He is best known as the author of the 11-volume History of Civilization, which he co-wrote with his wife, Ariel Durant, and which was published between 1935 and 1975. Previously known for his History of Philosophy, written in 1926, which one author described as "a pioneering work that helps popularize philosophy."

William and Ariel Durant were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Non-Fiction in 1968 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977.

Biography

William (Will) James Durant was born in North Adams, Massachusetts (North Adams, Massachusetts). His parents, Joseph Durant and Mary Allard, were of French-Canadian origin, part of the so-called. Quebec emigration. His parents intended him for a spiritual career.

He received his primary education at a parochial Catholic school. In 1900 he entered the St. Peter's in Jersey City (St. Peter's Preparatory School), later - in the College of St. Peter's College in Jersey City, New Jersey (Jersey City, New Jersey) is a Catholic educational institution run by the Jesuit order.

In 1903, in the Jersey City Public Library, he discovered the works of C. Darwin (Charles Robert Darwin), T. Huxley (Thomas Henry Huxley), G. Spencer (Herbert Spencer) and E. Haeckel. (Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel) Thus, at the age of 18, Durant began to come to the conclusion that he could not, in good conscience, take the vow of the priest.

In 1905, his passion for socialist philosophy began. He graduated from college in 1907 and briefly worked as a reporter for the New York Evening Journal. From the autumn of 1907 he began teaching Latin, French and English, and geometry at Seton Hall Catholic College in South Orange, New Jersey. He was also the college librarian. In 1909 he entered the theological seminary, which was part of the college, hoping to combine socialism with a spiritual career, but left the seminary in 1911 and moved to New York with $40 in his pocket and four books. This caused a long-term break with his parents.

In 1911, he became the teacher-director of the Modern Ferrer School (Modern School). This institution was an anarchist-libertarian experiment in education. The school's main sponsor, Alden Freeman, gave him a summer trip to Europe to "expand horizons". Back in America, Durant fell in love with one of his students, Chaya (Ida) Kaufman. In order to marry her, in 1913, Durant left his position and supported his family by lecturing, receiving five to ten dollars per speech. At the same time, he attended Columbia University in preparation for his master's degree. Alden Freeman paid for the training. At the university, his teachers were outstanding scientists: in biology - T. Morgan (Thomas Hunt Morgan), in anthropology - J. H. McGregor, in psychology - R. Woodworth (Robert S. Woodworth) and A. Poffenberger ( Albert Th. Poffenberger), in philosophy - F. Woodbridge (Frederick James Eugene Woodbridge) and J. Dewey (John Dewey).

In 1917, fulfilling the Ph.D. requirement, Durant published his first book, Philosophy and the Social Problem. The book is dedicated to Alden Freeman. Duran received his doctorate in 1917 and began teaching at Columbia University, but World War I brought confusion to the courses he taught and Duran was fired.

He began lecturing in history, philosophy, music, and science at the Temple of Labor, the former premises of the Presbyterian Church on the corner of 14th Street and 2nd Avenue in New York City. This prepared him for later writing the Story of Philosophy and the Story of Civilization. His audience was adults who demanded a clear presentation and wanted to understand the connection of history with modernity. In 1921, Durant organized the Temple Labor School for adults.

History of philosophy

One Sunday, Emanuel Haldeman-Julius, publisher of the popular Blue Books educational series, was walking past the Temple of Labor when he saw an announcement that Duran would talk about Plato at 5 pm. The publisher came in, listened to the lecture, and liked it. He later asked Duran to write the text of this lecture in a form suitable for the Blue Books series. This pamphlet was followed by a book about Aristotle and nine more of the same kind: Francis Bacon, Spinoza, Voltaire and the French Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant and German idealism, Schopenhauer, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Nietzsche, modern European philosophers - Henri Bergson, Benedetto Croce, Bertrand Russell, modern American philosophers - George Santayana, William James, John Dewey. These 11 pamphlets became the book History of Philosophy. The title of the book - Story of Philosophy, not History of Philosophy - was intended to make it clear that the book was intended for readers with a lesser level of education. These are stories about philosophers rather than history of philosophy. The book was a great success, selling 2 million copies within a few years; subsequently it was translated into many languages.

This financial success enabled Durant to take on the project he dreamed of: writing a book, like the one that Henry Thomas Buckle had not managed to write - the history of civilization. He retired from teaching, but occasionally took time off from his main job to write journal articles. Subsequently, many of these essays were included in the book The Mansions of Philosophy, published in 1929 and later reprinted under the title The Pleasure of Philosophy. The title echoes the title of Boethius' book The Consolation of Philosophy.

History of civilization

Duran originally planned to write five volumes and spend five years each. The first of these, Our Oriental Heritage, appeared in 1935. He traveled around the world twice to write this volume of more than a thousand full-size pages. The volume contains a description of the development of civilization in Asia from ancient times to Gandhi and Chiang Kai-shek. The volume took six years to write.

The second volume, The Life of Greece, appeared in 1939. It describes Hellenistic culture from its earliest predecessors in Crete and Asia to its absorption by Rome. In 1997, a translation of this volume into Russian was published, Moscow, Kron-Press.

The third volume, "Caesar and Christ" (Caesar and Christ) was published in 1944. It tells the history of Rome from Romulus to Emperor Constantine. The Russian translation was published in 1995, Moscow, Kron-Press.

The fourth volume, The Age of Faith, appeared in 1950. This volume describes the history of three civilizations, Christian, Muslim and Jewish, over a thousand years: from Emperor Constantine to Dante, from 325 to 1321.

The fifth volume, The Renaissance, appeared in 1953. This volume begins with Petrarch and Bocaccio in the 14th century, goes to Florence for the Medici, artists, poets and humanists who turned Florence into a new Athens, tells the tragic story of Savonarolla , follows to Milan with Leonardo da Vinci, to Umbria with Pietro della Francesca and Perugino, to Mantua with Mantegna and Isabella d'Este, to Ferrara with Ariosto, to Venice with Giorgione, Bellini and Aldus Manutius, to Parma with Correggio, to Urbino from Castiglione, to Naples with Alfonso the Magnanimous, to Rome with the great popes of the Renaissance, the patrons of Raphael and Michelangelo, again to Venice with Titian, Aretino, Tintoretto, and Veronese, and again to Florence with Cellini.

The sixth volume, The Reformation, appeared in 1957. Subtitled: A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin: 1300-1564.

The seventh volume, The Age of Reason Begins, appeared in 1961. Subtitled: A History of European Civilization in the Times of Shakespeare, Bacon, Montaigne, Rembrandt, Galileo, and Descartes: 1558-1648.

The eighth volume, The Age of Louis XIV, appeared in 1963. Subtitled: A History of European Civilization in the Time of Pascal, Molière, Cromwell, Milton, Peter the Great, Newton, and Spinoza: 1648-1715. Starting with this volume, Ariel Durand's name appears on the cover next to her husband's name.

The ninth volume, The Age of Voltaire, appeared in 1865. Subtitled: "A History of Civilization in Western Europe from 1715 to 1756, with Particular Attention to the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy."

The tenth volume, Rousseau and Revolution, appeared in 1967. Subtitled: A History of Civilization in France, England, and Germany from 1756 to 1756 and in the Rest of Europe from 1715 to 1789. .

The eleventh volume, The Age of Napoleon, appeared in 1975. Subtitled: A History of European Civilization from 1789 to 1815.

Works about Russia

In 1933, William Durant published Tragedy of Russia: Impressions of a short visit, and soon after that - "The Lesson of Russia". A few years after the books were published, social commentator Will Rogers, participating in one symposium, included him in the list of participants in this event. He later called him one of the best and fearless writers about Russia who had been there.

Views and social activities

In April 1944, two leaders of the Jewish and Christian community, Mr. Meyer David and Dr. Christian Richard, approached Duran for cooperation in organizing a movement to raise moral standards. Duran dissuaded them from this venture and offered to develop a "Declaration of Interdependence" instead. The three of them developed such a document and made it public on March 22, 1945 during a gala performance in Hollywood. The main speakers, in addition to Duran, were writer Thomas Mann and film actress Beth Davis. The movement culminated when the Declaration of Interdependence was registered as an official document of the US Congress.

Declaration text:

Declaration of Interdependence

While respect for the freedom and dignity of human beings has enabled human progress to reach a high level, it has become desirable to reaffirm the following obvious truths:

that differences in race, color, and religion are natural, and that diverse groups, institutions, and ideas are a stimulating factor in the development of Man;

that maintaining harmony in diversity is the responsible task of religion and government;

that, since no individual can express the full Truth, it is essential to show understanding and good will to those whose views differ from our own;

that, according to the testimony of History, intolerance is the door to violence, cruelty and dictatorship, and that the realization of human interdependence and solidarity is the best defense of Civilization.

In doing so, we solemnly express our resolve and call upon others to act together,

to maintain and spread the brotherhood of man through benevolence and respect;

fight for human dignity and virtue and protect them without distinction of race, color or religion;

fight in cooperation with others against all hostility arising from such differences and for the unification of all groups in the fair play of civilized life;

Our roots are in Freedom, we are connected by commonwealth in the face of danger and the blood community of humanity. We proclaim again that all people are brothers and mutual tolerance is the price of freedom.

Write a review on "Durant, William James"

Notes

Literature

Most significant works

• Durant, Will (1917) Philosophy and the Social Problem. New York: Macmillan.
• Durant, Will (1926) The Story of Philosophy
• Durant, Will (1927) transition. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1929) The Mansions of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Later with minor revisions re-published as The Pleasures of Philosophy
• Durant, Will (1930) The Case for India. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1931) Adventures in Genius. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1953) The Pleasures of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will & Durant, Ariel (1968) The Lessons of History. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will & Durant, Ariel (1970) Interpretations of life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will & Durant, Ariel (1977) A Dual Autobiography. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (2001) Heroes of History: A Brief History of Civilization from Ancient Times to the Dawn of the Modern Age. New York: Simon and Schuster. Actually copyrighted by John Little and the Estate of Will Durant.
• Durant, Will (2002) The Greatest Minds and Ideas of All Time. New York: Simon and Schuster.

History of civilization

• Durant, Will (1935) Our Oriental Heritage. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1939) The Life of Greece. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1944) Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1950) The Age of Faith. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1953) The Renaissance. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will (1957) The Reformation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will, & Durant, Ariel (1961) The Age of Reason Begins. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will, & Durant, Ariel (1963) The Age of Louis XIV. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will, & Durant, Ariel (1965) The Age of Voltaire. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will, & Durant, Ariel (1967) Rousseau and Revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Durant, Will, & Durant, Ariel (1975) The Age of Napoleon. New York: Simon and Schuster.

In Russian

Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ[History of Rome: Per. from English]. - M .: JSC "KRON-press", 1995. - 735 p., L. ill. 24 cm - ISBN 5-8317-0136-0

Links

Excerpt characterizing Durant, William James

One army fled, the other caught up. From Smolensk, the French had many different roads; and, it would seem, here, after standing for four days, the French could find out where the enemy was, figure out something profitable and undertake something new. But after a four-day halt, the crowd of them again ran not to the right, not to the left, but, without any maneuvers and considerations, along the old, worse road, to Krasnoe and Orsha - along the broken trail.
Expecting the enemy from behind, and not in front, the French fled, stretched out and separated from each other for twenty-four hours. The emperor ran ahead of them all, then the kings, then the dukes. The Russian army, thinking that Napoleon would take to the right beyond the Dnieper, which was the only reasonable thing, also leaned to the right and entered the high road to Krasnoye. And then, as in a game of hide and seek, the French stumbled upon our vanguard. Suddenly seeing the enemy, the French mixed up, stopped from the unexpectedness of fright, but then ran again, leaving behind their comrades who were following. Here, as if through the formation of Russian troops, three days passed, one after the other, separate parts of the French, first the Viceroy, then Davout, then Ney. All of them abandoned each other, abandoned all their burdens, artillery, half of the people and ran away, only at night bypassing the Russians on the right in semicircles.
Ney, who walked last (because, despite their unfortunate situation, or precisely because of it, they wanted to beat the floor that hurt them, he took up blasting the walls of Smolensk that did not interfere with anyone), - walking last, Ney, with his ten thousandth corps, ran to Orsha to Napoleon with only a thousand people, leaving all the people and all the guns and at night, stealthily, making his way through the forest through the Dnieper.
From Orsha they ran further along the road to Vilna, just like playing hide and seek with the pursuing army. On the Berezina they again got mixed up, many drowned, many surrendered, but those who crossed the river ran on. Their chief commander put on a fur coat and, sitting in a sleigh, galloped off alone, leaving his comrades behind. Those who could - left too, those who could not - surrendered or died.

It would seem that in this campaign of the flight of the French, when they did everything that was possible to destroy themselves; when there was not the slightest sense in any movement of this crowd, from the turn to the Kaluga road to the flight of the chief from the army, it would seem that during this period of the campaign it is already impossible for historians who attribute the actions of the masses to the will of one person to describe this retreat in their meaning. But no. Mountains of books have been written by historians about this campaign, and everywhere Napoleon's orders and his thoughtful plans are described - the maneuvers that led the army, and the brilliant orders of his marshals.
Retreat from Maloyaroslavets when he is given a road to a rich land and when that parallel road is open to him, along which Kutuzov later pursued him, an unnecessary retreat along a ruined road is explained to us for various profound reasons. For the same profound reasons, his retreat from Smolensk to Orsha is described. Then his heroism at Krasny is described, where he is allegedly preparing to accept the battle and command himself, and walks with a birch stick and says:
- J "ai assez fait l" Empereur, il est temps de faire le general, [I've already represented the emperor enough, now it's time to be a general.] - and, despite the fact, immediately after that he runs further, leaving scattered parts of the army behind.
Then they describe to us the greatness of the soul of the marshals, especially Ney, the greatness of the soul, consisting in the fact that at night he made his way through the forest around the Dnieper and without banners and artillery and without nine-tenths of the troops ran to Orsha.
And, finally, the last departure of the great emperor from the heroic army is presented to us by historians as something great and brilliant. Even this last act of flight, in human language called the last degree of meanness, which every child learns to be ashamed of, and this act in the language of historians is justified.
When it is no longer possible to stretch further such elastic threads of historical reasoning, when the action is already clearly contrary to what all mankind calls good and even justice, historians have a saving concept of greatness. Greatness seems to exclude the possibility of a measure of good and bad. For the great - there is no bad. There is no horror that can be blamed on one who is great.
- "C" est grand! [This is majestic!] - say historians, and then there is no good or bad, but there is "grand" and "not grand". Grand is good, not grand is bad. Grand is a property, according to their concepts, of some special animals they call heroes. And Napoleon, getting home in a warm fur coat from dying not only comrades, but (in his opinion) people brought here by him, feels que c "est grand, and his soul is at peace.
“Du sublime (he sees something sublime in himself) au ridicule il n "y a qu" un pas, ”he says. And the whole world repeats for fifty years: “Sublime! Grand! Napoleon le grand! Du sublime au ridicule il n "y a qu" un pas. [majestic... There is only one step from majestic to ridiculous... Majestic! Great! Great Napoleon! From majestic to ridiculous, only a step.]
And it would never occur to anyone that the recognition of greatness, immeasurable by the measure of good and bad, is only the recognition of one's insignificance and immeasurable smallness.
For us, with the measure of good and bad given to us by Christ, there is nothing immeasurable. And there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.

Which of the Russian people, reading the descriptions of the last period of the 1812 campaign, did not experience a heavy feeling of annoyance, dissatisfaction and ambiguity. Who did not ask themselves questions: how they did not take away, did not destroy all the French, when all three armies surrounded them in superior numbers, when the frustrated French, starving and freezing, surrendered in droves, and when (as history tells us) the goal of the Russians was precisely that, to stop, cut off and take prisoner all the French.
How did the Russian army, which, weaker in number than the French, gave the Battle of Borodino, how did this army, which surrounded the French on three sides and had the goal of taking them away, not achieve its goal? Do the French really have such a huge advantage over us that we, having surrounded them with superior forces, could not beat them? How could this happen?
History (the one that is called by this word), answering these questions, says that this happened because Kutuzov, and Tormasov, and Chichagov, and that one, and that one did not make such and such maneuvers.
But why didn't they do all these maneuvers? Why, if they were to blame for the fact that the intended goal was not achieved, why were they not tried and executed? But even if we admit that Kutuzov and Chichagov, etc., were to blame for the failure of the Russians, it is still impossible to understand why, even in the conditions in which the Russian troops were near Krasnoye and near the Berezina (in both cases, the Russians were in excellent forces), why was the French army not taken prisoner with marshals, kings and emperors, when this was the goal of the Russians?
The explanation of this strange phenomenon by the fact (as Russian military historians do) that Kutuzov prevented the attack is unfounded, because we know that Kutuzov's will could not keep the troops from attacking at Vyazma and Tarutino.
Why was the Russian army, which with the weakest forces defeated the enemy in all its strength near Borodino, near Krasnoye and the Berezina in superior strength, was defeated by the frustrated crowds of the French?
If the goal of the Russians was to cut off and capture Napoleon and the marshals, and this goal was not only not achieved, and all attempts to achieve this goal were destroyed every time in the most shameful way, then the last period of the campaign is quite rightly presented by the French side by side victories and is completely unfairly presented by Russian historians as victorious.
Russian military historians, as much as logic is obligatory for them, involuntarily come to this conclusion and, despite lyrical appeals about courage and devotion, etc., must involuntarily admit that the French retreat from Moscow is a series of Napoleon's victories and Kutuzov's defeats.
But, leaving the people's pride completely aside, one feels that this conclusion in itself contains a contradiction, since a series of French victories led them to complete annihilation, and a series of Russian defeats led them to the complete annihilation of the enemy and the purification of their fatherland.
The source of this contradiction lies in the fact that historians who study events from the letters of sovereigns and generals, from reports, reports, plans, etc., have assumed a false, never existing goal of the last period of the war of 1812 - a goal that allegedly consisted in was to cut off and capture Napoleon with his marshals and army.
This goal has never been and could not be, because it had no meaning, and its achievement was completely impossible.
This goal did not make any sense, firstly, because Napoleon's frustrated army fled from Russia with all possible speed, that is, it fulfilled the very thing that every Russian could wish for. What was the purpose of doing various operations on the French, who were running as fast as they could?
Secondly, it was pointless to stand in the way of people who had directed all their energy to flee.
Thirdly, it was pointless to lose their troops to destroy the French armies, which were being destroyed without external causes in such a progression that, without any blocking of the path, they could not transport more than what they transferred in the month of December, that is, one hundredth of the entire army, across the border.
Fourthly, it was pointless to want to capture the emperor, kings, dukes - people whose captivity would have made the actions of the Russians extremely difficult, as the most skillful diplomats of that time (J. Maistre and others) recognized. Even more senseless was the desire to take the French corps, when their troops melted half to the Red, and the divisions of the convoy had to be separated from the corps of prisoners, and when their soldiers did not always receive full provisions and the prisoners already taken were dying of hunger.
The whole thoughtful plan to cut off and catch Napoleon with the army was similar to the plan of a gardener who, driving out the cattle that had trampled on his ridges, would run to the gate and begin to beat this cattle on the head. One thing that could be said in defense of the gardener would be that he was very angry. But this could not even be said about the compilers of the project, because it was not they who suffered from the trampled ridges.
But besides the fact that cutting off Napoleon with the army was pointless, it was impossible.
It was impossible, firstly, because, since experience shows that the movement of columns over five miles in one battle never coincides with plans, the probability that Chichagov, Kutuzov and Wittgenstein converged on time at the appointed place was so negligible that it was equal to impossibility, as Kutuzov thought, even when he received the plan, he said that sabotage over long distances did not bring the desired results.
Secondly, it was impossible because, in order to paralyze the force of inertia with which Napoleon's army was moving back, it was necessary, without comparison, larger troops than those that the Russians had.
Thirdly, it was impossible because the military word to cut off does not make any sense. You can cut off a piece of bread, but not an army. There is no way to cut off the army - to block its way - because there are always a lot of places around where you can get around, and there is a night during which nothing is visible, which military scientists could be convinced of even from the examples of Krasnoy and Berezina. It is impossible to take prisoner without the one being taken prisoner not agreeing to it, just as it is impossible to catch a swallow, although you can take it when it sits on your hand. You can capture someone who surrenders, like the Germans, according to the rules of strategy and tactics. But the French troops quite rightly did not find this convenient, since the same starvation and cold death awaited them on the run and in captivity.
Fourthly, and most importantly, it was impossible because never, since the existence of peace, there has been a war under those terrible conditions under which it took place in 1812, and the Russian troops, in the pursuit of the French, strained all their strength and did not could do more without destroying themselves.
In the movement of the Russian army from Tarutino to Krasnoy, fifty thousand sick and backward left, that is, a number equal to the population of a large provincial city. Half of the people dropped out of the army without fighting.
And about this period of the campaign, when the troops without boots and coats, with incomplete provisions, without vodka, spend the night for months in the snow and at fifteen degrees of frost; when the day is only seven and eight hours, and the rest is night, during which there can be no influence of discipline; when, unlike in a battle, for a few hours only people are brought into the region of death, where there is no longer discipline, but when people live for months, every minute fighting death from hunger and cold; when half the army dies in a month - historians tell us about this period of the campaign, how Miloradovich had to make a flank march there, and Tormasov there, and how Chichagov had to move there (move above the knee in the snow), and how he knocked over and cut off, etc., etc.

Capitalism, Russia and globalization: the road to slavery

Alexander Odintsov

"A great civilization cannot be conquered from outside,

until she destroys herself from within."

Will Durant

“There are fatal moments in the life of a state when the state

Necessity trumps right and when to choose

between the integrity of theories and the integrity of the fatherland"

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin

It is undeniable that the capitalist system, since the 16th and 17th centuries, has brought unprecedented progress in the development of mankind. But this progress is now combined with an unprecedented gap between the possibilities of civilization and the actual state of the world economy, which is in the stupor of the global debt crisis and the global crisis of overproduction. You have to be absolutely blind not to see the trends that are leading our country to a demographic crisis, and in the future - to the loss of territorial integrity and dissolution in the space between a well-fed Europe and East Asia (China) striving for world leadership. Of course, there is a simple way - to constantly be in a state of "complacency". But the fact remains that globalization is the main challenge for our country and the dilemma for us is extremely simple: “To be or not to be?”.

Since 1990, Russia has lost more than 23 thousand settlements (for comparison, during the Great Patriotic War, the USSR lost more than 70 thousand villages and villages, 1710 cities and towns), the population decline amounted to about 6.09 million people, and this process stopped only in 2010. However, it, like a small increase in 2011 - about 190 thousand people was achieved mainly due to migration. According to UN forecasts, by 2025 our population may reach 131 million people, while the reduction in the working-age population by 2025 will reach at least 10 million people. According to the latest data from the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the level of poverty in the Russian Federation is about 59%, the level of the middle class is 6-8%. According to surveys, only about 25% of Russian families can support children, 50% with difficulty, 25% are not able to. A country with a degenerate population cannot have any basis for economic development.

Any details can be discussed, but the end result of the current economic policy is the extinction of the Russian nation: these data are comparable only (!) With the demographic decline after World War II, in which the total losses of the USSR amounted to 26.6 million people. Graph 1 below provides a visual representation of the magnitude of the disaster.

Even during the civil war - according to data from 1917 to 1926, the population of Russia within its current borders increased by 1.7 million people. It grew even during the period of repression - according to statistics from 1926 to 1937 - by 12.2 million people. The greatest failure was the period of the Great Patriotic War - according to data from 1941 to 1950 - minus 10 million people.

From the point of view of historical retrospective, these data indicate the following disappointing conclusion: Russian civilization is now in a state of unprecedented and deepest crisis that has no historical analogues (possibly except for the Mongol yoke and the era of the "Time of Troubles"), which is caused by the crisis of the political and economic model of the state .

In the current model of the economy, which has a raw material character, a significant part of the Russian population - for the first time in the entire history of the country, starting from the deep Middle Ages, cannot be effectively applied.

This looks especially ridiculous, since Russia has huge opportunities for practically unlimited creativity: it has an absolutely undeveloped infrastructure, there is a huge shortage of housing, and the vast majority of the territory is not developed. In some regions there is no economy at all. At the same time, unemployment data in some regions are absolutely egregious: the Republic of Tyva (22.0% !!!), the Republic of Kalmykia (15.0%), the Kurgan Region (12.2%), the Trans-Baikal Territory (11.4%), the Republic Altai (12.3%), Komi Republic (10.3%), Kaliningrad Region (10.6%), Republic of Mari El (10.5%), Irkutsk Region (10.2%), Republic of Ingushetia (49.7%!!!), Chechen Republic ( 43.1%!!!).

As for the available employment, what can be said about the work that does not allow you to "make ends meet"? Of course, even relatively wealthy people may not create families or have children. But people are uncertain about the future; we do not have social consolidation - the common goals of the people, elites and the state; the level of churching of citizens is not sufficient, which is a legacy of the atheistic past. The unspoken principle “every man for himself”, the lack of solidarity, the underdevelopment of the economy, the dull appearance of provincial reality - all this confirms in people the feeling of being useless to both the state and business, which leads to an unwillingness to reproduce themselves.

This situation raises the question of the effectiveness of a significant part of the economic theories currently being used, as well as a significant part of our elites, who are unable to decide on adequate steps for the active development of the country. Of course, we are actively developing Moscow, St. Petersburg, now Sochi, some other cities, the financial sector and trade, "science cities". But it is worth driving more than 70 km from Moscow and we will see the true picture of our economy.

Why is everything happening like this, where do the economic roots of globalization come from? The basic logic of capitalism is the constant accumulation of capital, the expansion of production and the stimulation (or maintenance) of the number of jobs necessary for political stability. Given the narrowness of domestic markets, external expansion becomes almost the only way to provide the necessary employment. Countries that have relative advantages in the production of certain goods get the opportunity to strengthen their geopolitical positions. Those countries that do not have such advantages inevitably weaken.

Our elites believe that Russia will be able to find a place for itself in the current global division of labor. Being raw materials, our elites have already found this place, as for the people, under liberalism, as you know, "every man for himself." Russia may and will be able to find its place, but the question of life and death is what real equilibrium population volume will correspond to this finding ? Judging by the current trends, we can become a "dwarf country". In the current situation, Russia has relative advantages in the supply of raw materials, possibly agriculture, the nuclear industry, space, arms production, energy, incl. nuclear, science, etc. But everything is at war. The Germans do not need such a volume of pork produced, just as America did not need such a volume of chicken legs - they brought them to us.

Consider the following simple example. Although a large-scale rearmament program is being proposed, over the past few years we have been told in every possible way that our military-industrial complex has lagged behind and we do not need to import weapons (when until recently we were their largest exporter). If we have a certain backlog in the field of electronic technologies, then it can be solved in partnership with Western countries or China or India, which do not have these problems, but not by burying our defense industry, which is still one of the most powerful in the world. . Why buy aircraft carriers in France for huge money when we could spend this money in Russia? Is it not our country that created atomic weapons after the United States, and became the first in the space race? Has anything changed since then? Only one thing - the orientation of our state. Maybe it's better to honestly admit: our Western partners will welcome the collapse of our military-industrial complex, our orders are very beneficial for them, and finally, we are not at all averse to getting a "green portfolio"? Nothing personal just business. And this state of affairs can be seen in many areas.

The external capitalist world can have no other logic than subordinating Russia and turning it into a raw materials appendage. Do they need anything other than raw materials, which we can produce, but which will automatically lead to a decrease in their employment? There is no way we can compensate for the decline in employment in traditional industries, which we have seen since the 1990s, due to growth in export-oriented industries and the service sector. Hypothetically, we are able to compete, for example, in the sectors of production of medical equipment, drugs and medical services, as D. Medvedev spoke about. All that is needed for this is to learn how to produce those “expensive” medicines that really help, at least 30% cheaper, and 50% better. Or create dental implants that a teacher from our school could put on himself.

Of course, Russia could compete in everything. But for this it is necessary to have clear strategic plans, resources and funding - instead of which boltology flourishes. And instead of developing the national economy, our state and business continue to expand imports without taking any active steps to develop import substitution, i.e. contributing to the creation of jobs outside of Russia. From 1995 to 2010, the volume of imports almost quadrupled from $62.6 billion to $248.7 billion, while from mid-2004 its growth rates took on an “explosive” character, stopping only during the 2008 crisis (see .chart 2).

As one of the creators of the "liberalization" of the 90s let slip: "Actually, why do we need import substitution?" Really why? Then, to create jobs within the country and become an exporter of these goods and services. Since this was done by all countries that received an entrance ticket to the world economy - Japan, Asian dragons, China, India. Stimulation of imports is largely facilitated by the extremely strange policy of our monetary authorities, which in every possible way prevent the weakening of the ruble, which directly facilitates the task of occupying our markets with foreign producers.

Russia differs sharply from the Asian tigers, Japan and Germany in that the growth of our raw material exports is not so important for our existence. We have all the resources, as much land as you want, hypothetically we can produce a lot of what we are now importing, it is possible for now - except for some high-tech electronics and equipment, to feed ourselves and half the world, exporting significantly less raw materials and spending them on domestic development of the country. This does not mean that we do not need to actively compete in foreign markets, but the range of economic tasks we have is somewhat different. Try to answer an extremely simple question, why are our monetary and economic authorities absolutely unable to provide for the labor of the nation in the domestic market? There is no reasonable answer to it.

The second principle of capitalism is to maximize profits, including through the constant reduction of costs. This inevitably led to the implementation of the main global trend of the last 30 years - the transfer of jobs to countries with cheap labor, primarily to China, with the accompanying destruction of the local national industry. Here we have the same picture as in the USA. It is easy to see that this trend is in fundamental contradiction with the need to ensure the required level of domestic employment. But if not for this law, there would never have been any modernization in China. On this occasion, the famous French economist Maurice Allais wrote a book, the content of which is set out in its title: “Globalization: the destruction of conditions of employment and economic growth. Empirical evidence." (1999). China is a champion in cheap living and, as a result, in doing business. It is almost impossible to compete with him. The total stock of labor force that China has in its stock in the undeveloped and poor provinces is comparable to the total population of Russia.

P.A. Stolypin warned us more than a hundred years ago about the possible loss of our eastern lands. That is why he did a lot for the development of Siberia. But the liberal authorities can never develop these territories, because they always "have no money." On the other hand, they quite willingly lease these lands to China, and now to North Korea - for rent - perhaps also on "special" conditions. True, the money (so far) is enough for the Olympics and the football championship, which are necessary in principle (the question is in priorities). Russia should turn to a sovereign rather than an independent financial policy that makes our financial institutions a "branch" of the global emission center.

The logic of capitalism leads us along the same path. People of other nations in the majority of normal Russian people do not cause any hostility. That's why we are Russians. But what about when our labor market is filled with people from Central Asia who are ousting Russians from construction, trade and services? Who is next? After all, migration is the import of unemployment for the Russian population. It is one thing when the migrants are the backbone peoples of Russia, another thing is when they are not. But Central Asians (mostly Muslims) have an undoubted competitive advantage - they are ready to live in almost “prison conditions”, work for a penny and the only question that arises for them is “do you have a job?”.

Now we are constantly being foisted on the idea that Russia can no longer survive without foreign labor force. But at the same time, the current unemployment rate in Russia is 5.6 million people (according to official statistics) or 7.5%. What could be the labor shortage? Perhaps only in Moscow, but there is no full employment here either - unemployment is 1.7%. Moreover, not Russians from the Baltic states and Kazakhstan will emigrate to us, as would be the case if our state were Orthodox and Russian in its mentality, and not globalist, but cheap labor from Central, and then possibly from East Asia. Any business will never give up cheap, almost slave labor. But here it is appropriate to recall the US planters who brought black slaves into their country and what came of it. Again, nothing personal, just business. At the same time, migrants take a significant part of their income to their home states, which “undermines” the aggregate demand in Russia.

It turns out a vicious circle, which now operates as follows: emigrants (and often illegal ones) are crowding out Russians due to competition, which gives rise to an increase in unemployment of the indigenous population, which creates the prerequisites for ousting them from life, which in turn serves as the basis for blessing the further expansion of migration.

Let's try to roughly, indicatively, estimate how much labor is displaced by imports. It is clear that imports are always necessary, but only those goods that even potentially cannot be produced in the country can be useful. For example, in Germany alone, according to official data, about 700,000 jobs are associated with export industries oriented towards Russia. How many are real? How many of them are there in China, Turkey and other countries? Should we be surprised at the catastrophic decline in the population in our country?

If we consider that in the volume of imports for 2010 248.7 billion dollars. the level of wage costs is about 30% and assume that the average wage of workers in the real sector is about 20 thousand rubles. we will get a figure of about 9.3 million people, i.e. about as much as should be lost in Russia by 2025 among the economically active population.

If only a part of this money were spent in the country; if capital had not been exported from Russia on such a scale, if the ruling classes had paid normal taxes, if the monetary authorities had issued means of payment in the amount necessary for the country, employment, living standards and economic development would have been much higher. There is no weapon more effective than globalism: economic policies imposed from outside, migration, dependent financial policies and the capture of domestic markets.

So the process of destruction of the Russian nation has been launched and it is in full swing - both due to the reduction of original jobs through imports, and due to their replacement by migrants. This will inevitably affect the Russians - the main basis of the bearers of the Orthodox faith.

If the advanced sections of society and those who are responsible to the nation for the proper performance of their duties do not realize the scale of the existing disaster, the consequences can be the most unpredictable. Regardless of the existing policy and contrary to it, Russians must fight for their place in the sun, strengthen national unity, their families and give birth to more children.

From the point of view of the theory of the "world behind the scenes", what is happening can be interpreted as follows: the West, continuing the so-called "cold" war, is trying to completely eliminate its potential competitor, which has an alternative culture and religion - waging against us a comprehensive and most thoughtful economic, ideological, cultural, information and political war. Of course, you can think about a “reset”, but for some reason, US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently said: “... Russia is, without any questions, our number one geopolitical enemy.” Politics never forgive naivete. "There is nothing hidden that would not be made clear...". And here is what Peter Zeihan (USA) writes: “... Russia does not have a population capable of keeping the country within its current borders. As time passes, Russia's ability to do this will further diminish.”

What you call it does not matter, only the result is important. But the fact remains that we cannot overcome these negative tendencies, because we do not play according to the rules that economic rationality prescribes to us, but completely according to the rules that are called the Washington Consensus (or the modern Western economic yoke). These are a deficit-free budget, liberalization of financial markets, open domestic markets, freedom of movement of capital, the issuance of the national currency (ruble) for export and the inflow of foreign capital.

It is necessary to remember the reasons for the fall of the Byzantine Empire, of which we are the spiritual successor - quite clearly shown in the film by Archimandrite Tikhon "The Fall of the Empire. A Byzantine Lesson". As P.A. Stolypin wrote more than a hundred years ago: “Peoples sometimes forget about their national tasks; but such peoples perish, they turn into land, into fertilizer, on which other, stronger peoples grow and grow stronger ... ".

Western civilization has specific spiritual roots, which were manifested, among other things, in the intransigence of Catholicism - the West constantly subjugated peoples and colonized them, while the Russian nation, due to the peacefulness and tolerance of Orthodoxy, established mainly relations of cooperation in its zone of influence. Western civilization organized crusades, was the initiator of two world wars; and the current United States can not be called a peace-loving state. And now let's remember who just did not try to conquer Russia (Mongols, Poles, Napoleon, Hitler ...) and where are all of them, these conquerors?

And now "happiness" (!!!) will finally happen - we will join the WTO. Relevant news is presented in the maximum "major". But there is no need to have any illusions - if we do not fight with the whole world for every opportunity in the global division of labor, in the near future we will lose more and more jobs. We will not be able to compensate for the fall in employment as a result of even more opening of our markets, since in our country there are no political forces and institutions that would really, and not on paper, protect our domestic employment and the development of our economy. This situation may gradually lead to an increase in political risks and social instability. The trends are simple - more imports - more extinction of the country.

Globalization is the ideology of transnational corporations that now rule the whole world. No trade barriers, free movement of capital, a reference to external world money, and finally, a weak state that cannot be called sovereign in any way - and on which all this “liberal noodles” can be easily imposed ». Globalization is dangerous because it completely destroys the sovereignty of weak states, forcing them to act according to the rules pleasing to the strong. A further trend is the imposition of "multiculturalism", which has already given extremely negative results in Europe (especially in France and Germany), as well as in the USA. All these puzzles lead to the destruction of all state and national barriers and to the creation of some future legal World Government.

Another aspect of globalization is the orientation of a large part of our elites. It consists not only in using the country as a cash cow, but also in many ways - in not being unwilling to invest in its development, providing civil support by paying adequate taxes (on a progressive scale) and exporting capital to the West.

Is it possible to say in our state who is ours and who is a stranger? The property of our largest commodity companies is largely registered with foreign companies (although our citizens are their beneficiaries), sales markets are also outside; they are credited abroad and in foreign currency; invest a lot abroad; even among our medium-sized companies there are quite a few that transfer their funds abroad to offshore, evading taxes. Some of our elites have real estate abroad, sometimes their families live there, and their children study. A significant part of our legal economic experts and institutions profess liberalism, i.e. ideology of slavery imposed on us by the West. What do Western specialists (outside the commercial sector), who are here on a permanent basis, do here? Our media market is filled with Western products, as are our stores. We are stuffed with violence, pornography and perversions. Our enterprises are bought up by foreigners. Russia, as before the revolution of 1917, was again almost completely colonized by the West. And not only subordinated, but actually economically controlled from the outside. I wonder where the program of the rapidly gaining political weight of the leader of the “new right” (as the results of the presidential elections show), which includes the integration of Russia into Europe and the introduction of a common currency based on the euro, is leading us?

Russia completely and free of charge surrendered the geopolitical legacy of the USSR, did not interfere in any way with many operations of the West, including against our former allies, even for the sake of decency did not take any measures to prevent events in Libya. We are a Great Power or an appendage of the West, from time to time time for showing off "barking" at him? “Playing along” or uniting our elites with the West can cost the country too much, as it can inevitably end in a complete break with the people. And then neither political performances nor PR technologies can do it.

Actually, the dead end of the raw material (read - globalist) model has been recognized more than once even by the members of the tandem themselves. What is the point of using a model that cannot provide growth, social stability and national security? Who really rules our country? As we remember, our princes in the era of the Mongol yoke received "labels for reigning" in the Mongol horde.

Doesn't everything that happens in the so-called "Time of Troubles" remind us of the exit from which we celebrate on November 4? Are there now in Russia new citizen Kuzma Minin and prince Dmitry Pozharsky? But the current government - if desired, has every opportunity to "try on" their armor.

Many of the events that are now taking place too closely reproduce what happened before the revolution of 1917. One of the fundamental reasons for the tragedy of that time was not the "export of the revolution from outside", which took place, but would never bear fruit without soil; and the fact that a significant part of the people - peasants, workers and the intelligentsia realized the foreignness of the elites to their national tasks. Of course, we now have television and there is no peasant question, charismatic leaders, for now - thank God for war, but the destruction of the legitimacy of power becomes, under current trends, only a matter of time.

In a few years we will have to pass through a psychologically extremely important date - the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution. By this time, the country will inevitably take stock of that tragic time and compare it with the current, albeit “peaceful” tragedy that occurred after another, this time “liberal” revolution. But her character does not change the essence.

In order not to become a "dwarf", Russia should: regain the right to issue a sovereign ruble, not related to our exports, but only with the need to finance internal labor in the required amount; actively compete in foreign markets using the full power of the state; within reasonable limits to protect the domestic market, including through a reasonable weakening of the ruble; stimulate in every possible way the development of infrastructure and the development of backward regions; to build not a liberal-dogmatic, but a mixed economy, which would combine not only a powerful market sector, but also elements of a planned and state economy.

Once again, let us recall those covenants that the great Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin mixed up with us: “ .. . A spineless Russia will be bribed, deceived, corrupted and conquered by other peoples. … Russia, with its volume and composition, will not exist under weak state power, no matter what this weakness may be caused by: the lack of will of the ruler, the opposition of parties or international dependence. Russian state power will either be strong, or it will not exist at all.

History of Civilization of Vila Durant

• Our Eastern Heritage
• Greek life
• Caesar and Christ
• Age of Faith
• rebirth
• Reformation
• The beginning of the age of reason
• Century Louis XTV
• Age of Voltaire
• Rousseau and the Revolution
• Age of Napoleon

The method of synthetic history allowed Wil Durant to show in all its manifestations the greatest drama of Rome's ascent to the greatness of its fall. The era of Caesar ended, and the era of Christ began.

Wil Durant - Caesar and Christ

Series: Academy

Publisher: Kron-Press, 1995 - 736 p.
ISBN 5-8317-0136-0

Wil Durant - Caesar and Christ - Contents

Foreword

• Chapter 1. Etruscan prelude: 800-508 BC

BOOK I. THE REPUBLIC: 508-30 BC.

• Chapter 2. The Struggle for Democracy: 508-264 BC
• Chapter 3. Hannibal against Rome: 264-202 BC
• Chapter 4 Stoic Rome: 508-202 BC
• Chapter 5. Conquest of Greece: 201-146 BC

BOOK II. REVOLUTION: 145-30 BC.

• Chapter 6. Agrarian Revolution: 145-78 BC
• Chapter 7 Oligarchic Reaction: 77-60 BC
• Chapter 8. Literature in the Age of Revolution: 145-30 BC
• Chapter 9. Caesar: 100-44 BC
• Chapter 10. Anthony: 44-30 years. BC

BOOK III. PRINCIPATE: 30 BC - 192 AD

• Chapter 11 - 14 AD
• Chapter 12. The Golden Age: 30 B.C. - 128 AD
• Chapter 13. The reverse side of the monarchy: 14-96. AD
• Chapter 14
• Chapter 15. Rome at Work: 14-96
• Chapter 16. Rome and its art: 30 BC - 96 AD
• Chapter 17. Epicurean Rome: 30 B.C. - 96 AD
• Chapter 18. Roman Law: 146 B.C. - 192 AD
• Chapter 19
• Chapter 20. Life and Thought in the Second Century: 96-192

BOOK IV. EMPIRE: 146 BC - 192 AD

• Chapter 21. Italy
• Chapter 22
• Chapter 23
• Chapter 24
• Chapter 25. Rome and Judea: 132 B.C. - 135 AD

BOOK V. THE YOUTH OF CHRISTIANITY: 4 B.C. - 325 AD

• Chapter 26. Jesus: 4 B.C. - 30 AD
• Chapter 27
• Chapter 28
• Chapter 29
• Chapter 30. The Triumph of Christianity: 306-325

Index of personal names and literary sources

Wil Durant - Caesar and Christ - Foreword

THE PRESENT volume is an independent whole, being at the same time the third part of the History of Civilization. Its first part was the book "Our Oriental Heritage", and the second - "The Life of Greece". If war and health do not prevent this, the fourth part - "The Age of Faith" - will be over by 1950.

The method I use is the method of synthetic history, which studies the most important phases of human life, work, culture in their simultaneous manifestation. Its necessary scientific premise is analytic history, which is equally important, but studies only some particular aspects of human activity, such as politics, economics, morality, religion, science, philosophy, literature, art, in one civilization or all together.

The main drawback of the analytical method lies in the isolation of the part from the whole that distorts the overall picture; The main weakness of the synthetic method is the impossibility for a single researcher to have firsthand knowledge of every aspect of a complex civilization extending over a millennium. Mistakes in detail are inevitable; but only in this way can the mind, fascinated by philosophy (which is nothing but the search for understanding by means of perspective), find satisfaction in immersing itself in the past.

We can discover perspective through science, that is, the study of the relationship of things in space, or through history, that is, the study of the relationship of events in time. By observing human behavior over the course of sixty centuries, we learn more about it than from the books of Plato and Aristotle, Spinoza and Kant. “History has now deprived any philosophy of all its rights,” said Nietzsche.

Strictly speaking, the study of antiquity, incapable of either capturing the living drama of history or helping to understand the modern world, is devoid of any value.

Rome's rise from a town at the crossroads to the heights of world domination, her achievement of a two hundred year period of security and peace from the Crimea to Gibraltar and from the Euphrates to Hadrian's Wall, her spread of classical civilization throughout the Mediterranean and Western Europe, her struggle to maintain an orderly power against barbarism raging on all sides of the sea, its long, gradual dying and final fall into darkness and chaos - this is truly the greatest drama ever played out by man; it can be compared only by the one that began at the court of Pilate, when Caesar and Christ stood face to face against each other, and continued until a handful of persecuted Christians, who - despite persecution and intimidation - gradually and patiently grew, did not became first an ally, then a lord, and finally an heir to the greatest empire in the history of mankind.

But this multifaceted panorama attracts our attention not only by its scope and grandeur. Another thing is even more important: it is extremely reminiscent, sometimes with frightening clarity, of civilization and the problems of our day. This is the advantage of studying the full life span of a civilization, that it becomes possible to compare each stage or each aspect of its activity with the corresponding moment or element of our own cultural trajectory; the development in antiquity of a situation analogous to ours may encourage us or serve as a warning.

Here, in the struggle of Roman civilization against external and internal barbarism, we see our own struggle; the Roman difficulties of biological and moral decline are signs of our present path; the class war between the Gracchi and the Senate, Marius and Sulla, Caesar and Pompey, Antony and Octavian - this is the same war in which the forces accumulated by us in the short periods of peace are burned up. Finally, the desperate effort of the Mediterranean soul to defend even a small fraction of freedom in the struggle against the despotic state is an omen of our urgent tasks. De nobis fabula narratur: This story about Rome is about us.

Will Durant

He studied at the parochial schools of North Adams and Kearney (New Jersey), then at St. Peter's College in Jersey City (New Jersey), owned by the Jesuit Order, and Columbia University. In the summer of 1907, he served as a novice reporter in the New York Journal, however, finding that this work required too much effort from him, he settled at Seton Hall College in South Orange (New Jersey), where from 1907 to 1911 taught Latin, French, English and geometry for a year.

In 1909 he entered Seton Hall Seminary, but left it in 1911 for reasons described in his book Transition. From the silence of the seminary, he moves into the most radical circles of New York and becomes a teacher of the experimental Ferrer Modern School, which professed the principles of freedom-loving education (1911-1913). In 1912, he travels through Europe at the invitation and expense of Alden Friedman, who became his friend and decided to broaden his horizons.

Returning to the Ferrer school, he falls in love with one of his students - Ida Kaufman, who was born on May 10, 1898 in Russia. He retires and marries her (1913). He has been studying at Columbia University for four years, specializing in biology under such scientists as Morgan and Caulkins, listening to lectures on Dewey's philosophy. In 1917 he received his Ph.D. In 1914, in one of the Presbyterian churches in New York, he began to lecture on history, literature and philosophy. For thirteen years he has been holding them twice a week, collecting material for future works.

The unexpected success of The Story of Philosophy (1926) allowed him to leave teaching in 1927. From that time on, apart from a few essays, the Durants devote virtually all of their working time (8 to 14 hours daily) to The Story of Civilization.

In order to better prepare for their undertaking, they travel in 1927 through Europe, in 1930 they visit Egypt, the Middle East, India, China and Japan, and in 1932 they circle the globe again, having visited Japan, Manchuria, Siberia, European parts of Russia and Poland. These travels allowed them to collect material for Our Oriental Heritage (1935), the first volume of The History of Civilization. Several new visits to Europe helped prepare Volume II, A Life of Greece (1939) and Volume III, Caesar and Christ (1944).

In 1948 they spend six months in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Europe, and in 1950 volume IV, The Age of Faith, is published. In 1951, the Durants again travel to Italy, so that after a lifetime of painstaking research, they publish Volume V - "Renaissance" (1953); in 1954, new studies in Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France and England break new ground for Volume VI – The Reformation (1957).

Durant's participation in the preparation of these works became more and more significant, and when compiling volume VII - "The Beginning of the Age of Reason" (1961), it was already so great that justice demanded that her name be placed on the title page of the volume. The same was the case with subsequent volumes: The Age of Louis XTV (1963), The Age of Voltaire (1965), Rousseau and the Revolution (1968, Pulitzer Prize). The publication in 1975 of volume XI, The Age of Napoleon, summed up five decades of achievement.
Ariel Durant died on October 25, 1981 at the age of 83. And 13 days later, on November 7, 96-year-old Wil Durant died.
The last of their published works was "Double Autobiography" (1977).

Stoick 12.08.2011

If anyone needs it, I have links to all volumes of the original up to and including "Age of Napoleon" (there are volumes themselves and audio files for them). Of course, Durant's (and later Durant's) work cannot be an exhaustive source on special problems. But it is quite suitable as an Introduction to the issues of history, culture, politics.

http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv02_LifeOfGreece
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv01_OurOrientalHeritage
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv11_AgeOfNapoleon
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv10_RousseauAndRevolution
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv09_AgeOfVoltaire
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv08_AgeOfLouisXIV
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv07_AgeOfReason
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv06_TheReformation
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv05_TheRenaissance
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv04_AgeOfFaith
http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv03_CeasarAndChrist

Will Duran

History of philosophy
Lives and Opinions of the Greatest Philosophers

Time Inc. New York, 1962

I. Plato's context

If you look at a map of Europe, you will see that Greece, like a skeleton hand, has extended its fingers into the Mediterranean Sea. To the south of it lies the great island of Crete, from where these fingers pulled out the beginnings of civilization and culture in the 2nd millennium BC. To the east, across the Aegean, lies Asia Minor, quiet and apathetic now, but bustling in pre-Platonic times with crafts, trade, and thought. To the west, across the Ionian Sea, are Italy, Sicily, and Spain, then Greek colonies; and finally, the Pillars of Hercules (which we call Gibraltar), those gloomy gates through which few ancient sailors dared to pass. And in the north - wild and semi-barbarian regions, then called Thessaly and Macedonia, from where later came the tribes that gave the geniuses of Homeric and Periclean Greece.

Look at the map again and note the innumerable meanders of the coast and the highlands on the land: everywhere there are deep bays and bays, and the whole earth is cut and crumpled by mountains and hills. Greece was broken up into isolated regions by these natural obstacles, each valley developing its own independent economic life, its own sovereign government, its own institutions, its own dialect, religion and culture. Cities appeared, surrounded by villages stretching to the foot of the mountains and cultivated fields; this is how the city-states of Euboea, Locris, Aetolia, Fotis, Boeotia, Achaea, Argolis, Alice, Arcadia, Messenia, Laconica with its Sparta and Attica with its Athens arose.

And look at the map for the last time to understand the position of Athens: they are located in the farthest east from all the major cities of Greece. They are so well located that for the Greeks they became the door to Asia Minor, to its business centers, those ancient cities where the Greeks aspired to. In Athens there was an amazing port - Piraeus, where numerous ships could find refuge from the harsh sea waves; was in Athens and a large navy.

In 490-470 BC, Sparta and Athens, forgetting mutual grievances and uniting their efforts, repulsed the Persians, who, under the command of Darius and Xerxes, tried to turn Greece into a colony of the Asian empire ... In this battle of young Europe against the senile East, Sparta gave an army, and Athens - fleet. After the war, Sparta disbanded its troops and experienced the resulting economic turmoil, while Athens turned its navy into a merchant fleet and became one of the largest trading cities in the ancient world. Sparta fell into stagnation, while Athens became a business center and port, a meeting place for many people with different cults and habits, which gave rise to the Athenians' ability to compare, analyze and think. Traditions and dogmas are quickly destroyed in such centers: where there are a thousand beliefs, it is easy to doubt everyone. Perhaps it was the merchants who were the first skeptics: they saw too much to believe too much. They also developed the sciences: mathematics, in connection with the growing complexity of exchange, and astronomy, in connection with the growing audacity of navigation. The growth of wealth brought leisure and tranquility, which forms the necessary prerequisites for research and reflection. Now the stars were required not only to prompt in navigation, but also to solve the mysteries of the universe: the first Greek philosophers were astronomers. “Proud of what they have achieved,” writes Aristotle, “people have advanced far since the Persian wars; they made knowledge their own and looked for broader studies. People have become brave enough to begin to explain naturally the processes and events previously attributed to supernatural forces; magic and ritual slowly gave way to reason and science; this is how philosophy began.

At first this philosophy was physical; she looked at the material world and explored the final and indivisible component of things. The natural conclusion of this line of thought was the materialism of Democritus (460-360) - "in reality there is nothing but atoms and emptiness." This was one of the main tenets of Greek speculation. It was forgotten for a while, but was revived by Epicurus (342-270), and later by Lucretius (98-55). And the most characteristic and productive development of Greek philosophy begins with the sophists, itinerant teachers of wisdom, who were more interested in their own thinking and nature than in the world of things. All of them were educated people (Gorgias and Hippias, for example), and many of them were famous (Protagoras, Prodicus); there is hardly a problem or solution in the modern philosophy of mind and behavior that they do not understand and discuss. They asked about everything, fearing neither religious nor political taboos, bravely putting any belief or assertion before the court of reason. In politics, they were divided into two schools. One, like Rousseau, argued that nature is good, and civilization is bad, that by nature all people are equal, and become unequal only by class establishment; and that the law is the establishment of the strong to enslave and rule the weak. The other, like Nietzsche, argued that nature is indifferent to good and evil, that by nature all people are unequal, that morality is an invention of the weak to limit and annoy the strong, that power is the highest virtue and the main desire of man, and that of all The wisest and most natural form of government is the aristocracy.

There is no doubt that this attack on democracy reflected the rise of a minority in Athens, one that called itself the party of the oligarchy and abolished democracy as incompetent. In a certain sense, not too much democracy had to be abolished: out of 400,000 Athenians, 250,000 were slaves without any political rights, and out of 150,000 freemen, or citizens, only a few were present in the Ecclesia, or general assembly, where the policy of the state was discussed and determined . The same democracy that they had did not exist anywhere else and never. The General Assembly had the supreme power, and the highest official body, the Dynasterium, consisted of more than 1000 members (to make the bribe too expensive), elected alphabetically from all citizens. No institution could be more democratic, or, as its opponents say, more absurd.

During the great, generation-long Peloponnesian War (430-400 BC), in which the military power of Sparta finally defeated the navy of Athens, the Athenian party of the Oligarchy, led by Critias, demanded the abolition of democracy as ineffective in military operations and secretly came into contact with the Spartan aristocratic government. Many of the leaders of the oligarchy were expelled, but when Athens surrendered, one of the peace conditions put forward by Sparta was the return of these exiled aristocrats. As soon as they returned, they, led by Critias, proclaimed the war of the rich against the "democratic" party that ruled during the struggle with Sparta. They were defeated, and Critias was killed in battle.

This Critias was a student of Socrates and uncle of Plato.

If we can judge by the bust that has come down to us as part of the destroyed ancient sculpture, Socrates was as ugly as only a philosopher can be. Bald, with a large round face, deep-set eyes; big nose, vivid evidence of many symposiums. But if you look closely, then through the roughness of the stone we will see that human kindness, simplicity that made this thinker a favorite teacher of the golden youth of Athens. We know him little, but more closely than the aristocratic Plato or the strict schoolboy Aristotle. Through 2300 years, we can see his awkward figure, still in the same tattered tunic, walking at leisure through the agora, ignoring the political bedlam, gathering scholars and youth around him and in the shade of some portico asking them to define their terms.

It was a brilliant crowd, this youth, circling around him and helping him to create European philosophy. There were rich young men like Plato and Alcibiades who liked Socrates' satirical analysis of Athenian democracy; socialists like Antisthenes, who liked the carefree poverty of a teacher and made a religion out of it; there were even one or two anarchists, like Aristippus, who wanted a world where there would be neither slaves nor masters, and everyone would be as carelessly free as Socrates. All the problems that agitate human society even today, providing material for the endless disputes of youth, also agitated this small group of talkers and thinkers who felt, like their teacher, that life without reasoning is unworthy of a person. Any school of social thought had its representative here and, perhaps, its source.

How the teacher lived, hardly anyone knew. He never worked and did not care about tomorrow. He ate when his disciples asked to share a meal with them. He was not good at home, for he despised his wife and children; from Xanthippe's point of view, he was a good-for-nothing lazy person who brought more trouble to the family than bread. Xanthippe liked to talk almost as much as Socrates, and they may have had dialogues that Plato could not write down. She still loved him.

Why was he so revered by his students? Perhaps because he was as much a man as he was a philosopher; he took great risks saving Alcibiades in battle, and he could drink like a gentleman - without fear and without excesses. But, no doubt, what they loved most about him was the modesty of his wisdom: he did not claim to be wise, but said that he was only seeking wisdom; he was a lover of wisdom, not its priest. It is said that the Oracle at Delphi, with uncharacteristic common sense, proclaimed Socrates the wisest of the Greeks, and he interpreted this in the spirit of agnosticism, which was the starting point of his philosophy: "I only know that I know nothing." Philosophy begins when one learns to doubt - especially to doubt the most precious beliefs, dogmas and axioms. Who knows how these beliefs become beliefs in us, and whether we have a secret desire to have them, dressing this desire in the clothes of thought? There can be no true philosophy until the spirit turns upon itself and examines itself. Gnothi seauton Socrates said, “Know thyself!”

And before him there were philosophers: strong people like Thales and Heraclitus, frail people like Parmenides and Zeno of Elea, contemplators like Protagoras and Empedocles, but for the most part they were physical philosophers: they were looking for the nature of external things, the laws and composition of the material and measurable peace. This is very good, says Socrates, but there is an infinitely more worthy subject for philosophy than all these trees and stones, and even all these stars, is the human spirit. What is man, and what can he become?

So, he wandered, peering into the human soul, experiencing convictions. If people were discussing justice very vividly, he would ask them calmly - tò tí, what is this? What do you mean by these abstract words, with which you so easily pose the problems of life and death? What do you mean by honor, virtue, morality, patriotism? What do you know about yourself themselves? It was these moral and logical problems that Socrates liked to deal with. Some of those who suffered from such a demand for precise definitions and clear thinking and clear analysis resented that he was asking more than he answered, leaving human souls even more confused than before. Nevertheless, he demanded from philosophy two quite definite answers to the two most difficult problems: what does the good mean? and what is the best state?

There could be no questions more vital than these for the young Athenians of that generation. The Sophists destroyed the belief that these youths had in the gods and goddesses of Olympus, in a moral code reinforced by fear of the institutions of innumerable deities; there is no reason now for a man to deny himself pleasures, for they are lawful. Destructive individualism crushed the Athenian character and finally led the city to defeat from the harshly educated Spartans. How can a new and natural morality be developed, and how can the city be saved?

The answer to these questions brought death and immortality to Socrates. The older fellow citizens would revere him if he tried to restore the ancient polytheistic faith, if he led the young men to the temples and made them again offer sacrifices to the gods of their fathers. But he somehow felt that this was a hopeless and suicidal undertaking, a backward movement. He had his own religious faith: he believed in one god and modestly hoped that death would not completely destroy him, but he understood that a moral code could not be based on such an unreliable theology. If it were possible to build a system of morality, absolutely independent of religious doctrine, suitable for both an atheist and a believer, then theology could develop without fear for the cement of morality, which makes willing individuals peaceful citizens of society.

If, for example, "good" means "reasonable" and "valour" means "wisdom," if people can be taught to see clearly their true interests, to criticize and reconcile their desires, bringing them out of chaos into true harmony, this would give an educated and complex man morality. Perhaps sin is a mistake, partial vision, stupidity? The intelligent has the same strong impulses as the ignorant, but he will be better at controlling them and less likely to be like an animal.

And if the government itself is chaos and absurdity, if its administration is hopeless, how can we force the individual in such a state to obey the laws and moderate his self-esteem before the common good? It is not surprising that Alcibiades turns against a state that does not trust the capable and worships numbers rather than knowledge. It is not surprising that chaos is where there is no thought, and where the crowd decides. How can society be saved, if not by the management of the smartest?

Imagine the reaction of the democratic party in Athens to this aristocratic appeal at a time when the war has quieted all criticism and when a wealthy and educated minority is preparing a revolution! Consider the sentiments of Anita, a democratic leader whose son became a disciple of Socrates, turned against his father's gods, and laughed in his father's face. Didn't Aristophanes accurately predict the result of such a replacement of old virtues by asocial rationality?

Then the revolution happened, and the people fought for it again and again, fiercely and to the death. When democracy won, Socrates' fate was sealed: he was the intellectual leader of the insurgent party, however peaceful he himself might be; he was the source of hateful philosophy, the seducer of youths drunk with argument. It will be better, say Anita and Meletus, if Socrates dies.

The whole world knows the end of this story, for Plato described it in prose, more beautiful than poetry. We have been given the opportunity to read this simple and bold apologia, where the first hero of philosophy declares the right and necessity of free thought and refuses the favor of the crowd, which he has always despised. They had the power to forgive him - he refused to appeal. The only confirmation of his theory was that the judges wanted to let him go, but the angry crowd voted for his death. Did he deny the gods? Woe to him who teaches people faster than they can learn!

So they decided that he would drink hemlock. His friends came to the prison and offered an easy escape: they bribed the guards that stood between him and freedom. He refused. He was 70 years old (399 BC). Perhaps he felt that it was time for him to die and that he would no longer have the opportunity to die so usefully. “Be in a good mood,” he said to regretful friends, “and say that you only buried my body ...”

3. Preparations for Plato

Plato's meeting with Socrates was a turning point in his life. He was brought up in comfort and perhaps wealth; he was a handsome and lively youth, named Plato, it is said, because of the breadth of his shoulders ("Plato" in Greek for "broad"). He was an excellent soldier and won prizes at the Isthmian Games twice. Philosophers usually don't make such young men. But the subtle soul of Plato found a new joy for itself in the dialectical play of Socrates. She enjoyed watching the teacher shatter dogma and prejudice with the blade of his questions. Plato became fascinated with such competitions and, under the guidance of the old Gadfly (as Socrates called himself), he went from a simple dispute to analysis and fruitful discussion. He became a very passionate lover of wisdom and his teacher. “I am grateful to God,” he said, “that I was born a Greek and not a barbarian, a free man and not a slave, a man and not a woman. And most of all for the fact that I was born in the era of Socrates.

He was 28 when the teacher died. And this tragic end of his quiet life left its mark on every phase of his student's thinking. He filled him with such an aversion to democracy, such a hatred of the mob, that even his aristocratic upbringing could hardly have led to it on its own. He led Plato to the Catonic decision that democracy should be destroyed and replaced by the rule of the wisest and best. The main problem of his life was the search for methods by which the wisest and best can be discovered and put in power.

His attempts to save Socrates brought him under the suspicion of democratic leaders. His friends were convinced that it was not safe to remain in Athens, and it was a delightfully opportune moment for him to see the world. This was in 399 BC. Where he went, we cannot say with certainty: the authorities are still fighting among themselves for every turn in his journey. He seems to have gone first to Egypt, where he was somewhat shocked to hear from the priests who ruled that land, the assertion that Greece is a child state, without established traditions or deep culture, for which reason it is not taken seriously by the Nile Sphinxes. However, nothing educates us like a shock! The memory of this, of this learned caste, theocratically ruling over a static agricultural people, has always lived in Plato's thinking and played its part in writing his Utopia. He then sailed to Sicily and Italy. There he joined for a time the school or sect founded by the great Pythagoras. And once again, his receptive spirit was marked by the memory of a small group of people who had withdrawn from the world for the sake of research and ruling, living a simple life, despite the possession of power. He wandered for 12 years, falling to every source of wisdom. Some believe that he also went to Judea and was influenced by the traditions of its almost socialist preachers, or even that he went to the banks of the Ganges and was trained in the mystical meditation of the Hindus. We do not know.

He returned to Athens in 387 BC, now a man of forty years of age, matured, among many different people and among the wisdom of many lands. He slightly cooled the enthusiasm of youth, but acquired perspective thinking, for which each extreme seems to be only half the truth. He acquired knowledge and poetic skill. Philosopher and poet now coexisted in one soul. He created for himself a mode of expression in which both truth and beauty are appropriate and play a role - dialogue. We can say with confidence that philosophy has never been so brilliant before, and, apparently, never since. Even in translation, his style shines, sparkles and seethes. “Plato,” says one of his admirers, Shelley [the English romantic poet], “is a rare union of strict and subtle logic with the Pythian enthusiasm of poetry, fused with the brilliance and harmony of his constructions into a single indomitable stream of musical impressions.” There is no doubt that the young philosopher began as a playwright.

The difficulty of understanding Plato lies mainly in this poisonous mixture of philosophy and poetry, science and art. We can never tell in which of the characters of the dialogue the author himself speaks, in what formulations he speaks literally or metaphorically, mockingly or seriously. His love of ridicule, irony, and myth sometimes leaves us bewildered. One might even say that he does not teach otherwise than by metaphor. “Should I tell this to you, to me, as an elder, evidence or a myth?” Protagoras [a famous sophist, a contemporary of Plato], a character in the dialogue of the same name, asks him. These dialogues are said to have been written by Plato for the general reading public of his time: by their colloquial method, by their living war for and against, by their gradual development and frequent repetition of each important argument, they were adapted and clear (although now they may seem obscure to us) for understanding of a man who has to try philosophy as an accidental luxury, who is forced to read because of the brevity of life, as far as a running person can read at all. Therefore, we must be prepared to encounter a lot of playful and metaphorical things in these dialogues. There is much that is incomprehensible to anyone except the scholars formed in the social and literary milieu of Plato's time, much of which today seems out of place and ridiculous, but can serve as seasoning and flavor for the heavy dish of philosophical thought.

Let us also recognize that Plato is endowed with those qualities which he himself condemns. He pounces on poets and their myths, while remaining a poet himself and lengthening the list of myths. He complains about the priests (who scare him with hell, and then offer to get rid of him at their own request - State, 364), but he himself is a priest, a theologian, a preacher, an over-moralist like Savonarola, burned by vanity and rejecting art.

He admits, like Shakespeare, that comparisons are slippery, but he himself slips into new and new comparisons. He condemns the sophists as phrase-mongering debaters, but he himself does not remain aloof from attempts to turn logic into a chop. It is parodied by Fago [French historian of philosophy]: “Is the whole greater than the part? Yes is the answer. Is the part less than the whole? Yes. Therefore, philosophers should govern the state? - What? - It is obvious! Let's go through the proof first."

But that's the worst thing we can say about him. And even after that, the dialogues remain one of the priceless treasures of the world. The best of them, The State, is a complete treatise. Plato reduced it to a book in which we will find metaphysics, theology, ethics, psychology, pedagogy, politics, art theory. Here we will find problems that are striking in their modernity: communism and socialism, feminism, birth control and eugenics (a set of practical recommendations for breeding new breeds of people), the Nietzsche problem of morality and aristocracy, the problems of returning to nature and Rousseau's libertarian pedagogy, Bergsonian "life impulse" and Freud's psychoanalysis are all here. “Plato is philosophy, and philosophy is Plato,” says Emerson [philosopher, poet, literary critic from the Transcendental Club in New York], and says about the “Republic” what Omar said about the Koran: “Burn the books for their value is all contained in this book.

Politics, 1341.
Wed Voltaire's story about two Athenians talking about Socrates: "This is the atheist who said that there is only one God" ( Philosophical Dictionary, article "Socrates").
In The Clouds (423 BC), Aristophanes laughed at Socrates and his "thinking shop", where he taught the art of proving one's own right, but false. Phillipides beats his father on the grounds that his father often beat him, and every debt must be paid in full. This satire must have been copied from nature: we often find Aristophanes in the company of Socrates. They agree in their contempt for democracy, and Plato recommended The Clouds to Dionysius. Since the comedy was written a quarter of a century before the execution of Socrates, it could not play a big role in the tragic denouement of his life.