Sparta And Kallipolis An Analysis Of The Ideal Citizen

Around 500 BCE, a new idea began to take shape on the Greek and Italian peninsulas of the Mediterranean Sea. That idea was that people were citizens of a state or empire. By the sixth century a different idea formed and that was Citizenship. Citizenship is the status given by a government to some or all of its people. Each citizen had a balance called social contract theory of citizenship which was their individual rights such as the right to vote, and their individual responsibilities, such as the duty to serve one country. Romans citizen was more judged on how their behavior was towards the family, neighbors, and property. While Athens focused more the citizen responsibility than the citizen rights. Citizenship was a thing both in Athens

It was at this point in the debates that Sparta's King Archidamus revealed his wisdom in both politics and war fighting. Noting Athens' naval

During the times of Ancient Greece, two major forms of government existed, democracy and oligarchy. The city-states of Athens and Sparta are the best representatives of democracy and oligarchy, respectively. The focus of the times was directed towards military capabilities, while the Athenians were more interested in comfort and culture. It was the oligarchy in Sparta that put a war-like attitude as its first priority and best met the needs of Ancient Greece. These factors empowered Sparta and led to the development of an authoritative and potent state. Other contrasting issues included women’s rights, social classes, and value of human life.

Athens was a much more superior polis compared to Sparta because the Athenians invented new ideas and creations that supported the people, such as democracy, the Athenians led the Delian League, and Sparta created the Peloponnesian League after the Athenians created their alliance, and the Athenians changed the ways of their government many times to suit the people, and the Spartans did not.

It is remarkable how timeless the Speech of Archidamus is. One could easily imagine the Spartan King were speaking to a modern occupied territory, itching for a revolt. King Archidamus urges the Spartans to head caution when entering war with Athens. He has “seen too many wars” [pg 25, 80] The battles he has witnessed in his lifetime have swayed him of any naive fascination with war. He has learned that violence begets violence, so one should only enter a battle they are prepared to win. Archidamus explains that Athens is stronger in terms of wealth, military might and political power. If the Spartans take the offensive route under these circumstances, they will surely loose both in combat and in terms of public relations. [pg 26, 81] Furthermore, Archidamus explains later that Athens had agreed to mediation, making any fight that Sparta were to start an unlawful preemptive attack. [pg 28, 85] The King assures his people he is not blind to their suffering, he just envisions better ways of ending it. [pg 26, 82] One of these methods would be to create partnerships with other nations who would lend armed forces and capital to the cause. To be done in tandem with confederation would be the accumulation of Sparta’s assets. Archidamus predicts that under these circumstances, Athens could be motivated to surrender. Under the very different circumstances from which he is speaking, the King pushes to avoid war at all costs citing that “complaints can be resolved, whether they are

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in

The Athenians at the Second Lacedaemonian Congress contended that it was inevitable that Athens would take such a chance when offered, arguing that “it has always been the law that the weaker should be subject to the stronger” (I.76.2). Indeed, the primacy of self-interest in determining the actions of individuals and cities is

In Thucydides’ History, the Spartan king Archidamus outlines the values he idealizes in the Spartan soldiers, namely self-control and discipline which in turn create shame and courage. These values are similar to those defined by Socrates as vital to the formation of virtuous guardians of kallipollis in Books 2 and 3 of The Republic. Socrates’ ideal values are courage, moderation and a sense of shame. Thus, since there are parallels in the values idealized by both Archidamus and Socrates, it is probable that both the Spartan soldiers and the guardians of kallipollis will resemble each other to an extent.

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

Democracy in classical Athens provided Athenian citizens with absolute political and social freedom. This freedom, however, came with the price of civic duties. Due to the human nature of self-interested citizens, the public neglected to fulfill many of these civic obligations. If a civic duty compromised a citizen’s own success, then it could be assumed that the citizen would most likely attempt to evade a duty through the use of either persuasion or bribery. Christ’s The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens attempts to uncover the truth about citizenship in the Athenian democracy.

One example of this is found in Republic IV as the soul is proven to be partitioned into three independent components: reason, spirit, and appetite, all of which have direct counterparts in the class structure of Socrates’ city. The analogy’s significance is also showcased in Republic VII, as an accurate depiction of justice’s intrinsic value in the individual is derived through the interlocutor’s investigation of the conventions in Socrates’ city. Justice is ultimately found to possess universal qualities, one of which includes being a product of the pursuit of the form of the good. Further consistencies between the city and soul are evinced by Republic VIII and IX where Socrates finds equivalence among the specific dynamics of various political systems and natural constitutions of the soul. With these examples in mind, we must turn to the text of the Republic in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the message Socrates was seeking to communicate through his analogy of city and

Supposedly formed by Lycurgus, the government in Sparta is very unique in that it is an Oligarchy; combining monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

In the Greek society, there was enough wine and spirits for Socrates and his buddies to philosophize on the world around them, beginning the conversation of what is just and not. Ideas transform throughout the conversations of Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon in the Republic forming what justice is in the opinion of Socrates. This opinion, the city in speech, is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon but Socrates eloquently responds to their challenges. Socrates’ answers with his city of speech are effective against the challenges of Adeimantus and Glaucon because every human has a soul with decency that is almost impossible to deny.