Budapest Philosophy Group

“The virtue of the gentleman is like the wind; the virtue of the small man is like the grass. When the wind blows, the grass must bend.”
— The Analects, 12.19

## Part 1: Politics in the antiquity

Politics likely emerged as soon as humans formed into groups.
But who holds power? How is it justified? What are its limits?
We’ve wanted for a long time to enter the field of political philosophy, but it is such a vast topic that it made sense to break it into smaller parts. This is why we decided to create a series with a chronological progression, starting in antiquity.

In this first session, we will explore the major political ideas that shaped early civilizations. And rather than focusing only on the Western tradition, we will also contrast it with Eastern thought.
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Confucius all asked the same fundamental question that we are exploring today: What is the best way to order society?

We will examine:

• Plato — rule by the wisest, idealism, types of government and their degeneration.
• Aristotle — politics as balance, mixed regimes, and the common good.
• Cicero — natural vs human law, republican virtue, civic duty and stoic influence.
• Confucius — social harmony, obedience through reciprocal role-based hierarchy, authority by moral example rather than coercion.

Questions to discuss:

1. Should political authority be grounded in virtue, tradition, or consent?
2. If political authority is grounded in knowledge (Plato), who decides who truly knows?
3. Is Plato’s view of decay (aristocracy → democracy → tyranny) a trap?
4. Is Plato’s philosopher-king ideal a psychological self-projection?
5. Would you rather be ruled by a virtuous elite you cannot vote out, or an incompetent one you can?
6. Aristotle warning on demagogues, is it still current?
7. Aristotle accepts inequality as natural. Is that realism or a rationalization of privilege?
8. Can a system aimed at the “common good” legitimately exclude large parts of the population?
9. Confucius prioritizes harmony and moral duty over "natural rights" or "consent". For him social order depends on role fulfillment and reciprocity. Would you trade off harmony for conformity?
10. Is Confucian hierarchy more honest than modern claims of equality?
11. Cicero claims that all humans are born free by nature. Why does this idea appear in Rome and not in Athens?
12. Is naturalism a double-sided sword? a man is free by nature vs a man has rights by nature.
13. Does the Roman emphasis on law and institutions mark a shift from moral authority to legitimacy? Is "obedience to law" superior to "obedience to virtue" or "obedience for the Gods"?
14. Does political participation require some form of oppression? (we just push the exploitation elsewhere)?
15. Can modern technocracies be inheriting Confucian structure without Confucian virtue?
16. Is political exclusion a historical necessity? or is it still a current problem?
17. Which tradition (east vs west) better explains long-term stability and which better explains innovation? which do we prefer?

RSVP: Please confirm your attendance on Meetup to make sure we have enough space. Consider donating from 400 HUF to keep the costs of the meetup (cash or Revolut trasnfer)

“If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”
(The Art of War)

“A prince must know how to use both the beast and the man… one must be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”
(The Prince)

“Know how to adapt yourself to others; the chameleon lives on air and takes its color from what surrounds it.”
(Oráculo Manual)

Politics is closely related to power. And the laws of power are not necessarily ruled by virtue or good intentions.
What factors determine power, then?

In this session, we bring together three thinkers who never met, were widely separated by time, countries, and circumstances. Yet they describe underlying realities about the brutality of power.
Today we talk about Sun Tzu, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Baltasar Gracián.

Today, we leave morality and higher ideals aside, as power can often override them. This session is about how power actually behaves in groups, states, and life.
We will draw on these three thinkers, who offer a wide and unsettling window into the mechanics of power.

Sub-topics:
Today we will examine the below aspects, explore our own views for each of them and then contrast our views with those of the 3 thinkers:

• The meaning of power
• Views on Leadership
• Deception and adaptation
• Avoiding conflict
• How to handle information
• Weakness and strengths
• When to Attack
• Victory

Questions:

• What is power for you?
• Have you ever been in a position of power?
• Was your power based on force, influence, dependency, or perception?
• What techniques do you use—or would you use—to gain or remain in power?

***

• What are the essential attributes of a leader?
• What would you recommend to someone holding power?
• What would you expect from a person who holds power?

***

• Have you ever been in a position where you betrayed your principles while in power?
• Is betraying one’s principles something that can always be avoided?
• Can hypocrites or liars have an advantage over those who are not?

***

• Is avoiding conflict always a good thing?
• Can you withdraw from a confrontation without losing credibility?
• Have you turned a conflict into a good situation for you?

***

• When ruling, where do you get your information from?
• Do you listen to those you would rather not hear?
• Has silence ever given you more power than speaking?

***

• What is your strategy when facing someone stronger than you in a power dynamic?
• How do you enhance your strengths as a ruler?

***

• When is the right moment to attack, or engage in confrontation, in your view?
• Do you prefer to act when the external conditions are right, or when you feel internally ready to act?

***

• What is victory for you in a power dynamic? When have you truly won?
• What is the difference between attaining victory and maintaining power?
• Is it always convenient—or wise—to win?