Plato's Republic By Thucydide And Athenian Democracy

There is a long standing philosophical debate over the question of nature versus nurture. Is the individual a product of their environment, or are people innately born to be a certain way? It is my personal view point that nurture is what dictates the development of ideas and decisions. Therefore, the historical and personal context of an author is important to take into account when understanding the argument an author is making. Thus, when Athenian Democracy is criticized by Thucydides, Euripides, and Plato, the origins of these critiques are important to grasp. First, Thucydides’ understanding of the Democracy and his view on human nature are built in the context of experiencing the Peloponnesian War. Next, Euripides’ tragedy The Trojan Women is not just a tragedy but a political commentary on the Melian decision. Finally, Plato’s Republic is written as a critique of democracy, but it is a critique in the shadow of the death of Socrates. These authors do offer fair criticisms of democracy, but these criticisms cannot be taken in …show more content…
He is famous for his creation of a narrative for the Peloponnesian War, and double checking first person accounts to ensure a more accurate account of events. While this was a tremendous undertaking and worthy of praise, Thucydides himself admits to being subjective in his accounts. The speeches are not taken verbatim from the speakers, but they are in Thucydides’ own words to “make the people say what in my opinion, was called for by each situation,” (Thucydides 47). This means that the text is not entirely objective, but there are streaks of personal subjectivity throughout. This is not meant to criticize the work or the effort Thucydides puts forth to preserve the history of events as best he can, but it creates room to argue Thucydides’ critiques of events and his subjective commentaries are not the “gospel truth”, but the opinions of one