Monthly Archives: October 2025

Gyges’ Ring: Nobody Does Good Willingly

Posted on by
Reply

In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon, Plato’s brother, uses the myth of Gyges’ ring to demonstrate that no one does good willingly.

Gyges’ Ring: Nobody Does Good Willingly

The Myth of Gyges’ Ring

The story follows Gyges, a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia. After an earthquake, Gyges discovers a hidden cave containing the body of a giant wearing a golden ring. Gyges takes the ring and soon realizes that it grants him the power of invisibility when he turns the bezel inward.

Empowered by this ability, Gyges commits a series of immoral acts without fear of being caught. He seduces the queen, murders the king, and claims the throne. The ring allows him to act with total impunity, exposing his true desires and ambitions. The myth raises a fundamental question: if humans could act without fear of consequences, would they choose to do good—or would they surrender to selfish impulses?

Gyges’ Ring and Human Nature

The myth of Gyges’ ring highlights essential questions about human nature and justice. Glaucon presents this story to challenge Socrates, suggesting that humans act justly not out of virtue but because society constrains them. According to Glaucon, justice is a social convention. People behave morally not from genuine goodness, but from fear of punishment or social disapproval.

Human Nature and Injustice

The myth illustrates that when external constraints—such as laws and social norms—are removed, people’s true motivations emerge. Gyges, an ordinary shepherd, becomes a tyrant once he is invisible. Without the scrutiny of others, humans would naturally follow selfish and unjust desires. This view paints a pessimistic picture of human nature, suggesting that injustice is our default tendency, held in check only by fear of repercussions.

Justice as a Social Construct

Glaucon argues that justice has no intrinsic value. If people could act unjustly without consequence, like Gyges, most would choose to do so. This implies that laws exist primarily to protect individuals from harm, rather than to reflect a higher moral ideal.

Socrates’ Response

Socrates, however, rejects this cynical view of justice. He contends that justice is essential to the health of the soul. Committing injustice—even in secret—corrupts the soul and prevents individuals from achieving eudaimonia, or true fulfillment. Justice, Socrates argues, is not merely a social convention; it is fundamental to inner harmony and genuine happiness.

See also: Ares and Athena, gods of war.

In conclusion, the myth of Gyges’ ring suggests that people do not act morally if they are free from the judgment of others. Glaucon uses it to show that without social constraints, humans would reveal their naturally unjust tendencies. Socrates counters this view, asserting that justice is vital for the integrity of the soul and for achieving true happiness.

Objective control in Huntington’s theory

Posted on by
Reply

In his 1957 book The Soldier and the State, Samuel P. Huntington introduced the concept of objective civilian control over the military. His work became a key reference in military sociology and strategic studies. In it, he developed a theory on the relationship between the military and the state.

Objective control in Huntington’s theory

One of the central ideas in his analysis is that of objective control. According to Huntington, this model represents the optimal way to manage civil–military relations in a democratic state. Unlike what he calls subjective control, Huntington argues that objective control effectively balances civilian authority and military expertise.

This article will examine the concept of objective control, its principles, advantages, and challenges within the framework of democratic governance.

Theoretical context: civilian versus military

The idea of separating civilian and military spheres dates back to antiquity. However, Huntington reformulated it within the modern context of liberal democracies. The central question he sought to answer was this: How can a democracy preserve military competence while ensuring civilian control over the armed forces?

Huntington criticized earlier approaches in which civilian authorities sought to directly limit or subordinate military power by imposing strict oversight on military decisions and actions. Such interference, he argued, often led to inefficiency and reduced operational effectiveness. To solve this problem, Huntington proposed a form of control based on a delicate balance—objective control.

What is objective control according to Huntington?

Objective control is based on one fundamental idea: allowing the military to exercise its professional expertise while ensuring obedience to civilian authority. Unlike subjective control—which relies on co-optation, politicization, or the integration of military elites into civilian political structures—objective control advocates strict professional autonomy for the armed forces.

This concept rests on two key principles:

Military specialization

Huntington argued that the armed forces should be composed of professionals trained specifically in defense matters. Military expertise, he wrote, is a unique domain not shared by civilian authorities, who lack the technical training to make such judgments.

Non-interference of civilians in internal military affairs

For Huntington, the best way for civilians to control the military is not through daily interference but by granting them the autonomy necessary to fulfill their mission. Civilian leaders define strategic goals, while the military determines how best to achieve them.

See also: General Beaufre’s Indirect Strategy.

Subjective vs. objective control in Huntington’s theory

Subjective control, according to Huntington, is one possible model of civil–military relations. It relies on reducing military autonomy and seeks to merge the military sphere with the civilian political one. In modern democracies, this often manifests as the politicization of the armed forces, where senior officers are co-opted by political leaders to serve partisan interests. Huntington saw this as a threat—not only to democratic stability but also to the effectiveness of the military itself. When the army becomes politicized or reduced to an extension of political power struggles, it loses both neutrality and competence.

By contrast, objective control maintains a clear separation between the two spheres. By delegating to the military the technical management of force, while preserving clear political subordination, the state maintains both its authority over strategic decisions and the operational effectiveness of its forces.

Advantages of objective control

Autonomy and professional expertise

One major advantage of objective control is that it preserves military competence. Allowing professionals to handle operational matters ensures the efficient and expert execution of strategic decisions.

Prevention of military politicization

Objective control prevents the military from becoming a political actor, which is essential to democratic stability. A politically neutral, professional army is less likely to engage in political intrigue or coups.

Clear subordination to civilian authority

By assigning the military technical control over its own functions while civilians set political goals, the democratic state maintains strategic oversight of the armed forces. This subordination is vital to uphold the primacy of civilian authority.

See also: Understanding Liddell Hart’s Indirect Approach

Limits and criticisms of Huntington’s objective control

Despite its advantages, the concept of objective control has faced criticism. Some argue that this model can grant the military excessive autonomy, allowing it to gain disproportionate influence within the state. Others view the model as overly rigid, suggesting that civil–military relations require more flexible adjustments depending on political contexts and security threats.

Another challenge lies in the potential gap between civilians and the military, leading to a loss of mutual understanding. If the military becomes too isolated in its professional sphere, it may develop a culture disconnected from political realities and, ultimately, from national strategy itself.

Huntington’s concept of objective control remains a cornerstone of civil–military relations theory. By delegating professional competence to the military while maintaining clear civilian control over strategic decisions, Huntington offered a pragmatic solution to the tension between military autonomy and civilian authority. However, this model requires ongoing attention to avoid the risks that come with an excessive separation between war and politics.

Ogun, god of war and iron

Posted on by
Reply

Ogun, god of war and iron, holds a major place in traditional African religions, particularly among the Yoruba and the Fon. Worshiped across several regions of West Africa and throughout the diaspora, he embodies strength, warrior power, and the technology associated with metallurgy. His attributes include iron tools, weapons, and animals that symbolize strength and determination. Ogun represents war in its most brutal and destructive form. He is also a god of justice, hunting, and protection. His ancient and rich cult reflects the complexities of both war and human society.

Ogun plays a key role in African religions, especially among the Yoruba and the Fon. His name echoes through the stories of peoples who revere him for his power and his essential role in metallurgy and warfare. This god embodies not only the violence of conflict but also justice, protection, and technological progress.

Ogun, god of war

Ogun, god of war in West Africa

Ogun is worshiped in West Africa, particularly in Nigeria, Benin, and Togo. He represents raw strength and the ability to dominate the environment through iron technology. The Yoruba and the Fon—renowned blacksmiths and warriors—have worshiped him since ancient times. They integrated his cult into daily life and wartime rituals.

In precolonial times, blacksmiths dedicated their work to Ogun, seeing him as the very spirit of steel. They offered animal sacrifices before using their iron tools. Without his power, no weapon could be properly forged. Ogun also ruled over warfare, as he provided the raw material for all weapons: iron.

With the transatlantic slave trade, Ogun’s cult spread to the Americas, particularly Cuba, Brazil, and Haiti. There, it took on new forms within Haitian Vodou and Brazilian Candomblé. In Haiti, Ogun—known as Ogou—became a central figure in the struggle for freedom among enslaved people. His followers prayed to him before battles or important actions, seeking his protection and blessing. Even today, his cult remains strong in the African diaspora, representing the fight for survival, justice, and transformation.

Ogun, master of iron and the forge

Ogun is the master of iron and the forge. His main attributes include all metal tools and weapons. A hammer, axe, sword, and spear are often used to represent him. The machete embodies his ability to open new paths, to clear and transform the world.

Animals are also associated with Ogun : the dog and the boar symbolize loyalty, ferocity, and raw power. The boar represents tenacity and rage—the qualities Ogun displays in battle. The dog represents faithfulness and protection. His devotees seek these traits both in war and daily life.

Ogun also wears chains and shackles, symbols of capture and domination in warfare, but also of justice, as he embodies law and the punishment of wrongdoers. His followers often sacrifice dogs, roosters, or other animals in his honor. It is common to see iron tools placed on his altars.

Iron, the material of his attributes, also represents technological progress. Through his link to the forge, Ogun embodies not only destruction but also creation. He allows humans to craft tools that change the world.

Ogun, brutal and destructive god

Ogun embodies the brutal, destructive, and unstoppable aspect of war. He is the god who charges forward with iron weapons, mercilessly breaking enemy lines. Warriors invoke Ogun before battle, hoping to receive his blessing and invincible strength. Iron—both tool and weapon—gives Ogun his dominion over war.

The peoples of West Africa, especially the Yoruba and the Fon, long viewed war as essential to survival. Conflicts over land or resources were frequent, and Ogun stood at the heart of these struggles. Every battle required reliable tools, which only blacksmiths blessed by Ogun could create. His role extended beyond craftsmanship—he symbolized the fighting spirit and endurance needed to prevail.

In the diaspora, especially in Haiti, Ogun gained new meaning during revolutions against colonial powers. During the Haitian War of Independence, enslaved people and revolutionary leaders invoked Ogun before combat, praying for his fighting spirit to guide them to victory. This connection with war became so strong that many now view Ogun as a patron of revolutions and liberation struggles.

Ogun also represents the moral dimension of war. Though associated with violence and destruction, he punishes traitors and rewards those who fight for just causes. His wars are never meaningless—they aim to restore order or protect the vulnerable. His followers believe he enforces the laws of war and ensures justice is served once the fighting ends.

God of iron

Ogun is not only a god of war; he is also a deity of justice, hunting, roads, and technology. As the god of iron, he rules over all professions involving this metal—blacksmiths, hunters, and builders alike. Every iron tool, whether for war or agriculture, depends on Ogun’s power.

Protector of travelers

His role as protector of roads and pathways is equally important. Travelers offer sacrifices to Ogun before setting out to ensure his protection. Iron, the material of tools and weapons, also symbolizes the creation of infrastructure connecting communities. In this sense, Ogun is a god of progress and civilization. He embodies the transformation of raw nature into an ordered human world.

Justice

Justice is another central facet of his identity. As a war god, he punishes those who break the rules or betray their comrades. He imposes harsh—often deadly—penalties but also rewards heroes and virtuous people. Those seeking justice or vengeance invoke Ogun, hoping the god will intervene to restore balance.

Protector of hunters

In regions where his cult is strong, particularly Nigeria and Benin, Ogun protects hunters. They rely on his blessings to succeed in their expeditions. Hunting, though seemingly peaceful, is also a form of war against nature. Ogun, master of weapons and tools, allows humans to dominate natural forces in order to survive.

Ogun also plays an important role in religious ceremonies. As an ancestral deity, he receives regular sacrifices and presides over rituals linked to war, hunting, justice, and travel. These rituals—often accompanied by dance and song—celebrate his strength and his ability to transform human life through technology and the controlled use of violence to maintain order.

Ogun, god of war, iron, and justice, embodies a brutal yet necessary force within the societies that worshiped him. From antiquity to the present day, his cult has spread across West Africa and the African diaspora. As a symbol of war and technological progress, Ogun has shaped the history of his peoples—both on the battlefield and in the forge. His many roles make him a complex deity: both destroyer and creator, guarantor of order and chaos, and above all, protector of the paths his followers walk through the ages.

See also: God of War, Gods of War