In 27 BC, 727 years after the founding of the city of Rome and in the second year of the 188th Olympiad, a momentous event happened, one that would change the world forever. The Roman Senate, the venerable institution that had been created in the legendary days of the first kings, proclaimed Octavian as Augustus. Feigning modesty, he accepted. Under this title, Octavian united all the executive powers in his hands, becoming the first emperor. Of slight build and originally from an obscure family, the adopted son of Julius Caesar became the most powerful man in the world.

After almost 500 years of continuous history, the Roman Republic was no more. A remarkable achievement of human spirit, the Republic had survived many tumultuous events, presiding over the expansion of Rome from an insignificant city-state on the Tiber River, to a hegemonic power spreading on all sides of the Mediterranean Sea.

While not perfect, its rule of law guaranteed Roman citizens certain rights like free speech and a say in choosing their leaders. Considering that it lasted for so long, this way of arranging public affairs stands out in history. While democracies did appear from time to time, their life under the sun was usually brief, the states reverting back to the usual pattern of autocracy pretty quickly. However, not Rome. For centuries, it stayed a republic.

At that moment, the senators applauding Augustus, and the people cheering outside, did not realize that they had signed away their freedom. Under the coming Roman Empire, the people would no longer vote for their leaders, and institutions like the Senate became mere rubber-stamping bodies. The rule by many was replaced by the rule of one man.

After a century of chaos and war, the people probably felt relieved that they no longer had to live in the uncertainty of political unrest, but in time this peace was supplanted by even greater terrors. For the autocratic rulers of the Empire grew more and more despotic, destroying the rights and freedoms that the people had previously enjoyed during the times of the Republic.

All this happened more than two thousand years ago, in a time in many ways unlike our own. While many people may regard the past as bunk, history is an incredibly relevant subject in any era. A recording of the actions of people under different circumstances and in various eras, it is a real treasure trove of lessons and examples.

“It is the mental transference of similar circumstances to our own times that gives us the means of forming presentiments of what is about to happen, and enables us at certain times to take precautions and at others, by reproducing future conditions to face with more confidence the difficulties that menace us.”

from “Histories” by Polybius

History can teach us a lot about the present, because it can show us analogies from what happened in the past. Human nature stays the same throughout the ages and similar conditions can give rise to similar outcomes. What needs to be kept in mind is that these are not perfect predictions for the future, but instead warning signs of possible troubled times ahead. History can inform us on the choices to make and the policies to enact, but it is up to us to pick the way ahead.

The Roman Republic serves as a telling analogy for the present state of chaos, not only in the United States, but around the world. Reading about the events of two thousand years ago, of times long gone, you get a feeling of how familiar all that is to you. Unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the general grievances of people, increasing polarization between different groups turning into political unrest and violence. This was the Rome of the 1st century BC.

Today, what we are experiencing is the rise of populism and rule by mobs, dangerously undermining our freedom and prosperity, and threatening the very future of our republics. It is almost eerie how many parallels there are between that era and our current times.

“Today is the pupil of yesterday.”

from “Moral Maxims” by Publilius Syrus

While an analysis that examines the chaotic times of today and compares them to the conditions of yesteryear can be quite revealing, a look back at the ancient sources themselves can paint a picture that illuminates the human condition in a much more powerful way. Through the words of ancient politicians, historians, and philosophers, we can get a snapshot of what happened then, and what could happen again, if we are not careful.

The need to study history is reflected in a famous passage from Livy’s monumental history of Rome called “From the Foundation of the City”:

“The subjects to which I would ask each of my readers to devote his earnest attention are these-the life and morals of the community; the men and the qualities by which through domestic policy and foreign war dominion was won and extended. Then as the standard of morality gradually lowers, let him follow the decay of the national character, observing how at first it slowly sinks, then slips downward more and more rapidly, and finally begins to plunge into headlong ruin, until he reaches these days, in which we can neither endure our diseases nor face the remedies needed to cure them. There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid.”

from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

History can teach us lessons without us having to make the same mistakes as in the past. As ancient historian Polybius noted, there are two ways to learn: from your own mistakes, and from those of others. The second option is much less painful than the first one.

“This I mention for the sake of the improvement of the readers of this history. For there are two ways by which all men can reform themselves, the one through their own mischances, the other through those of others, and of these the former is the more impressive, but the latter less hurtful. Therefore we should never choose the first method if we can help it, as it corrects by means of great pain and peril, but ever pursue the other, since by it we can discern what is best without suffering hurt. Reflecting on this we should regard as the best discipline for actual life the experience that accrues from serious history. For this alone makes us, without inflicting any harm on us, the most competent judges of what is best at every time and in every circumstance.”

from “Histories” by Polybius

Polybius described government types as occurring in cycles, a process he called “anacyclosis”. First you have a monarchy, which degenerates into a tyranny, which is then replaced by an aristocracy, which then degenerates into oligarchy. At this stage, the people rebel and create a democracy. However, democracies have a tendency to degenerate into chaos and mob-rule, a state of affairs that Polybius called an “ochlocracy”.

Once this chaotic state of affairs gets unbearable, the people start clamoring for peace and order. Usually one man steps up promising to bring this about and the cycle resets itself back into a monarchy.

This is exactly what happened in Ancient Rome.

“Learn to see in another’s calamity the ills which you should avoid.”

from “Moral Maxims” by Publilius Syrus

1) Large economic disparities can lead to grievances

Large economic disparities between those at the top and those at the bottom are like a powder keg waiting to explode. An unequal distribution of wealth can lead to many social problems, with the poor becoming more and more dissatisfied and voicing their grievances. In countries with greater economic equality, there is more social cohesion and people tend to trust each other more. When the inequalities start growing, this cohesion is lost and trust diminishes.

“Affairs at home and in the field were managed according to the will of a few men, in whose hands were the treasury, the provinces, public offices, glory and triumphs. The people were burdened with military service and poverty. The generals divided the spoils of war with a few friends. Meanwhile the parents or little children of the soldiers, if they had a powerful neighbor, were driven from their homes. Thus, by the side of power, greed arose, unlimited and unrestrained, violated and devastated everything, respected nothing, and held nothing sacred, until it finally brought about its own downfall. For as soon as nobles were found who preferred true glory to unjust power, the state began to be disturbed and civil dissension to arise like an upheaval of the earth.”

from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

After the end of the Punic Wars, an economic scissor effect came to heed in the Republic. The rich got richer beyond their wildest dreams, while the poor got poorer. After a series of conflicts, soldiers returning to their farms, found them in disarray, had to take on great debt, and then ended up selling them. The buyers came from the rich upper classes, who got vast amounts of money because of the plunder and the trade that came with the Roman control of the Mediterranean Sea.

“Thus certain powerful men became extremely rich and the race of slaves multiplied throughout the country, while the Italian people dwindled in numbers and strength, being oppressed by penury, taxes, and military service. If they had any respite from these evils they passed their time in idleness, because the land was held by the rich, who employed slaves instead of freemen as cultivators.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

While the upper classes acquired new lands to farm, and lots of money, the poor were reduced to dire conditions. After losing their lands, they would often lose their houses as well, and would need to wander around the country in search of work. Unfortunately, work was hard to come by, as many of the tasks were being overwhelmingly done by slaves.

“But they accomplished nothing; for Tiberius, striving to support a measure which was honorable and just with an eloquence that would have adorned even a meaner cause, was formidable and invincible, whenever, with the people crowding around the rostra, he took his stand there and pleaded for the poor: “The wild beasts that roam over Italy,” he would say, “have every one of them a cave or lair to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy the common air and light, indeed, but nothing else; houseless and homeless they wander about with their wives and children.” “And it is with lying lips that their imperators exhort the soldiers in their battles to defend sepulchers and shrines from the enemy; for not a man of them has an hereditary altar, not one of all these many Romans an ancestral tomb, but they fight and die to support others in wealth and luxury, and though they are styled masters of the world, they have not a single clod of earth that is their own.””

from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

Early Roman society was composed of citizen farmers, tilling their lands, and making a decent living off their produce. From time to time, they would get called up to serve in the army and defend Rome. While there were divisions between the lower class plebeians, and the upper class patricians, in reality the income disparities between these two classes were not that great. In the advent of the Roman Republic, even the generals farmed the land.

“The fact, we have every reason to believe, that in those days the lands were tilled by the hands of generals even, the soil exulting beneath a plough-share crowned with wreaths of laurel, and guided by a husbandman graced with triumphs.”

from “The Natural History” by Pliny the Elder

This is how it was all throughout history, until the era of the Punic Wars changed things.

The Punic Wars were a series of wars that Rome fought against Carthage, its mortal rival for the control of the western Mediterranean. The first one happened between 264 – 241 and after a prolonged and drawn out struggle ended with the Roman annexation of the island of Sicily. The most famous of the three conflicts is the second one (218 – 201 BC), which was fought when Carthaginian commander Hannibal invaded the Italian peninsula by marching his army through the Alps.

After the defeat of Hannibal’s army, Rome became the strongest power in the Mediterranean area. Carthaginian might diminished greatly, however in the minds of many Romans, it still remained a threat. Cato the Elder ended all his speeches in the Roman Senate by clamoring for the destruction of Carthage and the elimination of this rival once and for all.

In 149 BC, this call was heard and Rome launched a war against the city. Parallel to this, the Republic entered a chain of wars in Greece, fighting Macedonia and then the Achaean League. In 148 BC, the Fourth Macedonian War ended with the subjugation of the Kingdom of Macedon.

The year 146 BC was when Rome emerged as the hegemonic power in the Western world. In that year, it defeated both Carthage and the Achaean League, and marked its dominance by razing the cities of Carthage and Corinth to the ground.

These events on the international stage, also had profound effects on the internal conditions in Rome itself. The Punic Wars marked an end of the old system in the Republic. This state of affairs led to great economic disparities between the different social classes, which caused great discontent among the worse off.

The conditions kept on worsening, and despite the efforts of reformers like the Gracchi brothers, the plebeians continued on getting poorer and poorer.

“The plebeians lost everything, and hence resulted a still further decline in the numbers both of citizens and soldiers, and in the revenue from the land and the distribution thereof and in the allotments themselves; and about fifteen years after the enactment of the law of Gracchus, by reason of a series of lawsuits, the people were reduced to unemployment.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

The Roman Republic went from a country with relative income equality among the different strata of society, to one with greater and greater inequality. The social cohesion and trust between the groups was lost and contributed to growing tensions.

“In former years you were silently indignant that the treasury was pillaged, that kings and free peoples paid tribute to a few nobles, that those nobles possessed supreme glory and vast wealth. Yet they were not satisfied with having committed with impunity these great crimes, and so at last the laws, your sovereignty, and all things human and divine have been delivered to your enemies. And they who have done these things are neither ashamed nor sorry, but they walk in grandeur before your eyes, some flaunting their priesthoods and consulships, others their triumphs, just as if these were honors and not stolen goods.”

speech of Gaius Memmius from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

Several ancient philosophers had realized that income inequalities can bring great discord to a country. Aristotle in his treatise “Politics” even noted the importance of having a strong middle class for the stability of a state. In ancient Rome, the process that came about after the Punic Wars, not only widened the income disparities between the rich and the poor, but also led to an impoverishment of a large section of people who had in previous times been part of the middle class.

Compare this to the current state of affairs. The amount of wealth controlled by the top levels of society in the world has skyrocketed. Whereas only 30 years ago, the super-wealthy controlled only a relatively small proportion of the total income earned in a country, now the percentage has grown exponentially. This effect is most profound especially in the US, where the top 1% of the population went from earning around 7 or 8% of the total income in 1975 to earning almost 20% of the total income today!



The middle class is also getting squeezed and shrinking not just in the US, but around the world.



2) When a group of people feels that their lot in life has worsened and will keep on worsening, they might be susceptible to demagogues

When people feel that their lot in life is getting worse, simple answers to complex problems, can seem very enticing. It is very easy to be swayed by populist demagogues who promise them the Moon.

It is the relative fall in well-being that is the problem. When people can compare their current status against that of their parents or even their own previously, they are more prone to be unhappy.

“The condition of the poor became even worse than it was before.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

It is not absolute wealth that causes the greatest distress, but instead relative wealth. A person who was born poor, but is no worse off than the previous generations and his lot is stable compared to the wealthier segments of society, might not be dissatisfied and accept how things are.

When a person compares his situation either to that of himself previously or to that of another group, that is when negative feelings set in. You might be perfectly happy when you don’t have a car and neither does your neighbor. At first, you might become happier when you buy an old used car.

However, when you see that your neighbor bought a brand new Mercedes, then feelings of jealousy and unfairness set in. Keeping up with the Joneses can heighten anxiety in the population. This anxiety will get even worse, when you feel that not only are the Joneses getting richer, you are getting poorer.

“And when the rich began to offer larger rents and drove out the poor, a law was enacted forbidding the holding by one person of more than five hundred acres of land. For a short time this enactment gave a check to the rapacity of the rich, and was of assistance to the poor, who remained in their places on the land which they had rented and occupied the allotment which each had held from the outset. But later on the neighboring rich men, by means of fictitious personages, transferred these rentals to themselves, and finally held most of the land openly in their own names. Then the poor, who had been ejected from their land, no longer showed themselves eager for military service, and neglected the bringing up of children, so that soon all Italy was conscious of a dearth of freemen, and was filled with gangs of foreign slaves, by whose aid the rich cultivated their estates, from which they had driven away the free citizens.”

from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

In the times of the late Roman Republic, some politicians arose that tried to lessen these disparities. Some of them did have the interests of the people in heart, while others cynically just used this for their own purposes.

“Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, an illustrious man, eager for glory, a most powerful speaker, and for these reasons well known to all, delivered an eloquent discourse, while serving as tribune, concerning the Italian race, lamenting that a people so valiant in war, and related in blood to the Romans, were declining little by little into pauperism and paucity of numbers without any hope of remedy.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

Tiberius Gracchus, the man who started the revolution, was probably a genuine reformer. While he might also have had more personal goals as well, his actions showed real concern for the precarious and downtrodden members of society. However, after him several rabble-rousers arose, charismatic and usually up to no good, with an ability to stir up the masses. Men like Clodius pretended to lend a sympathetic ear to the needs of the downtrodden, while at the same time pursuing their own agendas.

Clodius, being a very innovative populist politician, gained a big popularity with the crowds. Originally born as a patrician, he realized that leading the plebs might be a better way to power and so organized his own adoption by a plebeian (and a man younger than himself!) in order to become a plebeian himself.

After getting himself elected as plebeian tribune, he promulgated a series of laws that were a mix of common sense checks on powers of the magistrates, populist policies like free grain distribution, and self-serving ones such as the expulsion of Cicero from the city, or making the organization of clubs of semi-political nature (in practice organized gangs) legal.

This act on the organization of gangs unleashed a wave of bloodshed, as rival political gangs started fighting each other in the streets. This ultimately cost Clodius his life, as he died in one of the confrontations against the gang of Milo, a rival gang-leader who supported the aristocrats.

Clodius was described as extremely arrogant and not above using any means necessary to get his way. He was very good at getting the crowds worked up to a fever point, and then having them do his bidding.

He would often use the worsening conditions of the people he was talking to as a way to get them to do what he wanted. In this way, he took advantage of the mental state of the poorer and exploited sections of society to get more power and advance his career.

“They therefore gladly listened to Clodius also, and called him the soldier’s friend. For he pretended to be incensed in their behalf, if there was to be no end of their countless wars and toils, but they were rather to wear out their lives in fighting with every nation and wandering over every land, receiving no suitable reward for such service, but convoying the waggons and camels of Lucullus laden with golden beakers set with precious stones. All this, while the soldiers of Pompey, citizens now, were snugly ensconced with wives and children in the possession of fertile lands and prosperous cities, — not for having driven Mithridates and Tigranes into uninhabitable deserts, nor for having demolished the royal palaces of Asia, but for having fought with wretched exiles in Spain and runaway slaves in Italy. “Why, then,” he would cry, “if our campaigns are never to come to an end, do we not reserve what is left of our bodies, and our lives, for a general in whose eyes the wealth of his soldiers is his fairest honor?””

from “The Life of Lucullus” by Plutarch

Clodius was not the only person that was a master at using the negative emotions of the poor crowds. Catiline, the guy who decided to stage a coup d’etat after he lost his election for consul, also got a lot of support from the discontented masses.

“In general the whole plebs approved of Catiline’s undertaking, from an inclination for new things. In this it seemed to act according to its custom. For always in a state those who have no resources envy the propertied, admire evil men, hate established things and long for new ones, and from discontent with their own position they desire everything to be changed.”

from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

It is not just material conditions, loss of money or jobs that are the problem, but also the quality of the jobs. When the prospect of getting a good job, adequate to your level, even after years of study and hard work diminishes, it can have a negative impact on your psyche. This is something that was noticed by Libanius, a teacher of rhetoric, who lived in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, at a time when Christianity was taking over and the conditions in the country were rapidly declining.

While the conditions in late Empire were a bit different from those in the late Republic, what Libanius noticed is pertinent for any era. Even after years of hard studies, him and his pupils could not get the jobs that the previous generations could get. Instead, the jobs went to people with connections, and usually also a lack of education.

“What profit will I gain from these countless labors, by which I must pore through many poets, many orators, and every other kind of written work, if the end result of my sweat and toil is that I myself wander about in dishonor, while another achieves prosperity?”

from “Orations” by Libanius

A sense of injustice or a feeling of vulnerability have been identified as some of the factors that can lead to anxiety. This can result in the idea of being mistreated by a specific group or just the world in general. These types of feelings are usually accompanied by a sense of powerlessness and lack of control.

Populist demagogues can easily take advantage of the negative mindset that sets in a situation of relative loss of status and wealth. They will assure you that it is not your fault and someone else is to blame. They will start offering simple answers on how this can be solved. Most of all, they will make you feel like someone actually cares about your problem. This can become very enticing and can sway many people.

For people when they feel that they are being treated unjustly, become quite desperate, which makes them prone to fall for populist promises.

“For men, when they feel unjustly treated, are wont to become desperate.”

from “Secret History” by Procopius

These feelings of unfair treatment might be justified or not, but it is usually not objective facts that drive a person’s behavior, but rather subjective feelings. A subjective feeling of a fall in well-being can have very similar effects on a person’s sense of things getting worse, as much as an objective, measurable fall in well-being can.

This realization that the subjective interpretation of events plays an important role in human affairs was a key aspect of Stoic teachings. Ancient Stoic philosophers realized that it is usually not the event itself that matters, but how you interpret it. Emotions stir themselves inside everyone, but they work only if you give assent to them.

“If you are pained by any external thing, it is not this thing that disturbs you, but your own judgement about it.”

from “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius

This is how the world works. Most people give assent to their subjective feelings, whether on the emotional interpretation of their perceived problems or on the solutions that are being offered to solve them. On the positive side, emotions can push people to try to do something about a real problem. On the negative side, they can also exaggerate problems to bigger proportions and make some populist solutions seem attractive.

Emotions are a double-edged sword and need to be managed properly, which is something that many of the ancient philosophical schools tried to teach people to do. However, these techniques never entered the tool-belt of most people. It is hard even for a philosopher-king to keep his emotions in check when adversity hits, so when the personal situation of a huge chunk of the population declines (whether in reality or in imagination), you will have trouble ahead.

The problem today is that many people in the developed world feel as if they are worse off than previous generations and that the next generations will be even worse off than now. They feel as if they are losing control. That is why such huge chunks of the population are prone to demagogic politicians.

3) Anger can lead to polarization, which is a step away from violence

Many demagogues use the tactic of swaying emotions to get power. Emotional persuasion is much more effective than logical persuasion. And what is the most powerful emotion? Anger.

The ancient commentators realized the dangers of anger for the individual, but also for society. The reason why this is so, is because this emotion circumvents reason and makes people behave in a brainless way, often leading to aggressiveness. Modern research has confirmed the strong links between anger and aggression.

“Some of the wisest of men have called anger a short madness: for it is equally devoid of self control, regardless of decorum, forgetful of kinship, obstinately engrossed in whatever it begins to do, deaf to reason and advice, excited by trifling causes, awkward at perceiving what is true and just, and very like a falling rock which breaks itself to pieces upon the very thing which it crushes. That you may know that they whom anger possesses are not sane, look at their appearance; for as there are distinct symptoms which mark madmen, such as a bold and menacing air, a gloomy brow, a stern face, a hurried walk, restless hands, changed color, quick and strongly-drawn breathing; the signs of angry men, too, are the same.”

from “On Anger” by Seneca

The different definitions that the ancients gave of anger were all usually linked to a desire for revenge, even bodily harm. Whether this desire stemmed from just or unjust causes, this emotion was always tied to an aggressive state of mind.

“Anger is the desire to punish one who, we think, has wrongfully done us harm.”

from “The Tusculan Disputations” by Cicero

Anger as an emotion is stronger than gratitude. People often forget all the good things that others might have done for them, and instead focus on the bad things.

“For men do not feel the same way toward those who have injured them and toward their benefactors. They remember their anger even against their will, yet they willingly forget their gratitude.”

from “Roman Histories” by Cassius Dio

Often, the people who resort to anger all the time are just overcompensating for their lack of control and their own failures. Their mind is constantly unhappy, and this is their way of dealing with it.

“To be constantly irritated seems to me to be the part of a languid and unhappy mind, conscious of its own feebleness, like folk with diseased bodies covered with sores, who cry out at the lightest touch.”

from “On Anger” by Seneca

In the ancient world, the views on whether anger is ever justified differed quite a bit. While the Stoics stated that anger is never justified, the Peripatetics (followers of Aristotle) had a more nuanced view. They believed that there were certain instances when righteous anger is legitimate. It can move you to try to right a perceived wrong or injustice. However, what both schools agreed on is that too much anger, especially uncontrolled anger, can lead you on the wrong path.

In the last century of the Roman Republic, conditions were ripe for the rise of strong negative emotions. Apprehension spread throughout Roman society. The different groups started professing their grievances, many of which were at odds with the grievances of the other groups. This inflamed the tensions, and created anger.

“They collected together in groups, and made lamentation, and accused the poor of appropriating the results of their tillage, their vineyards, and their dwellings. Some said that they had paid the price of the land to their neighbors. Were they to lose the money with their land? Others said that the graves of their ancestors were in the ground, which had been allotted to them in the division of their fathers’ estates. Others said that their wives’ dowries had been expended on the estates, or that the land had been given to their own daughters as dowry. Money-lenders could show loans made on this security. All kinds of wailing and expressions of indignation were heard at once. On the other side were heard the lamentations of the poor — that they were being reduced from competence to extreme penury, and from that to childlessness, because they were unable to rear their offspring. They recounted the military services they had rendered, by which this very land had been acquired, and were angry that they should be robbed of their share of the common property. They reproached the rich for employing slaves, who were always faithless and ill-disposed and for that reason unserviceable in war, instead of freemen, citizens, and soldiers. While these classes were thus lamenting and indulging in mutual accusations, a great number of others, composed of colonists, or inhabitants of the free towns, or persons otherwise interested in the lands and who were under like apprehensions, flocked in and took sides with their respective factions. Emboldened by numbers and exasperated against each other they kindled considerable disturbances, and waited eagerly for the voting on the new law, some intending to prevent its enactment by all means, and others to enact it at all costs. In addition to personal interest the spirit of rivalry spurred both sides in the preparations they were making against each other for the appointed day.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

Grievances can lead to anger, which can then give rise to moral indignation. Once moral indignation takes over, the mind stops reasoning rationally and can become a slave of the passions. This can result in intense feelings of permanent anger, often turning into full-out rage. It is very easy then to start solving problems using violence.

“Moreover, since the people felt bitterly over the death of Tiberius and were clearly awaiting an opportunity for revenge, and since Nasica was already threatened with prosecutions, the senate, fearing for his safety, voted to send him to Asia, although it had no need of him there. For when people met Nasica, they did not try to hide their hatred of him, but grew savage and cried out upon him wherever he chanced to be, calling him an accursed man and a tyrant, who had defiled with the murder of an inviolable and sacred person the holiest and most awe-inspiring of the city’s sanctuaries.”

from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

“The nobles then abused their victory to gratify their passions; they put many men out of the way by the sword or by banishment, and thus rendered themselves for the future rather dreaded than powerful. It is this spirit which has commonly ruined great nations, when one party desires to triumph over another by any and every means and to avenge itself on the vanquished with excessive cruelty. But if I should attempt to speak of the strife of parties and of the general character of the state in detail or according to the importance of the theme, time would fail me sooner than material.”

from “Jugurthine War” by Sallust

When moral indignation sets in, and a person becomes overtaken with anger, even rage, they will believe that they are being wise and that their cause is just. They become blinded by their self-righteousness, but can end up sliding into ruin.

“All those whose madness raises them above human considerations, believe themselves to be inspired with high and sublime ideas; but there is no solid ground beneath, and what is built without foundation is liable to collapse in ruin. Anger has no ground to stand upon, and does not rise from a firm and enduring foundation, but is a windy, empty quality, as far removed from true magnanimity as fool-hardiness from courage, boastfulness from confidence, gloom from austerity, cruelty from strictness. There is, I say, a great difference between a lofty and a proud mind: anger brings about nothing grand or beautiful.”

from “On Anger” by Seneca

The problem with anger is that it can bring about cycles of violence and revenge. Even if this anger is based on righteous anger at the beginning, the degeneration into endless bouts of emotional outbursts from both sides can often stop progress in its track. Instead, it can lead to the radicalization of both sides, which makes any hope of a compromise disappear.

“Now no passion is more eager for revenge than anger, and for that very reason is unfit to take it; being unduly ardent and frenzied, as most lusts are, it blocks its own progress to the goal toward which it hastens.”

from “On Anger” by Seneca

The Roman Republic became divided between opposing camps, each accusing the other. Deep polarization led to political violence, and even murder. This then further exasperated the partisanship and led to more violence. Once violence became the norm, it became hard (maybe impossible) to stop.

“The Gracchi by their judiciary law had created a cleavage in the Roman people and had destroyed the unity of the State by giving it two heads. The Roman knights, relying on the extraordinary powers, which placed the fate and fortunes of the leading citizens in their hands, were plundering the State at their pleasure by embezzling the revenues; the Senate, crippled by the exile of Metellus and the condemnation of Rutilius, had lost every appearance of dignity. In this state of affairs Servilius Caepio and Livius Drusus, men of equal wealth, spirit and dignity — and it was this which inspired the emulation of Livius Drusus — supported, the former the knights, the latter the Senate. Standards, eagles and banners were, it is true, lacking; but the citizens of one and the same city were as sharply divided as if they formed two camps.”

from “Epitome of Roman History” by Florus

Plutarch noted that anger can often arise from very small beginnings. Society often mirrors the internal makeup of people, and just like in people profound changes can be initiated by the smallest of circumstances, in society chaos can have humble beginnings.

“For anger does not always have great and powerful beginnings; on the contrary, even a jest, a playful word, a burst of laughter or a nod on the part of somebody, and many things of the kind, rouse many persons to anger.”

from “On Controlling Anger” by Plutarch

Sometimes the anger is boiling under the surface, only waiting for a spark to set it off. In Ancient Rome, this spark was the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus. In more modern times, you have the example of the self-immolation of a Tunisian street vendor, which unleashed these bent up emotions and started the so-called Arab Spring.

“Tiberius Gracchus lost his life in consequence of a most excellent design too violently pursued; and this abominable crime, the first that was perpetrated in the public assembly, was seldom without parallels thereafter from time to time. On the subject of the murder of Gracchus the city was divided between sorrow and joy. Some mourned for themselves and for him, and deplored the present condition of things, believing that the commonwealth no longer existed, but had been supplanted by force and violence. Others considered that their dearest wishes were accomplished.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

Once this spark was set off, things started going downhill. First it was only riots, however once political assassination had been introduced into the system, anger turned to downright hate. When such strong emotions take over, people on both sides throw the gloves off and stop restraining themselves.

“Thus the seditions proceeded from strife and contention to murder, and from murder to open war, and now the first army of her own citizens had invaded Rome as a hostile country. From this time the seditions were decided only by the arbitrament of arms. There were frequent attacks upon the city and battles before the walls and other calamities incident to war. Henceforth there was no restraint upon violence either from the sense of shame, or regard for law, institutions, or country.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

This state of affairs started, paradoxically, right after Rome had experienced its greatest triumph, and grew worse as the decades passed.

“When the threat from Carthage had been removed, they were free to resume their quarrels. Then there arose frequent riots, revolutions and eventually civil wars. A few influential men, who had gained the support of the majority, sought absolute power, on the specious pretext of defending the nobles or the plebs. Citizens were not called “good” or “bad” according to their public conduct, because in that respect they were all equally corrupt; but those who were wealthiest, and most able to inflict harm, were considered “good” because they defended the existing state of affairs.”

from “Histories” by Sallust

Seneca called anger a plague, in fact the most destructive one in the history of humanity. One of the victims was the Roman Republic. Anger led to polarization, which led to violence and destruction. It all started from small fires and over time grew to overwhelm society.

“No plague has cost the human race more dear: you will see slaughterings and poisonings, accusations and counter-accusations, sacking of cities, ruin of whole peoples, the persons of princes sold into slavery by auction, torches applied to roofs, and fires not merely confined within city-walls but making whole tracts of country glow with hostile flame. See the foundations of the most celebrated cities hardly now to be discerned; they were ruined by anger.”

from “On Anger” by Seneca

Compare this to today. Society is deeply polarized between two sides. Political divisions seem irreparable. Each side seems to be veering towards more extreme positions.



The extreme attitudes have gotten so bad that significant sections of Republican and Democrat supporters in the US see the other party as a threat to the country. This can be quite dangerous, since if you dehumanize the opposition and see them as a mortal threat, you are much more prone to support more radical measures against them.

The outrage culture seems to be taking over, greatly helped with social media echo chambers.

4) When people are not willing to compromise, the situation will get worse

Extremism makes compromise virtually impossible. When a state of affairs arises that people are not willing to sit down and agree on a reasonable common action, then more extreme measures like violence come to be seen as the only solution to the problem.

“And it is thought that a law dealing with injustice and rapacity so great was never drawn up in milder and gentler terms. For men who ought to have been punished for their disobedience and to have surrendered with payment of a fine the land which they were illegally enjoying, these men it merely ordered to abandon their unjust acquisitions upon being paid the value, and to admit into ownership of them such citizens as needed assistance. But although the rectification of the wrong was so considerate, the people were satisfied to let bygones be bygones if they could be secure from such wrong in the future; the men of wealth and substance, however, were led by their greed to hate the law, and by their wrath and contentiousness to hate the law-giver, and tried to dissuade the people by alleging that Tiberius was introducing a re-distribution of land for the confusion of the body politic, and was stirring up a general revolution.”

from “The Life of Tiberius Gracchus” by Plutarch

When Tiberius Gracchus proposed his laws on the redistribution of land, the upper classes were vehemently opposed to them. They did not want to even consider any such measures. Instead of finding a compromise solution to very grave problems of society, they started attacking the messenger.

This is opposed to the spirit of compromise that reigned in the times of the early Roman Republic. While there was class conflict between the patricians and the plebeians, little by little the grievances were solved. At the end, they knew that they were part of a common body, and need to compromise for the common good.

“The plebeians and Senate of Rome were often at strife with each other concerning the enactment of laws, the cancelling of debts, the division of lands, or the election of magistrates. Internal discord did not, however, bring them to blows; there were dissensions merely and contests within the limits of the law, which they composed by making mutual concessions, and with much respect for each other. Once when the plebeians were entering on a campaign they fell into a controversy of the sort, but they did not use the weapons in their hands, but withdrew to the hill, which from that time on was called the Sacred Mount. Even then no violence was done, but they created a magistrate for their protection and called him the Tribune of the Plebs, to serve especially as a check upon the consuls, who were chosen by the Senate, so that political power should not be exclusively in their hands.”

from “Roman History” by Appian

This tendency to compromise broke down during the latter years of the Republic. One of the biggest problems was that the people on both sides did not understand the situation of the other side. An anecdote captured by Valerius Maximus, shows this divide of perceptions.

“As a young man, Scipio Nasica was running for the political office of the aedile. One day, as was customary for candidates, he was shaking hands with the voters. Taking the hand of a farmer, a hand that was heavily calloused after years of toiling in the countryside, Scipio Nasica jokingly asked him whether he had spent his life walking on his hands. That statement was heard by many people standing around them. Word of this incident spread among the populace, and caused Scipio Nasica to lose the election.”

from “Memorable Deeds and Sayings” by Valerius Maximus

Scipio Nasica, coming from an ancient patrician family, did not understand the way the common people lived, and their everyday problems. Living in their own social bubble, many of the aristocrats did not know about the lives of the ordinary plebeians. When you keep yourself apart like this, you cannot look at the world from the perspective of the other groups, blinding you to their needs, wants and fears.

On the other hand, the ordinary people sometimes did not want to see how unreasonable some of their demands were. For example, when they were clamoring for free grain, Cicero noted that a huge part of the public expenditures would need to go towards satisfying these policies. This money had to come from somewhere and could not be spent on other things (for example improving Rome’s infrastructure).

“Gaius Gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The Optimates, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw that the state treasury would be exhausted.”

from “Speech in Defense of Sestius” by Cicero

The subsidized grain distribution became a favorite tactic of many populists, who would often propose that the state provide cheaper and cheaper grain, and later bread. Clodius, when he became tribune, even passed a law making it free.

However, there were significant knock-off effects. The money for this grain dole had to come from somewhere, and this meant higher taxes, especially in the provinces. Some of the provinces suffered quite a bit under a heavy tax burden. Also, from time to time, speculators would arise, who would try to artificially reduce the grain supply, causing shortages and thereby increasing its price. This forced the state to either buy the grain at higher prices or get it through other means, wasting even more money.

So the grain dole ended up being a huge burden on the public finances of Rome, and thereby the entire Roman economy. This subsidized grain, however, was something that could not be abolished, as if someone tried to do it, the people of the city of Rome would riot.

Another contentious issue in ancient Rome was debt. Throughout its history, the Roman Republic was plagued with rising debts. At various times, popular movement for the cancellation of this debt arose. However, these things need to be considered carefully. Too much debt can lead to inflation and collapse.

There was a huge debt crisis during Sulla’s ascendancy after the end of the Social War in 88 BC, which caused havoc on the Roman economy. Rome had been through these types of crises before and was always able to overcome them, but in the latter days of the Republic, they multiplied more frequently. Together with all the other events happening, they added pressures on the system and in time overwhelmed it. What happens is that economic shocks can exacerbate the existing problems, and greatly increase the popular discontent. That’s why economic recessions need to be handled with care.

While on one hand, the cancellation of debt can ease the burden on the people who have those debts, this can also have negative consequences. It can be very detrimental to the creditors, who then don’t see their money back. It can also introduce moral hazard into the system and be unfair to the people who did pay off their debts. All these sides of the issue need to be considered whenever enacting any type of policy. This debt issue played a huge role in the affairs of the Roman state, and could have been one of the contributing factors to its collapse.

Cicero, during his consulate, was a big opponent of the abolition of debts.

“What does the establishment of new debt accounts mean other than that you buy a plot of land with my money, that you’re the one who owns it and that I do not have my money? That’s why you have to ensure that there aren’t any debts, which may harm the State.”

from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

However, many populist politicians, like Catiline, used the promise of the abolition of debts, as a way to get support from the masses.

“Thereupon Catiline promised abolition of debts.”

from “The Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust

On the political front, the Roman Republic became a battleground between debtors and creditors, which added to all the other contentious issues that had strong partisans on each side. What usually happens in controversies such as these, is that people argue from their own perspective, keeping in mind their own interests.

Very rarely do individuals take a step back and try to see the wider perspective. Instead, they look at the world through narrow blinders, without taking a holistic view of things, and without taking into account various sides of any issue. People usually cannot place themselves in the shoes of others and see things from their point of view.

Empathy is defined as the ability to understand and feel from another person’s point of reference. This type of a mindset is incredibly important, if you want to be able to come to a common understanding. Instead, people blindly push their own perspectives.

For some ancient philosophers, like Hierocles the Stoic, the way to get out of this narrow point of view was to expand your circle of concern. He described how humans have different circles of concern, with the first and foremost being yourself, then in a circle around it, your family, and so on and so on, with the final circle encompassing the whole world.

“For, in short, each of us is, as it were, circumscribed by many circles; some of which are less, but others larger, and some comprehend, but others are comprehended, according to the different and unequal habitudes with respect to each other. For the first, indeed, and most proximate circle is that which every one describes about his own mind as a center, in which circle the body, and whatever is assumed for the sake of the body, are comprehended. For this is nearly the smallest circle, and almost touches the center itself. The second from this, and which is at a greater distance from the center, but comprehends the first circle, is that in which parents, brothers, wife, and children are arranged. The third circle from the center is that which contains uncles and aunts, grandfathers and grandmothers, and the children of brothers and sisters. After this is the circle which comprehends the remaining relatives. Next to this is that which contains the common people, then that which comprehends those of the same tribe, afterwards that which contains the citizens; and then two other circles follow, one being the circle of those that dwell in the vicinity of the city, and the other, of those of the same province. But the outermost and greatest circle, and which comprehends all the other circles, is that of the whole human race.”

from “On Appropriate Acts” by Hierocles the Stoic

In another one of his works, Hierocles the Stoic explained that this type of view of the world as being in circles of concern comes out of a sense of self-preservation that all animals are born with. The Greek word he used is “oikeiosis” and signifies a perception of belonging to oneself. All the basic impulses of animals, including humans, stem from this. In many ways, this is in line with the modern theory of the selfish gene that some researchers view as the driving force of human behavior.

“An animal, when it has received the first perception of itself, immediately becomes its own and familiar to itself and to its constitution.”

from “The Elements of Ethics” by Hierocles the Stoic

So narrow ways of looking at the world are inherent in how you perceive the world. The way out of this filter bubble is to strive to put all these circles into one big circle, and feel empathy towards everyone.

“It is the province of him who strives to conduct himself properly in each of these connections to collect, in a certain respect, the circles, as it were, to one center, and always to endeavor earnestly to transfer himself from the comprehending circles to the several particulars which they comprehend.”

from “On Appropriate Acts” by Hierocles the Stoic

Unfortunately, most people don’t conduct themselves like this, but instead stay within their circles of concern and their blinded ways of looking at the world. This narrow view of things means that no matter what you do, you can never please everyone. Whenever you conduct a speech or try to enact a policy, you will have those who are pro and those who are against. The same speech can pump up one set of people, while it enrages another group.

“A speaker can satisfy one set of people, while at the same time irritating another set. His speech will as often please, as much as displease.”

from “Against Plato In Defense of Rhetoric” by Aelius Aristides

What happened in Rome is that you had different camps of people forming. These were drifting further and further apart ideologically. As a consequence, attitudes hardened, and anger further exasperated the tense stand-offs. The lack of understanding became more and more extreme as time went by, and extremism flourished. This type of state of affairs often doesn’t arise from day to day, but instead builds up upon differences of opinion, which grow larger and larger as time passes.

The reason why there are so many differences of opinion is because experiences vary under different circumstances. The internal makeup of one person is not always the same as that of another, in terms of character, principles, or history of experiences. It is not just these traits and attitudes that compel a person to act in a certain way, but the particular situation at that moment can also induce the reaction of a person. The same person might react one way in one particular situation, but in another way in another situation.

There are personal factors that influence a person’s reactions and behaviors, but also societal ones. The environment a person lives in matters and affects how a person thinks and acts. Culture can also have an impact on the way person thinks, since people are brought up with different beliefs, customs or in different social conditions.

All these factors influence the way a person perceives a particular issue. Sextus Empiricus, a follower of the ancient school of Pyrrhonian Skepticism, outlined several reasons why perceptions can differ. One analogy that he gave is how seawater is unpleasant and even poisonous for humans to drink, but fish seem to have no problem with it. Just like fish and humans react differently to salty water, two humans can react differently to other types of external objects.

“It is likely that the external objects are perceived differently depending on the differing makeups of the animals. But one can see this more clearly from the preferences and aversions of animals. Thus, perfume seems very pleasant to human beings but intolerable to dung beetles and bees, and the application of olive oil is beneficial to human beings but kills wasps and bees. And to human beings sea water is unpleasant and even poisonous to drink, while to fish it is most pleasant and potable. And pigs bathe more happily in the worst stinking mud than in clear and pure water.”

from “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” by Sextus Empiricus

The reaction of one person to the same object, can be totally different from that of another person, due to preferences, priorities or life history. One person might have a preference for collecting stamps, while another person finds this boring and instead has a longing for adventure. Priorities can also vary based on an individuals’ goals or outlook.

“There are a thousand species of men; and equally diversified is the pursuit of objects. Each has his own desire; nor do men live with one single wish.”

from “Satires” by Persius

Different people are wired differently, and that’s why they perceive the same thing differently.

“Since no common effect comes about in us, it is rash to say that what appears a certain way to me also appears that way to the next person. For perhaps I am put together in such a way as to be whitened by the thing that strikes me from outside, but the other person has his senses designed so as to be disposed differently. What is apparent to us, then, is absolutely not common. We are not activated in the same way, given the different designs of our senses.”

from “Against the Logicians” by Sextus Empiricus

One aspect of this internal wiring is a person’s personality, which is defined as a set of usual behavioral patterns, which that person shows consistently across a wide variety of situations. The ancients developed a theory of personality called the four temperaments, which was based on the four humors theory.

According to this theory people fell into four types of temperaments: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic. Of course these categories were not rigid, and individuals could display a wide variety of combinations of these temperaments, but there was always a tendency toward one type. Galen described this personality theory in his work “On the Temperaments”.

According to Galen, the temperaments are based on the four humors inside a person’s body. When one prevails over the other, then there is a tendency for certain behaviors. The ideal would be for all the humors to be in balance, not too much or too little of each, the golden mean.

“The most well-mixed man in respect to his soul, will be precisely in the middle between boldness and cowardice, hesitancy and rashness, pity and envy. Such a person will be good-spirited, affectionate, generous and intelligent.”

from “On the Temperaments” by Galen

However, it is very uncommon for an individual to have a perfect balance of the humors. Instead, certain mixtures prevail and drive how a person responds to outside stimuli. All the mixtures have a positive and negative aspect. For example, a person with a choleric type of personality is an extrovert who is driven, ambitious, and decisive, but also violent, vengeful, stubborn, and short-tempered. Many leaders and politicians fit exactly this profile.

This ancient theory of personality has influenced many of the more modern personality typologies like the Myers-Brigg, or the NLP meta-programs. Most scientists now however prefer to use the Big Five scale, where they divide a person on factors such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (or emotional stability). Some researchers have surmised that some of these traits could play a big role in explaining divisiveness in society.

Having an antagonistic personality paradoxically bodes well for politicians. The politicians who fit here garner more media attention through their antagonistic stances, and are much more likely to get elected than more agreeable ones. According to the researchers, the people who are on the antagonism part of the antagonism-agreeableness spectrum are more likely to push disagreements or believe in conspiracy theories. This also hugely impacts the way they perceive things around them, and makes them much less likely to try to compromise.

It is not just the predetermined internal wiring that makes people perceive things differently, but also their experiences. Life history is incredibly important when it comes to the way people act. A person who grew up in a dangerous neighborhood might have a history of bad experiences with people, while someone who was born rich, pretty, and pampered would end up with a history of good experiences with people. This then affects their opinion of people in general and how they act towards them.

“When the same things are chosen by some people and avoided by others it is logical for us to infer that these people are not affected alike by the same things, since if they were they would alike have chosen and avoided the same things.”

from “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” by Sextus Empiricus

Things like your position in life, your preceding activities, or your particular mood in that instance affects the way you think or act. If a person is poor, they might think one way, but when they become rich, they might start thinking in a different way.

Aesthetic tastes can also differ, based on subjective criteria. As Sextus noted, sexy is in the eye of the beholder.

“And many people who have ugly mistresses think them beautiful. Depending on hunger and satiety, too: since the same food seems very pleasant to the hungry but unpleasant to the sated. And depending on being drunk or sober: since things we consider shameful when we are sober appear to us not to be shameful when we are drunk.”

from “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” by Sextus Empiricus

Based on all these factors, people form opinions on different subjects. Often, they cannot distinguish an opinion from a fact, and end up deceiving themselves. They usually engage in motivated reasoning, where they try to fit the facts to their preconceived notions and not the other way around. Basically, they draw the conclusions that they want to draw and try to find evidence to confirm these inner beliefs.

“The human race, which by nature partakes of wisdom, though it falls short of it through bad judgement and indifference, is inwardly full of opinion and self-deception.”

from “Discourse on Opinion” by Dio Chrysostom

Perceptions and opinions are shaped by, but in turn also shape, one fundamental aspect of how humans view the world: values. A value is a principle or a standard that a person holds as important. Much of how humans see the world is skewed through their values, and these values form the basis for their beliefs. A person’s value is usually also one of the main drivers of their behavior.

While philosophers like Plato argued that there is one objective value for everyone, Protagoras and other philosophers argued that values are subjective. Different people have different values, which can sometimes be opposed to each other.

“Protagoras was the first to maintain that there are two sides to every question, opposed to each other, and he even argued in this fashion, being the first to do so. Furthermore he began a work thus: “Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not.” He used to say that the soul was nothing apart from the senses.”

from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Modern researchers studying the values that people hold came up with the moral foundations theory, which states that people have different types of reasoning on morality. According to this theory, people usually place their values on a spectrum consisting of these five categories: care, loyalty or ingroup, authority, sanctity or purity, and fairness or proportionality.

While all of these categories are important, one of the values that was fought over the most in ancient times was the idea of fairness. Fairness is something which has deep biological roots and so is deeply ingrained in the mind. Many ancient philosophers considered fairness as a component of justice. Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics” discussed the notion of fairness as receiving according to what you put in. So for example, if you go out on a hunt and come back with a kill, then the person who did the most in order to catch the prey should also get the biggest piece of the meat, proportional to his part of the overall effort.

However, this is where we get one of the biggest points of contention. What is fair? Different people have different definitions of fairness, and this has a huge impact on their values. Many people argue that the power structures in a society are not the same, so there needs to be some sort of a mechanism to ensure an equality of opportunity and outcome. This often involves a sort of redistribution of resources, with the aim to promote egalitarianism.

These different ideas of fairness serve as sources of disagreement among different groups of people. Some people base their notions of fairness on a more individualistic definition, focusing on merits, while others have a more societal outlook, focusing on equality. These different ways of looking at fairness are at the core of people’s values, which can then lead to points of contention in what types of policies to enact in order to have a fair and just society.

Polybius in his descriptions of various constitutions of the states of his era noted the different set-ups of the countries. This was a reflection of what the majority of citizens regarded as fair. The Cretans had a more proportional (or meritocratic) definition of fairness, where you could buy as much land as you could afford, with this money being acquired through your work (or that of your ancestors).

“Their laws go as far as possible in letting them acquire land to the extent of their power, as the saying is, and money is held in such high honor among them that its acquisition is not only regarded as necessary, but as most honorable.”

from “Histories” by Polybius

The Spartans, on the other hand, had a more egalitarian notion of fairness.

“For the equal division of landed property and the simple and common diet were calculated to produce temperance in the private lives of the citizens and to secure the commonwealth as a whole from civil strife.”

from “Histories” by Polybius

In the Roman Republic, it is the differing ideas about fairness among the various sections of the population that stoked up polarization and created conflict. One side was fighting for entrenched property rights and had a conservative outlook on society, the other side was calling for land redistribution, capping the size of landholdings, giving out subsidies, and had a more egalitarian radical view of society.

These types of issues can become an aspect of a person’s world-view. Often, this world-view is influenced by a school of thinking, a political party or group, or the authority of an individual.

A person learns about a certain philosophy or ideology, and without thinking much about the wider context, adopts it outright. In this phase, thinking can become rigid for many people.

Many times, this learning comes way before a person is mature, and is influenced by the family the person grows up in, the community around him, as well as the peer groups that the person finds himself hanging around. A person’s world-view is often very much a product of that person’s circumstances and the surrounding society.

“For in the first place, those of the other schools have been bound hand and foot before they were able to judge what was best; and, secondly, before their age or their understanding had come to maturity, they have either followed the opinion of some friend, or been charmed by the eloquence of some one who was the first arguer whom they ever heard, and so have been led to form a judgment on what they did not understand, and now they cling to whatever school they were, as it were, dashed against in a tempest, like sailors clinging to a rock.”

from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

While individual perceptions, reactions and values are important, what shapes the mood in society is the interaction of them with the perceptions, reactions and values of other people. Humans have a tendency to divide themselves into groups, whether tribes, nations, or based on ideology. These divisions are then reinforced through modes of thinking, with each group adopting their own proper rituals or beliefs. Membership in each particular group then fortifies the beliefs that distinguish it from others.

This can create dangerous “us” versus “them” divisions, which can widen over time. When some of these ideas and beliefs of one group are in direct contrast to those of another group, then the potential for intolerance and conflict increases.

“The dogmatists egotistically refuse to allow other people the judgment of the truth, but say that they themselves are the only ones to have discovered this.”

from “Against the Logicians” by Sextus Empiricus

Most people think they are right and the other side is wrong. This is reinforced through the way the brain works. Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias make it that a person usually seeks information that is in line with their opinion and discards the things that are not in line with that.

Even more powerful is the backfire effect, where opposing facts contrary to a person’s opinion, paradoxically make people believe in their opinion even more. This means that most people will not want to learn about the opinions or positions of others, and instead they will discard them automatically.

“The fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!”

from “On the Natural Faculties” by Galen

When people are not willing to walk in the shoes of others, and do not want to understand the problems of the other side, then they won’t see the other side’s arguments as legitimate. Compromise is virtually impossible in situations such as these.

Black or white thinking, which paints both sides in broad strokes has a tendency to take over in times of growing polarization. The partisans of each group start thinking in extremes, painting themselves as all good, and the other side as all bad, with nuances and grey thinking disappearing by the wayside.

This type of closed off mindset is reflected in the differences in descriptions of the same exact events. One example of this is the way that Tiberius Gracchus was described by the two sides. For the Populares, Gracchus was a hero, battling for better social conditions, and some of his partisans even had his picture on their walls. For the Optimates, he was a dangerous upstart hungry for power, wanting to become king. Sometimes it seems as if they lived in alternate universes composed of alternative facts.

In these highly polarized situations, everybody wants to win, and they often want to win at the expense of the other. Instead of trying to find a common position or to arrive at a consensus, the goal is to stick it to the other side, to humiliate them or even destroy them. It sometimes actually gives pleasure to a person to see their moral opponents suffer defeat or humiliation.

“It is pleasant to watch from the land the great struggle of someone else in a sea rendered great by turbulent winds.”

from “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius

Each side thinks it has the moral high ground, and that the other side is evil and beneath them. Civility and respect for your opponents disappear, to be replaced by rudeness and hatred. Often, the language degenerates into shouting and name calling.

“They think they can offend with impunity, and by their nobility easily keep aloof those who are not their equals.”

from “Satires” by Lucilius

However, as noticed by Pliny the Younger, while these people might treat the other as a mortal enemy, both behave in a very similar way. They blame others for all kinds of faults, yet ignore the fact that they themselves are behaving the same way. You can notice this in many political discussions.

People will close their eyes when they discover that someone from their side did a bad thing, but will pounce when it is someone from the other side who did a bad thing. The patterns of behavior are the same on whatever side of the barrier you are sitting, if you are blinded by extreme partisanship and self-righteousness. In these types of discussions, hypocrisy reigns supreme.

“Did you ever come across people who are themselves the slaves of all kinds of passions, yet are so indignant at the vices of others as to appear to grudge them their viciousness – people who show no mercy to those whom they most resemble in character? And this in spite of the fact that those who themselves need the charitable judgment of others ought above all things to be lenient in their judgments! For my own part, I consider the best and most finished type of man to be the person who is always ready to make allowances for others, on the ground that never a day passes without his being in fault himself, yet who keeps as clear of faults as if he never pardoned them in others. Let this be our rule, then, at home and out-of-doors, and in every department of life, to be remorseless in our judgment of ourselves, yet considerate even to those who are incapable of overlooking faults in any but themselves.”

from “Epistles” by Pliny the Younger

Political radicalization fosters greater cognitive dissonance and doublethink. Everyone believes that they are the good guys, and that they are defending the right cause. In reality, things often turn out differently. What happens is that even people who call for equality or fairness, and believe that they are fighting against oppression, end up themselves oppressing other people or groups.

“True moderation in the defense of political liberties is indeed a difficult thing: pretending to want fair shares for all, every man raises himself by depressing his neighbor; our anxiety to avoid oppression leads us to practice it ourselves; the injustice we repel, we visit in turn upon others, as if there were no choice except either to do it or to suffer it.”

from “From the Foundation of the City” by Livy

There are different reasons and explanations why people become extremists, including the need for significance and a feeling of importance. Virtue signalling is a good way to gain status in your little group, which gives you a hit of dopamine, which gets you hooked, starting the ride to more radicalization.

Unfortunately as Seneca noted when people are convinced of the fact that they know the ultimate truth, and everyone else who does not subscribe to their world-view is the enemy, things end up going down a bad path. Replace the word “philosophy” with “ideology” or a something similar, and you will understand how powerful this quote really is in describing the current situation.

“When philosophy is wielded with arrogance and stubbornly, it is the cause for the ruin of many. Let philosophy scrape off your own faults, rather than be a way to rail against the faults of others.”

from “Moral Letters to Lucilius” by Seneca

These types of behaviors are similar across the ages. People like to behave in a tribal way, cheering for their own side, demonizing the other side, and being blind to their own faults. At times, the political environment in the country heightens the behaviors and stokes up the tensions. If you couple these effects with people selfishly pushing for their own perceived interests, you have the social conditions which are akin to a volcano waiting to blow up. This was the point that was reached at Rome in the latter days of the Republic. Society was divided, and polarization was at its maximum.

Gridlock and the unwillingness to compromise were also replicated in the Senate. As this institution became one of the main battle grounds between the different political factions, it was witness to many fierce stand-offs.

One of the men responsible for this impasse was Cato the Younger. While, he is remembered as a Stoic and a staunch defender of the principles of the old Republic, he was also incredibly stubborn and not willing to compromise. He was often criticized for this, even by some of his allies, such as Cicero.

Cicero knew that on the political scene, compromise is often necessary. Cato would not budge, even if the moment called for giving a small concession. This lack of expediency for the sake of a greater good, really irked Cicero.

In one of his speeches, Cicero praised and criticized Cato at the same time. He said that Cato was brave, temperate, and just. However, what was missing in Cicero’s speech was the mention of prudence, the last of the four cardinal virtues.

One example that Cicero gives when Cato should have been more prudent was when he was against a bailout (yes, they gave bailouts in Antiquity!) to a company of tax-farmers. These tax-farming companies were basically financial houses, and engaged in many activities, such as tax collecting, but also banking. In one letter to Atticus, a close friend of his, Cicero mentions that while he agreed in principle that the bailout was outrageous, you still need to give it. When considering the next course of action, you always have to look at the bigger context.

Sometimes, it pays off to get off your high-horse and compromise for the sake of the greater good. According to Cicero, this was what Cato should have done.

“While being high-minded and of the utmost loyalty, he nevertheless does harm to the Republic. For he delivers his opinions in the Senate as if he were in Plato’s Republic, and not in the scum of Romulus.”

from “Letters to Atticus” by Cicero

It became almost impossible to get anything done in the Senate. With this institution becoming locked in gridlock, some of the stalling tactics started bordering on the ridiculous. Cato tried to filibuster legislation. Bibulus, who was a co-consul with Caesar and his bitter opponent, tried to stop legislative proceedings from being carried out by declaring every day a religious holiday. Elections ended up getting postponed several times.

Everything became mired in controversy. The old Roman propensity to compromise disappeared. At some points, the machinery of state almost ground to a halt, as the different factions tried to block the other.

Even before that time, ancient lawgivers knew that growing polarization and lack of compromise could endanger a country, and so they imagined various ways of overcoming the gridlock. One solution was to try to pack both sides with moderates. This would result in them overpowering the radicals and bringing the two sides to an agreement.

“A law of Solon, the result of careful thought and consideration, which at first sight seems unfair and unjust, but on close examination is found to be altogether helpful and salutary. Among those very early laws of Solon which were inscribed upon wooden tablets at Athens, and which, promulgated by him, the Athenians ratified by penalties and oaths, to ensure their permanence, Aristotle says that there was one to this effect: “If because of strife and disagreement civil dissension shall ensue and a division of the people into two parties, and if for that reason each side, led by their angry feelings, shall take up arms and fight, then if anyone at that time, and in such a condition of civil discord, shall not ally himself with one or the other faction, but by himself and apart shall hold aloof from the common calamity of the State, let him be deprived of his home, his country, and all his property, and be an exile and an outlaw.” When I read this law of Solon, who was a man of extraordinary wisdom, I was at first filled with something like great amazement, and I asked myself why it was that those who had held themselves aloof from dissension and civil strife were thought to be deserving of punishment. Then those who had profoundly and thoroughly studied the purpose and meaning of the law declared that it was designed, not to increase, but to terminate, dissension. And that is exactly so. For if all good men, who have been unequal to checking the dissension at the outset, do not abandon the aroused and frenzied people, but divide and ally themselves with one or the other faction, then the result will be, that when they have become members of the two opposing parties, and, being men of more than ordinary influence, have begun to guide and direct those parties, harmony can best be restored and established through the efforts of such men, controlling and soothing as they will the members of their respective factions, and desiring to reconcile rather than destroy their opponents. The philosopher Favorinus thought that this same course ought to be adopted also with brothers, or with friends, who are at odds; that is, that those who are neutral and kindly disposed towards both parties, if they have had little influence in bringing about a reconciliation because they have not made their friendly feelings evident, should then take sides, some one and some the other, and through this manifestation of devotion pave the way for restoring harmony. “But as it is,” said he, “most of the friends of both parties make a merit of abandoning the two disputants, leaving them to the tender mercies of ill-disposed or greedy advisers, who, animated by hatred or by avarice, add fuel to their strife and inflame their passions.””

from “Attic Nights” by Aulus Gellius

The other solution was to try stay away from taking sides and instead try to moderate the two sides from the sidelines.

“Now those who are skilled in tending and keeping bees think that the hive which hums loudest and is most full of noise is thriving and in good condition; but he who has been given the care of the rational and political swarm will judge of its happiness chiefly by the quietness and tranquility of the people; he will accept and imitate to the best of his ability the other precepts of Solon, but will wonder in great perplexity why that great man prescribed that in case of factional disorder whoever joined neither faction should be deprived of civic rights. For in a body afflicted with disease the beginning of a change to health does not come from the diseased parts, but it comes when the condition in the healthy parts gains strength and drives out that which is character to nature; and in a people afflicted with faction, if it is not dangerous and destructive but is destined to cease sometime, there must be a strong, permanent, and permeating admixture of sanity and soundness; for to this element there flows from the men of understanding that which is akin to it, and then it permeates the part which is diseased; but States which have fallen into complete disorder are utterly ruined unless they meet with some external necessity and chastisement Band are thus forcibly compelled by their misfortunes to be reasonable. Yet certainly it is not fitting in time of disorder to sit without feeling or grief, singing the praises of your own impassiveness and of the inactive and blessed life, and rejoicing in the follies of others; on the contrary, at such times you should by all means put on the buskin of Theramenes, conversing with both parties and joining neither; for you will appear to be, not an outsider by not joining in wrongdoing, but a common partisan of all by coming to their aid; and your not sharing in their misfortunes will not arouse envy, if it is plain that you sympathize with all alike. But the best thing is to see to it in advance that factional discord shall never arise among them and to regard this as the greatest and noblest function of what may be called the art of statesmanship.”

from “Precepts of Statecraft” by Plutarch

While both of these pieces of advice sound contradictory, in reality they are not. The idea for both of them is for the moderates to take over from the radicals and instead of further polarizing the discourse, they should sit down and try to find common points between the different sides.

The ability to compromise is at the core of having a functioning democracy. Moderates like Cicero understood this aspect, while stubborn extremists like Cato did not. The ability to take a step back and see the issue from multiple sides is fundamental for finding intersections between the different sides, which is a necessary step for forming a lasting agreement.

Cicero was a lawyer by training, and through his studies of argumentation, he became a master of a technique called “utramque partem”. This is the ability to argue from both sides of a contentious issue. It involves checking your biases, getting a holistic overview of the situation, and then seeing the two arguments side by side. Here, like for other matters, a key aspect is keeping your emotions in check.

“The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down – such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator.”

from “On the Orator” by Cicero

The ancient Romans were greatly influenced by the ancient Greeks, who also created different techniques meant to find compromise. One of these can be found in a small treatise called “On Contrasting Arguments” (“dissoi logoi” in ancient Greek), which was found as an appendix to the works of Pyrrhonist Skeptic philosopher Sextus Empiricus.

The aim of this document was for people to gain a deeper understanding of issues by having them look at the issues from different sides, not just their own, but also that of their opponents. Once you have this deeper look at the different sides, it is much easier to reach a compromise.

“All things come into being by a conflict of opposites.”

quoting Heraclitus from “Lives of Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius

Many ancient philosophers argued that things come into being by a conflict of opposites. This, in a nutshell, is also the idea behind dialectics. Philosophers such as Plato, or later Cicero, structured many of their works as dialogues or discussions between multiple people, where each participant would present a different point of view. Based on this interchange of views, the group would then come up with a common understanding of the topic.

The basic structure of this type of dialectic is first presenting a thesis, then the opposite antithesis, which then results in a synthesis: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. One side presents their argument, then the other side presents theirs, often trying to refute this argument. However, at the end, the final result is a combination of the two propositions.

Just like any technique, this method of reaching a compromise can be abused. It works under the assumption that the two opposing arguments are of equal weight, or at least that they are based on rational thoughts. However, often the two opposing arguments are not of equal weight or even rational.

Putting a person arguing that global warming is caused by human activity, on the same footing as someone arguing that aliens installed giant heaters around the planet, is ludicrous. You cannot give equal time or consideration to someone arguing that the Earth is flat, as you would to someone arguing that the Earth is round. In order to have a rational debate, you need evidence.

The ancient Skeptics, a philosophical school that questioned the certainty of knowledge, preached the concept of “epoche” or suspension of judgment. However for most of them, this did not mean that all opinions were worth the same. Instead, people like Carneades stated that certain impressions are more probable than others, which also means that the possibility that they are true is much higher.

“Carneades holds that there are two classifications of presentations, which under one are divided into those that can be perceived and those that cannot, and under the other into those that are probable and those that are not probable.”

from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

“There is no presentation of such a sort as to result in perception, but many that result in a judgement of probability.”

from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

“Thus, the wise man will make use of whatever apparently probable presentation he encounters, if nothing presents itself that is contrary to that probability, and his whole plan of life will be charted out in this manner.”

from “Academic Skepticism” by Cicero

Cicero was an adherent of Academic Skepticism, which made him much more flexible at trying to arrive at the truth, and also in trying to facilitate compromise between different factions. Bayesian thinking also works with probabilities when trying to arrive at the truth, and can be adopted as a good framework for any type of discussion.

Agreeing on having a logical discourse based on facts, having open-minded moderates at the core of the policy making process in government, and combining this with striving to reach a compromise, is very important if you want your country to keep on functioning smoothly.

Having extremists drive the agenda on the two sides can cause a deadlock, blocking any way forward. The only way to break this impasse is when a strong man steps in and imposes his will. This is what happened in ancient Rome. However, this type of situation also meant the end of the Republic, and its transformation into an autocratic Empire.

It is incredibly easy for countries to slip into greater and greater polarization due to the effects of group dynamics. Often the discourse gets taken over by a radical minority, while the moderate majority sits silent. Many modern researchers have noted that groups tend to adopt more extreme positions over time, with the term group polarization referring to the tendency of groups to make more extreme decisions than the positions that most of the members started with. That is why the importance of moderate members working to sway the group towards less extreme positions cannot be overstated.

You have to always keep in mind that the other side probably also has a valid reason for saying what they are saying. Sometimes, these reasons might be misguided, but then you cannot get angry at them. Instead, try to understand their point of view and try to teach them instead.

“They are certainly moved toward things because they suppose them to be suitable to their nature and profitable to them. But it is not so. Teach them then, and show them without being angry.”

from “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius

This is why both Aulus Gellius and Plutarch noted the importance of moderates in the situation when a country is getting more and more polarized. Their rational way of thinking should be used in order to cool everything down. Moderates can see commonalities better, which can help in identifying common projects to work on. They can shift the perception of the situation from being seen as zero-sum, and steer the groups towards thinking in terms of win-win.

Scientific research has shown that when two previously antagonistic groups start working towards a common goal in a cooperative task, the antipathy between the groups diminishes. In order to foster this type of reconciliation, you can use either moderates from the particular sides, or moderate independents who are staying on the sidelines, but the final effect should always be the same: an end to polarization and the beginning of compromise.

Unfortunately, none of these two solutions were tried in the latter days of the Republic. What happened is that the radicals from both sides dragged the country towards further chaos. This chaos was then taken advantage of by certain ambitious individuals for their own selfish purposes.

“Those who care for the interests of a part of the citizens and neglect another part, introduce into the civil service a dangerous element — dissension and party strife.”

from “On Moral Duties” by Cicero

The situation today has many eerie parallels to the times of the late Roman Republic. People in today’s political climate are less willing to compromise than before. A large chunk of the electorate believes that their side should get what they want without compromising. Polls from the time of the past administration in the US have consistently shown this winner take all attitude. This type of attitude however is not prevalent only in the US, but many other countries as well.

The lack of willingness to compromise between the different sides has in the US also led to the rise of stalling strategies in the US Congress. One of these is the filibuster. Once a very rare tactic, to be used only as an extreme measure in extreme circumstances, the use of the filibuster has now skyrocketed.

5) When money and decadence become prevalent, society becomes ready to be seduced by simple (but wrong) answers to complex problems

When the rich start focusing on drugs and orgies as the point of their existence, and the poor clamor for bread and games, you know that your society is heading for a downfall. When the point of a society becomes to wear fancy clothes, watch someone else do stuff, and to satisfy your instant gratification, then you are doomed. People stop thinking long-term and only care for satisfying their current urge. This makes simple answers seem very appealing.

Rome went from being a city where living a simple life was a virtue, to a city where decadence prevailed. The end of the Punic Wars brought in great luxuries to the city, the temptation of which proved too powerful for many.

“The first of the Scipios opened the way for the world power of the Romans; the second opened the way for luxury. For, when Rome was freed of the fear of Carthage, and her rival in empire was out of her way, the path of virtue was abandoned for that of corruption, not gradually, but in headlong course. The older discipline was discarded to give place to the new. The state passed from vigilance to slumber, from the pursuit of arms to the pursuit of pleasure, from activity to idleness.”

from “The Roman History” by Velleius Paterculus

“From that time onwards the conduct of our ancestors declined, not slowly as previously, but like a torrent. The young men were so corrupted by luxury and wealth that it could justly be said, that they were men who could neither maintain their own family possessions, or allow others to do so.”

from “Histories” by Sallust

Instead of striving to achieve real values, people started to seek vain ways to glorify themselves. This is when virtue loses value, starts being seen as uncool, and instead the way ahead is to post endless selfies of yourself, and dance smashed drunk every day. In the eyes of many people it becomes more important what you wear, than who you are.

“Some of these men eagerly strive for statues, thinking that by them they can be made immortal, as if they would gain a greater reward from senseless brazen images than from the consciousness of honorable and virtuous conduct. And they take pains to have them overlaid with gold, a fashion first introduced by Acilius Glabrio, after his skill and his arms had overcome King Antiochus. But how noble it is, scorning these slight and trivial honors, to aim to read the long and steep ascent to true glory, as the bard of Ascra expresses it, is made clear by Cato the Censor. For when he was asked why he alone among many did not have a statue, he replied: “I would rather that the good men should wonder why I did not deserve one than (which is much worse) should mutter ‘Why was he given one?'” Other men, taking great pride in the coaches higher than common and in ostentatious finery of apparel, sweat under heavy cloaks, which they fasten about their necks and bind around their very throats, while the air blows through them because of the excessive lightness of the material; and they lift them up with both hands and wave them with many gestures, especially with their left hands, in order that the over-long fringes and the tunics embroidered with party-colored threads in multiform figures of animals may be conspicuous.”

from “Roman Antiquities” by Ammianus Marcellinus

Seneca the Elder, father of the famous Seneca the Stoic philosopher, a man who lived through the last days of the Republic and the beginning of Empire, summarized how the youths of his days started preferring to spend their time singing and dancing, and worrying more about how their clothes and hair look, instead of what is inside their brains. They were concentrating on superficial things, instead of on things of real substance.

“Look at our young men: they are lazy, their intellects sleep, no one can stay awake to take pains over a single honest pursuit. Sleep, torpor and a perseverance in evil that is more shameful than either have seized hold of their minds. Libidinous delight in song and dance transfixes these effeminates. Braiding the hair, refining the voice till it is as caressing as a woman’s, competing in bodily softness with women, beautifying themselves with filthy fineries – this is the pattern our youths set themselves.”

from “Controversies” by Seneca the Elder

Society becomes decadent, when money becomes the end goal for everything. Money is not seen as a means to an end anymore, but instead the end itself. Humility is lost and people start bragging and exaggerating their wealth (does this remind you of anyone in the highest offices of the US today?).

“Others, though no one questions them, assume a grave expression and greatly exaggerate their wealth, doubling the annual yield of their fields, well cultivated (as they think), of which they assert that they possess a great number from the rising to the setting sun; they are clearly unaware that their forefathers, through whom the greatness of Rome was so far flung, gained renown, not by riches, but by fierce wars, and not differing from the common soldiers in wealth, mode of life, or simplicity of attire, overcame all obstacles by valor. For that reason the eminent Valerius Publicola was buried by a contribution of money, and through the aid of her husband’s friends the needy wife of Regulus and her children were supported. And the daughter of Scipio received her dowry from the public treasury, since the nobles blushed to look upon the beauty of this marriageable maiden long unsought because of the absence of a father of modest means.”

from “Roman Antiquities” by Ammianus Marcellinus

Plutarch remarked how the desire for riches is born out of seeking to get the positive opinions of others. When no one wants something, then you don’t want it either. However, once everyone wants it, you want it too.

“Thus the desire of riches does not proceed from a natural passion within us, but arises rather from vulgar out-of-doors opinion of other people.”

from “The Life of Cato the Elder” by Plutarch

The point of riches for many people is to be seen with them. That’s why they post selfies of themselves with expensive cars, or wear expensive things out in public. It is all about posing.

“For people in general reckon that an order not to display their riches is equivalent to the taking away of their riches, because riches are seen much more in superfluous than in necessary things. Indeed this was what excited the wonder of Ariston the philosopher; that we account those who possess superfluous things more happy than those who abound with what is necessary and useful. But when one of his friends asked Scopas, the rich Thessalian, to give him some article of no great utility, saying that it was not a thing that he had any great need or use for himself: “In truth,” replied he, “it is just these useless and unnecessary things that make my wealth and happiness.””

from “The Life of Cato the Elder” by Plutarch

This posing is tied to the vanity of people. In decadent times, it is not their actions, but instead their possessions that people 