The Evolution of "Natural Law" with the Rise of Christianity

            The philosophers of ancient Greece in many cases served as the inspiration and focus for later political thinkers. Quite often, ancient thought served as the foundation for political theories that were adapted, modified, and coordinated with the then current historical and cultural contexts. The rise and establishment of Christianity is one such movement that helped bring the theories of old into a new light. Thomas Aquinas, a medieval theologian, philosopher, and Dominican monk, drew from the teachings and influences of Aristotle to help solidify his distinctly Christian political philosophies. A prime example is the tradition of natural law. While Aristotle did not explicitly develop this theory, Aquinas’ efforts toward this topic not only served to draw a connection between antiquity and Christianity, but also helped to credit Aristotle as being a primary contributor to the development of natural-law tradition. 
           
             Aristotle may not distinctly discuss natural law in depth, but the predecessor to this theory is evident within Book V of his Nicomachean Ethics, which primarily discusses justice. In the seventh chapter of this book Aristotle states that “of political justice part is natural, part legal…, that which everywhere has the same force and does not exist by people's thinking this or that…” (Aristotle ch. 7). Essentially Aristotle is arguing that there is a component of justice that transcends cultural or historical mediums. He continues to compare this natural view of justice to a more tangible example. “…By nature the right hand is stronger, yet it is possible that all men should come to be ambidextrous” (Aristotle ch. 7). There will always be an overriding sense of what is just and unjust, while specific legal matters are prone to change with the fluctuations of society. The Ethics is not his only work that discusses this, further augmenting his authority on the topic. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle also discusses the possibility of what is right according to a natural order. “…By general law, [I mean] all those unwritten principles which are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere” (Aristotle ch. 10). This further supports that Aristotle believed in an unchanging and universal system that governs all rational creatures.

               While, never explicitly mentioning “natural law,” Aristotle does provide a base from which Aquinas expounds. While, Aquinas may be widely known for his predominantly political work On the Governance of Rulers, it is in his theological piece, Summa Theologica, that he illustrates what Wiser considers to be Aquinas’ “greatest contribution to legal theory,” otherwise noted as natural law (Wiser 122). This concept alone serves to identify the importance of the Christian belief system within even his political contributions. Ancient thinkers, such as Aristotle, utilized their rational sense to identify an undeniably natural order. Just as a fire will burn the same in Greece as it will in Persia, there are certain components of justice that are just as innate in the natural order (Aristotle ch. 7). Aquinas takes the same concept but simply rewrites it in a theological context.

            For Aquinas, all laws have the same purpose: to instruct and motivate humanity to act in accordance with God’s original design. Yet he does not rule out the significance of reason that was so highly regarded by the ancient thinkers. Once again, Aquinas just changes the context. Laws are legitimate in that they receive their authority from the “divine order which determines the rational structure of the universe” (Wiser 122). Natural law, formerly identified as a product of reason, is now a product of God, the creator of the rational universe. By being rational participants in God’s rational world, humanity is exposed to natural law.

            Aquinas’ natural law allows humanity to not only discern good from evil as well as to understand God’s intent in the world as is the purpose of all laws, but specifically concerns matters of the body and mind as well. “Natural law requires that [all humans] be concerned with self preservation and the preservation of the species through procreation and education” (Wiser 126). And yet, humans are also rational beings; therefore, natural law dictates that humans pursue knowledge of God in addition to participating in civilized society. These components are both broad and general, similar in fashion to Aristotle’s view on natural justice. Within Summa Theologica, Aquinas states that natural law is “both universal and nonparticular” (Wiser 126). However, there are some circumstances that require more depth than natural law can supply. In this sense natural law is transformed into a more conditional form. This again illustrates the similarity with Aristotle’s views on justice. 
       
                Overall, it is evident how natural law evolved and developed from Aristotle’s views on natural justice into Aquinas’ more defined concept of natural law. Both thinkers are bound together by the importance of the rational mind and the overall belief in a universal, unchanging sense of right and wrong regardless of the legal system at hand. Aquinas simply adds another level to the concept. Instead of claiming that it is reason alone that determines what is just versus unjust, Aquinas sheds a distinctly Christian light on the matter identifying God as the creator of the rational world, and thus the one who had dictated natural law. As a result, we have in Aquinas the continuation and Chriatianization of a concept that also permeated ancient Greek society through the work of Aristotle.

The State of Nature: A Distinguishing Factor Between the New and Old Traditions

            Political theory has a long standing history that stretches as far back as ancient Greece and reaches right on up to the current date. This long process of development is often divided into an “older” tradition which includes the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, as well as a modern tradition that often is identified with the Enlightenment and revolutions of more recent history. While there may be some continuity among these traditions, there is a key difference. The purpose of government, which in turn dictates the type, is now based on the understanding of a state of nature, the context within which humanity was born. This state of nature is void of any regulatory body or authority and serves to identify the basic instincts of mankind. Various modern thinkers have approached this concept in distinctly different ways, and consequently, the most practical and effective regime, rather than ideal, differs depending of the variants within this state of nature.

In his Politics, Aristotle claimed, “…that a city-state is among the things that exist by nature, [and] that a human being is by nature a political animal” (Aristotle). This belief, in turn, provides the basis of his justification for politics. Mankind is naturally drawn to life inside the polis, which consequently preexisted the development of humanity. Aristotle highlights the importance of community and government, by stressing how humanity never has and never will live without it. It is an individual’s natural inclination to seek hominoia with those around them, and government remains necessary to ensure justice and order within the soul. Aristotle, in lieu with ethical dualism, identified man as both good and evil, and thus life in the polis was critical to govern and moderate the complexities within human nature.

This ancient approach shifted radically with the dawn of the modern age of political thought. Rather than identifying the polis as preexisting mankind and believing that government, ideally, reflected the good within an ordered and moderated soul, modern political theorists tend to think otherwise. Government is now a necessary evil, forced into existence through social contracts in order to counter the chaos that exists in the state of nature, the state of being within which all humanity is born. Modern thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau are primary advocates for this distinctly un-Aristotelian state of nature, though their approaches differ significantly.

            For Thomas Hobbes, this state is an existence of violent anarchy. Individuals do not seek to develop friendships or communities, but are rather bent on self-preservation alone. “in Hobbes’ words, the life of an individual in such a state is ‘solitary, nasty, brutish, and short’” (Wiser). This is based on the Hobbesian notion of what is externally good and evil. As there is no higher universal moral order in the state of nature, the good is achieved simply through survival. Evil, on the other hand, typically manifests in each individual’s fear of violent death. As a result, this state of existence is a violent one, best described as kill or be killed. Wiser quotes the Leviathan to illustrate this point. “…During a time when men live without a common power…, they are in a condition called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man” (Wiser).

This directly impacts Hobbes’s choice of regime, that is, a monarchy. Since there is no need to govern the good within each and every soul or stimulate cooperation and friendship, the Hobbesian Leviathan serves only to prevent his constituents from violently killing one another. While Hobbes does not believe that any individual has the right to rule over another, it is through the consent of the governed that the Leviathan becomes legitimate. Even though, many other freedoms are significantly restricted by this regime, this is of no consequence as long as the Leviathan safeguards his followers from their greatest fear, that of violent death. Essentially, this monarch is a necessary evil as “the alternative to such a society is the state of nature, and the disadvantages of the state of nature are so immense to make such an alternative unacceptable” (Wiser).

Jean Jacques Rousseau, another prominent thinker of the modern age, also addresses a state of nature, diverging from Aristotle’s beliefs. His state of nature is not one of violent anarchy, but rather it is a peaceful existence of solitude. There are no conventions to impede life in any way, such as family, traditions, customs, government, and habits. As there are no rules or restrictions, humans do not want to kill others as they do in the Hobbesian state, but rather exist peacefully able to act as they wish with a certain level of spontaneity. According to The Social Contract, a work by Rousseau, “‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’” (Wiser). It is the conventions of civil society that is the root of evil, not the state of nature itself. As a result, Rousseau believes that it is in the best interest of all humanity to try and return to this state; this is, however, an endeavor he claims to be impossible, and therefore, one must manipulate conventions to create a society that reflects the state of nature as best possible.

This prompts a shift from staunch individualism to a life of rigid uniformity. Rousseau supports a totalitarian democracy that essentially forces individuals to follow the general will, which is ingrained in all rational people and encompasses the spirit of the state of nature. This is different from the rule of all, which is the chaotic result of following conventions. Democracy is the best option for Rousseau as he feels that the general will needs to maintain a level of spontaneity; and yet, this regime also needs the power to force some individuals to be free lest they fall under influence of the will of all. According to Rousseau, “‘…whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be strained to do so by the whole body; which means… he shall be forced to be free’” (Wiser). Therefore, a totalitarian democracy is best as it is most successful in mirroring the state of nature within civil society.

As one can see within the modern tradition, these two thinkers differ in very significant ways. Yet, when comparing traditions, there are clear and significant differences from the thinking of Aristotle to that of Hobbes and Rousseau when considering the primal state of man and the origin and importance of politics and civil society. While there are many more components to both traditions that serve to compare and contrast the two, the modern state of nature, and its consequent effect on regime type, is one factor that distinguishes the modern tradition from that of Aristotle’s. 

International Relations: Thucydides, Kennan, and an Intro to Realism...

I would never limit myself to any one discipline. I could never back myself into any ideological corner of exclusive thought. However, I must be frank. The theory behind international relations, or the behavior in which states interact, has always intrigued me. And while I will definitely be jumping around between topics within this blog, I think I best start with an overview of something I find most fascinating. If nothing else it will be a backdrop for more fine tuned topics that will most definitely be addressed in the upcoming weeks. So what is international relations? Where did it come from? What does it entail? How has it evolved? And what is realism (ahh yes, my favorite theory...)? I am a bit tired, but my commitment to this blog keeps me on task. So here is a start. It is an expansive discipline, so if I don't reach far enough to satiate your lust for IR, then comment away I will delve deeper at a later date! So. Here. We. Go....

The study of international relations is best defined as the analysis of the concerns and dealings between and among the world’s governments with the considerations of additional non-state actors, social relationships, and historical and geographical perspectives. However, this vague definition has changed and has molded to the various historical contexts of humanity’s past. It has grown to adapt to situations ranging from the microcosmic and internal struggle among the Peloponnesian forces of the ancient world to the bipolar struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union in the mid-twentieth century. Furthermore, international affairs, as it exists currently, is an even more globalized and multi-faceted arena than ever before. It is through the assessment and clarification of this evolution, that one can best analyze and study such a discipline.

             There have been many historical landmarks and significant stages in the progression of international relations, and while it has adapted accordingly, there are still distinct similarities. The application and consequences may change, but ultimately these theories remain somewhat constant. Essentially these theories transcend the historical context by identifying the common threads within policy throughout the years. There are two documents that help identify and solidify this argument. The Melian Dialogue, written by Thucydides during the Athenian invasion of Melos in the 400s BC, and the Sources of Soviet Conduct, written by George Kennan in the late 1940s, both have common themes regardless of thousands of years historical separation and drastically different circumstances. Evident in both documents are dealings of power politics, international prestige, the interests of states, bipolarity, and essentially, the overriding theory of political realism.

            Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, adapted by Suresht Bald, addresses issues between Athens and Melos during the sixteenth year of the Peloponnesian War. Even after the two regional superpowers, Athens and Sparta, signed a peace treaty, each pole still tried to assert their influence over smaller actors on the peninsula. The Melian Dialogue occurred between Athens and Melos, a much smaller Greek city-state. Melos preferred to remain neutral in the conflict, but Athens insisted that the Melians submit to Athenian rule. On the record, the Athenians were troubled by Melos’ previous friendly relations with Sparta. However, Suresht suggests that the Athenians had other reasons. “To allow the weaker Melians to remain free, according to the Athenians, world reflect negatively on Athenian power” (Bald). Essentially the Athenians wanted to improve their power position. Any showing of weakness, Athens felt, would be an indirect concession of power to Sparta.

            Athens had no intention on allowing Melos to remain neutral. The dialogue illustrates how the subjugation of the Melians was a key interest for Athens. These talks were somewhat of a formality, allowing Melos to willingly submit rather than suffering a violent overtaking. In the end, Melos still refused to submit, hoping that the gods would spare them and that Sparta would come to their aid. Clearly, neither manifested. The Athenians killed and enslaved the entire population of Melos and sent their own settlers to colonize the city-state.

            There are two key components to International Relations that are undeniably evident within this ancient account. The first is the level of analysis. Essentially, this dialogue exists between two states, even though both are a part of Greece. Ancient Greece consisted of city-states, autonomous entities loosely connected through geographic characteristics and some cultural norms. At the time, the Peloponnesus was the world, and therefore the Melian Dialogue is a systemic approach. “This [approach] pays attention to states’ relative power positions in the international system and the interactions among them” (Goldstein). The Athenians were clearly exerting their power over a weaker entity in order to improve their power position. Additionally, since the dialogue completely disregards the internal makeup of both Melos and Athens as well as overlooks the specifics concerning state leadership, there is effective evidence that Thucydides’ account is entirely systemic.

            The second component is a political theory that deals primarily with the relationships between and among states. Realism is the school of thought that defines international relations through how states exercise their power. While Melos blindly clung to idealism, in that they appealed to the protection of international law and intended to remain neutral, the dominating force was Athens, who clearly practiced realism’s power politics. Realism argues that power is the key signpost when determining a state’s interests abroad. This is clearly evident in Athenian-Melian affairs. Athens, unknowingly in lieu with the thoughts of modern political realists, conquered Melos claiming that “…by a necessary law of their nature [men] rule wherever they can…all we do is make use of [this law], knowing that you and everyone else having the same power…would do the same…” (Thucydides). Athens was the stronger city-state so it was only natural that they exercised their power over Melos in such a hard-line and amoral fashion. It is also evident that Athens has intentions to improve their power position. “By subjugating the Melians the Athenians hoped not only to extend their empire, but also to improve their image and thus their security” (Bald).  States have three primary reasons for using this power: to extend their influence through imperialism; to maintain their power position by ensuring the status quo; or to demonstrate their power in the form of global prestige. States are inclined to use such initiatives to improve their power position.

            So what policy prescriptions stem from the Athenian-Melian example? First off, the Athenians illustrate the benefit of maintaining an amoral, realist approach to foreign policy. They had the power to do so and it was in their best interest to consume the weaker power. As a result they were able to expand their imperial holdings as well as increase their international prestige in the face of their primary rival, Sparta. On the other hand, the Melian response illustrates the importance of alliances and international confidence. In the face on certain political takeover, the Melians looked to a rarely acknowledged international system on international laws as well as a loose friendship with the Spartans. As a result they preferred to remain neutral. This example highlights the importance of identifying one’s power position. They were clearly weaker and they knew that they were a target of Athens. However, the Melians decided to remain neutral, lacked the appropriate confidence, and failed to acknowledge their weaker power position. As a result they were overtaken by force. Therefore, it is important to create strong alliances, especially when dealing with a severely stronger power with realist and expansionary intentions.

            Thousands of years later, realism is still a dominant force in international relations. George Kennan, a political scientist and American diplomat during the Cold War, published The Sources of Soviet Conduct in the 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs. This article deals primarily with the motives behind the Soviet Union’s foreign policy as well as with the appropriate United States response. Kennan segments his work into four parts. The first two sections identify the historical and ideological development of the USSR and how this currently affects their political personality. The USSR essentially developed out the decisions and initiatives on the individual level and is ultimately a product of ideology and circumstances: “…ideology inherited by the present Soviet leaders from the movement in which they had their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have exercised for nearly three decades in Russia” (Kennan). According to Kennan these individuals fused their proud Russian heritage with Marxist ideology and as a result believed that they new what was best for the people and used internal political, coercion, and domestic violence to subjugate a population. These were means to the ends for the Russian bureaucrats and Soviet politicians. If your vision is ideal and ultimately the best for humanity, why not use any means necessary to attain this goal? As a result, the Soviets political personality, and ultimately their foreign policy, at the then current time in the 1950s, reflected the same mentality. There will always be an ingrown incompatibility between capitalism and communism, and the Kremlin will continue to view themselves as being infallible. As a result, Kennan did not foresee the Soviet Union becoming any easier to handle.

            In parts three and four, Kennan moves to a more external and international analysis, as opposed to the internally focused first two sections. He proceeds to lay out a containment policy as the primary means of stemming the spread of Soviet influence as well as reiterating that the United States must always remain a rival to the Soviet Union as communism does not allow for a happy coexistence with capitalism. Because of the nature of the Soviet Union’s leaders as well as the fundamental pillars of the communist ideology, the USSR’s foreign policy was one of patience, downplaying international force and violence. However, according to Kennan, it would be dangerous to back the USSR into a corner because, like most world powers, the Soviets would be unlikely back down and sacrifice their international image and prestige. Therefore, Kennan concludes that containment is the best policy. Allow the USSR to exist but prevent it from spreading, and eventually, due to its internal flaws, it will collapse in on itself.

            This document differs from Thucydides Melian Dialogue as for what level of analysis is utilized by the author. Thucydides used exclusively a systemic level. Kennan on the other hand uses a different approach for various segments of his work. Kennan did utilize a systemic approach, but also analyzed the Soviet Union on a domestic and even individual level. He discusses the importance of Lenin as well as the psychology of Soviet leaders in line with individualistic analysis. He also addresses the style of government and the harsh effects of the Soviet peoples, which corresponds with a domestic level. And, as is expected from a document rooted in foreign policy, Kennan discusses the US-Soviet relations through a more systemic viewpoint.

            But what of political theories? While Kennan’s article does focus on internal affairs as well as domestic issues and historical context, there is still evidence that realism has played a significant role in the Soviet Union’s development as well as in US-Soviet relations. The realism-based “means to an end” mentality exercised domestically in Russia inevitably seeped out into their foreign policy. Clearly, power, in the form of influence, was a key motive in Soviet foreign policy. However, because of the natural patience of Soviet ideology, their international initiative were more in-line with maintaining their power, i.e. ensuring the status quo. There was also a natural sense of prestige in that they were a pole in a bipolar world. “While the Kremlin is basically flexible in its reaction to political realities, it is by no means unamenable to considerations of prestige” (Kennan). These two realist approaches, when coupled together, could provide dangerous for its power-based counterpart, the United States. While realism did dictate that national interest was of a higher priority than individual pride and national ideology, the Soviet Union was flawed in that they held their international prestige in high of a regard, and Kennan warned that the Soviets could be increasingly irrational if another power consistently threatened their prestige.

            As a result, Kennan brilliantly illuminates a key policy prescription when dealing with the USSR: that of containment. The Soviet Union was not Nazi Germany, nor was it Napoleon’s France. There was no need to violently react to a dangerous power that was a minimal threat to national security at the time. Rather, prevent then from spreading. Contain their ideology. In this sense, the US could respect the USSR’s prestige as well as their Russian pride, without being overly threatening. If a foreign government, namely the United States, intend to have successful political dealings with the USSR then they should “…remain at all times cool and collected and that its demands on Russian policy should be put forward in such a manner as to leave the way open for a compliance not too detrimental to Russian prestige” (Kennan). When exercising foreign policy, Kennan recommends being mindful of a states internal forces, such as culture and ideology. Additionally, it is just as important to assess a rival on a domestic and individual level as well. Kennan stated explicitly that the USSR would likely collapse in on itself due to the multitude of domestic flaws and the consistent civil unrest. As a result, containment is the ideal policy prescription, according to Kennan, as it respects Soviet prestige, prevents irrational Soviet response, and allows the Soviet Union to simply fall apart as a result of its own internal and historical shortcomings.

            All in all, it is evident that international relations have been an important political initiative since the ancient world up to the current date. While, these lessons are captured in various primary texts, it is important to realize that some policies, procedures, and theories are essentially timeless. Realism is one such theory. While not always applicable, it has served to be the primary explanation for Peloponnesian expansion in the ancient world, as well as for the US containment policies and soviet growth in the bipolar world of the mid twentieth century.

**I have sourced many a fine author in compiling this post. If you'd like to read further, please let me know and I will send you an extended bibliography**

What is a government's role in an individual's happiness?

Here in America we often assume that the pursuit of happiness is a tenant of existence, and an "inalienable" right, here in the States. When in fact, it was little more rhetoric to drive a point home to an overbearing colonial power. Regardless, the thinkers of early America did, indeed, pull from much more established sources. And while I haven't done the research necessary to suggest the specific sources from  which Thomas Jefferson pulled, the concept of happiness is one that is often a concern for the ardent thinker, the philosopher, the political theorist. So this is where we'll begin... with a quick look into a timeless concept from the perspective of ancient individuals.

Though ancient political thought includes thinkers from multiple civilizations, Greek philosophers were some of the earliest contributors to political theory. And while some had differing approaches, it is quite evident that the philosophy of some is, at times, best when complimented by the thoughts of another. This is the case with Aristotle and Plato.  Aristotle addressed happiness as the primary end of government within the polis. As social and political animals, it is only natural that happiness, the highest and most fulfilling state of being, is a consequence of a governed life. Though Aristotle adequately identifies the components of such a claim, it is still critical to understand Plato’s analyses of the human soul to gain a full understanding of how the potential for happiness is often contingent on the presence of government.

Plato defines happiness as a quality of existence that results from the ordering of one’s soul. According to Plato, every soul is comprised of three components: reason, spiritedness, and passion. For an individual to have an ordered soul, reason must rule over the other two components. Therefore, in line with Plato’s teachings, to attain true happiness, one must allow their rational sense to surpass the whims and desires of their more spirited and passionate sides (Wiser 18-19). Plato will argue first and foremost that moderation is the key to ordering one’s soul.  Yet in the seventh installment of his Epistles, he emphasizes the importance of government claiming that “…no city nor individual can be happy except by living in company with wisdom under the guidance of justice…” (Wiser 18). Therefore, as Plato utilizes the Kallipolis, or the ideal city, to identify the need for the “guidance of justice,” he begins to suggest that true happiness is, in part, contingent upon a life governed by politics.

As Plato clearly provides the groundwork, Aristotle continues to illustrate the important relationship between happiness and government. In chapter nine of Book 1 of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explicitly identifies “politics,” or the essence of government, as the primary means of ensuring happiness for its people. “…We stated the end of politics is the best of ends, and the main concern of politics is to engender a certain character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to perform noble actions” (Wiser 43). For Aristotle, good government and structured life within the polis promotes virtue among the governed, and virtue in turn breeds happiness. Aristotle argues that as life within the polis not only satisfies our political and social needs, but is a vital aspect of attaining true happiness as it lends order to the soul.

Aristotle continues on to answer the question of how governed society can support happiness. First, as social animals, humans require community and friendship. Unlike modern thinks who are more prone to view friendship as a distinctly personal concern, Aristotle clearly identifies it as the mortar of political life (Wiser 47). Therefore Aristotle highlights the importance of society and its subsequent levels within the polis. While a life of moderation and individual devotion are important, life within the family and village are just as critical. All three levels of the polis ultimately promote homonoia, a kind of friendship that involves a sense of equality of mind and virtue between individuals.  These particular relationships are critical in attaining true happiness as it preserves the political life in the polis.

There is one other aspect of society that helps identify the importance of the polis; the magnanimous man. The magnanimous man is one of good virtue who embraces a life of moderation. Since Aristotle claims that a good society depends of the imitation of such virtues, these magnanimous men serve to illustrate true happiness within the community and answer the call to govern. As rulers, these men innately desire to foster goodness among their citizens not only for the preservation of their regime but to ensure the individual citizen’s happiness as well (Wiser 48). Therefore the combination of community within the polis and tangible examples of virtuous men allow a properly governed society to promote happiness among its constituents.

By assessing the works of both Plato and Aristotle, it is evident personal happiness is contingent on the structure and governance of social living. Plato assists in this analysis by highlighting the importance of the soul and suggesting that government plays an inescapable role in one’s pursuit of happiness. Aristotle then proceeds to solidify this argument both in his emphasis on virtue as well as his approach to life within the polis. Overall, according to ancient political theory, the government is in part responsible for personal happiness as its primary end is to provide an environment when the individual can thrive and reach his potential as a part of a governed community.

 **be sure to check out this text by James Wiser , it was very instrumental in the creation of this post**

Welcome! I do hope you enjoy your stay.

"Societies aren't made of sticks and stones, but of men whose individual characters, by turning the scale one way or another, determine the direction of the whole…"

A few insightful words taken form Plato's Republic. Empowering, eh, the thought that the decisions and consequent actions of the individual can have an impact on something larger. Even as large as the whole of society. Or perhaps this suggests that it requires a more collective effort to make a difference, the conglomerate force of a myriad of unique persons. Regardless, it still all starts with the individual. With each person deciding that they want to make a difference, to contribute to something larger.

And I guess that is what I am doing here... Allow me an introduction. I am naught more than a person committed to always remaining a student in one way or another; someone committed to a greater sense of understanding and the pursuit of knowledge. And in turn, I am finally finding time to share my own thought and insights with whoever feels the need to listen, or I suppose I should say, read.

I am not as educated as most, but I have spent a bit of time among experts (at least they are in my opinion) in the fields of political theory, current events, international relations, intelligence, and other similar components of the social sciences. This blog will simply be an outlet for all that I have studied, all that I have experienced, and all that I continue to learn. And by the title, you'd be right to assume that I may be delving a bit into the theoretical side of political affairs and the human condition.... though not exclusively...

So I wish you all the best. Please critique all that you read. I embrace criticism, and welcome debate. In no way am I an expert in any sense, just another individual trying to contribute the best he can. I have a burning passion for much of this material (if not all of it), and I encourage each reader to help stoke the fire. 

Believe in the Kallipolis. Exist in the Metaxy. And let's see how immanent the Eschaton can really be.

Enjoy.