Aeschylus’s trilogy The Oresteia features turmoil in the house of Atreus following the Trojan war. After a cycle of violence presents itself, Aeschylus’s intended audience learns of the dichotomy between the “old gods” and the “new gods”. Where the original set of the divine believe in individual justice and seeking reparations for those who do wrong no matter what, the newer gods prefer justice by means that emulate the legislative process. Furthermore, in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the “state of nature” of the human race is outlined; in a state where no civil system exists, beings under the state of nature live in perfect equality with only the fundamental urge to preserve their own species. This state of nature exists until
Distracted and mentally prodded by the Furies—ultimately seeking reparations for the murder of Clytaemnestra— Orestes makes the pilgrimage to the Acropolis in Athens to seek judgement from Athena (Eumenides, 241). The first piece of evidence in support of the parallel between The Oresteia and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government arises when the audience learns that the Furies (the old, original divine) have motives to torment and ultimately kill Orestes as a means of forcible atonement: “-No, you’ll give me blood for blood, you must,” “-wither you alive, drag you down and there you pay, agony for mother-killing agony!” (243, lines 262-263, 265-267). This particular motive of revenge is validated in Locke’s original outline of the state of nature: “the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree,” (9, II.7). Though Clytaemnestra is not able to justly kill her aggressor, the Furies believe (just as in the state of nature) that they are even-handed in the duty of seeking reparations from Orestes; in the eyes of the Furies, Orestes has challenged Clytaemnestra’s natural rights and sequentially the natural rights of mankind around him. This initial co-extension between the
Athena’s choice to bring in a set of impartial jurors due to her own bias—“No mother gave me birth. I honor the male, in all things but marriage.” (264, line 750)—is reflective of the judicial facet of civil government; moreover, John Locke states that an established judicial body is “bound to dispense justice, and decide the rights of the subject” by “known authorized judges” (Locke 71, XI.136). Athena’s introduction of a jury is the first demonstration of a civil government system. This progression can be seen as the transition of power from the old gods—who favor the rules of the state of nature—to the new gods, who prefer an organized structure of executed authority. Though Athena’s passage of a jury is a development towards modern democracy, the contrast between the gods manifests further when Athena states that, “I cannot set more store by the woman’s death—she killed her husband, guardian of their house. Even if the vote is equal, Orestes wins” (264, line 754). Upon this statement of hers, the Furies question whether her decision will be just or not; ultimately, the Furies threat to release anarchy on all should she choose the wrong resolution. “I, robbed of my birthright, suffering, great with wrath, I loose my poison over the soil, aieee! - poison to match my grief comes pouring out of my heart, cursing the land to burn it sterile”: in just these few
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.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
The debate between Just and Unjust Speech highlights the ongoing debate between old and new traditions. These traditions can range from how to interpret laws to family values and the struggle between them is highlighted in Aristophanes Clouds. The battle between old and new is seen in argument between Just and Unjust Speech and the arguments between father Strepsiades and son Pheidippides. The constant battle between old and new is seen in many different areas throughout the Clouds such as justice, piety and issues of law.
Aeschylus. The Oresteia. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Ed. David Grene and Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1953.
John Locke is considered one of the best political minds of his time. The modern conception of western democracy and government can be attributed to his writing the Second Treatise of Government. John Locke championed many political notions that both liberals and conservatives hold close to their ideologies. He argues that political power should not be concentrated to one specific branch, and that there should be multiple branches in government. In addition to, the need for the government to run by the majority of the population through choosing leaders, at a time where the popular thing was to be under the rule of a monarch. But despite all of his political idea, one thing was extremely evident in his writing. This was that he preferred limited
John Locke wrote the Two Treatises of Government. In his work Locke talked about how governments are not created by God, but by human beings. He claimed that by nature all people are free and equal against the claims of God and that a government should work between the governor and the ones being governed, instead of a governor and God. Locke also wrote several religious essays that served as an early model for the separation of the church and the state. His phrase of “life, liberty, and property,” would end up influencing the United States’ early documents. Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding expressed the idea that knowledge neglects inmate ideas and in order to discover the truth beyond simple experience, he suggested methods of experimental science. Thoughts Concerning Education expressed Locke’s idea on how the mind can be educated by having a healthy body, a pure character, and the right academic curriculum. Later on, it would be acknowledged by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
Even though academic study has frequently engaged with the question as to what form of government is ideal and what should be the goal of the government , there cannot be one absolute answer to this question , not merely because there has been no consensus among the scholarly community but because these questions cannot be detached from the polities which will bear the implications of the answer. Hence , it is pertinent that they must be looked at in a particular context. Mill argues for a representative government where sovereignty is vested in the aggregate of the community while Locke advocates majoritarian rule where legislative is supreme, though he prescribes certain limitations on it, and is coupled with a powerful executive. At the first glance representative government and majoritarian rule might appear to be similar , but after reading their texts it can be certainly be deduced that they did not had the same form of government in mind because it is evident that both envisage different goals of a government and therefore the means to achieve those ends are also different.
Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by Plato the Athenian and his buddies, I feel it is my duty to write this. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I purge the darkness from Plato's heart.
If Athens and Melos went to battle against each other, the gods, if they favored anyone, would favor Athens. We have now examined Thucydides' strongest arguments for Athenian rule. It is clear that Athens had a stronger claim to rule than the Melians had to remain sovereign. We also know that Athens' claims hold up when we examine them for validity. Thucydides beliefs in Athens' claims were therefore well founded.
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...
Sophocles’ Oedipus, Plato’s ship owner, and Plato’s prisoner in the cave share a common theme of reluctance to learn from the truth, and show the role that others play in facing self-identity. All three, Oedipus, the ship owner, and the prisoner in the cave illustrate the theme of deliberation manifested by a society. Enlightened by others, Oedipus finally learns that he has committed murder and incest. Similarly, the ship owner is shown his limitations and thus understands that he is not qualified to navigate his vessel when the sailors quarrel over who would be next in command. Furthermore, the prisoner in the cave is dragged out by others (community of enlightened individuals) and given the opportunity to view the real world for the first time. Therefore, with the assistance of others (community), Oedipus, the ship owner, and the prisoner in the cave are able to acknowledge their identities and face the truth about their erroneous behavior. Through Sophocles and Plato, civic deliberation comes into these three approaches: (1) with the evidence given to him by the public, Oedipus learns the truth of his identity, and accepts the judgment and punishment he had imposed on the culprit before he knew; (2) through the violent actions of the sailors, the ship owner acknowledges his limitations; and (3) the prisoner is dragged from the cave into the world of sunlight, exposed to the truth and returns to the cave to deliberate with others to come out. Hence, all three cases show the process of civic deliberation is achieved through community.
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.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
In both Antigone and The Republic, elements of death, tyranny, morality, and societal roles are incorporated into each work’s definition of justice. Both works address the notions of justice in a societal form, and an individual form. However, these definitions of justice differ with some elements, they are closely tied with others.