Two Speechs Of Diodotus

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

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.

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,

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

Pericles continues even further, explaining that this sacrifice was an example of Athenian greatness. His speech discusses further that Athenians would rather die resisting than to live submitting. They fled only from dishonour but never from their enemies intent on destroying them. Pericles words further praise there brave soldiers who perished in battle. Pericles goes on to say that Athenians vengeance upon their enemies was to be desired more than any personal blessings. He says that war with Athens’ enemies was to be the most glorious of hazards. They had accepted the honorable risk again and died a glorious death. He conveys again to the Athenians citizens that destroying their enemies was the highest honor an Athenians could hope to obtain. Pericles encourages the audience to live up to the standards set by their fallen Athenians. Pericles offered his comfort but didn’t express condolences to the families of the fallen who were present in the crowds.

Have you ever acted out in retribution for something done to you? Some examples could be if you punched someone for intentionally kicking you, or if someone deliberately hurt the feelings of someone you love and you retaliated in kind. You probably thought the punishment you received for your actions was too harsh or lenient. Many factors went into the decision of what discipline you received for this act and some were fair while others probably were not. This is true for the actions of many people in Aeschylus’s Oresteia. In each of the three plays, someone is seeking vengeance for a wrong done unto them, someone they know/love, or both. For this paper, I will be focusing on the vengeance enacted by Clytemnestra, Orestes, and the Fates. The vengeance that each person enacted was deemed just or unjust depending on many factors including the people who were doing the judging. Vengeance in Aeschylus’s Oresteia is viewed through the social lens of the society that it was enacted in. This lens is made up of the popular values, beliefs, and social conventions of the period as well as the judge’s personal views and/or experiences. These factors (such as gender and relation to the victim, as well as the presence or absence of transgressions on the characters part) lead to different opinions about the guilt of the accused individual and the individual themselves. The view of vengeance in Aeschylus’s Oresteia is very subjective.

In this paper, I argue that, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s defense of the view that his father is a murderer is not cogent enough to effectively prove his point. I will present the argument that Euthyphro spends more time talking about himself and his decision to prosecute his father than he does discussing the actual crime. I will then present the argument that Euthyphro does not use specific, factual evidence to bolster his judgement.

He states, “ In my opinion, nothing is more contrary to good judgement than these two—haste and anger. Of these, the one usually thoughtless, while the other is ill-in-formed and narrow minded (iii:42).” Diodotus means that these two emotions, which are shown in Cleons speech, are not good reasons to punish the Mytileneans. That those emotions shouldn’t get in the way of good judgement. Diodotus brings into the speech that opposing views should not make the citizens blind to the right decision. He states, “A good citizen should not go about terrifying those who speak against him, but should try to look better in a fair debate (iii:42).” Diodotus is speaking primary to the assembly and telling them that they should not have to fear if they don’t agree with the majority of the assembly, that they must stand for what the believe not what others believe because then good advisers are lost because of fear. Diodotus goes on to talk about how the punishment imposed on the Mytileneans would benefit them. He states, “ Even if I proved them guilty of terrible injustice, I still would not advise the death penalty for this, unless that was to our advantage. Even if they deserved to be pardoned, I would not have you pardon them if it did not turn out to be good for the city (iii:44).” He’s clearly telling the assembly that if the punishment put on the Mytileneans doesn’t benefit them, then it’s not proper judgement for their

Athens is a major Greek city-state in European history. It was a great center of cultural and intellectual development, and thus home to philosophers. Socrates and Pericles, two of these philosophers, had polarizing opinions about the city-state and its citizens. While Pericles chooses to praise the Athenian citizen, Socrates criticizes Athens’ people. Pericles gave his opinion at a funeral during the first battles of the Peloponnesian War, while Socrates gave his during the trial that ultimately led to his death. The Athenian city-state has become a model for today’s systems of government and a hearth for western philosophy, so Pericles’ opinion seems to be the one that is more accurate.

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.

Undeniably, the ancient Greek society places a heavy emphasis on values and traditions. The two texts of the “Clouds” by Aristophanes and “History of the Peloponnesian war” by Thucydides, although contextually divergent, are actually conceptually convergent. Both texts are built around the central theme of the collapse of conventional values. While the breakdown of traditional values in the “History of the Peloponnesian war” is presented in a more metaphorical and symbolical manner, the downfall of conventional values in the “Clouds” is on a more direct basis. Although both texts essentially convey across the same solemn message that the relinquishment of

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.

The Mytilenian debate was one instance in Greek history where the sophist ways of rhetoric substantially affected the decision of the Athenian leaders. It was originally planned by Cleon to put the Mytilenians to death immediately (Thucydides, 212). However, an assembly was called in order to decide the fate of Mytilene, due to a sudden change of feeling and the acknowledgement of such a cruel act. Cleon, who stood by his original orders, spoke in front of an assembly in order to convince them to follow through with his plan. Cleon, throughout his speech, denounces the ideals of sophism and focused his attention towards the members of the assembly itself.

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.

in an attempt to persuade Athens that an alliance would be mutually beneficial. The Corinthian counter-argument offers rebuttals such as, “’[Corcyra] wanted no allies because her actions were wrong, and she was ashamed of calling in others to witness her own misdoings. / Next we should like you to understand that it would not be right or just for you to receive them as allies.’” (Thucydides, 58-9) The dispute over Corcyra was private and completely based on dialogue. Both speakers referred to values that the Athenians should respect, and in the end no blood was shed. The choice of the speakers suggests that their people had great faith in their argumentative skill, and that skill is demonstrated by the fact that Athens initially did not favor an alliance with Corcyra but changed its mind just before coming to a decision.