Thucydides and Plato Case
Essay Preview: Thucydides and Plato Case
Report this essay
Thucydides and Plato, the two prominent Greek philosophers had different views and ideas when it came to the subject of Good life. They analyzed and wrote critically about lifes ethical implications. They shined contrasting light on what is right, just, and good; as well as ways to attain true happiness and good life. In short, each gave an opinion on how to garner the Good Life.
Thucydides, a political philosopher and Athenian general chronicled the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides has been deemed the father of “scientific history” because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods. His account of the lengthy war between Athens and Sparta were empirical. The natural and best place to begin is with the famous description of the civil war that took place in Corcyra in 427 B.C. Here Thucydides himself telling us what he thinks about the human nature; what actions are justified to achieve happiness? Does justice fluctuate between times of war and peace? In conflict, acting from a position of strength may be the best route leading to the Good Life. A clear example exists when he recalls interaction between Athens and Melos in the Melian Dialogues. It is clear that Thucydides believes in no way are the gods involved in human affairs. Instead, humans adhere to their own laws. He insists that the nature of mankind is unchanging, and that there is a discernable pattern in human behavior. Humans are able to understand this pattern through historical analysis. “Melian Dialogue” is a famous debate about nations survival and death. Melian Island is a city-state established by Spartan immigrants. Melians have been always unwilling to be under the command of the Athenian Empire, with keeping neutral attitude. Then the Athenian dispatched armed forces to Melians territory to ask them to join Athens otherwise they will resort to force. The debate between Athenians and Melian is a frank and sincere debate about strong and the weak, survival and death. At first, Athens representative frankly said “we dont want Athenians to fight with Melians now just for Melians will injure Athenians benefits. The representatives first statement demonstrated the premise principle, and said “the standard of justice is based on the same power of compulsory strength. Also to know, the strong can do everything within their power to do so; the weak have to accept everything that they have to accept.” Melians tried to make the Athenians put themselves in Malians position, and said “the effect of this principle on you is same as the effect on any others.