This essay will argue against Thucydides Melian Dialogue, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” which is affirmed on the basis of Athens’ conference with the Melians for confiscation of the Spartan island of Melos, but will also provide a counter-argument using evidences from the negotiation. This proclamation is potentially falsifiable in the sense that, if one’s strength, as a status in a community, were to be measured by their morality, assertiveness and self-representation, those who are stronger may not be able to carry out the actions they please. The superior may not always occupy mentalities which are virtuous, which in turn relegates them. The weak may follow through with the consequences brought upon …show more content…
them, by those that are considered authoritative figures to them, insofar that the repercussions do not violate their ethics. Athenians are considered superior as opposed to the people of Melos due to the vast amount of resources available to them, and because it is a city-state, which is larger in size and population.
Therefore, Melos is highly vulnerable to being seized by Athens. The high-power held by Athenians and Melos being a small colony, do not succour the Melians. However, in this case, the size of Melos does not impact or define the Melians’ strength. The Melians’ confidence and rectitude are what delineates their strength against the Athenians who were looked upon as unassailable. The Melians portray their strength against all odds by maintaining an ethos that favours what is righteous. Despite the Athenians representation of themselves as being more dominant, the Melians’ virtuous ideologies give them the capacity of defying the Athenians, consequently subjugating the Athenians’ ability to …show more content…
ascend. Prior to this conference, “Athens dispatches an invasion to capture …the island of MELOS, which has long resisted Athenian power…” (The Melians Dialogue, 2) justifying that although they’re a small colony, the Melians were formerly able to withstand the power of Athens. The Athenians were unable to agitate the Melians as they intended to, during the conference, because the Melians explicate that “[they, too, must tell [the Athenians] what [their] interests are, and if [the interests] coincide, [they] must try to persuade [the Athenians] of the fact” (The Melians Dialogue, 3), refusing to be obedient to all that the Athenians desired for them to do. Thus justifying that Athens superior position is incapable of provoking the Melians to subside and give in to Athens’ interest by overlooking their own. The Melians remain intransigent in spite being aware that “it is difficult … for [them] to oppose [ Athens’s] power and fortune, unless the terms be equal.” (The Melians Dialogue, 4). They refuse concur with Athens if it goes against what they believe to be ethical, for “[they] are standing for what is right against what is wrong” (The Melians Dialogue, 4).The Athenians desire to enslave the Melians are left unfulfilled, because the Melians chose to continue fighting. This act of resistance that the Melians exhibit to the injunctions of Athens proves that those who appear to be weak will not always capitulate to those who are more powerful. Morality holds a strong position in defining what is strong and what it weak. If one’s mentality is morally incorrect, they, like Athens, can be proven to be weaker. Athens’ motive was to preserve superiority and overpower the Melians. However, since Athens’ requests appeared unrighteous, such as enslaving the Melians to prevent them from undergoing destruction, they were left dissatisfied. However, “The Melian Dialogue [can also be looked upon as] an ideal form of deliberation… It clearly defines its subjects, it is based on the facts of the case, not on idle speculation, and it aims to do no more than what those facts allow of, to discover what is possible or expedient.” (Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue, 389).
My views on Thucydides declaration, can be counter-argued using evidence from the relationship and conference between the Athenians and the Melians. During the negotiations between the Athenians and the Melians, Athenians purposively overlook the fact that “… the Melians took their adversaries into a private concave, … to avoid any danger of their demos’ welcoming Athenian domination” (Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue, 389), so that the Athenians can impose, upon the Melians, all that they covet. Keeping in consideration, the superiority of Athens, the Melians’ settlements are deemed. For “if they do not resist, the Athenians will enslave them; if they do, the Athenians will make war on them — and defeat will also mean slavery and even worse.” (Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue, 389) in which case, the Melians’ find themselves dramatically more inferior to Athens due to being in a lose-lose situation. Which ever option they side with, could potentially end the same, tormenting way; with slavery. This is a prime example of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue. It verifies that, “what is possible for Athens is conquest and what is
possible for Melos is surrender and that the Athenians are the real agents whereas the Melians must simply endure.” (Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue, 390) because the Melians are given a choice between war and slavery, both of which are more likely to result in Athens’ favour due to the Melians being the weaker party. This threat, prevents the Melians from resisting the Athenians. Subsequent to this conference, the Melians successfully raise themselves to being equivalently powerful as opposed to Athens, thereby proving that the weak do not suffer what they must. The Melians ability to standby and delineate their moral beliefs in spite of the opposition being more powerful verifies that the weak have the capacity of becoming homologous with or more powerful than the former, solitary superior figures whom they withstand. ““The Melians had observed that if they are to win the debate it would be by an appeal to justice …[as] this train of thought … continued more emphatically… The Athenians… [gave] themselves and the Melians the same treatment.” (Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue, 390), thereby portraying an illusion of equality between themselves and the Melians. Therefore, Thucydides’ declaration of ‘the strong do what they can and the weak will suffer what they must’ is falsifiable with the right ethos. It is not necessarily one’s physical abilities and the materialistic resources that they manifest that will bring one power, rather it is one’s characteristics. “The domineering method of the Athenians reveals the Melians’ real weakness; but it reveals also a weakness of their own,” (Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue, 391) which supports my thesis of one’s presentation of themselves determining their strength. The Melians depict themselves with confidence and ethical views, in turn achieving an equitable balance of strength. Thus justifying that, those who appear to be weak will not always suffer the consequences that are imposed on them by those who appear to be stronger, for the weak are capable of transcending the strong.
According to Thucydides, t... ... middle of paper ... ... henian who had lead the siege against Samos, realised this but also appreciated the dangers of changing this tactic all together – ‘Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go’. To this extent, it is reasonable that Athens should use such extreme measures, as it seemed to be the only way in which she could uphold her power and keep her allies close. Yet by doing so she had transformed the original aims of the Delian League entirely, which had a purpose to promote freedom and independence.
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.
... weaker state will remain neutral from a military strength. Melians’ loss reaffirms the absolute power of imperial conquests and nationalism in theories of realism. Since the Melians were allied with the Spartans and failed to cooperate, it is justifiable that the Athenians had the right to want to rule and invade the Melians as means to protect their own strengths.
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...
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.
This epic poem by the ancient Greek poet Homer, recounts some of the significant events of the final weeks of the Trojan War and the Greek siege of the city of Troy. All of the places where Homer’s stories took place were in areas that had been significant in the Bronze Age of Ancient Greece. Excavations at Troy and Mycenae have revealed that affluent kingdoms did indeed exist there. The Iliad provides examples of the culture and traditions that took place in Ancient Greece. The warrior culture that is presented in The Iliad is based on honor and bravery, a good example of this is when Diomedes is trying to rally his fellow warriors in says, “I know only cowards depart from battle. A real warrior stands his ground. Whether he is hit or hits another.” This society was strongly against cowardice; bravery was the only option in these times. The Iliad preserves the Ancient Greek’s views on masculinity and what it meant to be a “real warrior” in their times. The evolution of what people consider honorable and brave is evident, for The Iliad has conserved past views that can be juxtaposed with more modern
The Melians argued using consequences of an Athenian take over. In section 110, the Melians threatened that if their allies the Lacedaemonians were provoked by the takeover of Melos, they might attack Athens itself: "...the Cretan sea is a large place; and the masters of the sea will have more difficulty in overtaking vessels which want to escape than the pursued in escaping. If the attempt should fail they may invade Attica itself, and find their way to allies of yours whom Brasidas did not reach: and then you will have to fight, not for the conquest of a land in which you have no concern, but nearer home, for the preservation of your confederacy and of your own territory." In addition, the Melians complained that they would be thought of as cowards if they surrendered, and they warned the Athenians that hostility would turn other neutral city-states against them.
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
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.
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.
The Realist, absolutely dedicated to the preservation and security of the Athenian Empire declares stoutly, “General, it is no great surprise that our negotiations reflected the success and dominance of realism in the political arena.” The Liberal, mindful of universal pathos over such a nationalistic approach, gasps. Deeply moved by the proceedings of the Melian dialogue, and aghast at the lack of understanding in her fellow representatives, she offers a venomous retort, “To hell with realism! Can’t you see the truth? Oh, my comrades are blind to the universal laws of right and wrong! Truly, our very invasion of this people is immoral! We should be moved by empathy and compassion for the Melians!” A steady, even voice i...
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.
Because of the tranquil times, the civilization’s society had more time to focus on writing, math, astronomy, and artistic fields, as well as trade and metallurgy. Out of all the city-states of Greece, two excelled over all the rest, Sparta and Athens. Even though they were the most advanced and strong civilizations, they were bitter enemies. While Athens focused mainly on the people’s democracy and citizen rights, Sparta were ferocious and enslaved its original inhabitants, making them unable to leave and kept under a close eye to prevent insurgence (History of Greece:The Golden Age of Greece). Additionally, Sparta had strict and trained soldiers that underwent intense physical exercising and instruction.
In the end, after the Melians contemplate their possible “prosperity or ruin”, they decide to fight for their autonomy, but, ultimately, are violently defeated by the Athenians and either killed or sold as slaves (28).