War! Huh! What is it good for?--Turns out quite a lot...

Yet, they coined the original idea of 'natural law'....or in our day..'all men are born equal.'

What if, as a majority, the people decided to commit a heinous act, such as an unjustified military action against another nation for the sake of resources, no matter the cost in human lives? Such an action would lead to death and suffering for a great many people. Also, consider that the majority would not judge or correct themselves, for they were the ones who agreed to partake in that course of action.

Certainly something to think about.

 

So according to that...prior to the Civil War, people in the US weren't democratic either....because IIRC, they also owned slaves.

Oh, read your history a bit better. The slaves at Thermoplyae weren't driven to 'death'....but killed by the Persian onslaught. In fact, by law they weren't allowed to fight in battle but only served their masters.

 

You desperately need to get some better sources.

They did not coin the idea of nomos physeos; rather, they took it from the sophists who had coined in one generation before Plato and two before Aristoteles. More importantly, however, their idea of natural law was that some people were naturally fit to rule over others who were naturally fit to serve. Not a democratic concept at all.

 

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum."

You are correct, perhaps we should erect a statue of Descartes in Washington?

 

And who originally came up with the idea that each living person has the fundamental right to live as a free person?

Certainly not the French Philosophers.

I don't disagree in theory with what you're saying......what I am trying to say is that war, has helped preserve democracy in the past.

And by all accounts, while not a perfect form of government, it is the ONLY form that allows us to live as 'free men.' Certainly something worth going to war over.

 

Not only is that not the point we were discussing, but it is also (and without any consequences to the points discussed above) completely wrong: Yes, they were.

 

Azure, I hate to be condescending, but perhaps you should read up 18th Century Philosophy. It is a fascinating subject.

 

No they weren't.

Both Socrates and Aristotle talked about the freedom of man, the value of human life and how important knowledge was long before the French Philosophers adapted that idea towards modern democracy.

 

I'm rather unconcerned with that possibility when I'm talking to you.

 

Socrates was openly hostile to Athenian democracy...

 

Plato hardly discussed the freedom of man at all; in fact, it doesn't even come up as a general option in his Politeia. Aristotle discussed it in great detail, and came to the conclusion that different freedoms were for different men, by nature.

Neither of the two was any more fond of human life than the next man, and considerably less than most modern philosophers, as well as their contemporary sophist counterparts.

However, with the claim that both spoke of the importance of knowledge, you have finally managed to broaden your original claim so extremely that I can no longer disagree. Yes, both Plato and Aristotle did indeed consider knowledge to be valuable.

 

What he doesn’t like is the dogmatic approach that many in Athens took, instead of resorting to their reason and rationality to determine the existence of higher deities (which is something I happen to somewhat agree with; I look around at such a complex world and see a great intelligence involved in its creation).

As for Plato, the highest up the list of his “good regime” list was an aristocracy, then a timocracy, then an oligarchy, then a democracy, and at dead last was a tyranny.

That doesn't mean they were hostile towards the idea of free will, free thought, free expression, etc, etc. Basically the fundamental right to be free.

To expand on my original comment that the French Philosophers didn't come up with the original idea of each living person having the fundamental right to be free, the Stoics allowed for freedom and responsibility in that they thought that humans should understand this order and adapt themselves to it.

Long before the Enlightenment.

 

I would think, that the value of knowledge is intrinsic to almost all schools of philosophy.

 

But there was no French "system". There was French thought, as I've said, but the French system came after American independence. It also didn't go as far as the American government in true liberalism

 

I would agree with that.

And expand by saying that the value of knowledge eventually led to the idea of fundamental freedom for every living soul.

 

All thoughts are originated in knowledge.

Not necessarily the correct or even complete knowledge, but knowledge nonetheless.

 

Which again brings up the importance that Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc, etc....played in the modern development of democracy.

Funny how this topic has veered away from the original point.

I was going through some of my old Greece history notes and found this.

 

If war is the last resort, it's still a "resort", and therefore threat of war is a political tool.

 

Plato's idea of a god had nothing to do with creation (except for the demiurge, who is not theos in the general sense, but does of course post on this board), and he never discusses the general question of the existence of gods. Nor does any of that have anything to do with the value of democracy.

Free will and thought is a separate issue from the polticial right to be free. In as much as the two are connected by proxy, both Plato and Aristotle argued in favour of controlling the people's mind by appropriate propaganda.

While you are right that Plato's and Aristotle's defense of aristocracy does not necessarily imply that they were averse to free expression, the truth is that Plato was, and I don't think Aristotle ever commented on the subject, although I'm not sure.

The Stoics would indeed be a much better choice if you want to argue a philosophical root for modern democracy in ancient times. But they and their philosophy were in no way defended at the Thermopylae, not even by the most vague and indirect connection.

 

Could a Persian dominated Greece have produced Stoicism?

 

Greece did not produce Stoicism on its own, but to the extent that it did, I'd say yes. The Persians wanted taxes and men for their legions. In fact, they would probably have interfered with intellectual life less than the Spartans' rule in conquered Athens did; and it's not as if there wasn't any Persian cultural influence just because Persia did not rule Greece.

 

Maybe.

I still think that democracy would have found its way to the forefront regardless of who ruled the world.

But its possible that the Persians would have delayed the idea a while longer. Until Alexander conquered them at least. Xerxes wasn't exactly happy with what the Spartans did to his army. He even crucified Leonides after killing him. IMO, his egotistical rule wouldn't have allowed the free thought to exist like it did after the Persian defeat.

 

Could a Persian dominated Greece have created Alexander the Great?

 

Now we're working with hypothetical situations.

If you believe what the earlier poster said about Alexander invading the Middle East because of the Persian invasion of Greece, you might have a point.

Maybe, maybe not.

I'm going to the gym, so I'll be back later.