Where Pericles said that money did not matter, but did not really mean it; Socrates said money did not really matter and means it. “A citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, -- are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul” (Plato, 66)? Socrates said, “Not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money, and every other good of man, public as well as private” (Plato, 66). Socrates believes that Athenian citizens are more concerned with their wealth, but they should not be.
Sparta was about fitness, survival, and war while Athens was about public speaking, debate, and music. As you may see, Sparta and Athens may seem like two whole different worlds, and it’s clear that they deemed each value of theirs’ important, but which city-state would go to great length to preserve that value? Sparta was more committed to their cultural value than Athens. Spartans valued military power. For instance, “Their whole lives were about military training even after 30 the Spartan boys were required to serve the military until they were 60” (Document 2).
This allowed for Sparta to forget about their state, and go on the offensive. Another example that ties this conflict together is the aspect that Athens a democracy could elect such ignorant leaders who only care about their own glory. Overall, Athens, a democracy, would last longer, as evident by their ruins, and Sparta, an oligarchy, would not last long because as always, an oligarchy will always
The Roman government developed as it did because of the patricians, being put into a position of power due to their wealth, while the plebians and noncitizens could give close to no input on what could and could not happen in their republic. The patricians forced the idea upon the government that only their ideas and opinions mattered, which is how they were able to become so powerful in the Roman government. An example of this can be found in a speech from a Roman senator, in which he states, “let not the wary opinions of the common people deter you in what is best for Rome. It is we (the patricians) that have the power… we are the only ones truly qualified,” (Maganamus 1).
Crito Prompt In Crito, a student of Socrates, Crito, makes several arguments as to why Socrates should not drink the hemlock, but flee the city. In one of his responses Socrates explains to Crito that one should not base his decisions on the opinions of the majority. In another response, Socrates asserts that a citizen should follow the laws of the state. The state of Athens is a democracy and, as such, is ruled by the people (Cartwright). As the people are the majority of Athens, the state is comprised of the majority.
1 INTRODUCTION Power and authority are the most important aspects of politics as such way of thinking comes a long way from the earliest thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle to mention few. They are the fundamental features of state in politics, focusing on who should have the power and authority over the people and who should rule them. During the time prior and after the birth of states, political authority has always been a major concern with regards to who should rule and how and who shouldn’t. Therefore this issues need to be addressed in a way that will at the end benefit the society. Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule.
In document E, “Ostracism is a great way to eliminate a weaker but annoying rival.” (Document E)This means that any citizen can be banished, through a vote, in which majority rules. This is also unfair because this has nothing to do with a democracy. Ancient Greece was not a true democracy. Consequently, the mistakes made ultimately lead to ancient Greece’s downfall, Although they had some things under control, they made many mistakes that the government has learned from.
Boucher compelled people by using a metaphor to claim that man is like a star in that “one star differs from another star in glory” (#32, p. 103). The purpose of this metaphor was to express that superiority and inferiority will exist in a society; but, it was not horrible because it was a necessity to establish a successful government. His argument was striking because of his explanation on why having superiority and inferiority within a nation was not necessarily a bad idea. Jonathan Boucher’s argument lacked evidence which thus resulted to be less persuasive than it could have been. His main concern was only to address why people should declare independence and join the revolution.
“Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors ', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few,” stated Pericles when describing the government that he had shaped. Pericles believed in involving all of the population in government decisions, leading to a time of prosperity. In the Age of Pericles, from 491 BCE to his death in 429 BCE, Athens thrived.
In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers come to the conclusion that a city is going to need people who have an understanding of what justice should be. Socrates at the end of Book IV can make the difference between individual, political, and social justice. He knows that individual and political justice is so much in common because they both weigh in heavy on truth, honor, and appetitive soul. That appetitive soul is an element that helps the secure the just community with love and support.
The system of government was based on philosophy rather than belief of something higher like gods. The Greeks believed in the ability of men to think rationally and govern based on reason. Greece believed more in what they could see. The Greeks government was run through the citizens, it was voted on who would rule; it was not like India where the rulers were based on patriarchy. Some might argue that Ancient India and Greece were more similar rather than different, however Greece and India were more different than they were similar.
When Dahl first begins the book, on the very first page, he talks about a key point everyone should know. The democratic form of government would not have worked, so a republic form of government was much needed. The whole ideal of the the Democratic Party is that that do care about how much money someone has, religion they follow, and arms. The often tend to help minorities, as well as groups that that are unpopular. Republicans on the other hand focus more on helping defensive issues, gaining profit, bringing more money for military, and fully support the police force.
He is trying to justify that no one branch of government should have too much power in selecting confederates of the other branches and that the citizens should select their president. The statement suggests that Madison only states the truth. He says that if all men were angels there wouldn’t be any crimes so we would not need a government. He also says that “we may not like to admit that men abuse power, but the need for government proves that we do.”
The real question is were the Greeks very democratic? I really do not think the Greeks were democratic at all. They really didn’t exemplify true qualities of a Democratic City-State. The next few paragraphs will show the reason behind my answer, and how people were treated unfairly. My first reason behind this is the Athenian government only granted citizenship to men who parents were free-born Athenian parents.