Development of the virtues in ancient Greece

[Historyboy]

1x - 10 century BCE: heroic age. Kings-heroes like Achilles, Odysseus … The virtue of courage is dominant here. Striving to become the first among all. Attempt on divine deeds. Basically that is why Zarathustra teaches women to raise men up for war. The later virtues might rather be seen as deviations from this primary virtue. “What is good? - Good is to be brave” - TSZ. This is not only for warriors, this is for all men, because no man shall be brought up differently. A woman is for the rest of the warrior because of her optimistic nature. (Schopenhauer, on women)

10 - 6 century BCE: kings have no more valuable offspring. The root of tragedy is probably here (death of kings). Polises ruled by aristocracy instead of kingdoms all over Greece. Righteousness (justice) becomes the main virtue: the attitude of the individual toward the society. Not even Sparta is a kingdom, their kings are only military leaders. Honor is very elevated in Sparta - a mark of the agonal (aristocratic) nature.

6-2 century BCE: unrighteousness (corruption) rises. Sycophants. The rule of money (corruption discussed by Plato in the Republic). The main virtue is wisdom, but only few have them. “The majority is bad” - a word of the 7 wise. First philosophers come up in this age, not before. Aristocracy, rich people and excellence of any kind perish through the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps this is why Zarathustra says “I love those who … and perish”, because there is no way to survive for those who want to become excellent.

Polybius
The Histories
Fragments of Book VI

II. On the Forms of States

It is by no means every monarchy which we can call straight off a kingship, but only that which is voluntarily accepted by the subjects and where they are governed rather by an appeal to their reason than by fear and force.
Nor again can we style every oligarchy an aristocracy, but only that where the government is in the hands of a selected body of the justest and wisest men.
Similarly that is no true democracy in which the whole crowd of citizens is free to do whatever they wish or purpose, but when, in a community where it is traditional and customary to reverence the gods, to honour our parents, to respect our elders, and to obey the laws, the will of the greater number prevails, this is to be called a democracy.

the man who excels in bodily strength and in courage will lead and rule over the rest. It is probable then that at the beginning men lived thus, herding together like animals and following the lead of the strongest and bravest, the ruler’s strength being here the sole limit to his power and the name we should give his rule being monarchy. when in time feelings of sociability and companionship begin to grow in such gatherings of men, than kingship has struck root; and the notions of goodness, justice, and their opposites begin to arise in men. Again when a man who has been helped or succoured 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 neighbour 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.
Similarly, again, when any man is foremost in defending his fellows from danger, and braves and awaits the onslaught of the most powerful beasts, it is natural that he should receive marks of favour and honour from the people, while the man who acts in the opposite manner will meet with reprobation and dislike. From this again some idea of what is base and what is noble and of what constitutes the difference is likely to arise among the people; and noble conduct will be admired and imitated because it is advantageous, while base conduct will be avoided.
Now when the leading and most powerful man among the people always throws the weight of his authority on the side of the notions on such matters which generally prevail, and when in the opinion of his subjects he apportions rewards and penalties according to desert, they yield obedience to him no longer because they fear his force, but rather because their judgement approves him; and they join in maintaining his rule even if he is quite enfeebled by age, defending him with one consent and battling against those who conspire to overthrow his rule. Thus by insensible degrees the monarch becomes a king, ferocity and force having yielded the supremacy to reason.

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.

Basically courage is defined as the ability to keep/preserve/save the knowledge about what is fearful and what is not fearful. I think tragedy is about this: not to show fear if a thing is not fearful, not even if it costs life, not even in the face of death. “Greeks have went to theater to hear pretty speeches” - Nietzsche, and what else is pretty if not an optimistic view about the outcome of a war. Like when the king in 7 against Thebes dies but the outcome is a victory. This is the pretty death.

[phyllo]

Is this philosophy?

[Historyboy]

The one which has never been so clear.

[Stoic_Guardian]

It’s an inquiry on Virtue, so yes it is Philosophy.