At present the fact that the human civilization is transforming into a new stage is becoming more and more evident. Globalization is one of the most important characteristics of such stage. It has a significant influence on all social-political processes in the modern world. The phenomenon of globalization causes the specific problems of social development. On the one hand many of them are caused by the contradiction between the possibilities of giant augmenting of material and spiritual culture and on the other hand by relatively conservative forms of civilization of self-government. Formerly, the problem of political self-government was of current importance for any separate civilization but nowadays it has become urgent for the whole humankind. The humanity should elaborate such forms of political self-government which will satisfy the requirements of the global era and provide the possibility of the further existence and sustained development. Otherwise, the existence of the human civilization itself will be doubtful. As Iver B. Neumann and Ole J. Sending stress, ‘the global practices established to prevent and manage violent conflicts, to regulate financial flows, and to address environmental changes, health pandemics, and organized crime bring a focus on sovereign states as the primary loci of implementation. States become the main interlocutors in global debates about, and efforts to respond to, perceived collective threats and challenges’ [Neumann, Sending 2010, 18].

Among other global political problems there is one of special importance. It is counteraction to all forms of violence, from physical violence to ideological violence. It, as S. Žižek emphasizes, ‘seems to be the main preoccupation of the tolerant liberal attitude that predominates today’ [Žižek  2008, 9].

The struggle against violence as a global problem and an object of global governance includes not only the thermonuclear war threatening liquidation or the establishment of the international order based on the countries equal rights principles. Counteraction to violence requires also the democratization of relationship between a personality and society, exclusion of human behavior manipulation and sources of unfreedom. ‘Development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states’ [Sen 1999, 3].

The solution of any of these problems requires a new level of philosophical introspection, the elaboration of a new system of value orientation, a new understanding of the purposes of civilization development. As a mirror philosophy reflects the contradictoriness of modern epoch and is capable to make a considerable contribution to the solution of global political problems. Primarily it is political philosophy.

Modern philosophy as philosophy of survival should approve the idea of humanism and the value of each individual, tolerance and muliculturalism, equality of people, inadmissibility of violence.

All these ideas are not innovations of XX or XXI centuries. Many of them appeared at early stages of the European philosophical history, in Ancient Greece, and were afterwards are repeated and developed in the works of great thinkers of more recent epoch. So, for example, the sources of the modern irreconcilable attitude to the violence of the state towards a person are easy to find in the hatred to tyranny which had many ancient Greek thinkers – Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics etc.

Let us recollect the ideas of Plato about four negative state forms – timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. As this ancient Greek philosopher considered, any of negative forms was a consistent worsening of the ideal state. Instead of just distribution of duties, violence and forcible compulsion prevail there, instead of strive for the common goals - hankering after power, instead of unselfishness – greed, instead of unity and consent – discord. The worst of these negative forms is tyranny, which is held in place by violence, lawlessness and arbitrariness. Thus, for the people to feel necessity for ‘strong power’, the tyrant constantly launches wars: ‘he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader’. War is the main source of private and social troubles. Giving misfortunes and destitutions, it causes hatred for tyrant. Thus, discontent of courageous citizens, who understand that tyranny is fatal for social development increases. The tyrant has to eliminate his opponents in order to hold the power; until he has no friends and no enemies [Plato Republic 8.566E – 9.567B].

Aristotle, as well as Plato, criticizes the forms of the state order where as he considered, the power is carried out in the interests of governors themselves. There are three such wrong forms – tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Just as for Plato, the tyranny for Aristotle is the worst form of the state order, directly connected with violence. Violence is necessary for tyranny, because the power arises against the will of subjects, and is not directed at common wealth, but is executed in the interests of the tyrant himself. The citizens won’t submit voluntarily, to such power such violence is necessary to force them submit. In order to reduce the risk of overthrow of such power, the tyrant strives to make mischief between subjects and deprive them of political energy [Aristotle Politics 5.9.4]. The irreconcilable attitude toward tyranny was perfectly expressed in a well known Aristotle’s phrase that ‘there is by nature both a justice and an advantage appropriate to the rule of a master, another to kingly rule, another to constitutional rule; but there is none naturally appropriate to tyranny, or to any other perverted form of government; for these come into being contrary to nature’ [Ibid., 3.11.10]. The famous Aristotle’s phrase from ‘The Politics’ is ‘great is the honor bestowed, not on him who kills a thief, but on him who kills a tyrant’ [Ibid., 2.4.7] has become the slogan of all the tyrannicides. Thus, the reciprocal violence actions directed to a tyrant or a criminal were considered by Aristotle as valid and permissible. But the criminal violence can’t be proved. It can’t be justified by circumstances, because a person is able to make a choice under any circumstances – to be vicious or virtuous [Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 3.7]. It’s immoral to blame the environment instead but not him, committing violent crimes.

In Ancient Rome where violent usurpations of power, dictatorships and proscriptions were quite ordinary, the criticism of tyranny and violence became sharper. Thus, for instance, Cicero’s anti-tyrannical motives became very strong. This philosopher and politician clearly understood that power was often connected with direct violence: ‘But those who keep subjects in check by force would of course have to employ severity – masters, for example, toward their servants, when these cannot be held in control in any other way’ [Cicero De officiis 2.24]. However, fear, caused by violence, doesn’t assist to preserve and keep power. To be loved is more effective [Ibid., 2.23]. Those who take strong measures to preserve power and cause fear are mad.

‘For let the laws be never so much overborne by some one individual's power, let the spirit of freedom be never so intimidated, still sooner or later they assert themselves either through unvoiced public sentiment, or through secret ballots disposing of some high office of state. Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered’ [Ibid., 2.24].

Fear always causes hatred which induces extreme measures against tyrant. The plot against Caesar served as a bright example of it. Recollecting this, Cicero noticed: ‘And we recently discovered if it was not known before, no power could withstand the hatred of the many’ [Ibid., 2.23].

Seneca’s tyrannicide moods are strong too. He considered that the aim how to use force distinguishes a king from a tyrant. The one uses the arms which he has to fortify good-will, the other to curb great hatred by great fear [Seneca De clementia 1.12.]. The cruel tyranny causes people’s hatred, which is absolutely natural. As Seneca has noticed in one of his works: ‘He is assailed by as many perils as there are many men to whom he is himself a peril’ [Ibid., 1.25]. There are a lot of examples in history:

‘The cruelty even of men in private station has been avenged by the hands of slaves despite their certain risk of crucifixion; nations and peoples have set to work to extirpate the cruelty of tyrants, when some were suffering from it and others felt its menace’ [Ibid., 1.26].

        Seneca came down on blamed cruelty and anger because violence can be used groundlessly and out of proportion. Violence in its turn causes fear and hatred, providing the inevitable fall of tyranny:

‘When his position permits a man to do all that anger prompts, general destruction is let loose, nor can any power long endure which is wielded for the injury of many; for it becomes imperilled when those who separately moan in anguish are united by a common fear’ [Seneca De ira 3.16].

        And the Ancient Roman philosopher devoted one of his treaties to consideration of anger problem. He considered this passion to be extremely dangerous because of its social consequences and recognized the necessity of its extermination firstly at emperors.

In Ancient Rome where violent usurpations of power, dictatorships and proscriptions were quite ordinary, the criticism of tyranny and violence became sharper. Thus, for instance, Cicero’s anti-tyrannical motives became very strong. This philosopher and politician clearly understood that power was often connected with direct violence: “But those who keep subjects in check by force would of course have to employ severity – masters, for example, toward their servants, when these cannot be held in control in any other way” [Cicero De off., II, 24]. However, fear, caused by violence, doesn’t assist to preserve and keep power. To be loved is more effective [Cicero De off., II, 23].

Valuable are also the concepts of the antique thinkers about equality, about respect to people of different nationalities, of different material property and of social status. The vivid demonstration of these ideas are ethical and sociopolitical concepts of the Cynics and the Stoics. As for Stoics, who propagated cosmopolitism, their ideal state was the united state of men and gods, being founded on the common law and justice: «…we have not shut ourselves within the walls of one city, but have brought ourselves into communication with the whole world and have professed that the world is our native land in order that we may give virtue a wider field» [Seneca De tranq. animi, 4, 4]. Justice and readiness to do good to other people, connected with it, compose the base of the rational social order. According to Stoics, the first office of justice is to keep one man from doing harm to another, unless provoked by wrong [Cicero De off., I, 20]. The wise man chooses rather to die than to inflict violence upon another [Lact. Div. inst., V, 17]. Thus, non-causation of harm is the most important foundation of social order at Stoics. The Stoics connected the sensible and just life with recognition of equality and relationship of all the people. The equality is introduced by the Stoics in all spheres of reality and is the most important distinguishing feature of their conceptions about human nature and their ethical-social ideas. The universal equality (of people, events, nations, states) is the main theoretical base facing destiny, virtue and wisdom. Social, national and property equality of all the people result from this principle. The law of nature is equal for everybody, it induces them to appreciate other people, to treat nobody as a slave, to esteem general use higher then private one [Cicero De leg., I, 29; Cicero De off., I, 20].

The ideas of Ancient Greek thinkers have found their continuation at the Ancient Roman philosophers. First of all, it was at Cicero and Seneca. The recognition of natural equality of people, of importance of justice for the state order, of the necessity of respective attitude to all the people, notwithstanding their social, property and national status, was typical for them. Cicero stressed the ideas of common good, social-moral duties facing other people and justice. Seneca paid more attention to substantiation equality of all people and to the necessity of fraternal attitude towards them. His characterization of slaves sounded as a hymn to human equality and relationship [Seneca Ep., 47, 1-2]. Time and again Seneca underlined the necessity of excluding any violence and non-respective attitude to other people, including slaves. It was an essential step in development of humanism comparing with the classical Ancient Greek philosophy.

Thus, in Ancient philosophy the tradition of critical examination of state system, politics and violence was founded. This tradition was of current importance during the whole history of development of the European thought. It appeared in Thomas Aquinas’s criticism of power, which has no laws, morality and justice; in negative attitude of Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella towards their state-legal institutions; in the Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s analysis of feudal order and his protest against “right of powerful”; in Karl Jaspers’ understanding of totalitarianism as the main peril of the XX century; in Albert Camus’ hatred against fascism; in Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarian regimes and so on. The critical orientation of philosophy appeared in the studies of thinkers of different epochs and it proves that philosophers’ position was not kept aloof from the real political problems, from the struggle with injustice and violence. Addressing their contemporaries (governors as well as common people), the philosophers formed and they are still forming the irreconcilable attitude towards non-legitimate violence, criminal power, humiliation of human dignity in any form and violation of human rights.

The modern appeal to the history of political philosophy and wider – to the history of philosophy, consideration of Ancient doctrines in the problem sphere of contemporaneity seems to us appropriate and productive. The philosophical thinking necessarily calls for constant return to sources, tradition and processes of its own forming. As Hegel, who was the first to express definitely the idea of ‘history of philosophy as philosophy itself’, has noticed, no one philosophical system disappeared without leaving a trace, but continued to exist implicitly in the following conceptions [Hegel 2009, 54]. The dialogue with the heritage of the past lets us not only understand better genesis and essence of many modern philosophical-political ideas. It also helps make unused and positive potential of the earlier existed philosophical systems actual. The analysis of a number of philosophical theories from antiquity to nowadays is the genuine evidence of the fact that philosophy, fulfilling its humanistic function, has elaborated, during the long history of its development, the varied versions of solving of social and political problems. These versions may be of current importance for the process of appropriate forming global world values.

Literature

1. Neumann I.B., Sending O.J.,  Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010.

2. Žižek S., Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, London: Profile Books Ltd., 2008.

3. Sen A.K., Development as Freedom, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

4. Hegel G.W.F., Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Volume I: Introduction and Oriental Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.