Really, I do. Their history, mythology, philosophy, government - I find it all fascinating. I have to admit, when I saw that one of our readings for this module was Thucydides, I got pretty excited. Even more so when he mentions that Homer, being a poet, likely exaggerated events (something I've long suspected - wink). After reading the intro, I laughed out loud when I came to "Most people, in fact, will not take trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear." Not going to lie, I think this proves that human nature doesn't change much. Aristotle wrote something about the youth being entitled, lazy and no good - geez, doesn't that sound like what the media says about 'millennials?'
The dialouge between the Athenians and the Melians struck a chord as well. I kept going back to the interests vs ideas module during this reading. The Athenians arguing that it is in the interests of both them and the Melians if the Melians just surrender and become slaves of their own accord while the Melians try to convince the Athenians that it's actually in both of their interests for Melia to remain neutral - neither an ally of the Athenians nor the Spartans. In the end, Melia falls to the Athenians, all males of a certain age are slaughtered and their wives and daughters are sold into slavery. So what the Athenians argued turns out to be true - "in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."
So how does this relate to our current module about the rise and fall of the great powers? Page 49 summed it up perfectly - "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta." As one city was becoming more powerful, the current most powerful state took notice and then took steps to ensure that they would remain the most powerful state. Is this something that the world is doomed to continue? Sparta and Athens were pretty close in proximity, does geographical location and a sharing of borders have to do with this? Is it all based upon military might? What role does economics play? If human nature itself doesn't change much based on Thucydides and Aristotle's observations, what does that say about states and global politics?
I am very much looking forward to the next live session when we can start getting into some discussions of this and the other readings, too - but I will admit, this one was my favorite.
Hey Mandi, I like that you were so into this part of the reading. I think there is something to be said about the views of Thucydides still being relevant today. I also noted the ideas vs interests debate showing itself heavily in the Melian dialogue and its interesting that in this instance, interests proved superior to ideas as far as the end result of the confrontation goes. I also think a lot of the questions you raise are very pertinent to this modules topic. I think another question to consider is how (if at all) have technology and globalization changed the rules of the game in states and global politics?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete