about gaining them. You need to find a focus which you can control.

One thing that you can control to a large extent is your opinion on things. Oftentimes some unfortunate events happen to pass. You cannot really affect that. What you can affect is how you think about these events.

“The universe is transformation: life is opinion.“

Just like the basis of the universe is that it is in a constant state of flux, the basis of life is opinion. How you may ask?

Well, perception plays a great role in how you act. This is one of the cognitive biases (framing effect). If you see the glass as half full, or as half empty, that will determine how you act.

If you are a pessimist and see the glass as half empty, you may not act. If you are an optimist and see the glass as half full, then you may act. However the basic fact of the matter did not change: the glass itself was filled with the same amount of liquid in each case. It was just your perception of the amount that differed.

Marcus Aurelius has several quotes on this:

“Remember that all is opinion. There is obvious truth to the Cynic Monimus’ statement that ‘all is opinion’; and obvious, too, is the usefulness of this statement if a man profits from it insofar as it is true.“

Monimus was an Ancient Greek philosopher (of the Cynic school) coming from Syracuse in Sicily. He denied that there is an objective truth and instead promoted scepticism. Marcus Aurelius obviously took inspiration from his work and applied this tenet to his guiding principles: All things are a matter of perception.

“Consider that everything is opinion, and opinion is in your power. Take away then, when you choose, your opinion, and like a mariner, who has doubled the promontory, you will find calm, everything stable, and a waveless bay.“

So how you think about things is very important and affects how you act. Change your opinion and change the way you act.

“Today I have got out of all trouble, or rather I have cast out all trouble, for it was not outside, but within and in my opinions.“

Much of your troubles come from your own perception of things.

How should you act when disturbed? Aulus Gellius in his commonplace journal “Attic Nights” describes what a real Stoic philosopher would do when faced with a scary situation. He describes a scary journey on a ship, where all the passengers turn pale, except for the Stoic. The others ask him how come? He responds by saying that yes he does get scared initially, but then he uses his mind to overcome that emotion.

“When some terrifying sound occurs, either from the sky or from the collapse of a building or as the sudden herald of some danger, even the wise person’s mind necessarily responds, and is contracted and grows pale for a little while, not because he opines that something evil is at hand, but by certain rapid and unplanned movements antecedent to the office of intellect and reason. Shortly, however, the wise person in that situation ‘withholds assent’ from those terrifying mental impressions; he spurns and rejects them and does not think that there is anything in them which he should fear.“

Marcus also gives some pointers:

“When you have been compelled by circumstances to be disturbed in a manner, quickly return to yourself and do not continue out of tune longer than the compulsion lasts; for you will have more mastery over the harmony by continually recurring to it.“

It is not external things that bother you, but your perception of them:

“If you are pained by any external thing, it is not this thing that disturbs you, but your own judgement about it. And it is in your power to wipe out this judgement now. But if anything in your own disposition gives you pain, who hinders you from correcting your opinion?

And even if you are pained because you are not doing some particular thing which seems to you to be right, why don’t you not rather act than complain? But some insuperable obstacle is in the way?- Do not be grieved then, for the cause of its not being done depends not on you.

But it is not worthwhile to live if this cannot be done. Take your departure then from life contentedly, just as he dies who is in full activity, and well pleased too with the things which are obstacles.“

It is up to you to choose how to look at things:

“It is in our power to have no opinion about a thing, and not to be disturbed in our soul; for things themselves have no natural power to form our judgements.“

Looking internally is at the basis of life in a Stoic way. You need to master your inner discource, if you really want to succeed. The Stoics really promoted affirmations and self-talk as the basis of a positive mindset.

Pierre Hadot in his work on Marcus Aurelius “The Inner Citadel” summarizes this aspect of Stoic life:

“The Stoic philosophical life consists essentially in mastering one’s inner discourse. Everything in an individual’s life depends on how he represents things to himself – in other words, how he tells them to himself in inner dialogue.“

Based on mastering this inner discourse, you can form an “inner citadel”, a fortress of the mind against the bad things present in the outside world:

“Remember that the ruling faculty is invincible, when self-collected it is satisfied with itself, if it does nothing which it does not choose to do, even if its resistance is unreasonable. What then will it be when it forms a judgement deliberately about anything and aided by reason? Therefore the mind which is free from passions is a citadel, for man has nothing more secure to which he can fly for. If you take refuge within it, you will then be in an impregnable position for the future.“

4) Have a purpose.

Focusing internally and having intrinsic motivation can help you find something which can drive your existence: your purpose.

“Do the external things that fall upon you distract you? Give yourself time to learn something new and good, and cease to be whirled around. But then you must also avoid being carried about the other way. For those too are triflers who have wearied themselves in life by their activity, and yet have no object to which to direct every movement, and, in a word, all their thoughts.“

A lot of people just do things without giving thought to why they are doing them. They do a little bit of this, a little bit of that, but without any purpose.

They are about doing “things”, going to “events”, or being “seen”. What is the reason for doing these things? What is the purpose?

Most people have no idea.

Don’t get distracted by external factors, but instead you should think of what is your purpose. What type of a message do you want to be passed about you? What goals should drive you?

“First, do nothing inconsiderately, nor without a purpose. Second, make your acts refer to nothing else than to a social end.“

Don’t do anything without a purpose. The thing about purpose is that you can also have several different purposes. Some people might have one grand purpose in life, such as helping sick kids in Africa and they dedicate their lives to just that one purpose.

However most likely, people have several purposes. These can be linked to the fact that in life each individual can play different roles: son, parent, employee, sports team member, adventurer, and all kinds of other things. Each role gives you a different purpose.

Brian Johnson wrote a book on this called “The Role Ethics of Epictetus” where he looks at the views of Epictetus on this subject. For Epictetus, in order to discover your purpose in life, you need to first define your roles. Once you know your roles, you also know how to act.

Of course there can also be even lower level purposes for individual actions. These can be based on particular circumstances that you might find yourself in.

For example you have a leaky roof on your house. You need to fix it. In order to do that you need to perform some actions. The purpose here is not some grand purpose having to do with the meaning of your life, but instead it is one very limited purpose of fixing your leaky roof.

No matter whether we are discussing your one grand purpose in life, your actions based on your roles, or those based on your circumstances, there is one big lesson to remember: A purpose should be linked to an action, and an action should be linked to a purpose.

“Let no act be done without a purpose, nor otherwise than according to the perfect principles of art.“

Humans are always longing for something bigger than themselves. They need a drive and having a higher level purpose can create that drive. However, how do you discover your grand purpose?

“He who does not know what the world is, does not know where he is. And he who does not know for what purpose the world exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is. But he who has failed in any one of these things could not even say for what purpose he exists himself. What then do you think of him who avoids or seeks the praise of those who applaud, of men who know not either where they are or who they are?“

Marcus Aurelius said that you should first start by looking at the big picture and then moving on down. Contemplate the universe and learn about how things work. So the first thing is to try to gain as much knowledge as you can.

When you have acquired a wide variety of knowledge about the world around you, you can find your place in it. This will help you find your purpose.

5) Act now.

Once you have this purpose, you need to take action.

“Remember how long you have been putting off these things, and how often you had received an opportunity from the gods, and yet did not use it. You must now at last perceive of what universe you are a part, and of what administrator of the universe your existence is an efflux, and that a limit of time is fixed for you, which if you do not use for clearing away the clouds from you mind, it will go and you will go, and it will never return.“

Don’t put off doing things. Start doing them now. That’s a problem that many people have. They keep on putting things off and then never do them. If you want to do something, start doing it now. This is an important step.

Having a purpose and taking action were also the main messages of Seneca’s “On the shortness of life”. It is better to live a life where you strive for things and do things, instead of one where you just go through the motions.

Epictetus noted that some people spend a lot of time trying to absorb theory, but never put it into practice. What is the point of being able to recite complicated theories, when you don’t know how to apply them?

“We might be fluent in the classroom but drag us out into practice and we’re miserably shipwrecked.“

Don’t get stuck in the reading phase, but go out and put the things you learn to good use. You might falter a few times at the beginning, but you learn by doing. Gradually, you will improve.

There is a very powerful passage in Book 8. You have to build yourself action by action:

“It is your duty to order your life well in every single act; action by action, and if every act does its duty, as far as is possible, be content; and no one is able to hinder you so that each act shall not do its duty.“

Another translation of this passage is a bit more illuminating:

“You have to assemble your life yourself—action by action. And be satisfied if each one achieves its goal, as far as it can. No one can keep that from happening.“

Marcus talks about goals, but he also keeps in mind that actually achieving your goals is not always up to you. There are some unforeseen circumstances which can always keep you from achieving them.

What is important here is going through the process of trying to achieve your goals. Whether you succeed is not always up to you, but whether you actually set out on the path is up to you. It is taking action that counts. To quote Cicero:

“The shooter must do everything he can to hit the target, and yet it is this act of doing everything in order to hit the target and realize his plan, which is, if I may say, the end that the shooter is seeking. It is this that corresponds to what we call the sovereign good in life, whereas hitting the target is only something that can be wished for.“

It is not the destination that matters, but the journey. You need to start going somewhere, plan out a system that gets you there and then start walking.

What makes you a hero is not the result of your action, but instead the actual act of taking it. In Ancient times, Hector, the fallen commander of Troy, was celebrated a hero as much as the victorious Greek commanders who defeated him.

Hector defended his city, fought in many fights and finally accepted one final duel against Achilles. He died in the battle, but will forever be remembered a hero. He did not accomplish his goal of defeating Achilles or even of saving his city from the invading army, but what counts is that he fought bravely and went down swinging his sword.

An interesting point that Marcus makes is that you need to go “action by action”. This can be done through the process of setting out mini-goals and trying to achieve them. This is at the core of the system that you should set up.

How does this work in practice? You set up a final goal, but then break it down to a series of mini-goals and each time you focus on accomplishing one of them. When that is done, you move onto the next mini-goal.

By finishing one small goal after another, by building yourself up action by action, you start a process of self-improvement, which can result in you achieving the big goals.

When doing things, try to figure out the why. Marcus Aurelius gives some tips on how to go about the entire process:

“In everything always observe what the thing is which produces for you an appearance, and resolve it by dividing it into the formal, the material, the purpose, and the time within which it must end.“

To help you improve one small step at a time, in his essay “On Anger”, Seneca mentions a very useful exercise that he practiced daily.

“The spirit ought to be brought up for examination daily. It was the custom of Sextius when the day was over, and he was about to go to bed, to inquire of his spirit: “What bad habit of yours have you cured today? What vice have you checked? In what respect are you better?”“

You can use this type of questioning at the end of your day in order to reflect on what you did, how it went and what you can improve. Seneca and Sextius weren’t the only people to do this. Arrian quoted this great piece of advice from Epictetus in the “Discourses”:

“Admit not sleep into your tender eyelids till you have reckoned up each deed of the day: How have I erred, what done or left undone? So start, and so review your acts, and then for vile deeds chide yourself, for good be glad.“

These types of questioning exercises most likely came from the Pythagoreans. You might know Pythagoras as a great mathematician and the guy behind the Pythagorean Theorem, but he also started a philosophical school which turned quite mystical in some aspects. However the school also had its practical parts, one of which was this self-examination technique based on daily planning and questioning of actions.

For the Pythagoreans, the day started with planning their actions for the day, and ended by an evaluation of all the things that they had done that day. Many Stoics seem to have adopted a similar approach.

The three sentences that the Pythagoreans and some Stoics used are often called the Golden Verse:

“Where did I go wrong? What did I do? What duty is left undone?“

Benjamin Franklin also had a daily practice which resembled what the Ancient Stoics and Pythagoreans used to do, and this type of questioning is also at the core of the agile process of continuous self-improvement. This is a system that I described in one of my articles and that I adapted from a process to develop software.

In this agile process, you start your day by asking yourself three basic questions:

1) What have I done yesterday and how did it go?

2) What do I plan to do today?

3) Are there any potential problems that I will face today?

Based on the answers to these questions, you plan out your day. At the end of the week, you sit down and reflect on what you have done that week and how you can improve for the next week.

This agile process is a good way to go from one action to another in the pursuit of something greater. With the different questions and constant examination of what you have done and want to do, you can draft small mini-goals to accomplish and focus on them. That way you lessen the uncertainty.

You should always be flexible enough to change up your process, when things don’t go your way. As mentioned before, failures are feedback mechanisms that you can use to adjust your process and thereby move closer to achieving your goals.

However when doing things remember not to do too much. After all, multitasking has proven not to work very well.

“If you seek tranquility, do less.“

If you really want to have a tranquil life, do less. When you do less, many of your worries will disappear.

This is also something that you should remember when stating your goals. Don’t try to do too much at once. Instead focus on just a few priorities and then build up from there.

People often have many goals, and sometimes end up getting distracted by other things. Marcus says that you need to know what is important. Concentrate on the big things and not the little things.

“It is necessary to remember that the attention given to everything has its proper value and proportion. For then you will not be dissatisfied and give up, if you apply yourself to smaller matters no further than is fit.“

The “Meditations” were one of the ways that Marcus put all these things on reflection and action into practice. Writing in his journal became one of his daily habits.

If you want to achieve any type of goal, you need to create habits that support it. Habits make it easier for you to get through the day, as they unburden you from having to consciously exercise your willpower and instead make things more automatic.

Creating good habits and getting rid of bad ones is the key to living a long, healthy and prosperous life. Epictetus discussed habit formation in detail and his thoughts were noted down by Arrian in the “Discourses”:

“Every habit and every faculty is confirmed and strengthened by the corresponding acts, the faculty of walking by walking, that of running by running. If you wish to have a faculty for reading, read; if for writing, write. When you have not read for thirty days on end, but have done something else, you will know what happens. So if you lie in bed for ten days, and then get up and try to take a fairly long walk, you will see how your legs lose their power. So generally if you wish to acquire a habit for anything, do the thing; if you do not wish to acquire the habit, abstain from doing it, and acquire the habit of doing something else instead.“

If you want to get good at something, you need to keep on doing it regularly. This then strengthens the habit and makes things automatic. Forming good habits and sticking to them is the basis of self-discipline, which together with resilience is one of the main pillars of Stoic philosophy.

One very useful technique to ingrain habits is the use of maxims. These are short phrases which you can repeat to yourself when you see that your willpower is faltering.

Pierre Hadot noted that repeating maxims to yourself in difficult times can help you to not sink back into bad habits:

“What we need are persuasive arguments or formulas which we can repeat to ourselves in difficult circumstances, so as to check the movements of fear, anger or sadness.“

The notebook that Marcus kept contained many of these maxims that he would repeat to himself when the going got tough. In fact, at various points of his journal, you can see similar ideas being expressed. This is an example of him applying the technique of maxims in practice.

Another thing that Marcus Aurelius touches upon in “Meditations” is the concept of “flow”, where you get so absorbed by doing something that you even forget to do other things. When you enter a state of flow, you are fully immersed in whatever activity you are doing.

Marcus talks about how those who love what they do (arts) exhaust themselves in working at them unwashed and without food. You can only enter this type of state if your motivation for doing the activity is intrinsic and you truly feel a passion for it.

“Those who love their several arts exhaust themselves in working at them unwashed and without food.“

This is also very similar to the advice that Einstein gave to his son. The best way to learn something is if you enjoy what you are doing, if you enjoy the process itself.

A piece of guidance that Marcus gives is to do everything as if it were your last moment:

“Every moment think steadily as a Roman and a man to do what you have in hand with perfect and simple dignity, and feeling of affection, and freedom, and justice; and to give yourself relief from all other thoughts.

And you will give yourself relief, if you do every act of your life as if it were the last, laying aside all carelessness and passionate aversion from the commands of reason, and all hypocrisy, and self-love, and discontent with the portion which has been given to you.

You see how few the things are, the which if a man lays hold of, he is able to live a life which flows in quiet, and is like the existence of the gods; for the gods on their part will require nothing more from him who observes these things.“

When you do things in this way, Marcus states, you will live a life which is like the life that the gods live.

One very interesting passage that struck me when reading the “Meditations” was how Marcus described the act of getting up in the morning:

“In the morning when you rise unwillingly, let this thought be present- I am rising to the work of a human being. Why then am I dissatisfied if I am going to do the things for which I exist and for which I was brought into the world? Or have I been made for this, to lie in the bed-clothes and keep myself warm? – But this is more pleasant.-

Do you exist then to take your pleasure, and not at all for action or exertion? Do you not see the little plants, the little birds, the ants, the spiders, the bees working together to put in order their several parts of the universe?

And are you unwilling to do the work of a human being, and do you not make haste to do that which is according to your nature? – But it is necessary to take rest also.-

It is necessary: however nature has fixed bounds to this too: she has fixed bounds both to eating and drinking, and yet you go beyond these bounds, beyond what is sufficient; yet in your acts it is not so, but you stop short of what you cannot do. So you love not yourself, for if you did, you would love your nature and her will.

But those who love their several arts exhaust themselves in working at them unwashed and without food; but you value your own nature less than the turner values the turning art, or the dancer the dancing art, or the lover of money values his money, or the vainglorious man his little glory.

And such men, when they have a violent affection to a thing, choose neither to eat nor to sleep rather than to perfect the things which they care for. But are the acts which concern society more vile in your eyes and less worthy of your labor?“

I have often found myself in the morning questioning the purpose of waking up and whether I should not just stay in bed. I think the situation that Marcus Aurelius described here in this passage is a common one for many people.

However by using the technique that Marcus describes, you can talk yourself out of wasting your time lying in bed, and instead getting up and starting your day.

You could also think of getting out of bed as a metaphor for life. Stop lying in bed doing nothing, but instead get up and take action!

Not wanting to get out of bed, but doing it anyways is the hallmark of self-discipline. A former Navy SEAL who rose up to the rank of Admiral, William McRaven, once said that:

“If you want to change the world, start by making your bed.“

Waking up in the morning, you don’t feel like doing anything, but by making your bed, you have already defeated one challenge. It is these types of little things that can lead to greatness.

Socrates is one of the most famous philosophers of Ancient Greece and his teachings inspired many of the most influential philosophical schools of the Ancient World, not just the Platonists of Plato, or the Peripatetics of Aristotle, but also the Stoics.

There is one very powerful thing that Xenophon quotes Socrates as saying. In his work “Conversations of Socrates”, Xenophon records a dialogue between Socrates and Euthydemus. During the course of this dialogue, Socrates says (for me) one of the most powerful statements in the history of ancient philosophy:

“It is self-discipline, above all things, that causes pleasure.“

This rings so true for me on so many levels.

The Stoics didn’t really work with the concept of pleasure (the Epicureans did), but I am sure that this is a statement that they would endorse. If you want to achieve anything in life, you need to have self-discipline.

Don’t wait for things to happen to you (as many people do), but make them happen. You don’t have total control over outcomes, but you do have control over how you approach things. By working diligently in a self-disciplined way, action by action, you can achieve happiness.

6) If something is attainable by man, it is attainable by you.

Marcus Aurelius also thought that if something is attainable by man, then it can be attained by you as well. If someone else can do it, it is possible for you to do too. This is very similar to what I wrote in the article titled: Nothing is Impossible.

“If a thing is difficult to be accomplished by yourself, do not think that it is impossible for man: but if anything is possible for man and conformable to his nature, think that this can be attained by yourself too.“

Things attainable by man are not impossible. If it is attainable by man, then you can do it too. If you want some more details on this, then read this article.

However if you have troubles doing something, don’t be afraid (or ashamed) to get help.

“Be not ashamed to be helped; for it is your business to do your duty like a soldier in the assault on a town. How then, if being lame you cannot mount up on the battlements alone, but with the help of another it is possible?“

The good thing is that if you fail to attain something the first time around, you can get back up and try again. Epictetus in his “Discourses” compares struggling to achieve goals as similar to the Olympics. However, unlike the Olympics, if you don’t win, you don’t have to wait four years to try again. You can get up at that exact moment and give it another shot.

“Even if we give in for the time being, no one prevents us from struggling again, and we do not have to wait another four-year period for another Olympic festival to come around, but the moment a man has picked himself up, and recovered himself, and exhibits the same eagerness, he is allowed to contest; and if you give in again, you can enter again.“

7) Remove your desire for empty things.

One very important piece of advice that Marcus Aurelius gives is to remove your desire for empty things like empty fame. Don’t be seeking fame for the sake of fame. That should not be your purpose.

People who seek fame just for the sake of fame or other such empty things are usually empty inside:

“About fame: Look at the minds of those who seek fame, observe what they are, and what kind of things they avoid, and what kind of things they pursue. And consider that as the heaps of sand piled on one another hide the former sands, so in life the events which go before are soon covered by those which come after.“

If you have such desires you should remove them.

“This reflection also tends to the removal of the desire of empty fame, that it is no longer in your power to have lived the whole of your life, or at least your life from your youth upwards, like a philosopher; but both to many others and to yourself it is plain that you are far from philosophy.“

Seeking things like fame removes the control that you have over your life, since fame is something that you have no control over.

If you are guided in your actions by vain external things, then you become a slave to them. As Epictetus is quoted as saying in the “Discourses”:

“Whenever externals are more important to you than your own integrity, then be prepared to serve them the remainder of your life.“

It also shows that you are not really a wise person, but a fool, since people with real wisdom don’t care for such things.

In my experience, many people who have achieved great things are usually humble about them, while those who have never done anything great are boastful.

There is a cognitive bias describing this called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where a stupid person thinks that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread and believe themselves superior to all others.

Unfortunately in our current society of instant gratification, there are many people acting this way. Empty values have replaced real values, and many people don’t know what should count at the end. “Big Brothers” and other reality shows are the most watched television shows, and people will do anything to get their 15 minutes in the spotlight.

Marcus Aurelius goes on to show that in itself fame has no value.

“Look down from above on the countless herds of men and their countless solemnities, and the infinitely varied travels in storms and calms, and the differences among those who are born, who live together, and die. And consider, too, the life lived by others in olden time, and the life of those who will live after you, and the life now lived among barbarous nations, and how many know not even your name, and how many will soon forget it, and how they who perhaps now are praising you will very soon blame you, and that neither a posthumous name is of any value, nor reputation, nor anything else.“

This was a very important lesson that Marcus wrote all throughout his journal. He noted down the names of famous people from history and how even during his time their names have faded.

What he proposed to do instead is simple:

“Wipe out imagination: check desire: extinguish appetite: keep the ruling faculty in its own power.“

Check your desires and keep your mind sharp.

You should not seek material things as your end goal, but instead retire into your own mind. For your own mind has great power.

“Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, sea-shores, and mountains; and you too maybe desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of men, for it is in your power whenever you shall choose to retire into yourself.

For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retire than into his own soul, particularly when he has within him such thoughts that by looking into them he is immediately in perfect tranquility; and I affirm that tranquility is nothing else than the good ordering of the mind.

Constantly then give to yourself this retreat, and renew yourself; and let your principles be brief and fundamental, which, as soon as you shall recur to them, will be sufficient to cleanse the soul completely, and to send you back free from all discontent with the things to which you will return.“

Your mind and your soul are what really count at the end. They are also the only things that you truly possess.

“Receive wealth or prosperity without arrogance; and be ready to let it go.“

Things like wealth or fame can come as byproducts of what you do, but they should not be the end goal. Just like you got them, they can be taken away, so don’t focus on them.

You should remove all useless thoughts:

“You can remove out of the way many useless things among those which disturb you, for they lie entirely in your opinion; and you will then gain for yourself ample space by comprehending the whole universe in your mind, and by contemplating the eternity of time, and observing the rapid change of every several thing, how short is the time from birth to dissolution, and the illimitable time before birth as well as the equally boundless time after dissolution.“

One good way to get rid of useless thoughts and see things as they really are, is to go back to first principles. What do I mean?

“When you have roasted meat before us and other such dishes, you will suddenly realize, that this is the dead body of a fish, and this is the dead body of a bird or of a pig; and again, that this Falernian is only a little grape juice, and this purple robe some sheep’s wool dyed with the blood of a shell-fish: such then are these impressions, and they reach the things themselves and penetrate them, and so we see what kind of things they are.

Just in the same way ought we to act all through life, and where there are things which appear most worthy of our approbation, we ought to lay them bare and look at their worthlessness and strip them of all the words by which they are exalted. For outward show is a wonderful perverter of the reason, and when you are most sure that you are employed doing things worth your pains, it is then that it cheats you most.“

You see how Marcus stripped down things to their first principles? The fancy meat you are eating is just the dead body of some animal. This is basically the generic parts technique that I described in my article on first principles thinking!

When you engage in this type of deconstruction, you will be able to see things for what they really are.

Maybe you are a person who until now was driven by material things and empty desires. It’s not too late to change now. Anyone can change.

“And all our assent is changeable; for where is the man who never changes?“

Start by keeping an open mind.

“If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.“

Allow yourself to change your opinion by facts. You can do this for example by trying to lessen the impact of cognitive biases, especially those them stem from your own ego.

“Is any man afraid of change? Why what can take place without change? What then is more pleasing or more suitable to the universal nature? And you cannot take a bath unless the wood undergoes a change? And you cannot be nourished, unless the food undergoes a change? And can anything else that is useful be accomplished without change? Do you not see then that for yourself also to change is just the same, and equally necessary for the universal nature?“

Change is not a bad thing, so don’t be afraid of it.

Also don’t be scared of difficulties and failures, for you will arrive at things through a long-winding road.

One important hero for the Stoics was Hercules (Heracles in Greek). For example, Seneca wrote two plays on him.

Hercules was probably an important source of inspiration for Marcus Aurelius, since he definitely was influential for his son, the mad Emperor Commodus, who used to dress up as Hercules and pretend to be him.

One lesson from Hercules was that of the Choice of Hercules, where he was given the choice between taking the easy path in life and the hard path. Hercules chose the hard path.

For Stoics, the hard path was usually the path to take. However, Marcus notes that many of the things that you can get by taking a long path, you can in fact get now (but please beware of all the dangers of instant gratification).

“All those things at which you wish to arrive by a circuitous road, you can have now, if you do not refuse them to yourself. And this means, if you will take no notice of all the past, and trust the future to providence, and direct the present only to piety and justice.“

For Stoics, the only thing that mattered was the present. If you think about it, it is very consistent with their mantra of only worrying about things that you can control. The only thing you can control is the present. The past is already done, and the future you don’t know.

So how should you act?

8) Be a good man.

“No longer talk at all about the kind of man that a good man ought to be, but be such.“

This is a very famous quote and one that reflects something present in our society. Many people talk about things, but when it comes to doing, they do not do anything. Stop talking about shit, and do it. Stop talking about what type of a good man you should be, just be one.

“Let it not be in any man’s power to say truly of you that you are not good; but let him be a liar whoever shall think anything of this kind about you; and this is altogether in your power. For who is he that shall hinder you from being good?“

No one can stop you from being good. There are unfortunately many people who have no shame, but you should not be one of them. For the Stoics virtue was a fundamental aspect of how you should conduct your daily affairs.

“Never value anything as profitable to you which shall compel you to break your promise, to lose your self-respect, to hate any man, to suspect, to curse, to act the hypocrite, to desire anything which needs walls and curtains: for he who has preferred to everything intelligence and daemon and the worship of its excellence, acts no tragic part, does not groan, will not need either solitude or much company.“

Be a decent person. You should always keep your promises, and not be a hypocrite. Only in this way can you keep your self-respect.

However to know what is good, we also need to know what is bad.

“What is badness? It is that which you have often seen. And on the occasion of everything which happens keep this in mind, that it is that which you have often seen. Everywhere up and down you will find the same things, with which the old histories are filled, those of the middle ages and those of our own day; with which cities and houses are filled now. There is nothing new: all things are both familiar and short-lived.“

There are some other memorable quotes:

“Be erect, or be made erect.“

You need to do good things to other people and act according to nature:

“No man is tired of receiving what is useful. But it is useful to act according to nature. Do not then be tired of receiving what is useful by doing it to others.“

As Marcus Aurelius often stated humans are social animals and made for each other. You are not alone in this world, but live in a community of people. Part of being a good man is working towards improving your community. This should be part of your purpose.

Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of the 2nd century AD (a bit before Marcus time, but they might have overlapped a bit), came up with an interesting explanation of human nature.

He noticed that humans are first and foremost concerned with themselves, then their immediate family, then their extended family, then their city, their nation, and at the end the entire world. He illustrated this by using concentric circles, with an individual being placed in the innermost circle, his family in the circle that encompasses that circle and so on.

If you think about it, this makes sense. There are very interesting parallels to the selfish gene-theory of evolution, where humans have as their primary concern their own survival (since they carry 100% of their gene), then their next of kin (since they also carry the same genes), and so on.

Hierocles believed that it should be the goal of every human to try to expand their innermost circle until it encompasses all of humanity (and beyond ). At the end, you should not care only about the well-being of yourself, but everyone else as well.

As the Emperor, Marcus Aurelius had to keep this wider perspective. He could have easily sunk to a life of debauchery like some Roman Emperors before and after him, but instead he focused on a greater goal, and that is helping to protect the Empire and the people living in it.

“As you yourself are a component part of a social system, so let every act of yours be a component part of social life. Whatever act of yours then has no reference either immediately or remotely to a social end, this tears asunder your life, and does not allow it to be one.“

Let this inspire you to dedicate your life to a greater purpose, not just your own ends. Helping others should be a big part of the things you do.

And a final powerful quote for this category:

“If it is not right, do not do it: if it is not true, do not say it.“

9) Remember that time passes quickly and that your existence is just a small blip on the universe.

Marcus Aurelius often considered what his role in the universe is, and what the role of any man is in the grand scheme of things. He came to the conclusion that everyone is insignificant.

“How quickly all things disappear, in the universe the bodies themselves, but in time the remembrance of them; what is the nature of all sensible things, and particularly those which attract with the bait of pleasure or terrify by pain, or are noised abroad by vapory fame; how worthless, and contemptible, and sordid, and perishable, and dead they are- all this it is the part of the intellectual faculty to observe.“

All things are small in comparison to the vastness of the universe and everything is perishable.

“Asia and Europe are corners of the universe: all the sea a drop in the universe; Athos a little clod of the universe: all the present time is a point in eternity. All things are little, changeable, perishable.“

Time passes quickly and we will soon be forgotten. In many of his passages, he would list famous dead people and note how their names and memories are fading.

He also reflected on the quick passage of time and with every passing second we are closer to death.

“We ought to consider not only that our life is daily wasting away and a smaller part of it is left.“

All of this was linked to the greater principles of taking action and living in the moment. With every new day, you have less and less time to do things and you never know what the future will bring.

One forceful passage reminds us of how fast things change and how they are in a constant flux.

“Keep in mind the rapidity with which things pass by and disappear, both the things which are now and the things which will come. For our existence is like a river in a continual flow, and the activities of things are in constant change, and the causes work in infinite varieties; and there is hardly anything which stands still. And consider this which is near to you, this boundless abyss of the past and of the future in which all things disappear. How then is he not a fool who feels self-importance with such things or is plagued by them and makes himself miserable? For they vex him only for a time, and a short time.“

Things come and go. Go flip through an old album of photographs (or check your pics on Facebook). You will see snapshots of moments that are long gone in the past already. Yet, at that exact instance, they were the present. That was one moment in time and you had no idea what was going to come. Even that is passed now. Very powerful if you think about it.

Marcus often advocated contemplating on the universe, on nature and on your own self.

“This you must always bear in mind, what is the nature of the whole, and what is my nature, and how this is related to that, and what kind of a part it is of what kind of a whole; and that there is no one who hinders you from always doing and saying the things which are according to the nature of which you a part.“

What is your relationship to the whole? Once you have examined this, it will be easier for you to live all the other principles that Marcus Aurelius advocated like finding your purpose and living according to nature.

“Frequently consider the connection of all things in the universe and their relation to one another. For in a manner all things are implicated with one another, and all in this way are friendly to one another; for one thing comes in order after another, and this is by virtue of the active movement and mutual conspiration and the unity of the substance.“

Always consider connections and how things are connected. This can help you get knowledge. All of these contemplations will help you get perspective and a better understanding of the world and how things work.

Of course you don’t have to agree with everything that Marcus Aurelius wrote. One thing that I find very hard to swallow is the concept of predestination and sort of Candide-like (the character from Voltaire’s book) all is for the best.

The Stoics put great faith in fate and believed that it ruled the world. You can either protest against it and get dragged along or accept it and run along happily. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, illustrated it with the metaphor of a dog.

In this metaphor, a dog is tied to a leash, which in turn is tied to a moving cart. The dog has two choices: try to resist and get dragged by the moving cart, or run together with the cart alongside it and not end up bruised and dirty.

Not sure whether this is consistent with free will, but who knows really. Perhaps, just like in the movie “Arrival”, time is in fact non-linear and behaves in a much different way than the way we understand it today. This is at the present moment unfalsifiable and cannot be proven.

And maybe, unlike me, you find this point very beneficial for yourself. The Stoics encouraged people to trust whatever the Universe (Logos, the gods, or whatever) preordained for them.

They argued that there is a reason for everything that happens and some of them used it as a way to put their mind at ease. Maybe these types of thoughts might give you the same effect. Everyone is different after all.

One aspect that people in the modern world often forget is how powerful the element of luck really is. While I am a bit ambigious on the role of fate, I believe that luck is a very important part of everyone’s life.

When planning things, the Stoics would often add a “reserve clause”, a statement acknowledging the fact that not everything is up to them. This would be something like “If Fate permits” or “God willing”, depending on how religious they were.

I have travelled around in some Muslim countries and would often hear them say “Inshallah”, the Arabic term for “God willing”. In more religious societies, they still have this concept much more than in the Western World.

There are both positives and negatives associated to this. Not believing in fate can give a person a certain dynamism and get out of the way attitude, but on the other hand it can also cause great unhappiness. While putting your faith in fate does have its positives, it can also result in a certain sense of passivity for some people.

However, if you look at the life of Marcus Aurelius, acknowledging the role of luck (and fate) did not stop him from doing things. He was always literally at the frontlines, living a life full of action, doing whatever he could.

Another point which is disputable is whether you really do have complete control over your happiness. The Stoics argued that yes you do, however other schools of philosophy (for example the Peripatetics who followed the teachings of Aristotle) argued that there are some objective factors outside your control that also impact your happiness.

For example, if you don’t have access to the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter or sex, can you truly be happy? The Stoics argued that yes you can, but others like the Peripatetics argued that you need to have these necessities satisfied first.

I tend to think that you do in fact need to have these necessities satisfied, and no amount of positive affirmations will help you if they are not. So that is my basic disagreement with the Stoics, however on the other aspects of your mind controlling your perception and how this affects your mental state, they are perfectly correct.

These types of things, however do not distract from the overall message of the work in my opinion. You can get a lot of positive ideas from the “Mediations” whether you believe in fate or not.

There are many practical things that you can learn from Marcus Aurelius and apply them in your own life. There are some passages which summarize the lessons that Marcus gave and that can serve as your key takeaways.

Here is one on prime principles:

“The prime principle then in man’s constitution is the social. And the second is not to yield to the persuasions of the body, for it is the peculiar office of the rational and intelligent motion to circumscribe itself, and never to be overpowered either by the motion of the senses or of the appetites, for both are animal; but the intelligent motion claims superiority and does not permit itself to be overpowered by the others.

And with good reason, for it is formed by nature to use all of them. The third thing in the rational constitution is freedom from error and from deception. Let then the ruling principle holding fast to these things go straight on, and it has what is its own.“

There are several prime principles that govern people’s lives. One is that humans are social animals. The other is not to yield to cognitive biases and other such things, but instead be a rational and critical thinker.

What is happiness and how is it manifested?

“You can pass your life in an equable flow of happiness, if you can go by the right way, and think and act in the right way. These two things are common both to the soul of God and to the soul of man, and to the soul of every rational being, not to be hindered by another; and to hold good to consist in the disposition to justice and the practice of it, and in this to let your desire find its termination.“

And what is pain?

“About pain: The pain which is intolerable carries us off; but that which lasts a long time is tolerable; and the mind maintains its own tranquility by retiring into itself, and the ruling faculty is not made worse. But the parts which are harmed by pain, let them, if they can, give their opinion about it.“

There are two analogies that I will quote, because they perfectly summarize life. The first one is an analogy of the art of living being like the art of a wrestler:

“The art of life is more like the wrestler’s art than the dancer’s, in respect of this, that it should stand ready and firm to meet onsets which are sudden and unexpected.“

Marcus gives a final great analogy on how to carry yourself through life:

“In the application of your principles you must be like the pankratiast, not like the gladiator; for the gladiator lets fall the sword which he uses and is killed; but the pankratiast other always has his hand, and needs to do nothing else than use it.“

This is a great analogy for life. You should be like a mixed martial artist (pankration was an Ancient Greek form of mixed martial arts that was even part of the Olympic Games), and not a gladiator. A gladiator has only one tool which he uses and when he loses that, he will get killed easily. A mixed martial artist can fight with his hands and has many tools at his disposal.

That is why I advocate everyone to become Renaissance Men and have many tools in your toolbox in order to be able to tackle all the different challenges that life can throw at you.

Read More:

Boethius – The Consolation of Philosophy and how a man about to die found happiness.

Epictetus – The wisdom of a Stoic master and the secrets to living a good life revealed.

Diogenes of Oinoanda – The secret to happiness and living a life of pleasure.