Resource

Resource#

Schools of Athens, Resentment, Life#

Human history unfolds as a clash of schools: the school of life, the school of Athens, and, ultimately, the school of resentment. From the beginning, the school of life—or perhaps more aptly, the military school of life—reigned supreme. It was nature’s school, grounded in immutable laws of physics, chemistry, biology. It dictated the ends, the means, and the justification: survival demanded efficiency, and efficiency justified brutality. It was the raw calculus of existence.

This was a school of poets, too. Aeschylus, the tragic giant of Hellenic Greece, carried this spirit, embedding the battlefield in his art and epitaph alike. Though we remember him for the grandeur of Agamemnon and The Oresteia, he wished only to be remembered for the battles he won. His tragedies arose from the furnace of lived consequence, a reflection of humanity bound by nature’s law.

But this antiquarian realism—the school of life—would not remain unchallenged. Enter the school of Athens, dominated by Plato and the abstraction of ideals. Here, the raw, elemental survival calculus gave way to the shimmering pursuit of justice, beauty, and truth, detached from biology, even from nature itself. Platonic ideals reigned: the ends became unmoored from their means, ideals floating high above the battlefield. This new school questioned: could ends justify means? The soldier and the survivor were displaced by the philosopher and the dreamer. A dangerous elevation, some might say, but a glorious one too.

Inevitably, this abstraction was found wanting, for it abandoned too many along the way. Into this gap stormed the school of resentment, embodied most potently by Karl Marx. Marx leveled an unforgiving critique at the Platonic ends, not merely questioning their justification but exposing them as tools of oppression. The entire structure of history, Marx argued, was built to serve a class—a privileged few—while alienating the multitudes. Those Platonic ends, those high abstractions, had forsaken humanity’s foundation: the masses, the workers, the dispossessed.

And so, the cycle repeats. History is shaped by the constant tension between ends, means, and their justification. The school of life begins with brute force and natural law. The school of Athens transforms force into abstraction, ideals untethered from survival. The school of resentment dismantles those ideals, exposing their exclusivity, demanding a reckoning. Together, these schools form the triadic rhythm of history: cause and effect, justification and critique, pathways marked by ambition and rebellion.

The question persists: where do we stand now? In this age of machines and networks, do we live in a fusion of these schools—or a fourth school altogether, yet unnamed?

Nostalgia & The School of Life#

The School of Life and the Logic of Nostalgia#

There was a time when the body, both politic and flesh, was whole—unfractured, unalienated, unified by the unyielding laws of nature. This was the era of Aeschylus, the great tragedian, and, more importantly, the poet of the military school of life. His tragedies did not emerge from whimsy or abstraction but from the immutable truths of existence: strength, survival, and the brutal arithmetic of war. The school of life, as Aeschylus embodied it, was grounded in the continuity between nature and society. What governed the animal kingdom governed men. Physical strength was not only the means but the end, and death was merely the inevitable punctuation to the narrative of victory.

Aeschylus’ epitaph tells us everything: it commemorates his participation in the Battle of Marathon, the great clash against the Persians, while saying nothing of his literary genius. This omission is not modesty but clarity. In the school of life, what matters is not art for art’s sake but art in service of life’s primal truths. Aeschylus’ The Persians, one of the few tragedies to address contemporary events, reflects this ethos. It is not a flight into abstraction but a dramatic reconstruction of war’s brute reality.

At this time, the mutable laws of society—what we might call “culture”—were continuous with the immutable laws of nature: biology, chemistry, physics. There was no debate over justice divorced from power, no pretense that reason might temper the chaos of the Red Queen’s jungle. To thrive in this world was to master its realities. To narrate this world was to etch its violence, triumph, and loss into the collective memory. Aeschylus’ works, such as the Oresteia, stand as trilogies of bloodlines and justice, where the familial and the cosmic are indivisible. These were not tales of whiners or dreamers but of men and gods wrestling for survival in an unforgiving universe.

But the school of life was supplanted. First came the school of Athens, ushering in the abstraction of ideals. Plato, the arch-whiner of antiquity, elevated the mutability of society’s laws above the constancy of nature. He dreamed of perfect forms, of justice unmoored from physical reality. From this rupture emerged a fantasy: that humanity could transcend the laws of biology, that we could debate our way into utopia. The continuity between the laws of the jungle and the laws of men was severed. Philosophy became a refuge for those too weak to fight and too clever to stay silent.

Worse still, the school of resentment followed. If Plato’s ideals sought to escape the brutal clarity of nature, Marx’s ideology sought to subvert it altogether. The laws of society, once grounded in nature, were now instruments of oppression. Power was no longer a fact of life but a sin, and strength was recast as tyranny. The industrialized masses became the protagonists of history, and their grievances, their endless litany of wrongs, the justification for revolution. Nietzsche, even as he scorned this resentment, could not help but feel nostalgic for the unities it destroyed. His will to power was an attempt to reassert the primal truths of the school of life, yet it remained haunted by the Platonic and Marxist whines it sought to escape.

And so, the nostalgia persists. Humanity craves the clear narrative, the unity of ends and means, the justification that needs no justification because it is carved into the flesh of existence. Paradise Lost, whether by Milton or the architects of Eden, is a fantasy of reconstruction, an attempt to reclaim the wholeness of the body politic. Dante’s Commedia charts a path from the fragmented self of the Inferno to the unified vision of Paradiso. Even Citizen Kane, with its Rosebud, and Dr. Zhivago, with its balalaika, are stories of nostalgic reconstruction. They are the human cry for coherence, for a return to the garden before the exile, the body before the fracture, the life before the resentment.

But nostalgia is a fantasy. The school of life, brutal as it was, was no paradise. The wholeness we seek is not in our past but in the stories we tell ourselves about it. Art, in this sense, is not a mirror of what was but a reconstruction of what we wish had been. The tragedy of Aeschylus, then, is not merely in the bloodlines he dramatized but in the loss of the clarity his world represented. A clarity we still long for but cannot reclaim, even as we argue, whine, and dream our way into further fragmentation.

War vs Subjugation Philosophy#

A Brief Essay on Human History: War, Subjugation, and the Will to Power

Human history is reducible to a brutal dichotomy: war or subjugation. The means are war; the ends, victory; and the justification, bloodshed. Why? Because the choice has always been simple: spill blood or live shackled. It is the perpetual clash between the will to power and the will to life. One demands freedom, no matter the cost; the other resigns itself to slavery in the name of survival.

On one side, Nietzsche champions the will to power, celebrating it as the ultimate expression of human vitality and greatness. To Nietzsche, war is not merely a historical inevitability but a crucible for the Übermensch—a proving ground for those who refuse the mediocrity of subjugation. Likewise, Hobbes, though grim in his depiction of the state of nature, sees war as a necessary chaos out of which the Leviathan emerges—a force that embodies collective power through sovereignty.

Against them, Rousseau dreams of the noble savage, lamenting civilization’s descent into conflict. His idyllic fantasy resists the necessity of war, envisioning a state where harmony is preserved without domination. Kant, too, recoils, proposing perpetual peace as the moral imperative of a rational humanity, though his vision, fraught with contradictions, presupposes a universal cooperation that history has never realized.

In this dichotomy, the bloodshed persists because it must. Subjugation, as the alternative, is not peace but the quiet tyranny of the victor over the vanquished—a hidden war where the battlefield is the soul. The tragedy of human history is that no choice is clean. To Nietzsche, that tragedy is life itself, a game of strength against strength. To Rousseau, it is an aberration, a fall from an imagined Eden.

And so, the question remains: do we choose the glory of war or the chains of life? The history of humanity, with all its blood-soaked victories and subjugations, seems to answer: both. Because war ends in slavery, and slavery breeds revolt. The cycle spins on, the blood spilled in its turning.

Social Laws vs. Free Will#

Let us approach this with the sophistication and depth we demand, weaving the schools of life, Athens, resentment, and the Red Queen hypothesis into a cohesive essay that interrogates the relationship between societal and natural laws while addressing free will with complexity and rigor.

The Immutable and Mutable: Society, Nature, and Free Will#

From the primordial simplicity of prokaryotic life to the intricate societal constructs of human civilization, the laws of society have emerged as a reflection—yet not a replication—of the laws of nature. To interrogate whether societal laws are immutable as natural laws or mutable by human free will, we must traverse the realms of the School of Life, the School of Athens, and the School of Resentment, culminating in the stark revelations of the Red Queen hypothesis. Each school offers a lens through which we may examine the dialectic of determinism and freedom, the means, ends, and justifications of human existence.

The School of Life: Nature’s Immutable Hierarchy#

The School of Life, grounded in the military logic of survival, posits that all societal constructs are merely echoes of nature’s unyielding laws. Here, the means are war, the ends are survival and dominance, and the justification is bloodshed. Nature does not deliberate; it acts. The predator hunts not for morality but for sustenance, and the prey flees not for justice but for survival.

Human society, viewed through this lens, appears as an elaboration of these primal imperatives. The hierarchical structures of governance reflect the dominance hierarchies of pack animals. The cooperative equilibria of civilizations mirror the symbiosis observed in ecosystems, from the mutualistic relationship of bees and flowers to the predator-prey balance that sustains ecosystems. Even human conflict, whether through war or competition, is an extension of nature’s ceaseless struggle for fitness.

The School of Life teaches us that societal laws are natural laws in another guise—immutable because they are etched into the fabric of existence. Free will, in this schema, is a comforting illusion, a narrative constructed to obscure the inevitability of nature’s deterministic framework.

The School of Athens: Platonic Ideals and the Birth of Freedom#

In contrast, the School of Athens invites us to step beyond the brute determinism of the School of Life. Plato’s ideals, rooted in abstraction and transcendence, reject the notion that human society is a mere shadow of nature. For Plato, the laws of society arise not from instinct but from reason, not from survival but from the pursuit of the Good.

The means here are dialogue and philosophy, the ends are truth and justice, and the justification is the elevation of the human spirit. The Republic imagines a society governed not by the dominance hierarchies of nature but by the philosopher-king, whose rational grasp of the Forms ensures a just and harmonious order. This vision asserts that societal laws are mutable because they are not bound by nature’s unthinking processes but by the aspirations of reason.

Free will emerges in this framework as the capacity to align oneself with the Good, to transcend the deterministic chaos of nature and shape society according to higher ideals. The School of Athens offers a powerful counterargument to the School of Life: human society is not a slave to nature but a rebellion against it, a testament to the mutability of laws in the hands of free agents.

The School of Resentment: The Revolt Against Nature and Society#

Yet, Nietzsche’s School of Resentment complicates the narrative. It argues that societal laws, whether grounded in nature or ideals, are often instruments of power, wielded by the strong to subjugate the weak. The means are subversion, the ends are revenge, and the justification is the reordering of values.

For Nietzsche, the moral frameworks of society—rooted in the Platonic ideals of the School of Athens—are the creations of the weak, designed to invert the natural order of the School of Life. Christianity, with its emphasis on humility and meekness, becomes the archetype of this resentment-driven morality. It mutates societal laws to serve the interests of the powerless, masking their origins in envy and fear.

This school challenges the notion of free will by exposing the hidden determinisms of power and resentment. Societal laws, mutable though they may appear, are merely tools in the endless cycle of domination and subversion, driven not by freedom but by the inexorable dynamics of power.

The Red Queen Hypothesis: A Mirage of Freedom#

Finally, the Red Queen hypothesis dismantles all illusions of mutability and free will, reducing societal and natural laws alike to the ceaseless churn of evolutionary necessity. In this view, all of life—unicellular, multicellular, and societal—is locked in an arms race, perpetually adapting not to conquer but to survive.

The means are competition, the ends are mere persistence, and the justification is survival without progress. The Red Queen reminds us that despite humanity’s aspirations toward ideals or rebellion against nature, we are still running in place, subject to the same evolutionary pressures as the simplest organism. Our laws, whether societal or natural, are expressions of this relentless race.

Free will, here, is the ultimate mirage. What appears as choice is merely the adaptation of a system to its environment, the illusion of agency in a deterministic world. The mutable laws of society are revealed as transient adaptations, no more enduring than the beak shape of Darwin’s finches or the color of a moth’s wings.

Conclusion: Aeschylean Reckoning#

In this synthesis of schools, we find no resolution, only the paradoxes of human existence. The School of Life compels us to acknowledge the immutable patterns of nature. The School of Athens inspires us to transcend them through reason and ideals. The School of Resentment warns us of the hidden power dynamics that shape our laws, while the Red Queen hypothesis strips away all pretenses of freedom, leaving us with the cold mechanics of survival.

Are societal laws immutable as natural laws, or are they mutable by free will? The answer, like Aeschylus’s tragedies, lies not in certainty but in the confrontation of these competing truths. Humanity stands as both a creature of nature and a creator of ideals, forever torn between determinism and freedom, survival and transcendence, nature and society. In this tension lies the essence of what it means to be human.

Show code cell source Hide code cell source

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx

# Define the neural network structure
def define_layers():
    return {
        'Pre-Input': ['Life', 'Earth', 'Cosmos', 'Sound', 'Tactful', 'Firm'],
        'Yellowstone': ['G1 & G2'],
        'Input': ['N4, N5', 'N1, N2, N3'],
        'Hidden': ['Sympathetic', 'G3', 'Parasympathetic'],
        'Output': ['Ecosystem', 'Vulnerabilities', 'AChR', 'Strengths', 'Neurons']
    }

# Assign colors to nodes
def assign_colors(node, layer):
    if node == 'G1 & G2':
        return 'yellow'
    if layer == 'Pre-Input' and node in ['Tactful']:
        return 'lightgreen'
    if layer == 'Pre-Input' and node in ['Firm']:
        return 'paleturquoise'
    elif layer == 'Input' and node == 'N1, N2, N3':
        return 'paleturquoise'
    elif layer == 'Hidden':
        if node == 'Parasympathetic':
            return 'paleturquoise'
        elif node == 'G3':
            return 'lightgreen'
        elif node == 'Sympathetic':
            return 'lightsalmon'
    elif layer == 'Output':
        if node == 'Neurons':
            return 'paleturquoise'
        elif node in ['Strengths', 'AChR', 'Vulnerabilities']:
            return 'lightgreen'
        elif node == 'Ecosystem':
            return 'lightsalmon'
    return 'lightsalmon'  # Default color

# Calculate positions for nodes
def calculate_positions(layer, center_x, offset):
    layer_size = len(layer)
    start_y = -(layer_size - 1) / 2  # Center the layer vertically
    return [(center_x + offset, start_y + i) for i in range(layer_size)]

# Create and visualize the neural network graph
def visualize_nn():
    layers = define_layers()
    G = nx.DiGraph()
    pos = {}
    node_colors = []
    center_x = 0  # Align nodes horizontally

    # Add nodes and assign positions
    for i, (layer_name, nodes) in enumerate(layers.items()):
        y_positions = calculate_positions(nodes, center_x, offset=-len(layers) + i + 1)
        for node, position in zip(nodes, y_positions):
            G.add_node(node, layer=layer_name)
            pos[node] = position
            node_colors.append(assign_colors(node, layer_name))

    # Add edges (without weights)
    for layer_pair in [
        ('Pre-Input', 'Yellowstone'), ('Yellowstone', 'Input'), ('Input', 'Hidden'), ('Hidden', 'Output')
    ]:
        source_layer, target_layer = layer_pair
        for source in layers[source_layer]:
            for target in layers[target_layer]:
                G.add_edge(source, target)

    # Draw the graph
    plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
    nx.draw(
        G, pos, with_labels=True, node_color=node_colors, edge_color='gray',
        node_size=3000, font_size=10, connectionstyle="arc3,rad=0.1"
    )
    plt.title("Red Queen Hypothesis - War Has Always Been The Great Wisdom", fontsize=15)
    plt.show()

# Run the visualization
visualize_nn()