Justify a war Essay

If the character, Agamemnon, was pursuit advice, which philosopher would he fill as best advisor and which of these Socrates, home run, Aristophanes, would he ingest as least(prenominal) advisor? why? First, it is necessary to take to be that Agamemnon was a ability. harmonise the Homer, this spell had remarkable power and the highest brotherly ready. He had a great power among his neighbors, which helped him to organize the army. However, Homer set forth him as a man who always postulate the advice.Sometimes Agamemnon exclusivelyowed his emotions to rein over his lore and experience. He is stringy warrior and bang-up command, barely he is flawed governor for smooth life. If this character was try outing advice, hed equivalently gather both last(predicate) the insolent men in his kingdom. Homer would seeming tell him around the idols result, which determined the actions of patterns. Socrates would betoken him to be the philosopher king the wise t o(p) swayerr who thinks approximately the interests of the verbalise in full general and the common mountain on particular.And Aristophanes would probably be speculative about the themes of two previous speakers he was cognize as the father of mockery and his skepticism as for the mer offertile establishments of the wars, distinguish politics and rulers was well- cognisen all over old-fashioned Greece. However, choosing the best advisor Agamemnon would probably choose Homer. some(prenominal) Socrates and Aristophanes didnt approve the idea of the war. Perhaps, their advices as for calm life and wise ruling could be useful fir tree Agamemnon, just now he didnt exigency such advices. It is kn have that e very(prenominal) soul hears what he or she wants to hear.Agamemnon the king seek the casus belli, the event to unfreeze a war. The will of gods was the most earmark philosophy for him, and the pussy of Helen was fitting the substitute fountain. Homer. The Ilia d. Richmond Latti more(prenominal), translator. bread University of Chicago raise up (1951) 2 equalise and contrast Grecian comedies and tragedies. Include alternative of plays, production, plat effect material, audience participation, and costumes Aristotle was the origin who compared Greek comedies and tragedies in his Poetics. A disaster, then, is the fictitious of an action that is proficientin a dramatic, non in a fib form with incidents arousing ruth and care, with which to accomplish its purge of such emotions (Poetics, VI. 2) Both these genres had their beginnings in the Greek theater. The tragedy appeared in the middle of sixth century BC, the clowning followed the tragedy cubic decimeter years afterward (though these dates are very rough, we dont really know much about these times). As for the plectron of plays the tragedy is the expert play, which is found on the solemn issue of friendly, phantasmal or mortalal nature.The prank is the play slapst ick actions of characters solving the alike personal, hearty and religious issues. The plot unresolved material was also dissimilar. Tragedies were based largely on the myths or stories of the old tale epic poems, of which only when two important ones, the Iliad and the Odyssey, both written by Homer, survive. (Fornesca, 2010) The commencement comedies were devoted to the god Dionysus, thus the plot of buffoonery was based on the festivals, the holidays in the wake of Dionysus In the center of tragedy usually was protagonist, the reckon routine who became the dupe of fate.The center of the comedy usually is the figure who goes through with(predicate) all the troubles. The tragedies are cerebrate on the feelings of grieve and fear in audience the intent of the comedy is the enjoyment and laugh. The characters of comedies and tragedies utilise discordent masks to show emotions. The clothe of tragic characters showed their social statuc and gender (women werent a llowed to the stage). The clothes of idiotic heroes were different, initially they looked like satires, the disciples of Dyonisius. Rehm, R. Greek tragic Theatre (1992) 3. How did Aristotles ideas about political relation and participation differ from those of Plato?Which one fits the united States remains of establishment best and why? Though Aristotle and Plato were nigh linked, Aristotle was a bookman of Plato, they had different view, Aristotle criticized the ideas of his teacher. political theory of Plato includes the exposition of ideal political relation for the utopian beau monde. base on the traditional for ancient Greece moral philosophy of virtue, Plato created the prototype of commie or undemocratic state government. In the Dialogue The republic he divided the ideal society on third companys rulers, auxiliaries and labourers. (Gaarder 91) Rulers, concord to Plato, should be the guardian sept, they had to be amend and intelligent. The children in the g uardian class should be knowledgeable how to rule from the early childhood. The consequence of this system is the absence of social mobility. This system is in all antidemocratic. However Plato was trustworthy that every share of this utopian society can be happy cognise his in her position in society, as well as social form and the designated role. Aristotle disagreed with his teacher. He believed in that respect is no individual system of state government, which could be sufficient for every society.The book system of government activity depends on the aims of the state. Aristotle described three nigh(a) system of governance body monarchy, the power of grandeur and the system he called polity, which corresponds to current democracy. For every system Aristotle highlighted the light(a) sides. Thus, the monarch can become the autocrat who oppresses sight, and the power of aristocracy can subjugate the people they rule. As for polity both Plato and Aristotle bot h feared that this system of governing susceptibility lead to the rule of the ignorant many over the educated few. It is clear that the modern system if governing in the the States corresponds to the views of Aristotle, and possible the fear of ancient philosopher wasnt ungrounded. Gaarder, J. Sophies ball ( Sofies verden Norw). Hardback & Paperback, 1991. 4 Using the play, The defense define sophist. correspond to that definition, was Socrates a Sophist? Give the reasons for your answer. The sophists were the group of philosopher contemporary to Socrates. Their task main was dogma the Athenian spring chicken to create the convincing arguments and to convince the people.They taught their students to contend both sides on the issue. Their philosophy was the grade of relativism they thought in that location is no truth, just the different and unconnected opinions. It the negative inwardness sophist is the person who plays both sides. Plato in his Apology describes Socrat es exhausting to convince the board he was not the sophist. Perhaps the empty words of Socrates and the sophists had the common features provided sophists charged fees for their teaching, and Socrates stayed poor. The sophists utilise their knowledge for their own gain.They really taught their students to be prominent and to operate the peoples mind, the skills that could be used for political end, but enrichment was their primary aim, according to Plato. Plato thought that barter with the knowledge could be the field of curve and manipulation. He divinatory sophists in tell their students the things that werent good for them. Unlike them, Socrates didnt profit from his reaching. That is why Plato set Socrates asunder from sophists. In many of Platos dialogues Socrates reveals the vacuum cleaner of their teachings.At least, the drumhead difference surrounded by Socrates and sophists was in military posture to knowledge. The sophists claimed that they gained access to e special(a) knowledge through the investigation and experience, and this knowledge could be taught. Socrates was confessed he knew nothing he meant the more he learned the more he still the infinitude of the knowledge. It is no wonder that sophists was among the people who accused Socrates and became the reason of his death. Rowe, C. J. Plato on the Sophists as Teachers of Virtue. History of policy-making Thought 4 (1983), 409-27.