Seneca, though a Stoic, the sect most opposite to that of Epicurus, yet quotes this philosopher more frequently than any other.~Adam Smith, TOMS
I see then, and in regard to re-solutance of capitalism and socialism, that is facilitated by Hayek’s re-explanation of religion, there is an understanding of the relation of conflict that can be levated. This we might also understand, in regard to “Il Principe” which seems to perfectly contrast any logic proposed to support benevolent leadership, this relation of the good and the bad in conflict. In “Il Principe” the related theme (although I have not read the material yet!) seems to be in the insecurity and unpredictability of having a benevolent leader who may not be able to make or follow through on difficult decisions and so then also maybe be said to be exploitable (which cannot be said to be secure).
Two contrasting views might be said to be re-sovlable from some higher level, which seemingly can also be viewed as a higher order, perspective, and/or to be brought about by technology which is really some symbolic or tangible form of social advance.
This is important I think because then one might grow an appreciation for what might otherwise be said to be opposing views. These views are now rather seen as a complementary competition to find the whole truth of the matter of subject.
Then fighting, especially when done on higher levels than the individual might function on (such as the internet vs physical war), might not be viewed as something detestable or to avoid, but part of favourable evolution.
Then there might be two views that include a non-cooperative evolution and a co-operative realization or attempt to inspire the non-cooperative view to self optimize.
Hayek points out the role of religion in this regard, which is an expression of important complex needs for social order that are expressed metaphorically (and simply) to the individual in order to inspire them to act for the greater good which otherwise ironically serves the ignorant individual best.
There is much to say and observe here I think.
We see ancients from the past that necessarily affected their present times as well as their own individual lives in this way, through philosophy, writing, thought, speech, etc.. But we should also note it is also interesting to see that the foundational “rules” they set about reaches thousands of years into the future. This should not be so surprising as these “rules” of philosophy, and what society of that time was eventually founded on and evolved to, themselves evolved from what Hayek calls spontaneous order. In another view they were tried tested and true in social combat.
These rules were necessarily built on but not on the same level and paradigm they were first presented from. We can note, for example, how the American constitution and the foundational social contracts that formed the United States were based, in many ways, on higher level implementations of these ancient moral and social foundations.
This all might be helpful as we attempt to breakout of what might eventually be seen as un-favorable or un-optimzed conditions society incurs. We might then naturally seek high orders of thinking and implementation that might solve problems that otherwise would involve social disruption to solve (such as an international settlement currency that solves conflict between competing national currencies, without any forced or coerced social reform).
Then perhaps we could also have a better appreciation for conflict in this regard. That is to say more respect, not just for our “opponents”, but also the relationship between to conflicting views that we can then see we simply haven’t re-solved with a higher order of thinking. So then we might expect a re-solution the more there is a division highlighted, rather than to grow further apart because of it.
Lastly then I think I see that we can think of granulating this process or understand ir like a “trick” card game that each player might need to take their turn at presenting a theory to be socially experimented on (expecting somewhat to be refuted, yet in an overall complementary fashion in the big picture of things).
I think then by generalizing all of this and formulating it, there might be a good foundation for a sort of social order that naturally but most efficiently solves problems of a complexity we probably don’t realize could exist let alone that we would eventually evolve to “consciously” solve.