I have finished reading The Ends of the World. A History of Cosmopolitanism from Antiquity to the 18th Century by Luca Scuccimarra, and it seems to me a demonstration of disorientation or misinformation.
As Scuccimarra points out, even before Socrates, there were thinkers who declared themselves cosmopolitans, as this was their vision of peace—Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and others. However, there is no doubt that the emergence of cosmopolitanism occurred after Socrates’ death, sentenced by Athenian democracy for “not believing in the gods of the polis and (consequently) corrupting the youth,” as recorded in The Apology, the first and most authentic dialogue about Socrates written by Plato, as it could only transcribe what was widely known. Socrates, in response to such accusations, repeatedly tells us that he had “only human understanding, not supernatural” like those who speak of or deal with the gods. It is not that he “only knew that he knew nothing,” as textbooks misinform and as is taught in schools and universities, but rather, as Socrates himself also says in The Apology, “I simply do not think I know what I do not know.”
There is much written about Socrates, not only Plato’s Dialogues. His detractors accused him of having influenced the Athenians’ military disaster in the Sicilian campaign, which was key to their eventual defeat in the Peloponnesian War. And we must turn to Plato’s second dialogue, Gorgias—which, in my opinion, Plato makes confusing by stating that Socrates preached it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it, likely because for Plato there is no alternative—to set aside the gods and see more clearly what was at stake. Socrates not only identifies war in battles but also in fortifications, alliances, military bases, the incessant development of weapons and fleets, the constant training of soldiers, and so on. Socrates does not believe this; he sees it with his eyes and knows it, just as anyone else can see it. However, “what is harmful” cannot be spoken of directly, and instead, we use figments, ideologies, or religions that justify and drive war.
Socrates thus opened the eyes of antiquity, and cosmopolitanism became widespread in the ancient world. With the exception of Plato and Aristotle—whose Academy and Lyceum were funded by and worked for the state—all independent schools of thought declared themselves followers of Socrates and propagated cosmopolitanism. We refer to the Cyrenaics—and later their successors, the Epicureans, the Cynics, and especially the Stoics, who dominated the spiritual world within the vast territories of the Roman and Hellenistic empires for five centuries. All of them understood that only by living together in the same society can humans refer to reality rather than figments. For, as we have said, the purpose of harm—the weapon, the state or armed entity—cannot be exposed.
Cosmopolitanism is the unity of humanity in a single society (polis), “the same system of justice,” as Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, explicitly stated. This leads us to the use of common sense (logos), which is rooted in both placing ourselves in others’ positions and referring to things according to their use by the (human) body. This, in turn, leads us to the “kingdom of ends.” In contrast, when divided, we become tools of the weapon, enslaved to the extent that we even confess to doing so voluntarily. We are conditioned to feel empathy only for nationals and contempt for foreigners, a corruption of our natural feelings and understanding, which, I emphasize, resides in the (human) body.
This same understanding of the human condition was also present in Mohism in China, the most popular school of thought in its era of independence from the state. Mohism masterfully defines and calls for the transition “from partiality (the cause of evil) to universality (the cause of good).” It is only necessary to wait for the discovery of the world and its limits to achieve it, since the establishment of universality in a partial way is impossible, it would be contradictory.
However, when the great discoveries revealed those limits and the unity of the world—making it accessible and communicable—an unsettling phenomenon occurred. States or armed entities adapted and cooperated to continue enslaving humans. The weapon or state was then represented as a nation, and the nation was declared both the subject and agent of peace. Thus, the nation became the source of law—through which the wicked human submits to the state and is civilized—and now the goal is to civilize states through a Confederation. To this end, the League of Nations was first created, and today it is represented by the United Nations.
For ancient cosmopolitanism, creating the Human Nation would have been equivalent to abolishing the weapon, armed unit or the state. The human unity that achieves peace lies with human beings, not with armed entities. It is not that we believe in figurations; it is that we know, as Socrates did, that the development or improvement of the weapon, “that which is for harm,” results in the detriment of others, thus perpetuating war. However, the use of the figuration of the word nation blocks our ability to confront the weapon with our understanding, which is based on common sense. This understanding places us in the position of any other human being, whether national or foreign, and it is the same way we comprehend objects and things through their bodily (human) use. In this way, we also understand the weapon and its intrinsic evil and contradiction, by which humans are enslaved—mutually depriving each other of freedom.
Abstractions or figurations such as gods, nations, democracies, or human rights are not references to or for our humanity because they are not real (they are ideas). And yet, could the state accept anything—be it democracy, human rights, the concept of nation, or climate change—if it made it weaker and more vulnerable to others? Does democracy or communism make the people of a state more equal? What state exists that is not pyramidal in its exploitation of humans, depriving them equally of freedom and humanity? Could we imagine a state that would accept a system that weakens its weapon? In no case is that possible. Strengthening the state was the purpose of both democracy and communism—read Engels—and equality would come only after communist states conquered the world through the workers’ fifth column in all countries. We also think, ‘How great, slavery was abolished!’ But is it possible to maintain slaves and wage war with other states at the same time? That’s why the Spartans had two kings and the Romans two Consuls, because both things together are very difficult. The state has no goodness whatsoever. So, let us not think of democracy as good or bad. Then, why do we confess to it? The weapon will only accept it if it benefits itself, specifically if it improves it, making it more harmful. Indeed, the concept of the nation and of democracy led states to what is now called “total war,” in which women, children, and the elderly also participate. Napoleon demonstrated democracy´s virtues. That also gave rise to the phenomenon of terrorism, something unthinkable in the past when the state alone was the armed entity, indifferent to its servants, women, or supporting base. And human rights (and democracy)—are these not words used to justify attacking other weapons under the guise of defending them?
Sunzi states that the leader’s business is to disorient the people, as this is how he makes himself indispensable, and the people follow him blindly—even to their deaths, which is what war requires. I repeat what was stated above: the peace and concord that those ancient sages saw in human unity is the peace, unity, and concord of human beings, not of weapons. Clearly, the development or improvement of the weapon, “that which is for harm,” results in the detriment of others. This understanding is innate to us all, requiring no leadership to explain it. It is common-sense knowledge (logos). We understand each other by placing ourselves in another’s position, and through this same understanding, we comprehend objects, including the most crucial object, the weapon. This is something that Cervantes brilliantly exposes, stating that “the weapon is the same as war” and that it forces us to confess what we say and think, as “heaven suffers force.” For this reason, Cervantes is one of the most egregious cases of disinformation in history, as he unmasks power.
The body does not deceive us. Thus, there is no one who does not fear the weapon, whose purpose is to take life. But we must overcome that fear with awareness, trust, and love for humanity, founded on the absolute certainty that this understanding (logos) is simple and common to us all. Bodies have no nation. Compassion only for nationals and contempt for foreigners are induced by disinformation.
Instead of the United Nations, let us speak of the Human Nation.