SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.16 issue1 author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Phronimon

On-line version ISSN 2413-3086
Print version ISSN 1561-4018

Abstract

BOSMAN, Philip. Ancient debates on autarkeia and our global impasse . Phronimon [online]. 2015, vol.16, n.1, pp.1-16. ISSN 2413-3086.

Probably the most glaring geo-political contradiction today consists between economic inequality on the one hand and the over-exploitation of the planet's resources on the other. Global prosperity is held up as the economic ideal to be striven for, but environmentalists warn of the impossibility to spread the consumerism, on which developed economies rest, to the majority of the world's population. The elements of the conundrum - stimulating needs versus curbing needs - are present in the debates around the notion of self-sufficiency in Classical Greece. Autarkeia as philosophical ideal is present in radical form in ancient Cynicism: Diogenes of Sinope interpreted the term as a state of virtual complete lack of need except for the most basic to sustain life. In Cynicism, autarkeia became a goal in itself, but the impossibility of its consistent implementation found expression in the tradition of Diogenes living in cities and begging for subsistence. The notion, however, found various definitions during the 5th century already. Hippias of Elis (as from Plato's Protagoras and Hippias Major) was probably the first to promote it to the status of moral telos, but Thucydides' Pericles also boasted of Athens' autarkeia (as the ability to provide in its own needs) which somehow translated into self-sufficient citizens (Thuc. 2.36.3; 41.2). As was recently argued (Moles 1996; Irwin 2012), Herodotus' dialogue between Solon and Croesus (Hdt.1.30-33) should be read against the background of Athenian politics under Pericles and was meant as a warning against a particular definition of happiness (as wealth) and a concomitant view of self-sufficiency reliant on the city's empire. At the heart of the debate lie two opposing views of self-sufficiency: the ability to satisfy all possible needs, or the ability to be content with catering for the fewest possible needs. In between these radical definitions were others, more moderate, to be found: Socrates, for instance, as well as his pupil Antisthenes, endeavoured to limit need in order to obtain freedom from daily drudgery and practise philosophy (cf. Xen. Mem. 1.2, 6); Aristotle defines the life of the gods as one of autarkeia in order to promote contemplation as the highest moral goal (EN 10.7-8). The various positions invariably associated their definitions of autarkeia with a particular idea of happiness. This paper suggests that the ancient debate on self-sufficiency should be brought closer to the centre of current moral discourse. In particular, since the dominating view of happiness in popular conceptions equates to "the ability to satisfy all possible needs", it is asked whether the ideals on the other side of the spectrum (Socrates, Antisthenes, Diogenes) are not deserving of serious consideration in order to escape from the current impasse which not only causes social and political tension, but can only lead to disaster.

Keywords : Self-sufficiency; global moral issues; autarkeia.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )