Impossible to say how (or much less, why) that particular Being became chieftain, king or ruler over the first state

It is impossible to say how (or much less, why) that particular Being became chieftain, king or ruler over the first state. It is possible that decisions (most importantly, what to call themselves, i.e. what to call their state) were made by the stronger or the cleverer or the older individual in the state, or, perhaps, collectively. Whatever the case may be, that Being (regardless of whether it was an organisation of one person or one made up of multiple individuals) became the government of that state. Two things are important to note, however. First, that decision-making was internal, within the state. The naming of the state (and of its individuals) was performed internally, within that state, and not externally, by other states (as, for example, is the case today with humans naming dogs). This self-naming is the result of the self-consciousness acquired by humans, which led to the formation of the state as the only natural way to warrant it (their self-consciousness). The second point of note is the fact of the decision-making itself. A decision was made by a Being and it was applied within the state. Decisions are, of course, the norm among all pack animals, and made by their leader, but these are sustenance-relevant. In this case, the decision made about the name of the state (and thus the name of each of its citizens), other than revealing self-consciousness, went much further—it initiated a decision-making relationship (that was unavoidably hierarchical) that continues to this day.

Navigate: ← §12.00.05.00 · Corpus · §12.00.07.00 →