In Thucydides’, “The Peloponnesian War”, there is a specific passage that was rejected in antiquity and is still reject now by most modern scholars, book 3 paragraph 84. It does seem, however, that this paragraph was added in by almost a want to-be Thucydides imitator because it seems to break his character. Nevertheless, I believe that this paragraph should be included with the rest of the book. Although, the text is somewhat difficult to understand how it could fit in with Thucydides, it does follow his train of thought throughout the books. My argument is that I fully agree, that the passage in book 3 paragraph 84, is indeed Thucydides’, although it seems a little out of place, it fits in with the other themes of his work and this paper will explain how.
Thucydides looks at how humans interact with the environment around them. He not only seems to look at individuals but also at the groups and masses. Humans by nature are immoral, corrupt, evil and surprisingly wicked. There are at least three different themes like this throughout Thucydides works that are mentioned in the rejected passage, but they all lead into one another. Hence, the first situation we come across in our rejected passage is about poverty. “…every sort of reprisal taken by their subjects against violent and immoderate rulers who now paid the penalty; men looking for relief from their round of poverty, and driven by their condition to deliver unjust verdicts in hope of acquiring their neighbors’ property…”
Although Thucydides doesn’t state other paragraphs this bluntly, he does give other implications to this passage. For instance, the civil war in Corcyra, before the civil war there were some people who were rich and powerful, while others were poor and ...
... middle of paper ...
... too typical flaws of human nature.”
Works Cited
Boardman, John. 1992. The Cambridge Ancient History 5th Century B.C.. 360-361, 445. 2nd ed.
Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press.
Brunt, P.A. 1967. Thucydides and Human Irrationality. 278. The Classical Review. Vol. 17, no.
3. Cambridge University Press.
Michael, Grant. 1980. Greek and Latin Authors 800 B.C - 1000 A.D. 441. New York: The H.W.
Wilson Company.
Morrison, James V. 1956. Historical Lessons in the Melian Episode. 130. Vol. 130. The John
Hopkins University Press.
Reeve, C.D C. 1999. Thucydides on Human Nature. 435-446. Political Theory 27, no. 4. Sage
Publications.
Thucydides. 2009. The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Martin Hammond. 169, 172, 301-307.
New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Thucydides. 1993. On Justice, Power, and Human Nature. Translated and Edited by Paul Woodruff
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
The studied passage indicates a clear division of classes: the free men, those excluded from political rights, the serfs and the slaves. The question of ‘serfdom’ in ancient Greece remains a disputable concept among scholars, and there is no wide consensus that serfs and slaves were clear-cut categories in Gortyn – but it quite probable that the terms were used to distinguish the ‘home-grown’ servile population from the foreign chattel-slaves. Not surprisingly, the text confirms that slaves had fewer rights than free men, but also indicates that lower-status people were granted protection under the law against the most severe abuses – in sharp contrast with slavery practices in Athens for instance. These legal provisions might be explained by the fact that the servile population was rather ‘home-grown’ than from foreign origin – and it can be argued that the development of chattel-slavery involved a progressive diminution of the rights of those who became slaves. In any case, this is a strong indication that slavery practices differ from one city-state to another, meaning that conclusions derived from the Gortyn code should not be too quickly
In this paper, I will first extract Thucydides views from the Melian Dialogue and then analyze whether or not these views are well founded. Thucydides believed that the Athenians had the stronger argument. Proof of this lies in the way Thucydides picked the arguments for each side. For the moment, we will disregard the actual content of the arguments, and look at argumentation forms and the flow of the debate. The Melians argued using consequences of an Athenian take over.
The causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
Nardo, Don. The Ancient Greeks at Home and at Work. 1st ed. San Diego, CA: Lucent, 2004. Print.
8. Edmondson, J. C., and MyiLibrary. “Augustus”. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 4 May 2014.
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
Epictetus made many excellent points on how he believes would be the best way for people to live though there were a point or two where I differed from his opinion on how life should be lived. One point of differing would be at passage eleven when he is saying that you should just believe that you are giving something back when it is taken from you. I don’t think this is quite the best way to go about anything since it would, more or less, just be someone saying that their own property or the people around them don’t matter to them in the least. I think that it is far too much an emotionless state to be in to think like this about everything around you.
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
1. Tim Cornell, John Matthews, Atlas of the Roman World, Facts On File Inc, 1982. (pg.216)
"Ancient Greek Philosophy." Ancient Greek Philosophy. The Academy of Evolutionary Metaphysics, 2005. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
Thucydides recounts the events that took place during the civil war in Corcyra. In the year 427 tensions between the Democrats and Oligarchs exploded into civil war, both sides hailing allies from all over the world for aid. At first the Oligarchs received aid from large a Peloponnesian naval fleet, which gave the democrats a scare. However, the Democrats receive back up from an ever-larger Athenian fleet, sending the Democrats into a killing frenzy of all who supported the Oligarchy. Thucydides describes the situation during the civil war in Corcyra by saying that the citizens are sharply divided into two camps, consisting of Democrats on one side and Oligarchs on the other. There is a complete lack of trust on both sides and traditional values and social norms are being completely disregarded. As stated by Thucydides “In war, due to the availability of opportunity aggressiveness rises to the surface” (3.82),
Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
Damrosch, David, and David Pike. The Longman Anthology of World Literature. The Ancient World. Volume A. Second Edition. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2009. Pgs. .656-691. Print.