Thucydides 's ' The On The ' Of The Street ' And ' Intellectuals ' Essay

Action from necessity is a constantly recurring theme in Thucydides’ The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. A sentiment used to explain the growth of the Athenian Empire which some Athenians espoused to an assembly at Sparta best quantifies necessity, “. . . we were necessarily compelled at first to advance the hegemony to where it is—especially by fear, and then by honor, and later by benefit.” (Selected Passages 1.75.3). This claim, referred to as the Athenian Thesis, is used to advance the two following implications: all states act with the motivations of fear, honor and interest and no one can condemn a state for doing so. The Athenian Thesis influences the way many of the Athenian elite structure their patterns of reasoning in both noticeable and subtle ways.

In the fourth year of the Peloponnesian War, the city of Mytilene, revolts against Athens and conspires with Sparta and asks for their assistance. However, these plans for revolt are reported to Athens, who send an army against Mytilene. While under siege, Mytilene’s democratic faction gives up and decides to surrender to Athens. When the Athenian leaders first meet to decide about the fate of the Mytilene people, they decree that all the Mytilene men be put to death, while the women and children be enslaved. The following day, the Athenians decide to put all Mytilene’s to death not just the guilty. However, this time an assembly is called to persuade Athenian officials to reconsider their death penalty. During this assembly, there are two speeches given; one by Cleon and the other by Diodotus; these will be explored in detail in the following paragraphs. As I read Thucydides’ summary, the two speeches serve as contrasts, illustrating the difference between bad and good arguments. Through the following themes/conclusions that will be explored/applied in the paper, this paper argues that Diodotus, not Cleon, makes the better argument: i) Cleon uses the language of un-justice, punishment, irrationality and extreme emotions, which makes his disposition unreasonable; ii) Diodotus uses the language of rationality, justice and intellect which form the basis of a strong argument.

IX. I). Herodotus contrast with Thucydides in the fact that Herodotus resigns from characterizing people as barbaric but instead calls them poor and cannot live on their own or claims they are a danger to themselves. While in Thucydides they call Ionians barbaric and Greeks used this as reasoning to enslave them.

In parallel to the argument between the Just and Unjust speeches, ‘new’ triumphs over ‘old’ once again in the fight between Strepsiades and Pheidippides. Pheidippides declares to his father, “I will make it clearly apparent, by Zeus, that I was beating you with justice (Clouds, 1332). Throughout their argument, Pheidippides was applying the same techniques to his speech that the Unjust speech utilized. Their apparently cynical disrespect for social mores emphasizes the fact that what is ‘old’ is losing its strength within society. What is right is in palpable contrast to what is currently occurring in the social order. Strepsiades broached the suggestion that as a father he has nurtured Pheidippides from infancy to his adulthood. Because of this, Strepsiades insists that he has earned his son’s respect. However, Pheidippides is convinced

In order to question and reassess Thrasymachus’ view of justice, in this essay, I will first bring up cases for Thrasymachus being accused of being contradictory and inconsistent in his view for justice. For the second part of the essay, I will provide a counterargument in order to prove Thrasymachus’ consistency followed by a discussion on Socrates’ own contradiction in regards to his account of the city.

Making use of rhetoric devices and compromising the ideals of democracy breach the ideals of traditions in the Greek society. Unlike that in the “Clouds”, Thucydides does not show any sign of flaws of the traditional values.

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.

Socrates’ second argument is an attempt to show that Callicles admiration of courageous men is inconsistent with the view that all pleasures are good regardless of their source or the character of those who experience them. Socrates provides the example of cowards in war, who are pained by the advance of the enemy and rejoice upon their retreat by at least as much as the courageous (498a5-ca). Therefore if pleasure is good then the coward who is happy by the enemy’s retreat is as good as the courageous, something which Callicles doesn’t want to portray as he believes the cowardly and foolish are bad. In the end Callicles is forced to admit a distinction between good and bad pleasures and this distinction in turn allows Socrates to condemn contemporary Athenian politicians for ministering to the pleasures rather than the welfare of their people. From that point on Callicles so disgusted by the outcome only replies to Socrates in a formal manner thereby allowing Socrates to engage in a lengthy monologue in which the choice between philosophy and a public life is examined in the light of conclusions already established.9 Socrates argues that contemporary statesman are like poets pandering to the pleasures of the masses however Callicles thinks this only sensible for the ‘”leviathan” will kill you if you don’t humour it.’10 Callicles may well have been right in asserting that Socrates would be at the mercy of anyone who chooses to kill or injure him however immunity from

Compare and contrast Thucydides’ and Socrates’ analyses of the fate of Athenian democracy in war, of why the Athenians went to war, and of how and why they failed.

Though defeated on this point, he's not yet satisfied with Socrates' argument, and sticks by one of his previously stated views which held that injustice is more profitable than justice. However, he shrinks back and seems no longer able to speak for himself after Socrates refuted his argument on justice. Despite his withdrawal from the argument throughout the rest of the Republic, his early ideas help lead Socrates farther on his search for justice through the construction of a hypothetical just city. In describing the education of the guardians of this city, Socrates discusses the need for a balance between gymnastics and poetry. He relates how too much gymnastics lead the spirited part of someone to be overtightened and hard. "He'll be museless and hate discussion" explains Socrates. This hardness and hate for discussion reminds us of the actions of Thrasymachus at the beginning of the argument defining justice. Thrasymachus becomes an example of a "badly tuned soul" that Socrates goes on to describe.

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

The debate moves on as Thrasymachus tries to define justice. Thrasymachus makes two critical points in his argument. He first says that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Thus the rulers govern on their own behalf. However Socrates shows that in fact the rulers are at the mercy of their subjects and make decisions that can be good or bad for the people and it is the right of the people to follow these actions or not. He states that "no knowledge considers or prescribes for the advantage of the stronger, but for that of the weaker, which it rules." [342d]

The Melian Dialogue is a debate between Melian and Athenian representatives concerning the sovereignty of Melos. The debate did not really occur-the arguments given by each side were of Thucydides own creation. Thus it is reasonable to assume that we can tease out Thucydides' own beliefs. In this paper, I will first extract Thucydides views from the Melian Dialogue and then analyze whether or not these views are well founded.

The position Thrasymachus takes on the definition of justice, as well as its importance in society, is one far differing from the opinions of the other interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic. Embracing his role as a Sophist in Athenian society, Thrasymachus sets out to aggressively dispute Socrates’ opinion that justice is a beneficial and valuable aspect of life and the ideal society. Throughout the course of the dialogue, Thrasymachus formulates three major assertions regarding justice. These claims include his opinion that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger,” “it is just to obey the rulers,” and “justice is really the good of another […] and harmful to the one who obeys and serves.” Socrates