https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/another-supply-chain-shock-deck-cargo-backlog-ripples-beyond-shanghai-lockdown-stops
In Herodotus we find a thought which obviously expressed the ancient Greeks' conception of the universe: tên peprôrenên moirên adunata esti apofugeein kai theôi, that is, even a god cannot escape the decrees of fate. The ancient Greeks were already obviously afraid to leave the universe to the sole will of the gods, for this would have been equivalent to admitting absolute arbitrariness as the fundamental principle of life. Every fixed order, whatever it may be, is better than arbitrariness. "Fate," in Herodotus, assuredly serves to designate such an eternal and perhaps irrational order, but Herodotus, it seems, is completely satisfied with it. It suffices for him that the gods, like men, should be bound by something, by anything whatsoever. For what man fears above all else is that his fate, or even the fate of the universe, should be the plaything of chance.
But later philosophy could not long be content with the ancient Moira, fate. It transformed Moira little by little into logos, reason. I shall not concern myself here with the progressive development of the idea of logos. Instead I shall pass immediately to Socrates, for the work of Socrates attained, it seems, the limit of human possibilities. Up to the present day, in any case, every attempt to get rid of the Socratic heritage has always been considered by mankind as an attack on its most sacred treasures.
In one of Plato's early dialogues the question that concerns us is formulated by Socrates in this way: Is what is holy so because it is beloved of the gods or, on the contrary, is it beloved of the gods because it is holy? It is readily seen that Socrates' fundamental thought is identical with Herodotus'. Socrates naturally declares that the gods are not at all free to love what they wish, that the gods - like men - are subject to the law, which excludes all arbitrariness. The good is, as it is expressed today, autonomous. Mortals and immortals equally obey the commandments of the good.
We see that the years of spiritual work which elapsed between the epoch in which the conception formulated by Herodotus arose and that in which Socrates' philosophy developed did not pass in vain. For Socrates, blind faith was replaced by the good that sees perfectly well. Herodotus, who subordinates both the gods and himself to an eternal law, bows down before a painful alternative: a law, no matter how puzzling and heavy it may be, is - as I have said - always better than arbitrariness. But Socrates' attitude toward his law, the law of the good, is completely different. He accepts this law not because it is imposed upon him by force but freely and willingly; Moira is transformed in Socrates into logos, fate becomes the reason that is common to gods and men. He no longer submits to an ineluctable destiny, and destiny no longer destroys his life with its inexorable prescriptions. On the contrary, reason gives him wings; reason is the chief and only source of his powers. Whatever man has, whatever he does, has in and of itself no value so long as it lacks the sanction of reason. Reason, to employ a comparison of Nietzsche's, is the swollen udder which man sucks to obtain milk for his nourishment. Reason is the source of the good and it is only the good that makes the life of mortal men and immortal gods worth living. Plato remained faithful to his teacher when he later hypostatized the good by making it the supreme idea, which is absolutely autonomous and exists independently of everything, and which is our spiritual bread, the sole nourishment that gives us true life.
Lev Shestov -https://www.angelfire.com/nb/shestov/pc/pc1_1.html