Chapter Summary
The expansion of Greece from polis to cosmopolis is the story of significant, and at times painful, change. One of the most difficult transitions in the course of Hellenic civilization was when the Greeks realized that the polis was not compatible with long-term expansion. There were significant structural and philosophical differences that had to be reconciled. Even Socrates was aware of this: how could the Athenians create a polis based on virtue when no one could define what was meant by virtue in the first place? The effects of this discovery on the Greeks were profound and resulted in despair and cynicism; this was compounded by the fact that between the fifth and third centuries, the Hellenic polis gave way to the Hellenistic cosmopolis.
Of course, this despair and cynicism were fashioned in an environment that also produced two of the most important philosophers in world history: Plato and his student Aristotle. In his many dialogues, Plato tried to create a world above and beyond the world we perceive with our senses. This transcendent world is one we can know, but only if we have grasped the Idea of the Good. Aristotle, on the other hand, was a scientist who trusted his senses and believed in the objective reality of all things. Together, Plato and Aristotle fashioned two opposing views of human knowledge: rationalism and empiricism. These schools of thinking have helped to frame political and philosophical debates throughout Western history.
During this period, the reigns of Philip II of Macedon and his son, Alexander the Great, were transformative. Philip II stabilized the region's borders through a combination of warfare and diplomacy; however, he was viewed as an aggressor by some and was ultimately assassinated. Under Alexander, the Greek world expanded as far west as the Indus River, before he died from fever at the age of thirty-three. Alexander's legacy long outlived him. Alexander and his armies succeeded in Hellenizing the ancient Near East and Egypt, thus mixing Greek ideas and culture with ideas from civilizations with a much lengthier history. Again, the tendency seems to be toward internationalism (something we have noted in previous chapters). As a result, some difficult social and cultural challenges had to be addressed.
The Greeks had lost something in the development from polis to cosmopolis-and what they lost was fundamentally human, fundamentally Hellenic. A period of despair, cynicism, and anxiety ensued; in this atmosphere of dejection came new philosophies that proved therapeutic to those who felt lost in a world they thought they knew. The Stoics taught that there was a divine plan to the cosmos and that in order to find peace, man must submit to that order. Duty and self-discipline, then, were the highest Stoic virtues. The Epicureans taught that there was no rational order and that the highest good was pleasure. These modes of thinking were helpful for the citizens, the most literate of Hellenistic culture. The broad masses had different needs. A number of mystery cults developed, the most influential of which was the Persian cult of Mithraism, which had similarities with early Christianity.
One cannot underestimate the influence of the Hellenistic Greeks. Not only did they make startling discoveries in science, mathematics, geography, physics, and medicine, they also demonstrated that despair and anxiety manifest themselves when traditional values break down. The Hellenistic Age is a transitional one between the Greeks and the Romans. Perhaps the most important legacy was Alexander the Great himself. What would Rome have become without his example?