An Analysis Of Euripides ' The Suppliants '

The Greek society was a direct democracy with people voting on the issues themselves instead of representatives voting on their behalf. Any male citizen over the age of eighteen was allowed to vote. Like the Romans, the Greek government was divided into separate parts. The Greek government consisted of an assembly, council, and courts, with each requiring a different number of voters present. The people all gather and vote on issues by hand, and this is the simplest form of majority rules. The role of the people is extremely important in how the society and state is governed and run. This early form a democracy was detailed by Pericles funeral oration during the Peloponnesian War. Pericles was an eminent Athenian politician who states in regards to the government of Athens, “Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here, Pericles states that the people have all the power and their opinion is highly valued. Likewise, the Romans valued the people’s opinions so highly that they entrusted with them rewards and punishments, vital aspects that held the society together. Pericles also states, “…nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, here is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here is the essence of democracy, every man no

The Athenians democracy was the pride and jewel of their nation. It created confidence, security, and patriotism, however, it also created an arrogant mindset which eventually leads to the downfall of their nation. Pericles states that the Athenian government was unorthodox because it was a government of the whole people rather than a minority (Thucydides 1). In addition, all Athenian citizens had the right to be apart of the government and administer justice. However,

This allows the rulers to dictate exactly who will serve what purpose in society following the political and economic structure without the individuals questioning the system. Because the strongest and wisest people carry the most power, they will have the ability to make the judgements for assigning citizens to their classes, creating laws, and creating sanctions. Because they’re known to have the best judgement, the things they say and do and are considered the most just, which supports Thrasymacus’ claim that justice is the advantage of the

What is of greater underlying significance for Aristotle, however, is not so much the size of the citizen-body as the stark contrast between the respective ideas that “those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice” and “those which aim only at the common good of the rulers are wrong” (The Politics, 3:6, 1279a16, p. 189). In practice, Aristotle’s juxtaposition is implicitly suggestive that if one is ruling in their own self-interest, regardless of the size of the group, and be that for themselves or the minority to which they belong, then they are in essence missing the point of what it is that they are supposed to be doing. Thus, the key point Aristotle is trying to make is this: the ruler of a polis or state; be that one person, a few people, or many people; should govern in accordance with the interests of the polis or state as a whole at heart rather than with the interests of a select few.

During the time of Euripides, approximately the second half of the fifth century B.C., it was a period of immense cultural crisis and political convulsion (Arrowsmith 350). Euripides, like many other of his contemporaries, used the whole machinery of the theater as a way of thinking about their world (Arrowsmith 349). His interest in particular was the analysis of culture and relationship between culture and the individual. Euripides used his characters as a function to shape the ideas of the play (Arrowsmith 359).

    In ancient Greece the females were considered to be conniving and deceiving whisperers, and men almost never trusted their wives.  The ideal woman was an obedient and placating wife.  They believed that the female should be strong but still yield to the power of the male in charge, whether it was older brother, father, or husband.  Euripides often used females in uncommon ways; he did not simply show them as complacent animals.  Women in Euripides' plays were used for social commentary.  They were not just simple characters; they could be both agathos and kakos.  The females in the works of Euripides were extremely strong and devious and they were loyal but at the same time

In The Republic of Plato, Plato, in addition to sharing his views on justice, shares his views on democracy using a fictionalized Socrates to outline the most pressing issues. Plato’s views on democracy are negative; he believes democracy to be bred from a response to inequality of wealth and to heighten all of humanities worst traits. Plato believes democracy leads to unequipped leaders who hold offices and power without the necessary traits and preparation.

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

This essay will consider the quote by Plato ‘the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. It will be discussed how this quote is still as relevant today as it was when Plato first constructed the statement.

Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s main criticisms of democracy were based on both theory and precedents. Whereas Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy could lead to mob rule in part due to group-think based on a population’s impulses, Socrates advocated that governance should not be solicited based on the citizenry’s desires at any given time. Aristotle advocated that democracy was indeed the best form of government, or better said he believed democracy to be lesser of the forms of government. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed that only the wisest should govern because those governed might squander resources and wealth, make decisions based on emotion, and revolt due to a perceived or real notion of inequality.

Both Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic contributed greatly to the development of the modern world, bringing into it the notions of democracy and republic. The evolution of these concepts took them to a level much higher than one present in Ancient Greece and Rome respectively. However, modern society continues to draw on somewhat idealized accounts of the ancient world for inspiration in improving today’s governing procedures.

Marriage – the union of two imperfect souls to form an affectionate and beautiful relationship – is exceptionally intricate and delicate. Two different people with different insights come together to form a harmonious bond. Power, or control, is a chief concept that can “make or break” the affiliation. Distribution of the ruling is frequently divided into males versus females. This partition leads to many conflicts and tribulations. In the catastrophic Greek play Medea, by Euripides, the liaison between Medea and Jason demonstrates how both males and females assert power in the relationship and how incorrect usage of this supremacy leads to dilemmas.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

These are the words of Socrates, who spoke before the Athenian jury in the trial that would, ultimately, condemn him to his death. Through works such as the Apology and The Republic, we can see Plato’s distaste of the concept of democracy. Why does he consider democracy to be so flawed? Let us look through his own eyes and see what his individual criticisms are, and determine

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.