Thucydides, who was a Greek General, wrote The Melian Dialogue which is a meeting between the Island of Melos and Athens for control of the island. Melos who is much smaller in size and in numbers does not have that much to offer to Athens, but Athens wants control of as many territories as it can to continually grow its empire. Melos being reluctant to surrender opts to stay neutral between the much larger conflict of Sparta and Athens. Over in Rome a few centuries later, Cicero writes The Republic, which discusses the perfecting of their new governmental system of the republic. Cicero writes that Scipio discusses 3 governments Democracy, Monarchy and Aristocracy. Later, we see that Philus, a character that Cicero created is explaining his …show more content…
He makes this argument by stating “For the justice which we are considering is a political phenomenon, not an element of nature. If it were part of nature, like hot and cold, and bitter and sweet, then just and unjust would be the same for everyone” . Philus gives us the impression that he is very firm on this belief even though having a tendency to not believe his own arguments. Philus furthers his point of justice being relative to the individual by an example based on country law. He states “(If nature) had laid down our system of justice… nature forbids variation; and anyhow laws are enforced by penalties, not by our sense of justice” . Philus is saying here that every country has a different justice system with different penalties making their laws relative in relation to another. Thucydides has the exact opposite view of justice then that of Philus, being natural for the Athenians. He states “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” . These views of justice are very different, one being attributed to everything in society and hopefully being lucky enough to be on the stronger end of the spectrum. While the other view of justice being attributed to the political and governmental world that has a rightful place to be decided on and not attributed to any other aspects of
In the Melian Dialogue, it describes the negotiation between the people of Athens and the people of Melos. The people of Melos wants their independence and the Athenians who wanted to invade and expand their territory. “Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you”. The Athenians were giving the Melian leadership an ultimatum. They could surrender or the Athenians would take over. “While the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. The Athenians are demonstrating dictatorial actions on the Melians. There is also evidence in that again in the Athenian dialogue. “Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. All we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have would do the same as we do”. The Athenians believe that it is their right to take over the Melians and any country they would like to control because they
Pro Caelio is a speech given by Roman politician and famed orator Marcus Tullius Cicero in defense of his former student and now political rival Caelius. Caelius was charged with political violence in the form of the murder of Dio. Caelius’ defense was structured so that Caelius first spoke in his own defense, following him was Crassus, and finally Cicero. Cicero attempted in his defense to not just refute the accusations brought forward by the prosecutors. Instead, he first demonstrates that Caelius is an upstanding citizen and provides many examples to prove this. He further defends Caelius by swaying the jury in his favor through the employment of comedy. Vice versa he turns the jury against the prosecutors through slander (i.e. he constantly
The second source is the excerpt of the Melian Dialogue. It was also written by Thucydides and is also from his book The History of the Peloponnesian War written in 431 BC. It is a description of the way that Athens acted hostile towards the island of Melos. It describes the negotiations that took place between Athens and Melos. This document shows a different side of Athens. It can be seen as more hostile and unfriendly. The commanders sent to negotiate were told to get the island under control by any means
Thucydides was right to claim that all wars can be explained by Fear, Honor, and Interest. All Wars are related to the three characteristics as stated by Dr. Nation (Dr. Nation video). The Athenians thought process was that the weak would be ruled by the strong and that was the nature of conflict (Strassler p. 43). Looking at the Peloponnesian war itself will illustrate how fear, honor and interest were involved with how this war developed. The initial unnamed Athenian that made that statement was probably using it to deter war with Sparta when it mostly incited the war (Dr. Nation Video). The Athenians wanted to maintain and sustain their city state but also expand it. They were expanding through their alliances and this is what invoked the
What is justice? In Plato’s, The Republic this is the main point and the whole novel is centered around this question. We see in this novel that Socrates talks about what is justice with multiple characters.In the first part of Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates questions conventional morality and attempts to define justice as a way for the just man to harm the unjust man (335d) ; however, Thrasymachus fully rejects this claim, and remarks that man will only do what is in his best interest, since human nature is, and should be ruled by self-interest, and he furthers this argument by implying that morality, and thus justice, is not what Socrates had suggested, but rather that it is simply a code of behavior exacted on man by his ruler. Thrasymachus begins his argument by giving his definition of justice. He says that justice, or right is simply what is in the best interest of the stronger (338c). When questioned by Socrates on this point, he explains that each type of government (the stronger party) enacts types of justice that are in its own best interest, and expect
Anthony Everitt writes the book Cicero to give readers an inside look at the ancient Roman world during the time of Cicero. Anthony Everitt brings this story to life by retelling the events that took place during this time through Cicero’s eyes. Everitt’s writing techniques give the reader the capability to read the book with ease and understanding. He explores not only the political life of Cicero, but he also gives a detailed insight of Cicero’s personal, everyday life. He shows the readers just how hectic Cicero’s world was and how he came to be known as Rome’s greatest politician.
Thucydides and Homer, though they lived a relatively short 300 years apart, wrote about very different Greek cultures. While the Greeks who Homer wrote about in The Iliad were, in many respects, dissimilar to the Greeks in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, this stands in marked contrast to the profound similarities that exist between contemporary cultures and those that Thucydides wrote of. There are, however, similarities between modern cultures and those in Homer’s writing, as well as differences between modern ones and those in Thucydides’ writing. Thucydides’ history is, therefore, a relational bridge between the cultures of ancient Greece and modern ones.
Thrasymuchus was very hostile against Socrates in Book I. Every attempt that was made to prove Thrasymuchus wrong was badgered by bad comments of Socrates trying to manipulate him and the others. Socrates from the beginning on 336b was asking questions all the way to 347e building up his defense to Thrasymuchus statement that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" (Pg. 338 Para. C). Socrates disagrees with Thrasymuchus and he states, "Surely, then, no doctor, insofar as he is a doctor, seeks or orders what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to his patient?" (Pg. 342 Para. D). Thrasymuchus and Socrates agreed to all these professions and what was considered a leader and what wasn't considered a leader. Socrates goes on with this, "… that a ship's captain or ruler won't seek and order to what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to a sailor …" (Pg. 342 Para. E). Specifically there in those two statements Socrates has already shot down the idea of Thrasymuchus, but here is an example that Thrasymuchus gives to defend himself earlier in the reading:
A wise man from greece named, Thrasymachus’ believed that justice did not benefit anyone in a positive way except for the ruler. He believed that justice was for those who were strong. He also believed that justice was an “instrumental” good for the ruler. He believed that every society had a government. There is always someone who makes the rules and laws no matter where you go. He knew that every society had a government and he also knew that they made laws to benefit their ruling type. For example, a King who is a tyrant wants laws that helps him keep in power, and prevents anyone else from getting enough power to raise a challenge. Living in a city ran by a tyrant is not beneficial to any of the citizens even if they obey all of the laws. If it isn’t beneficial for the citizens to live in that city there can not be social justice. Social justice is to help better someone and make them more just and you can’t really do that if you just have justice to benefit you and not others. As a citizen the laws should benefit everyone not just the ruler. However, Socrates argues that tyrants can make mistakes and that they can be wrong about which laws help keep them in power . Which is understandable because in life everyone does make mistakes even the people with high authority. Socrates does not agree that justice is only good for the ruler. Thrasymachus’ argues that a person knowledgeable in a
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.
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.
Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also show us he was equally a man of
Playwright, William Shakespeare, in the play Julius Caesar, utilizes many instances of rhetorical devices through the actions and speech of Caesar's right-hand man, Mark Antony. In the given excerpt, Antony demonstrates several of those rhetorical devices such as verbal irony, sarcasm, logos, ethos, and pathos which allows him to sway the plebeians. The central purpose of Mark Antony’s funeral speech is to persuade his audience into believing that Caesar had no ill intentions while manipulating the plebeians into starting a rebellion against their new enemies, Brutus and the conspirators.
The Melian Dialogue bears a host of political interpretations as the Melians and Athenians negotiate the reality of power and rights of countries on the scale of empires. Though Cleomedes eventually relied on the heavy handed realist course of action in the Peloponnesian War, ideally, he could have cultivated a healthy respect for differing universal truths of political theories and the fluidity of interpretation in every text available to us today.
“The Melian Dialogue” covers a dispute of nations' futures goes on between two Ancient Greek