"Ethical structure of the Kanun" by K. Yamamoto in "Study on the Ethical Concepts".

"Ethical structure of the Kanun" by K. Yamamoto in "Study on the Ethical Concepts".
Ethical structure of the Kanun

link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11216427

The comparison of Mishima’s ethical concepts with the ethical structure of the Kanun reveals the essential meaning of
his beliefs. The ethical structure of the Kanun will be briefly discussed below.
The Kanun is a customary code which keeps social order in the tribal society of northern Albania. The Kanun dictates
that if 1) a person breaks an oath or a besa, 2) a person injures or kills a guest, 3) a person kills a member of another kin
group, 4) a person dishonors a member of another kin group, the offended party must take revenge on the offending party.
The Kanun allows a murder which happened within a shpi (family) to be resolved in it with some arbitrariness.
Acts of revenge are regulated by the Kanun whose ethical structure is epitomized as follows:
1) a guest is a kind of god or a messenger of the gods,
2) commensality of a host with the guest-god is a ritual by which the host makes communion with the guest-god,
3) the host becomes divine through commensality with the guest-god and by receiving a blessing uttered by the guest-god,
4) the oath, besa, honor and blood of a person (host) who obtains divinity from the guest-god are equivalent to those of the gods,
5) when a person loses this divinity for himself or others by committing sacrilegious acts, such as breaking an oath, injuring a guest, etc., the damaged divinity must be neutralized by offering the blood of the offender or a member of his kin group to soothe the anger of the furious gods3.
The people in northern Albania live in a society, which consists of patrilineally organized kin groups called shpi (family),
vllazni (brotherhood) and fis (clan). In this society, where kinship systems are of great importance, an individual lives as a
member of a kin group. His individual rights and freedom of will are rather restricted, and each individual is expected
to meet the obligations of the kin group, which includes the dead (ancestors) of the lineage. In a society where people practice
ancestor worship, the dead are regarded as a sort of god (ancestor-god). If the dead are ancestor-gods, the kin group is assumed to be a divine, ethical entity because it is a commune consisting of the living and the ancestor-gods. An ancestor-
god, disguised as a stranger, sometimes visits the living to make communion with them. The living must offer shelter and hospitality to the guest-god.
In return for the hospitality, the guestgod gives blessings to the hosts, and the power of the spoken words ensures the
happiness and good health of the living4.
If an individual receives praise, it is praise for his entire kin group. If anyone living or dead is insulted, it is an insult against the whole kin group. Such dishonor must be avenged by the living of the kin group. If a person is killed, the spilt blood asks for the blood of the slayer or a member of his kin group. When the living do not satisfy the demand of the dead, the furious blood takes revenge on the living. Therefore the living cannot fail to take revenge. Because a kin group comprised of the living and ancestor-gods is a transcendental, ethical entity, the violence of revenge prosecuted by the kin group is deemed a sacred force sacrificing the offender, whose blood is dedicated to the furious ancestor-gods4.
The Kanun functions well as a customary code in a society which has following cultural features that:
1) there’s no functioning state power,
2) a kinship system is of great importance,
3) a kin group is deemed a transcendental commune consisting of the living and the dead,
4) the kin group has an ethical obligation to keep its existence in the community,
5) animism and ancestor worship are prevalent,
6) the ethos of warriors is highly regarded,
7) spoken words are appreciated more highly than written words.

Discussion
When Mishima’s ethical concepts are compared with the ethical structure of the Kanun, the following structural similarities emerge.
The foundation of the commune indicated by the Kanun and by Mishima is »blood«; that is, consanguinity. As for the Kanun, the commune of »blood« refers to the kinship system of shpi-vllazni-fis, while for Mishima, it means the cultural commune of the Japanese. Such communes are presided over not by the ruler, but by the chief representing the commune, whose rituals guarantee the temporal continuity of the commune. As for the Kanun, the chief refers to a patriarch or a chieftain of the kin group, while for Mishima, it means the Emperor. A commune developed on the basis of »blood« has an absolute, ethical obligation to preserve its existence in the community. As for the Kanun, the community means the tribal society, while for Mishima, it means the international community of nations. The international community of nations in modern world, where no universal sovereign power exists to preserves order, may be metaphorically called a society without state power.
The ultimate purpose of the communes of »blood« is to continue to exist. Any action of a member of the commune, taken to safeguard and flourish the commune, is supposed to be ethical, while any action that weakens and harms the commune is unethical.
Given that a commune based on »blood« connotes the endless repetition of »blood«, its principles are in opposition to the concepts of progress and development. Because internal conflicts are settled by the commune itself, which is allowed to make any decision with some arbitrariness, the commune is considered to be a space of freedom. Communes are both enemy and ally towards each other, as all of them are potential rivals. As for the Kanun, other communes are shpi-vllazni-fis, while as for Mishima, they are the cultural communes of other nations. When one commune
grows too much, a conflict with other communes is unavoidable because they must compete for the control of a living space. In order to keep the existence of the commune in the community, the warriors must stand up to fight for the survival of the commune. It can be a ferocious, internecine battle because the communes base their survival on it. When a warrior dies in battle, he will merge with the »blood« of the commune. The honor of the dead is restored by the victory of the commune, and the dead are appeased by the rituals performed by the commune.
Thus, we can identify the structural similarities of ethical concepts between the Kanun and Mishima. Though kin groups of the Kanun have different features from the cultural commune of the Japanese, Mishima sees little contradiction between the two, as he imagines that the cultural commune of the Japanese is an entity analogous to a huge extended family. In this context, it becomes clear that the ethical concepts of Mishima are closely related to those of a society without state power.
The ethical structure of the Kanun, which may be called the ethics of »blood« is a value system which functions well in a society without state power. It is a value system with its own polarity, which does not necessarily evolve into a value system of a society with state power4. A society without state power, which regards spoken words more highly than written words, may be regarded to be a society of the mythological world. If the continuity of the cultural commune of the Japanese
is guaranteed by the repetition of rituals performed by the Emperor, it is not a commune of the historical world, but a commune of the mythological world.
In the 1960s, when Japanese society was experiencing accelerated economic development, Mishima began to look back to wartime Japan and aspired to die for the Emperor, to eternalize himself in death. Apparently, Mishima’s theory of ultra-nationalism, which ultimately centers on the ethos of warriors who die in battle to defend the Emperor, involves logic aimed at preserving the merits of
the cultural commune of the Japanese. At the same time, it is a paradoxical logic, which seems to be rushing towards the ethics of a society without state power.
This paradox appears to be the essence of the imperial system of wartime Japan, whose slogan was to make the world one family, which had the power to rouse feelings of ecstasy and bliss among the Japanese during WWII. The theoretical destination of the logic is that if the world is united into one family under the aegis of the Emperor, the state powers all over the world including Japan will disappear, ultimately resulting in a new world where the true harmony and peace which characterize a family should prevail. The alternative end-result of ultra-nationalism is a society wherein the passion of ethnocentrism and exclusionism might be dominant. The ethical concepts of Mishima, which may date back to the primordial culture of an ancient society without state power, seem to be a logic present and applicable not only in Japanese society, but in societies and nations all over the world.

R E F E R E N C E S
- 3. YAMAMOTO, K., The tribal customary code in high Albania; a structural analysis of the ethics. In: The Proceedings of Second International Congress on Physiological Anthropology. (Kiel, 1994).
- 4. YAMAMOTO, K., Coll. Antrop. 23 (1999) 221.

Note: The Japanese researcher, Kazuhiko Yamamoto, considers that 'the ethical structure of the Kanun is based on pagan culture'.

The holly Kanun is our religion, these are laws written by GOD him self.

Today people who have never read let alone studied the holly Kanun blame it for things that the Kanun not only condemns but is there to prevent and restore order and honor politically and socially in a free, peaceful, and perfect society.

Kanun is the soul of Albanians, we don't respect it and we are where we are.

Leka wrote:The holly Kanun is our religion, these are laws written by GOD him self.

Today people who have never read let alone studied the holly Kanun blame it for things that the Kanun not only condemns but is there to prevent and restore order and honor politically and socially in a free, peaceful, and perfect society.

Kanun is the soul of Albanians, we don't respect it and we are where we are.

Kuptohet qe sot ne kohet moderne Ligjet e Kanunit kane vlere vetem studimi, pasi Kanuni (si ai i veriut ashtu dhe ai i jugut) jane rrenjet tona te lashta jane origjina jone e lashte.
Fakti se pseudo-studjuesit shqiptar nuk merren me studimin e tij duke e nenvleresuar dhe duke e perçmuar si diçka primitive, eshte nje humbje e madhe per te mos thene nje idiotsi totale, pasi jane duke kontribuar keshtu ne humbjen e pasurise sone kombetare!!

The Ethical Structure of Homeric Society
K. Yamamoto
Health Services Center, Kyushu Institute of Design, Fukuoka, Japan

A B S T R A C T
According to Plato, the society as reflected in Homer’s epics is one without state
power. In a society without state power, the act of revenge which the offended party prosecutes on the offender is the only disciplinary force, which should be endorsed by the ethical concepts of the society. Though the ethics of Homeric society has been analyzed before, there has been no theory on the ethical structure of Homeric society analyzed from the viewpoint of a society without state power. This study attempts to address this issue.
Six concepts, »oath«, »honor«, »guest«, »blood«, »food« and »revenge« have been extracted from Homeric epics in comparison with the ethical structure of the Albanian Kanun.
The ethical structure of Homeric society appears to belong to the category of the ethics of a society without state power, as represented by the ethical structure of the Kanun. Plato explicitly criticizes the ethical value system of Homeric society, which he thinks is alienated from the idea of Good.

Introduction
The Iliad and the Odyssey are the greatest epics of the ancient Greek world, which have been recited and read for over two thousands years. According to Xenophanes, Homer’s epics were used as a textbook for the education of the young in the ancient Greek world1,2. Plato wrote in »The Republic (598D–607A)« that some Greeks claimed that poets such as Homer, who was called the educator of Hellas, knew everything human pertaining to virtue and vice, and everything divine, so that they should order their entire lives according to the guidance of the poets3. Homer’s epics therefore came to represent the ethical value system of the ancient Greek world.
Plato suggested in »Laws (680A– 682E)« that the society as reflected in Homer’s epics was one without state power, though an incipient state power had appeared in Ilium4. Friedrich Engels indicated in »The Origin of the Family, Private Property
and the State (chapter IV)« that there was no public power separate from the people which could have been used against the people in Homeric society5.

Finley said that while the nobles in Homeric society recognized monarchy, they proposed to maintain the fundamental priority of their status, to keep the king on the level of a first among equals1.

From the facts that Thucydides refers to the old basileia as patrike and that Aristotle says in »Politics (1285b5–20)« that the basileia of the heroic age was a leadership over freeman and the basileus (king) was military leader, judge and high priest6, Engels also suggested that the basileus in Homeric society had no governmental power in the later sense5.
Therefore, we must analyze the ethical structure of Homeric society from the viewpoint of a society without state power, if we truly want to understand its ethical value system. Though the ethics of Homeric society have been analyzed before1,7–9, there has been no theory on the ethical structure of Homeric society analyzed from the viewpoint of a society without state power.

Thomas Hobbes indicated in »Leviathan (chapter XIII)« that a society without state power, where there is no common power which keeps people all in awe, is in a condition called war, that is, every man is against every man10. In contrast to him, I suggested that a society without state power had ethics and social order of its own making and clarified the ethical structure of a society without state power, which was based and developed on the comparative study between the Albanian tribal customary code, the Kanun, and the ancient culture of the Japanese11).
It was found that the ethical structure of a society without state power such as the Gheg tribes of northern Albania consisted of »oath«, »honor«, »guest«, »blood«, »food« and »revenge«11. The ethical structure of a society without state power converts the violence of revenge into a sacred force which purifies the society, bringing a sense of justice to it11.

With the aid of the ethical structure of the Kanun, I will elucidate the ethical structure of Homeric society, which may lead us to understand a repertoire of behavioral patterns with moral consequences and provide us with further insights into the origin of ethical concepts in human society.

A Search for the Ethical Structure of Homeric Society

Homeric society is assumed to be a society without state power, where men live with a value system which regards revenge as an act of justice12. This value system is defined by the social condition where there is no judicial system with authorized power to punish an offender except for the revenge prosecuted by the offended party. In such societies, there is little room for other value systems, especially one which prohibits revenge, to exist.
Unless the act of revenge carried out by the offended party is endorsed by the ethical concepts, it results in vicious, endless violence, which puts the society in danger, making it almost impossible for the society to continue to exist12. The fact that Homeric society did survive may indicate the presence of a sense of justice and morality, which should be linked with the ethical concepts of that society.
Conversely, it is also true that societies with developed systems of moral norms do not necessarily last long as they may be attacked by powerful forces from outside.
The clue to the ethical concepts of a society without state power is to find the offenses which cause men to take revenge, resulting in killing the offender, since men commit such terrible acts because they deem the offenses to be the most unethical in their society12. In an attempt to clarify the ethical structure of the Kanun, I made a search in the clauses of the Kanun for the offenses against which the Kanun sanctions a retaliatory violence. It enabled me to find the concepts of »oath«, »honor« and »guest«, which are associated with the concept of »revenge«12.
According to the Kanun, when a man is insulted, he has every right to restore his honor either by the spilling of blood or with a magnanimous pardon13. When a man or a guest is killed, the spilt blood must be avenged. All concepts, »oath«, »honor«
and »guest« converge on »blood« through vengeful violence, which is regarded to be a sacred force of justice wielded by the gods12.
Finding the offenses which make men take revenge in Homeric epics should lead us to the concepts associated with the ethical structure of Homeric society.

Offenses Which Result in Bloodshed in Homeric Society

There are many offenses in Homeric epics, which result in bloodshed. At first we find that plundering cattle and horses is a cause of feuds. Achilles says that he would come to fight men who plunder his horses and cattle (Iliad 1: 152–160*).
Nestor boasts that when he was young and strong, he stole cattle and killed a man who fought for his cattle (Iliad 11: 670–676). The suitors stay at Odysseus’s house and consume his property with feasting for three years, which may be thought to be plundering. Odysseus and his son take revenge on the suitors for the offense. Sometimes women are abducted in Homeric society, which results in bloodshed. When Alexander of Troy lures and abducts Helen, the Achaeans attack and destroy Troy in order to get her back.
When an oath is not fulfilled, the offended party takes revenge on the per perjurer, which results in bloodshed. Agamemnon says that he makes the Trojans pay atonement with their own heads, wives and children for the perjury, as they broke the oath of truce between the Achaeans and the Trojans (Iliad 4: 155–163).

When men’s honor is damaged, the offended party takes revenge on the offender, which results in bloodshed. The goddesses Hera and Athene hate Troy and plot to destroy it because Alexander of Troy insulted them by praising Aphrodite when they came to his sheep fold (Iliad 24: 27–30). Achilles in the nether world says to Odysseus that if he were alive and had the strength, he would come to his father’s house and force the men who defiled his father’s honor to concede to his superior strength (Odyssey 11:492–503).
When a guest is hurt or insulted, the host takes revenge on the offender, which results in bloodshed. Odysseus in disguise says that he would rather die than see the suitors mistreat his guest in his house (Odyssey 16: 99–111). If the guest returns the hospitality with an ungrateful deed to the host, he takes revenge on the guest. Menelaus, who is eager to destroy Troy, expects that punishments of Zeus, the god of hospitality, fall on the Trojans, as Alexander of Troy violated his hospitality by carrying away his wife (Iliad 13: 623–629).
When men’s blood is shed, the victim’s kin take revenge on the slayer. Orestes kills Aegisthus and his own mother, who treacherously killed his father, Agamemnon (Odyssey 1: 33–43). Priam’s wife Hecabe says that she wishes she could fix
her teeth in Achilles’ heart and feed on it to avenge her slain son (Iliad 24: 209–213). Eupeithes, whose son was killed by Odysseus, says at the assembly of Ithaca that the relatives of the suitors should avenge their slain sons and brothers. According
to him, they shall be ashamed forever if they do not take revenge on Odysseus and his son (Odyssey 24: 430–437).
Thus, we find from Homeric epics that plundering cattle, seducing and carrying away women, breaking an oath, damaging men’s honor, hurting or insulting a guest, and shedding men’s blood all result in bloodshed. Although plundering cattle,
seducing and carrying away women can happen in any society regardless of the cultural activity of the men, these offenses are deemed to damage the honor of the wronged in Homeric epics, and are therefore included amongst the offenses which are associated with men’s honor.
On the other hand, as offenses such as breaking an oath, damaging men’s honor, hurting or insulting a guest and shedding men’s blood are related to the cultural activity of men in Homeric society, they are regarded to represent the ethical value
system of that society12. The comparative study between the Kanun and Homeric epics leads us to five concepts, »oath«, »honor«, »guest«, »blood« and »revenge« of Homeric society.

Concepts Associated With the Ethical Structure of Homeric Society

If men die of a disease or senility, it is not a death caused by social sanction, but a natural death. If men are killed by the acts of revenge, whose causes are related to breaking an oath, damaging men’s honor, hurting or insulting a guest and shedding men’s blood, the resulting strictly sanctioned death is considered to reflect the ethical value system of the society.
Earlier, I suggested that the ethical structure of a society without state power represented by that of the Kanun consisted of »oath«, »honor«, »guest«, »blood«, »food« and »revenge«. It is assumed that the ethical value system of Homeric society
is similar to that of the Kanun. We found five concepts, »oath«, »honor«, »guest«, »blood« and »revenge« in Homeric epics.
In an effort to clarify the ethical value system of Homeric society, the five concepts are elaborated here. As the concept of »food« cannot be divided from the concept of »guest«, we try to find the concept of »food« in Homeric epics in conjunction
with the five concepts.

The concept of »oath«
When we analyze the concept of oath in Homeric epics, we find three patterns of oath. The first is the oath of making a promise. Men make a vow to do this or that, which they swear by the name of gods to carry out. Achaean seer, Calchas asks Achilles to swear that he defends Calchas with sword and hand from Agamemnon who will be angry at him if he tells the prophecy of Phoebus Apollo (Iliad 1: 74–83). Achilles gives Calchas the oath to defend him. Calchas informs the Achaeans of the prophecy of Phoebus Apollo, because he completely believes that Achilles’ oath guarantees his safety.

Dolon, a Trojan asks Hector to swear that he will give Achilles’ horses and chariot to Dolon as a reward for spying on the Achaean ships (Iliad 10: 319–324). Hector swears by the name of Zeus that he will give them to Dolon if he succeeds.
When Odysseus and his comrades come across the island of Helios, he asks his comrades to take an oath not to eat cattle or sheep on the island (Odyssey 12: 298–302).

The second is the oath to tell the truth.
Men make a vow indicating that A is A, which they swear by the name of gods that it is true. When Agamemnon returns Briseis to Achilles, he swears an oath that he has never laid his hand on her (Iliad 19: 258–266). When Circe asks Odysseus
to go into the bed with her, Odysseus demands her to swear an oath that she has no plot to harm him (Odyssey 10:342–347). Circe answers to Odysseus that he should not fear because she swore the oath not to harm him (Odyssey 10: 380–381).

The third is the oath, which ensures total compliance with the original vow.
Men swear by the name of gods that their vows will be fulfilled. A poor stranger whom Odysseus disguises himself as, declares an oath by the name of Zeus that Odysseus will return to Ithaca and take vengeance on the suitors who dishonor his son and wife (Odyssey 14: 158–164).
Telemachus orders his mother, Penelope to vow to all the gods that she will offer perfect hecatomb in the hope that revenge on the suitors will be fulfilled (Odyssey 17: 48–51).
When men take an oath, they need a witness to confirm the vow which guarantees its fulfillment. The oath-taker must make an oath by naming the guarantors such as gods, earth, sun and rivers. Agamemnon swears an oath with the witness of Zeus, the Earth, the Sun and the Erinyes that he has never laid his hand on Briseis (Iliad 19: 258–266). Calypso swears an oath with the witness of Heaven and the river Styx that she does not plot against Odysseus (Odyssey 5: 184–187).

It is believed in Homeric society that when an oath is not fulfilled, the witness of the oath such as Zeus takes revenge on the perjurer. Idomeneus believes that death and woes will fall on the Trojans, since they were the first to behave violently in defiance of the oath of truce (Iliad 4: 268–271). Antenor says at the assembly of the Trojans that if they do not return Helen and the treasure to Menelaus, there is no hope of accomplishing anything to their benefit (Iliad 7: 350–353). Agamemnon declares that if his oath that he has never laid his hand on Briseis should prove false, he will accept whatever the gods meet out to him (Iliad 19: 258–266). In the serious situation such as the oath of truce between the Achaeans and the Trojans sworn by gamemnon, the oath-taker must offer a blood sacrifice to the gods in order to seal it (Iliad 3: 268–301). It is believed that when the solemn oath is not fulfilled, the curse of the sacrificial blood and the punishment of the gods fall on the perjurer.

Men in Homeric society seem to believe that an oath is always fulfilled since it commands the conduct of oath-takers.
Circe affirms that Odysseus should fear nothing as she swore not to plot against him (Odyssey 10: 380–381). The god of Sleep lulls Zeus to sleep as ordered by Hera, since he totally believes Hera’s oath to give him a young goddess (Iliad
14: 272–276).

Discussion
Homeric society, which is assumed to be a society without state power, is a society consisting of kin groups of various lineages, which must exist by their own might and wits, keeping their honor. It is inevitable that conflicts between men occur in human society. If a conflict occurs within a kin group, it is resolved by the chief of the kin group, who is authorized to wield supreme and absolute power over it. On the other hand, there is no judicial system which is authorized to use power to resolve conflicts between kin groups of different lineages. Therefore, even a minor quarrel between men of different lineages may easily conflagrate into a serious conflict in a society without state power. It is the customary code of a society without state power represented by the Kanun, which presides over the conflicts in order not to let them escalate, preventing the society from slipping into chaos12.
The conflicts, whose causes are related to breaking an oath, damaging men’s honor, hurting or insulting a guest and shedding men’s blood, can escalate into bloodshed in Homeric society. If men commit one of those misdeeds, the offended party takes revenge on the offender, whose blood is shed, resulting in a blood-feud. Then, the victim’s kin avenge the bloodshed and the kin groups involved in the blood-feud carry on the act of revenge alternately.
If both parties agree to reconciliation, the offending party pays recompense for the damage and the ritual of reconciliation is carried out. When a minor quarrel occurs among men of different lineages, it is solved by the mediation of the elders in the society. Though if both parties accept mediation, reconciliation is achieved, if the mediation of the elders is not accepted, the quarrel may result in bloodshed. Thus, the code of a society without state power presides over con flicts in Homeric society, allowing it continued survival.
Homeric society is a society where kin groups of different lineages coexist in an orderly manner under the guide of the code of a society without state power.
However, when the existence of a kin group is in danger, they fight for their survival. If a food shortage puts a kin group in dire straits, they may resort to the plunder of cattle or horses from kin groups of other lineages. Plunder by daring, strong men, exposed to danger, is not
considered to be a sin, but a virtue. While the kin of the plunderers are happy to applaud
the adventure, the offended party takes revenge on the plunderers.
Kin groups, which are believed to belong to the lineage of the gods, are under an obligation to bury the dead of their lineage and hold funerals for them, in which men and women scratch their faces, tear their hair and wail. Kin groups keep their bond with their ancestors by offering food and sacrifices to them and confirm the legitimacy of their existence in the society.
Thus, kin groups of Homeric society guard the temporal existence by observing the rituals of ancestor-worship and secure the spatial existence by coexistence and rivalry with kin groups of other lineages.
We extracted six concepts from Homeric epics in comparison with the ethical structure of the Kanun and found that Homeric society had the ethical structure similar to that of the Kanun. The ethical structure of the Kanun represents the value system of a society without state power, which engenders the sense of justice in the society. The act of revenge which the offended party prosecutes on the offender is the only disciplinary force to keep and restore social order in a society without state power, where a quarrel which if not resolved escalates into bloodshed is likely to engender strong emotions among the men, which drive them to take action. Unless the violence of revenge is endorsed by the ethical concepts of the society, it may yield chaos and nightmarish disorder in the society. The ethical structure of the Kanun, which changes the violence of revenge into the sacred force of justice, is an indispensable element for a society without state power to survive12. The ethical structure of Homeric society, which consists of »oath«, »honor«, »guest«, »blood«, »food« and »revenge «, seems to belong to the category of the ethics of a society without state power, which is represented by the ethical structure of the Kanun.
In »The Republic (598D–607A)«, Plato explicitly criticizes the ethical value system of Homeric society, which he thinks is alienated from the idea of good3. As one of the keen criticism against it, Plato states how men should conduct themselves when a loved one dies. According to Plato, when a good and reasonable man experiences such a stroke of misfortune as the loss of his son, he will bear it more easily than the other sort, as it is the reason and law that exhorts him to resist the bare feeling, which urges him to give way to his grief. The law declares that it is best to keep quiet as far as possible in calamity and not to chafe and repine because we cannot know what is really good and evil in such things, and it gives us no advantage to take them hard, and nothing in mortal life is worthy of great concern. Instead of stumbling like children, clapping his hands on the stricken spot and wasting time in lamentation, he should accustom his soul to devotion to the healing process. Though the best part of men’s soul is willing to conform to these precepts of reason, the irrational and idle part of them dwells on the memory of their suffering and impels them to lamentation.
As the nature of the mimetic poets such as Homer is not related to the better part of the soul, but is devoted to the fretful and complicated character, it is justified for rational men not to admit them into a well-ordered state. The mimetic poets should be expelled from the ideal state because they set up in each individual soul a vicious constitution by fashioning phantoms far removed from reality, and by currying favor with the senseless element that cannot distinguish the greater from the less. Plato warns that if men grant admission to the honeyed muse in lyric or epic, pleasure and pain will be the lords of the city instead of law. Thus, in the last chapter of »The Republic«, Plato criticizes the ethical value system of Homeric society, insisting that it must be eradicated because it antagonizes and undermines the ethical value system of a society with state power. Apparently, the divorce of ethics from the emotional aspect of humanity began after Plato.
This study tried to find a repertoire of behavioral patterns with moral consequences in Homeric epics, which led us to the ethical structure of Homeric society consisting of six concepts, »oath«, »honor«, »guest«, »blood«, »food« and »revenge«. However, as the morality of Homeric society implied by the Iliad and the Odyssey may have wider scope than these, more research is needed to clarify the ethical value system of Homeric society.

Bilder me thuaj te verteten e ke lexue Kanunin te pakten nje here?

Leka wrote:Bilder me thuaj te verteten e ke lexue Kanunin te pakten nje here?

Jo vetem qe e kam lexuar por madje nje pjes e kam edhe postuar tek albanian.com.
Nese eshte e nevojshme mund ta postoj ketu serisht!!
Po pse pyet?

1bilderberg wrote:

Leka wrote:Bilder me thuaj te verteten e ke lexue Kanunin te pakten nje here?

Jo vetem qe e kam lexuar por madje nje pjes e kam edhe postuar tek albanian.com.
Nese eshte e nevojshme mund ta postoj ketu serisht!!
Po pse pyet?

Te peyta per kete qe the

kane vlere vetem studimi,

Jo vetem studimi bilder por dhe zbatimi, ktij Kanu neve i kemi borxh gjithshka, ndergjegjen, kulturen, gjuhen, lirin dhe sigurishte kombin.


ps: une e kam pas plan me e hedhe vete Kanunin ketu, nqoftese don ti me e hedhe ska as adhe nje problem

o vetem studimi bilder por dhe zbatimi

Leke nuk mund te zbatohet diçka qe nuk eshte studjuar akoma ashtu siç duhet (per te mos thene se nuk eshte studjuar fare) dhe qe nuk njihet akoma si vlere kombetare dhe historike shqiptare!!
Te flasesh per zbatim eshte shume e veshtire dhe e pamundur pasi ne aspektin juridik bie e ndesh me ligjet dhe kushtetuten aktuale shqiptare dhe nderkombetare!
Per shembull e Drejta Romake qe eshte baza e juridiksionit dhe ligjeve nderkombetare sot studjohet neper universitete, por ajo qe aplikohet konkretisht juridikisht eshte shume e ndryshme nga ligjet origjinale te te Drejtes Romake!

ps: une e kam pas plan me e hedhe vete Kanunin ketu, nqoftese don ti me e hedhe ska as adhe nje problem

Meqense ti je moderator i forumit nisja ti i pari, une po shtoj ndonje materjal shtese ose ndonje artikull !!