Edyta Pankowska

Wojskowa Akademia Techniczna

w Warszawie

The concept of Security in ancient philosophy

Abstract
The issues of war, security and peace had an important place in the philosophical
concepts of antiquity. One of the greatest thinkers of this era were the Greeks, thus,
their cultural heritage became the foundation for the following centuries. For the ancien
philosophers, the security issues were associated with the phenomenon of harmony of
the universe, socjety, and mankind in itself. Studies conducted on the thoughts of Greek
philosophers regarding life and the ways of its implementation are an important source
of knowledge. We can always ask ourselves what values derive from the teachings of the
ancien thinkers. And they teach us a lot, that the main determinants of security are hatred,
war and fight, power and strength. On the other hand, security was associated with love,
peace, and stability or renunciation of violence. For others, security was a concept of social
cooperation and integration. Finally, there are those who put security both categories at the
same time, seeking its source in combination of hatred and love, war and peace, power
and stability. This article attempts to answer the question whether the works of ancient
philosophers influenced subsequent epochs and modern concepts of security? In addition,
the author looks for the relationship between individual claims and investigates the ways
of their interpretation.

Keywords: war, peace, security, philosophy, antiquity

Introduction

It is worth noting that neither peace nor safety is given to man once and for all.
Human life is not stable. It is governed by many variable factors, from politics,
climate, culture, religion, to its own individual will and choices. Looking through
the prism of achievements and observations conducted by ancient philosophers,
as well as their successors who are the continuators of their thoughts, we also
note that most of them advocated the need to live in harmony and balance. These
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

statements concerned both living in a purely biological and ethical context. It can
therefore be assumed that stability and balance are one of human desires and
aspirations. In case of harmony, great efforts are made to restore it as soon as
possible. There is a reason in political or military discourse that all turmoil and
conflicts are often called destabilization in the region or state. Thus, in order to find
the best equivalent for safety, it may be compared to a stable situation. Such lack
of stability is not the result of military operations as such. It should be noted that
wars are often the last stage of much wider phenomena. They represent the final
manifestation of the clash of cultures, struggles for influence, fight for resources
or political domination. Regardless of the vision of the world and preferred views,
it is not possible to fully reject the concept of war and peace. They are ubiquitous.
There was a keen interest in security in every age. Due to the limited area of
reflection - the philosophy of the ancient world, this article shows only a fraction
of the cultural achievements of humanity of this era. Nevertheless, the article deals
with the interpretation of security over the years, trying to link the quoted concepts
with the ancient prototype.

1. Security as a common good

In addition to issues related to war and peace in ancient thought, other statements
addressing the problem of securitycould be quite different from the concept
accompanying ancient philosophers. Above all, the concept of security is the
combination of many areas and disciplines, including military, sociology,
economics, politics and others, hence the common belief that the term is poly
semantic - it has many meanings1. Due to that, the manner of interpretation may
differ significantly for each of these disciplines or areas of knowledge. It should be
noted, however, that security, like peace, is not given once and for all. Therefore,
it is not an invariable state or permanently assigned to given circumstances. Each
state must face its own threats in its own way, despite the fact that their root can be
very diversified. The threat may be caused by climate change or forces of nature as
well as by intentional human activity. Referring to different ways of interpreting
security by particular fields of knowledge, we can distinguish several of the most
important ones. Thus, the basic dictionary definition of security, taken from the
PWN Polish language dictionary, is the state of non-threat2.

1
J. Stańczyk, Formułowanie kategorii pojęciowej bezpieczeństwa, FNCE sp. z o.o., Posnan, 2017.
2
The Great Dictionary of Polish Language, PWN, Warsaw, 2018, record: security.

208
 Edyta Pankowska, The concept of Security…

W. Pokruszyński in his study entitled “Philosophical aspects of

security” points to different, interpretations of the discussed term. For example,
social sciences interpret security as the ability to survive, preserve identity and
independence, as well as opportunities for development. From the point of view of
political science, security is the ability of states to defend themselves, to counteract
potential threats, both external and internal3.
Empedocles is one of the precursors of security concepts. He is the
founding father of two principles functioning in the world order, namely: Hatred
(war), which subtracts something and Love (peace), which connects and adds
something. Such idea seems to continue Aristotle’s devotion to the discussion on
these principles along with observation of the necessary things (war and work) and
useful things (peace and rest), and beautiful things combining the two previous
in order, symmetry, proportionality, and clarity. This order of social life is created
by legislation and that is why it is the most important in considering the issue of
national security. However, this legislation organizes the social life around the
common good of people creating the state - beauty. It’s because - as M. T. Cicero
underlined - is the union of people around the common good and the common law.
One of the more widespread views on security propagated by Sophists
considers it as a common good deriving from social contract. The philosophical
trend, which was one of the first to focus on human affairs, was conventionalism.
It was noticed then that many elements of social coexistence are not compatible with
nature, which is why they are regulated on the basis of human decisions - contracts4.
The poet Pindar and the historian Herodotus are considered to be the precursors of
the aforementioned concept. In their reflections, they underlined incompatibility
of opinions that prevailed among Greeks, commenting that “the contract
is the ruler of all people.” This was to mean that all arrangements between
people give source to the existing order of the world - security. Thus, security
becomes a state resulting from a wider agreement between people expressed in the
established law. This view was also popularized by sophists. As it turns out, their
understanding of the contract of human things was much diversified. There were,
therefore, at least two ways to interpret the phenomenon of a social contract (law)5:
− Some thought that it was a form of wielding power stronger, imposing
their will on the weaker in order to exploit and reap the benefits,
− Others claimed that all contracts are a wicked invention of the weaker
to protect themselves from the stronger ones than themselves.
3
W. Pokruszyński, Filozoficzne aspekty bezpieczeństwa, WSGE, Jozefów 2011, p. 10-11.
4
W. Tatarkiewicz, Historia Filozofii, Vol.1, PWN, Warsaw, 2014, p. 50.
5
Ibidem.

209
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

Both interpretations have been combined into one by Critias, a politician

who was a disciple of sophists. In his opinion, the law was the invention of
the weaker, who want to protect themselves from the strong, and religion is a way
to impose the will of a stronger - usually a ruler who wants to tame the crowd.
It should also be noted that Sophists did not reject in their considerations
the existence of the laws of nature. However, they had their own interpretation
of this phenomenon. According to them, natural law was inextricably linked
to the rule of a strongest. The dissemination of this concept meant that many
sophists declared the need to return to nature - in other words, the rule of power.
In conclusion, Trasymachus, whom Plato recalled in his work “The Republic”,
rejected moral and religious norms, claiming that they are purely conventional.
Callicles in turn, known from Plato’s song “Gorgias”, despised the morality of the
crowd, or colloquially recognized views, while glorified the law of a strongest,
whose goal is power supported by energy and unscrupulousness.
There was also a second trend in the thinking of sophists. These, in turn,
referred directly to the concept of state and security. Lycophron, who was a disciple
of Gorgias, advocated the circumstances of the existence of the state, as an entity
resulting only from a universal agreement which purpose was to ensure the safety
of its citizens. The philosopher also assumed that individuals who are part of the
state give up portion of their individual,personal rights and thus obtain asafeshelter6.
The other disciples of Gorgias also reasoned in a similar way. Among others,
Alcidamas stated, that all laws and arrangements are only conventional, serving
the privileges and rights of particular groups - high-born or slaves. Therefore, it
is a kind of reference to the previously quoted concepts of the existence of law as
the meanof service for the stronger or to achieve the safety of the weaker.
Christian philosophy as we know it from the teachings of Saint. Augustine
was slightly transformed with the growing influence of Catholicism, where
freedom was recognized as the basic social principle and foundation of social
and moral order. The path to this freedom leads through the eradication of sin that
enslaves man. Having in mind the interpretation of biblical teachings proposed by
the precursor of Christian thought - Saint. Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, it is also
worth referring to their successors. And so, Pius XII assumed that the Church has
the right and duty to interfere in matters of social life. Morality results first of all
from the laws of God, but we must not forget that it is alive, and thus subject to
the decisions and behavior of people. Social life is constantly changing, evolving
and adapting to change. Quoting his words: “Peace, because it is considered
a fundamental value for human life as an individual and a community of people,
6
Ibidem, p. 51.
210
 Edyta Pankowska, The concept of Security…

whereas in the meantime each war is not a value, and only in some cases can be
considered a defense of values”7.
It can therefore be argued that the best way to ensure security and peace
is to preserve the high morality of people. This striving for peace and security is
a natural component of human nature. Thus, several conditions of lasting peace
in the world have been distinguished, including respect for human rights, social
justice, high qualifications of state authorities and the existence of international
organizations on a global scale.
These concepts were continued and further developed by Saint John
Paul II. Particularly noteworthy are his thoughts on security and peace. The Pope
emphasized that these values are indispensable for social development and respect
for human rights. In his opinion, peace was given to people by God Himself, thus
the peace is the carrier of the most important values, such as prosperity, harmony,
happiness, and security8.
To sum up, the interpretation of security is different, and depends on
the context and subjective views of the author. Ancient philosophy, including the
ideas of Empedocles, Cicero, Herodotus and other philosophers, were reflected in
the ideas of subsequent epochs. A good example here is Christian thought, which
has been developed over the centuries and has been updated by new assumptions,
among others, by Pius XII and John Paul II.

2. Security as the highest good

It is quite difficult to define the highest good for a human being, as it may turn
out that it is variable, different for each person. Hence, based on the criterion
of the highest good, ethics theories suggest numerous directions. What is more,
depending on the era and views presented by a given philosophical school, it was
often considered differently. In this case, the problem of determining the highest
good arises, especially regarding how it is defined and how it is chosen. Sources
of normative ethics indicate that human behavior and life should be in harmony
with nature, and its imitation leads to good deeds. The implementation of internal
needs arising from nature is the foundation of good. However, this statement
cannot be regarded as a universal truth guiding all the ancient philosophers who
have discussed this subject in their deliberations. The source of discrepancy is the
7
H. Skorowski, Wojna i pokój w nauce społecznej Kościoła, part. 1, Wojsko i Wychowanie, Doctrina,
Siedlce, 1993, No. 5, p. 34.
8
J. Paweł II, EcyklikaPacem in Terris, Światowy Dzień Pokoju, Watykan, 11 April 1963.

211
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

dispute concerning the actual nature of man and who he is, what his needs and
desires are. Thus, what should he strive for and what to choose9.
The above considerations should be conducted in the context of the
perception of a human being as a social being. Thus, the concepts of “small
man” were developed, which is a reflection of the individual, and a concept of
“big man”, an analogy of the community. This involves the need to choose one’s
own good and good of community. This choice must be made for the sake of the
hierarchical priority of one of them. The decision, which of the presented goods is
more important is an individual matter and individual choice10. The philosophers
of the ancient era lived in the conviction of the primacy of the collective good
over the interest of the individual. It resulted mainly from the relation of both:
goods and the point of reference - a supra-individual, social or national good.
Ultimately, it should be pointed out that the collective good is nothing but the sum
of all goods. At this stage of considerations, it is also important how to interpret
the relationship of the individual (highest) good with the common good. There are
four basic approaches to this problem presented in the table below.

Table 1. Four ways to choose „good”

A way to choose “good” Remarks

Classical Collective good is more important that the individual good.

Postclassical An individual good is a component of the collective good.

The individual good is more important than the collective good.

The component part has a higher value than the total. The good
No classical
of the community can be realized if it does not limit the good
of the individual.

General good is not the sum of individual goods. It has an

Neoclassical intrinsic and syncretic value. Both dimensions of the good are
not related.

Source: J. Świniarski, W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw 2004, p. 87-90.

The statement above allows the conclusion that in the past there was
a strong conviction about the supremacy of the general good over the individual -
the primacy of the whole over a part. Dedication of the individual good to the public
had its valid justification. Returning to the concept of a man as a social being,
it is worth citing Aristotle’s assertion that a man living outside the community

9
J. Świniarski, W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw 2004, p. 87-90.
10
Ibidem.

212
 Edyta Pankowska, The concept of Security…

is either a god or a beast. It seems reasonable to dedicate one’s own good to

the public. Thus, using the good of the community for the realization of one’s
own needs can be considered ethically reprehensible. The historical change
in philosophical outlooks and trends, including the approach to liberalism,
completely changed the above assumptions. It was not until the modern age that
thinkers began to prove that the complete totality consists of small parts, and the
sacrifice of one is depletion for the public. The reverse situation, the sacrificing of
the general good to the individual is a depletion of a large sum of individual goods.
Thus, everyone should strive to maximize their own happiness and goodness,
thus building the good of the whole 11. Such considerations, although not strictly
regarding security, allow to outline a somewhat broader spectrum of understanding
of the highest good, whether in the context of happiness or security.
Security, as mentioned before, is a natural need, it is an essential value
for every human being, thus finds its prominent place in science, philosophy
and ethics. It was classified as a basic need in the well-known concept of the
pyramid of Abraham Maslow’s needs, also mentioned by B. Malinowski and
other researchers dealing with the phenomenon of psychoanalysis. Research on
the essence of security is reflected primarily in ethics as well as other modern
natural sciences - theories of evolution, genetics, sociobiology, endocrinology,
neurochemistry and others12. It should be noted that the majority of achievements
in this field were based on the research of Sigmund Freud and his followers. One
of the most important assumptions resulting from Freud’s teachings is the innate
“urge to fight” resulting in aggression and war13. It is assumed that although this
drive is very important for humanity and its development, it is not the only motor
of action. There is a second force that is a kind of counterweight - “drive for
love”. S. Freud, speaking on the subject of security, assumed that it is a state of
balance between all biological drives of nature - creation and destruction, birth
and killing, merger and dissolution, Eros and Thanatos14. Therefore, all human
life is subordinated to these forces, their implementation and strive to achieve
their balance.

11
Ibidem.
12
Ibidem.
13
K. Lorenz, Tak zwane zło, Biblioteka Myśli Współczesnej, Warsaw 1975; E. O. Wilson, O naturze
ludzkiej, Zysk i S-ka, Warsaw, 1988; W. Tulibacki, Etyczne aspekty bezpieczeństwa na tle pewnych
„stałych” cech natury ludzkiej, (in:) Edukacja dla bezpieczeństwa i pokoju w jednoczącej się Europie.
Teoria i jej zastosowanie. pod red. R. Rosy, Siedlce–Chlewiska 1999, p. 33-39.
14
Ibidem.

213
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

Table 2. Concepts of Eros and Thanatos by Sigmund Freud

Concept of Eros Concept of Thanatos

Formation Disappearing

Birth Death

Love Hate

Cooperation Fight

Altruism Selfishness

Room War

Security Danger

Source: J. Świniarski, W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw, 2004, p. 99.

The opposites shown above give a clear picture the equilibrium between
the extremely different drives that govern human life - the human psyche. Balance
of these forces is therefore broadly understood as safety and development of
humanity, thustheir existence gives expression in human actions and needs.
The ideas of S. Freud presented above strongly coincide with the
philosophical concept presented centuries earlier by the Greek philosopher
Empedocles who claimed that there are two main principles governing human life -
love and discord. These are differently called Freudian drives of life and death,
contradictory and instilled in the nature of every human being. The followers of
the concept of S. Freud based on the achievements of ancient philosophers have
also been modified. Particular attention was paid to the modernization of the idea
of a „man of culture” adding that man by his nature will strive to achieve two
spheres - satisfaction based on biological needs and security resulting from living
conditions in the community15.
The main assumption of this concept is that the need of a man is safety
carried out as a part of community life. It also derives from the need for satisfaction
and happiness, based on the fulfillment of biological needs16. However, it should
be noted that biological, social and cultural needs are not separated from each
other. They overlap each other while conditioning or interacting. What’s more,
these needs are of a conscious nature, which means that their implementation has
an impact on the overall sense of satisfaction and security. Defined in this way,

15
K. Horney, Our Inner Conflicts, Norton, New York 1945; eadem, Neurotyczna osobowość naszych cza-
sów, Rebis, Warsaw 1976; eadem, Nerwica a rozwój człowieka. Trudna droga do samorealizacji, Rebis,
Warsaw 1978; H. P. Sullivan, Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry, New York 1947.
16
J. Świniarski, W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw 2004, p. 102.

214
 Edyta Pankowska, The concept of Security…

security is a state of permanent and justified satisfaction, a sense of appreciation in

relation to contacts with the environment and other people17. Some contemporary
researchers, such as Karen Horney assume that the disruption of this balance
of sense of security and harmony is the cause of many civilization diseases and
neuroses. In order to meet this challenge, people create preventive or adaptive
mechanisms through resilience, aggressiveness or independence18. The advantage
of one of the above roads is a symptom of lack of a sense of security that can
result only from the internal balance of all three, in other words, the harmony of
man himself and in the context of contacts with others. Such a healthy existence
of a man results in the achievement of safety. It ensures the balance of social life,
acceptance from the social environment and reinforces mutual relations.
The issue of security is also related to the way it is achieved. Safety itself
is most often associated with care, control and rational peace as well as harmony.
On the other hand it is also incorrectly connected with threats, chaos and lack of
rational order19. According to E. Fromm, it can be achieved in many ways and not
necessarily by peaceful means. The thinker assumes the existence of a whole series
of opposing means - creation and destruction, war and peace. It is important that
their effect is same. This is a reference to the aforementioned duality of human
nature, the clashing drives of Eros and Thanatos. Fromm claimed, however, that
destructive nature is not naturally congenital, but created by assimilated cultural
patterns 20. Developing this concept, the philosopher indicates the existence
of two types of safety - healthy and sick. The first of these should be based on
the affirmation of life and love. The latter, pathological security is based on
enslavement of the other person and aggression. Each of us can choose his own
way, not necessarily choosing this good or bad one. It is possible to combine both
currents and achieve safety through so-called defensive aggression, occurring only
in case of a threat, when escape or avoiding conflict is not possible. This form
of behavior seems very natural, also suitable for animals. The types of security
proposed by E. Fromm can be classified as follows:

17
Ibidem.
18
Z. Wieczorek, Neopsychoanaliza i marksizm, Omega, Warsaw 1977, p. 115.
19
J. Świniarski, Analiza semantyczna nazwy bezpieczeństwo, (in:) Teoretyczny wymiar bezpieczeństwa
europejskiego, B. Jagusiak, K. Karski, BELLONA, Warsaw 2017, p. 34-61.
20
L. Siniugina, Agresja czy miłość. Prezentacja poglądów Ericha Fromma, KAW, Warsaw 1981, p. 85-99.

215
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

Table 3. E. Fromm’s ways to achieve security

Type of security Way to achieve security

Achieved through the affirmation of life and love. It is

based on reciprocity. The result is the achievement
Good and proper security
of healthy and permanent safety. It gives dignified
living conditions.

Achieved through destruction. The result is

Bad and inappropriate security inappropriate and bad safety. It creates pathological
conditions, unworthy of a human being.

Achieved through defensive aggression, response to

Security justified, conditionally admissible a threat. It is the last opportunity to ensure safety. It is
justified and conditionally moral.

Source: J. Świniarski, W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw 2004, p. 104.

The above distinction shows how different types of security can be and
how to achieve them. In the context of disputeabout security as a highest good, it is
very important how the circumstances without oppression are achieved. According
to E. Fromm, the most convenient way is mutual respect, affirmation of love and
life. Thus, the achievement of security results from the unification of people, their
consistent cooperation for benefits and satisfaction. The state achieved can also
be called the state of happiness. It is quite different from obtaining security by
subjugating the enemy or eliminating it, as described earlier.
To sum up, security as the highest good is a universal value which
subordinates all others, also the interest of the individual. J. Świniarski proveson
the example of four ways of choosing the highest good, a changing approach to the
problem over the changing epochs - from the classical up to neoclassical views.
Struggle between life and death (Eros and Thanatos), deriving from the concept
of Empedocles, found its place in modern psychoanalysis propagated by S. Freud.
This clearly shows that the historical achievements have become an inspiration
for the present.

3. Security as a paradigm of the past and present

Traditional approach to security at least three concepts have been shaped, namely,
realistic, idealistic and empirical-materialistic. The first have its roots in the views
of Empedocles and Aristotle, the second was propagated by Hesiod, Plato and
Saint. Augustine, and the third one by Homer and Heraclitus. Their repercussions in

216
 Edyta Pankowska, The concept of Security…

contemporary views are associated with the understanding of security as a union of

war and peace, the second with binding it to peace, harmony and order, and finally
the third one with war, dispute and struggle. Undoubtedly, changes in the reality
deriving from technological progress and broadly understood development caused
that the modern era emphasized such issues as good condition of the economy,
fair relations within states and values such as freedom, equality and brotherhood21.
Although modern times do not refer directly to antiquity, which is the main
epoch of interest, the general outline of this issue will surely serve a purpose to
build a broader perspective of discussion. Thus, it should be noted that despite
significant economic, political and technological changes, the basic concepts
of security, war and peace remained important, albeit in a changed form. This
different approach was forced by the need to adapt to the new society model.
Nowadays, security seems to be one of the most important social problems. Also
the way of defining security is becoming wider due to the need to contain more
and more new spheres of human life. Something that was once unthinkable is now
common. An example of this may be cybersecurity. As we remember from history,
the division of the world into two political and military blocs has ceased to exist,
and in its place appeared the so-called period of “political and economic world
order”22 associated with global, joint or international security.
Contemporary concept of security has also been interpreted by modern
philosophers. One of them was Karl Jaspers, according to whom the security is
a result of competing separate political models - liberalism and totalitarianism.
They are respectively an expression of promotion of individual freedom or its
denial. In totalitarianism, individual freedom is suppressed in order to ensure
security as a lack of opposition and violence, both personal and structural. There
is also a pictorial description of this security as a “desert” room. This is primarily
about getting rid of political competition, and all natural desires of people.
By achieving this fragile political stabilization, totalitarian countries become
weak internally, displaying considerable external power. Similarly, liberal states
are strong internally, but they lack centralization and subordination of individuals,
which in turn translates into external weakness. Due to the presented features
of both regimes, it is noted that liberal societies react with fear towards totalitarian
countries. This fear can lead to internal mobilization or panic. They are caused
above all by the prosaic desire to live in a purely biological context as well

21
A. Gdula, Wybrane historyczne i współczesne koncepcje bezpieczeństwa, Doctrina, 2011, no. 8, p. 66-68.
22
K. Sobczak, Uniwersalizacja współczesnego bezpieczeństwa światowego i europejskiego, [in:] Patrio-
tyzm. Obronność. Bezpieczeństwo, Doctrina, Warsaw 2002, p. 241.

217
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

as the realization of higher values, such as freedom, and self-sufficiency23.

The philosopher’s answer to these dilemmas is the difficult choice between
annihilation and “life worth living”. The first, biological option, orders
subservience to totalitarianism to survive, thus giving up freedom for the sake of
life from captivity. The alternative, the second, existential option, orders the fight
against totalitarianism, because life in denial of basic freedoms means that you are
not still a man. So it is a “life not worth living”. Lack of freedom means violence,
absence of personal security, and it is a place for oppression and terror. Only
freedom, democracy and pluralism leads to integration focused on high values.
In other words, only freedom and morality guarantee life in dignity. It is a kind of
clash of two extremely different spheres – morality, values, and the biological need
of life. The first of these is attributed only to a man, a being so advanced that he
or she could understand and realize these higher concepts. Life and experience in
the biological sense is characteristic for every organism or being. It can therefore
be argued that Karl Jaspers’ intention is to highlight the need for a balanced
life between biological drives and social norms. In this case, safety in itself is
achieved through this balance. Therefore, the described balance should take
place on many levels, both individual and collective. In other words, insecurity
should be interpreted as a state of imbalance and lack of order, symmetry and
proportionality. The safe state means harmony of possession, mental, somatic, and
social condition24 - law and control.
In fact, in the twenty-first century, security became one of the most
important goals of every civilization25. What is more, as J. Świniarski notes,
the category of security has become so important that it wields other categories -
war and peace, human nature and sense of life, freedom and sovereignty, happiness
and prosperity.
Because of the above, it is the subject of research and interest in many
fields, not only philosophy, but also of political science, psychology, pedagogy,
sociology, and even cybernetics. The philosophical point of view, however,
sees the essence of security in the forms of existence that ensure development,
improvement, stabilization, and survival26.
Security has become more meaningful for modern times. It is treated as
an autonomous value, with its own identity and becomes the supreme condition
23
K. Jaspers, Die Atom bombe und die Zukunft des Menschen. PolitischeBewusstsein in unserer Zeit,
Minchen 1958; citation: Z. Kuderowicz, Filozofia współczesna wobec groźby wojny i szansy pokoju,
„Zeszyty Naukowe AON” 1996, No. 1, p. 268.
24
J. Świniarski, W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw 2004, p. 107.
25
J. Stańczyk, Współczesne pojmowanie bezpieczeństwa, PAN, Warsaw 1996, p. 15.
26
J. Świniarski, Filozoficzne podstawy edukacji dla bezpieczeństwa, MON, Warsaw 1999, p. 13.

218
 Edyta Pankowska, The concept of Security…

necessary to achieve all others27. Thus, the implementation and provision of

security is a fundamental duty of states and societies. Comparing this concept to
the others presented earlier, it could be noted that modern security is a phenomenon
for which several major dimensions can be distinguished, including political,
military, economic, ecological, social, national, ideological, cultural, and others28.
The presented broadening of the significance of the concept of security
is connected above all with a significant civilization development and process of
shaping a new quality concept. Political aspirations in the global format are aimed
at universalizing security and ensuring it in a collective context, strengthening it
by deepening the interdependence of states. This assumption seems to be right,
because the connection of common interests is a strong factor building unity
among states and nations. Achieving this on a global scale may be difficult, or
even impossible, but on a smaller scale - for example in Europe - this vision can
become feasible. Another aspect affecting security is the internationalization of
societies. As a result of this phenomenon, the dependence of external and internal
security is even stronger. Civilizational achievements are gaining importance.
According to Ryszard Zięba “(the modern world) is moving away from the state-
centric understanding of security and realizes the need for certainty of inviolable
survival and development of freedom provided bynon-state actors, thus shifts
accents to its non-military aspects”29. Thus, we observe the emergence of new
inter-state relations in spheres other than military, based on the economy, politics,
culture, and others.

Conclusions

Security is undoubtedly one of the most important human values that unites what
is necessary with what is useful and desirable in what is expressed by beauty
(in the sense of Aristotle). With a constant threat to health or life, all other issues
become less important. For centuries, both philosophy and other humanities have
shown the impact of social change on human behavior, the perception of the world,
value systems, cultural patterns and others. One of these values is security, and

27
W. Tulibacki, Etyczne aspekty bezpieczeństwa na tle pewnych stałych cech natury ludzkiej, [w:] Edukacja
do bezpieczeństwa i pokoju w jednoczącej się Europie. Teoria i jej zastosowanie, CNBOP, Siedlce–
Chlewiska 1999, p. 33.
28
A. Gdula, Wybrane historyczne i współczesne…, op. cit., p. 72.
29
R. Zięba, Wpływ procesów internacjonalizacji na ewolucję bezpieczeństwa państw, [in:] Inter-
nacjonalizacja życia narodów i państw, Springer, Warsaw 1991, p. 10-11.

219
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

the achievements of our ancestors in this regard can be an important foundation

for building a modern order.
The analysis of the thoughts and texts of ancient intellectuals presented in
this article confirms the correctness of the adopted thesis, which states that antique
thought on etiology, anatomy and social functions are the basis for contemporary
views on them. Undoubtedly, wars appear in this context as the first human work,
and peace as the first useful dream of mankind, which are referred to as “beautiful
things” and expressed by order, symmetry and proportionality. In this case security
is understood as persistence, survival, development and improvement. Thus,
the submission of what is first and necessary, desirable, and useful in the whole
or in the system, states that what is “beautiful” and safe. Because of the narrowed
area of reflection - the philosophy of the ancient world, only a fraction of the
cultural output of humanity was shown. It is worth emphasizing that regardless of
their origin, views, or period of creativity, each of the quoted thinkers possessed
an elaborate interpretation of security. On this basis, it should be argued that the
following years will not bring measurable change in this respect. Alternating
periods of stabilization and tensions will continue to accompany humanity, though
probably their background and understanding will change. Currently, the inclusion
of these phenomena in security sciences often taking on the philosophical and
holistic perspective loses what seems to be basic and universal. Hence the demand
that the security sciences while seeking the essence of war, peace, and security as
well as threats and crises, shall reach for the works of ancient philosophers. They
favor independent thinking and often serve as an underestimated tool in the form
of a critical view of the world around us.

Bibliography
1. Gdula A., Wybrane historyczne i współczesne koncepcje bezpieczeństwa, Doctrina,
2011, No. 8.
2. Horney K., Our Inner Conflicts, Norton, New York 1945;
3. Horney K., Neurotyczna osobowość naszych czasów, Rebis, Warsaw, 1976;
4. Horney K., Nerwica a rozwój człowieka. Trudna droga do samorealizacji, Rebis,
Warsaw 1978.
5. Jan Paweł II, Ecyklika Pacem in Terris, Światowy Dzień Pokoju, Watykan,
11 April 1963.
6. Jaspers K., Die Atom bombe und die Zukunft des Menschen. PolitischeBewusstsein
in unserer Zeit, Minchen 1958;
7. Kuderowicz Z., Filozofia współczesna wobec groźby wojny i szansy pokoju,
[in:] Zeszyty Naukowe AON, 1996, No 1.

220
 Edyta Pankowska, The concept of Security…

8. Lorenz K., Tak zwane zło, Biblioteka Myśli Współczesnej, Warsaw 1975,
9. Obronność. Bezpieczeństwo, Doctrina, Warsaw 2002.
10. Pokruszyński W., Filozoficzne aspekty bezpieczeństwa, WSGE, Jozefów 2011.
11. Siniugina L., Agresja czy miłość. Prezentacja poglądów Ericha Fromma, KAW,
Warsaw 1981.
12. Skorowski H., Wojna i pokój w nauce społecznej Kościoła, part. 1, Wojsko i Wycho-
wanie, Doctrina, Siedlce, 1993, no. 5.
13. Sobczak K., Uniwersalizacja współczesnego bezpieczeństwa światowego i europej-
skiego, [in:] Patriotyzm.
14. Stańczyk J., Formułowanie kategorii pojęciowej bezpieczeństwa, FNCE sp. z o.o.,
Posnan 2017.
15. Stańczyk J., Współczesne pojmowanie bezpieczeństwa, PAN, Warsaw 1996.
16. Sullivan H., Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry, New York 1947.
17. Świniarski J., Analiza semantyczna nazwy bezpieczeństwo, [in:] Teoretyczny wymiar
bezpieczeństwa europejskiego, B. Jagusiak, K. Karski, BELLONA, Warsaw 2017.
18. Świniarski J., Filozoficzne podstawy edukacji dla bezpieczeństwa, MON, Warsaw
1999.
19. Świniarski J., W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw 2004.
20. Świniarski J., W. Chojnacki, Etyka bezpieczeństwa, AON, Warsaw 2004.
21. Tatarkiewicz W., Historia Filozofii, Vol. 1, PWN, Warsaw 2014.
22. The Great Dictionary of Polish Language, PWN, Warsaw 2018, record: security.
23. Tulibacki W., Etyczne aspekty bezpieczeństwa na tle pewnych „stałych” cech natury
ludzkiej, [in:] Edukacja dla bezpieczeństwa i pokoju w jednoczącej się Europie.
Teoria i jej zastosowanie, red. Rosy R., Siedlce–Chlewiska, 1999.
24. Tulibacki W., Etyczne aspekty bezpieczeństwa na tle pewnych stałych cech natury
ludzkiej, [in:] Edukacja do bezpieczeństwa i pokoju w jednoczącej się Europie. Teo-
ria i jej zastosowanie, CNBOP, Siedlce–Chlewiska 1999.
25. Wieczorek Z., Neopsychoanaliza i marksizm, Omega, Warsaw 1977.
26. Wilson E. O., O naturze ludzkiej, Zysk i S-ka, Warsaw 1988.
27. Zięba R., Wpływ procesów internacjonalizacji na ewolucję bezpieczeństwa państw,
[in:] Internacjonalizacja życia narodów i państw, Springer, Warsaw 1991.

Koncepcja bezpieczeństwa w starożytnej filozofii

Streszczenie
Zagadnienia wojny, bezpieczeństwa i pokoju stanowiły istotne miejsce w roz-
ważaniach filozoficznych starożytności. Jednymi z najwybitniejszych myślicieli tej epoki
byli Grecy. Ich dorobek kulturowy stał się podwaliną dla kolejnych stuleci, gdyż już
w okresie antyku kwestie bezpieczeństwa wiązano ze zjawiskiem harmonii wszechświata,

221
Studia Administracji i Bezpieczeństwa nr 6/2019

społeczeństwa i człowieka samego w sobie. Studia nad przemyśleniami dawnych filozofów

dotyczącymi życia, sposobów jego realizacji i całości są ważnym źródłem wiedzy. Zawsze
możemy postawić im pytanie o to, czego oni nas uczą. A uczą wiele, w tym jedni, że głów-
nym determinantem bezpieczeństwa jest nienawiść, wojna i walka oraz potęga i siła lub
przemoc, inni zaś, że miłość, spokój i pokój oraz stabilność lub wyrzekanie się przemocy,
kooperacja i integracja. Wreszcie są i tacy, którzy osadzają bezpieczeństwo w jednym
i drugim determinancie, szukając jego źródła w zmieszaniu nienawiści i miłości, wojny
i pokoju, potędze i stabilności. Niniejszy artykuł stara się odpowiedzieć na pytanie: czy
prace antycznych filozofów wywarły wpływ na kolejne epoki i współczesne koncepcje
bezpieczeństwa? Dodatkowo autorka poszukuje zależności między poszczególnymi twier-
dzeniami, badając, jakie są sposoby interpretacji omawianego terminu.

Słowa kluczowe: wojna, pokój, bezpieczeństwo, antyk, filozofia

222