Search

Copyright of Journal of Ilahiyat Researches / Ilahiyat Tetkikleri Dergisi is the property of Ataturk University Coordinatorship of Scientific Journals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The primary objective of this article is to elucidate that a comprehensive understanding of Greek political thought necessitates an examination of its origins in Ancient Greece. Traditional scholarship in Greek political thought has typically assumed that it originated concurrently with philosophy and the establishment of the polis. In this research, drawing upon the visions of Eric Voegelin and Leo Strauss, we endeavor to establish a refined definition of political thought while challenging the aforementioned conventional assumption. It is argued that political reflection remains intimately intertwined with the theological-mythological beginning of thought in Greece. This theological-mythological mode of thinking initially found expression in the works of Homer and Hesiod, with these poets serving as the foremost intellectual authorities and initial educators of the Greeks. The Greeks, in their self-perception, viewed themselves through a lens of religion and in the mirror of gods and divine forces. Consequently, any exploration into Greek political thought must acknowledge the works of these poets as the seminal intellectual foundations of Greek thought. It is imperative to recognize that political thought in Ancient Greece did not commence with philosophy or the emergence of the polis, but rather with poetry and a distinct form of religiousmythical experience, namely theologia-muthologia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Society: Chinese Journal of Sociology / Shehui is the property of Society: Chinese Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The concept of 'human nature', from the Old Testament and 'Creation' to Ancient Greece, from the Middle Ages to modern times, is one of the basic subjects of science, art, literature, in a wide range from philosophy to political science, psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology and biology. more precisely, it has been one of its main problems. The answer given to the question of the meaning attributed to the concept or 'what is human nature' formed the basis of the theory, thesis or artistic product developed in any field, and the developed theory, thesis or product was shaped by the answer given to this question. The concepts of 'power', 'state' or 'sovereignty', which are the main fields of activity of political philosophy, have often been tried to be explained by associating them with human nature. The meaning attributed to human nature has been a fundamental factor in determining the source, legitimacy and nature of power, state or sovereignty. In this article, in the historical development of political philosophy, from Plato to medieval Christian philosophy and Augustine, from the transformation created by the Reformation and Renaissance to Machiavelli and Hobbes, the concept of human nature has focused on establishing, legitimizing and characterizing power (authoritarian, totalitarian, liberal)., democratic, libertarian, etc.) and how the concept is constructed and shaped in this context and how it is included in power relations will be examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Amme Idaresi Dergisi is the property of Public Administration Institute for Turkey & the Middle East (TODAIE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to determine an objective definition of social justice as a category in political science. The author draws attention to the fact that since the times of ancient Greece, this has been a central concept accompanying in-depth analyses of politics. Making references to classical approaches, the author tries to determine the main formal elements common in publicly postulated interpretations. The concept proposed by the author relies on differentiation between two perspectives on the idea as part of a discursive understanding of politics. Within this framework, solely integration of distribution and recognition allows for capturing the phenomenon of overlapping economic inequalities and hierarchical status orders in societies. Both mechanisms are united by the fact that the starting point for implementing the principles of social justice is the sanctioning of equal moral significance to every member of a political community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Academic Inquiries / Akademik Incelemeler Dergisi is the property of Akademik Incelemeler Dergisi (Journal of Academic Inquiries) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To reflect on the political thought of classical Greece is to return to the ethical meanings uttered by philosophers of that time, such as Plato and his disciple Aristotle, whose interests in the rational understanding of human behavior were nothing more than a diaphanous concern for the attainment of well-being of individuals within Greek cities, where the formation of ideas, institutions, and associations was considered of great importance. In fact, the social bonds and the configuration of attitudes that favor the objective of social welfare imply a reciprocal attention to the concepts of ethics and politics, whereas the incorporation of actions governed by the reason determines the relations between individuals of the same nation. Thus, this article presents the Aristotelian meaning of justice, to clarify the importance of this virtue in the ethical-political nexus of classical Greece, a period witnessed by Aristotle himself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservative Thought / Muhafazakar Düşünce is the property of Muhafazakar Dusunce Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Horizons of Politics / Horyzonty Polityki is the property of Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Freedom in democratic Athens is often understood as consisting of positive freedom in the public sphere in the form of political participation and negative freedom in the private sphere in the form of citizens doing 'whatever they wish'. The original meaning of positive freedom, though, is more akin to self-mastery than political participation. By looking at phrases describing Athenians' ability to do 'whatever they wish' from Herodotus to Aristotle, this article argues that the phrases instead express individual positive freedom in both private and public spheres. The democratic citizen is free because he is the author of his own actions. Individual autonomy stands in contrast to Spartan and Persian definitions of freedom, which focus on the external, negative freedom of the state. In addition to an ideological distinction, positive freedom also gives rise to the principle of voluntarism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Procesos Historicos is the property of Universidad de Los Andes (Venezuela) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Greek tradition of political philosophy, with its prominent focus on the forms of government, should be distinguished from the discourse typical of many rabbinic sources, with its concern for collective goals. This discourse commonly deploys broad, mid-level goals to mediate between abstract theology and practical law. Among these goals, yishuv medinah focuses on the economic and social development of a region or district, articulating the character of local needs. This is compared to related goals-- the settling of the world (yishuv ha-olam) and the ordering of the world (tikkun ha-olam)--and contrasted with Aristotle's approach, which in many ways typifies the Greek tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a report on a panel on elites in archaic Greece, convened during the Historikertag, the annual congress of the Verband der Historiker und Historikerinnen Deutschlands (VHD) and Verband der Geschichtslehrer Deutschlands (VGD) professional associations in Göttingen, Germany, from September 23-26, 2014. Topics discussed included competition for political office, political philosophy, and political funerals.

Copyright of Historische Zeitschrift is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Sociedade e Estado is the property of Sociedade e Estado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Discusiones Filosóficas is the property of Universidad de Caldas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the comparative history and historiography of the 20th century, with reference to Marxism and Marxist political and historical thought, with a focus on a comparison between Turkey, Greece, and Italy. Topics discussed include the concept of the influence of localization on the development of variants in Marxist thought and historiography, Marxism as political project, and the influence of nationalism on Marxist historiography in Turkey, Greece, and Italy during the 20th century.

The first part of the text presents the republican position of young Hegel. This position is developed primarily through a divergence from Christianity, which is, in Hegel's judgment, the spiritual pillar of political despotism and the main cause of German spiritual, social and political backwardness. According to Hegel, the main reason for the fatal influence of Christianity is its private character, the fact that it teaches man to despise this earthly life, tells him that he is unable to achieve moral perfection through his own efforts and turns him into an object of a transcendental power. In opposition to Christianity, Hegel puts forward the Greek popular religions, i.e. the antique republican orders as the only orders adequate to man's freedom, pointing them out also as models for his own time. The second part of the text shows how Hegel's giving up on his youthful republican-democratic ideals and his adherence to hereditary monarchy is a consequence of the appearance of the liberal moment in his political philosophy. Through acceptance of subjectivity as the supreme principle of the new age, Hegel realizes that a return to the substantial ethical unity of the Greek polis is impossible. At the same time, he sees in the constitutional monarchy of the hereditary type the only order adequate to modern conditions. Namely it preserves the autonomy of non-political spheres in the state, while simultaneously - in the monarch who is not dependent on the will of those subject to his power - the state unity is guaranteed as opposed to civil society as a space of interest plurality and socio-economic differences. Finally, the author strives to demonstrate how, in spite of Hegel's obvious opting for hereditary monarchy and rejection of the republic, his mature political philosophy also encompasses a republican dimension. This has to do with a contradiction between the republican form and the monarchic contents of the political state. Namely the latter is not (only) a machinery of power which serves as a counterbalance to civil society, but is defined as the sphere of true political community. It is however not shaped through the activity of individuals; their political subjectivity is embodied in the hereditary monarch. This contradiction, i.e. the republican essence of the political state, leads to the conclusion that political emancipation can be conceived as a natural and necessary consequence of civil emancipation also in the conceptual field of The Philosophy of Right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 'What Is Freedom?', Arendt speaks of freedom as a 'phenomenon of virtuosity', claiming that this phenomenon is the original, hitherto undertheorised experience of freedom in ancient Greece and Rome, and that the idea of freedom began to appear in connection with the will in our philosophical tradition only after freedom as a phenomenon of virtuosity had in practice disappeared in the late Roman Empire - but not from all human activities in which it continued to exist in a hidden form, as the power or 'gift' of humans to begin a new line of action. My interpretation of Arendt's conception of freedom begins from and elaborates on these claims, and shows that she should be taken seriously as a critic of the late antique notion that freedom consists in the decisions we make with our will. I also show that in rejecting accounts of freedom that reduce it to a matter of the will or the intellect, Arendt relies on the notion of an inspiring 'principle' of action that functions in a manner analogous to Hegel's understanding of (moral) action as taking place against a background of unwritten rules (sittlichkeit) and as deriving its 'validity' and 'absolute' character from a spirit, or principle, immanent within it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The myth of autochthony was one of the key elements of ancient Athenian democratic ideology. Therefore, it is not surprising that two clever critics and observers of Athenian democratic society -- Euripides and Plato -- paid particular attention to this myth. According to the myth of autochthony, the citizens (or the ancestors of the citizens) were not born of human mothers and fathers but fashioned in the earth. What are the political implications of the myth of autochthony in general? First, it provides the unity of political society and strictly separates citizens from non-citizens. Second, it explains the equal rights of the citizens. Third, it pretends that the boundaries of the cities in the world are dictated by nature itself and not by human contract or agreements. Fourth, it legitimises the exclusion of women from politics -- the earth is the only mother of all citizens. Fifth, the myth of autochthony definitely resolves the permanent question: to whom does or did the land belong? In his tragedy Ion, Euripides questions the myth of autochthony and its implications for the foundation of a political society without women (the character of Creusa). He also suggests that Athenian society which thinks of itself as tolerant and open, is, in fact, on the basis of this myth, intolerant and xenophobic (the character of the old Tutor). On the one hand, the myth of autochthony provides order to the city, but on the other hand it closes and limits the possibilities of the city. Plato's attitude is a little different. In the Republic he obviously acknowledges the value of this myth for the unity and stability of the political society, but he tries to eliminate the egalitarian implications of this noble lie, as Socrates calls it {Rep. 414c). So he introduces his own autochthony myth concerning the three classes of citizens (gold, silver, and iron-copper), thus legitimating a hierarchical political society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, the vast majority of scholars agree that in the Greek democracy there was never something analogous to the modern concept of human rights. This essay examines whether classical democracy was, as in the Modern Age, preceded or accompanied by the development of the notion of natural law, common to all mankind and based on dignity's natural equality among individuals. The pages that follow investigate texts by some VI-V B.C. philosophers and theoreticians that either show some evidence of an account of human progress or an outline of the hypothetical idea of the social contract, or that analysed the political development on the basis of the νóμoς-φὐσις anthithesis. It's impossible to find the existence of individual guarantees in Athenian democracy previous and above the power of the δῆμoς and, in the same way, there existed no Greek liberal thought that could have served as basis for that legal definition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Turkey took its initial steps toward establishing democracy in 1950, it has thus far failed to become a fully functioning democracy. Using the comparison cases of Spain and Greece, this article discusses two related variables that are likely to have thwarted the development of full democracy in Turkey: the country's experience with authoritarian rule, and the lack of elite settlement or convergence towards acceptance of the democratic rules of the game. The article ultimately contends that despite the EU's attempt to push Turkey towards full democracy in the modern day it is unlikely that it will become a fully functioning democracy unless it manages to achieve civilian elite agreement regarding the rules of the Turkish democratic game, and that Turkey's experience with authoritarian rule may, in turn, have hindered the development of such rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his account of the 27-year Peloponnesian War, Thucydides makes virtue the theme of his presentation of the most outstanding Spartan, Brasidas. That presentation can guide us to an understanding of moral virtue in all its richness and complexity. We learn from a careful analysis of Brasidas’ deeds and speeches, and of Thucydides’ assessment of him, that Brasidas’ virtue, remarkable as it is, is problematic. Thucydides’ account of it may move us, in fact, to abandon our own attachment to this kind of virtue, as we find ourselves in need of a more consistent kind of virtue, one that becomes visible above all in the first speech of the Syracusan Hermocrates. The conversion to this kind of virtue constitutes Thucydides’ grounding of the life guided by reason. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The experience of the old Greece created the concept of politics and systematized around it a deep conception of its meaning. The three classical thinkers of the political philosophy (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle with his study on the constitutions of the city-states) proposed the dialectic between the reality and the ideal models in order to find strategies of action for the governments and for the citizens. This article tries to offer a panorama of the rise of the political thought in the old Greece -from Homer and Hesiod, the pre-Socratic thinkers to the IV century IV b. C. with the apparition of the systematic philosophy concluding that the fundamental points of their vision continue being a framework for the debate on politics and democracy in contemporary societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information about a conference held in Berlin, Germany on October 21-23, 2010. Topics under discussion at the conference included the conceptual history of political science since the ancient Greeks, the history of governmental expressions of power, and paradoxes in political science. Presentations were given by international scholars including Benjamin Herborth, Chad Thompson, and John Heathershaw.

The article presents the author's views on the general strike and demonstration in Athens, Greece on May 5, 2010. The reasons why public sentiment against the political elites who are blamed for Greece's economic crisis changed from passive disengagement to activism is discussed. The discussion also includes the topics of the International Monetary Fund's terms for assistance, social injustice, and neo-liberalism that puts the euro-zone countries at risk for a legitimation crisis. The significance of democracy as a political structure that embraces activism is mentioned.

Copyright of Sociologias is the property of Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines various implications of democratic peace theory in both the contemporary era and in Greece during the Peloponnesian War era. It considers the evidence for various hypotheses in both contexts, to understand why those hypotheses — especially those concerning institutions — find much better support in the contemporary era. It also addresses the causes and possible consequences of expansionist policies, including hypotheses that democracies are more effective warfighters and thus better able to pursue successful expansion by military means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postcolonial interpreters of Plutarch attempt to resolve apparent contradictions between the rhetoric of the Lives and Plutarch's attitudes toward Roman dominion by invoking conscious and unconscious tensions incident to the identity politics of a colonized Greek elite. This approach fails to render a satisfying account of relevant texts because it refuses to take seriously the fundamental importance of Plutarch's identity as a Platonic philosopher in providing the standards for his judgments of political conditions. Plutarch welcomes Roman dominion as a solution to the intra- and interpolis rivalries that kept love of honor at a pathological pitch in classical Greece and intensified the conflict between philosophy and political practice, while he counsels defense of local administration. These concerns lead him into areas of thought developed by modern thinkers such as Publius and Tocqueville. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plutarch is generally not considered a philosopher in his own right. However, a careful reading of his life of Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, in conjunction with an examination of his philosophical essays, shows that Plutarch is engaged in a debate with Epicureans and Stoics whose misjudgments of the worth and limits of human passions lead them knowingly or unknowingly to draw lines between the happy philosophical life and the life of politics. Through the life of Solon, Plutarch demonstrates how a philosopher would actually engage in politics, and with his proper understanding of human nature, educate that society through wise laws that encourage a moderate and healthy form of erotic life in the city. In doing so, Plutarch makes a case for a substantive contribution of Platonic philosophy to the guidance of the statesman. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a response to the article "Socrates and Political Courage," by Paul Woodruff which revives concerns about the moral integrity of the Platonic Socrates. The author argues against the notion that ancient Greek philosopher Socrates' courage was not political because he was not political. It is emphasized by the author that Socrates' expression of courage was typical of Athenian democratic courage, which was itself unusual by ordinary Green standards. A background of the Athenian democracy in which Socrates drew his model of civic courage is presented.

The article presents the author's comments on the positions of Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle on the relation between philosophical understanding and good or just political rule. The author makes specific reference to the Plato's "Republic" and Aristotle's "Protrepticus." According to the author, both Plato's and Aristotle's positions on the issue are complex and dependent on certain other aspects of their views.

The article presents the author's comments on different conceptions of freedom including freedom, liberality and liberty as described in the book "Laws," by Greek philosopher Plato. The article holds that Plato considered that freedom had overtones which were democratic, and hence negative, to the extent that it was not possible to make freedom a positive concept. However, the article argues that his own concept of freedom as liberality is a positive one.

In this article is evaluated the philosophical thought that translated from Grek Culture to İslamic Culture by translations, its establisment in language of Arabic and its philosophical language in the model of al-Farab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides some insights into the review and republish of the ancestral laws of Athens, Greece during the last decades of the fifth century B.C. focusing on the case of Draco's Law on Homicide. Notion of an ancestral constitution and its influence on Athenian political discourse; Circumstances influencing the republication; Examination of the natural extension of the anagrapheis' mandate to republish the ancestral laws enforced by Solon.

Provides arguments on the collective experience of classical Athenians relevant to the relationship between courage and democracy. Description of Athenian democracy as an experiment in self-government; Analysis of rationality and shame as elements of democratic courage; Ancient conceptions of courage through the systematic texts of Plato and Aristotle who placed it alongside the virtues of wisdom, piety, justice and self-restraint.

This paper will first follow the trajectory of Ernesto Laclau's theorizations of populism from his early work in the 1970s up until his current views. While Laclau's formal approach to populist discourse constitutes a substantial advance in the theorization of this elusive concept, it will be argued that his recent reflections on populism may be construed as indicative of the limits of a 'formalist' approach. These antinomies of 'formalism' will be illuminated through the encounter with a recent neo-populist mobilization, the articulation of a populist politicized discourse by the Church of Greece. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses aspects of philosophy and politics in ancient Greek democracy pertaining to the Greeks' idealization of leisure and disdain for work. Idealization by the Greeks of leisure as a state of existential well-being; Passages from Plato and Aristotle that offer firm criteria by which to define this philosophical stance and uncover a lifestyle that seems to have been typical of at least a segment of ancient Greek society; Studies of work in ancient Greece that offer contrary views.

In understanding the meaning of the West, twentieth-century political philosophers Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss called for a return to ‘Athens’ (classical political philosophy) in order to address the ‘crisis of the West,’ a loss of a sense of legitimate and stable political authority which, in their view, constitutes a nihilistic threat to Western democracy. The only way for the West to escape this nihilistic crisis is to return to Plato and Aristotle. Implicit in this critique is the belief that the other tradition of the West, ‘Jerusalem’ (the Bible) has contributed to this nihilism, by undermining the authority of the Greeks. Is Jerusalem, then, the fatal ‘Other’ for the West? Which tradition—Athens or Jerusalem—is best prepared to alleviate the crisis of the West, especially the survival of democracy? As I address these questions, I shall contend that it is Jerusalem, not Athens, which is the true source of Western democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sooner or later, sociologists and political philosophers, with few exceptions, end up referring to the theme of the differences between what is considered truly political, and what is ethical or moral. This difference however is far from relevant. But it is particularly important in the global times of today, when it is assumed that politics has been replaced by pure economic reasoning. This would mean that in the global times of modernity there are no conflicts, because there are no real actors, neither social nor political. In the face of this catastrophic and resigned manner of thinking, I have protested before in another publication (Mires, 2000). I wish to refer now to the theme of the inter-relations between morality, ethics and politics that has not passed beyond a second level. It has, on the contrary, more validity now if we wish to recover political reasoning, especially in Latin American countries where the process of constructing democracy, both formal and real, is far from being over, with or without globalization. The political sociology of the postmodern age which is still in the making, must recover the ethical-political legacy from the Athenian era up to the present, with an attempt to understand the sense and reason of these public places that were created so that our conflicts and interests could be reconciled without recurring to violence, something that has recently seemed possible in certain Latin American countries. So-called citizen virtues are, effectively, the result of long historical processes marked by multiple pre-political adventures. Before virtues appeared on the citizen menu, a lot of blood flowed under the bridges. This paper is an essay that centers first on the relationships between ethics, politics and morality. In the second place, we refer to the theme of passions, from the point of view of political virtue. Lastly, we refer to a more permanent political theme: truth and non-truth in the life of the citizen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the relevance of the work of Ian Budge and Dennis J. Farlie, who both provide an issue-based theory of explaining elections in Western Europe, in examining issues related to elections and political parties in Greece. According to the author, Budge and Farlie's works are helpful in understanding political party preferences, because of its correlation with the three erratic issues on party's foreign relationship, candidate evaluations, and favorable government records.

The article explores oligarchy as a basic form of government during the last quarter of the fifth century in Athens, Greece. Athenians reduced their choices of forms of government to one between democracy and oligarchy in which kings might appear on the tragic stage. According to the author, from the late fifth century Athenian democrats tended to associate oligarchy with tyranny. Athenians perceived democracy as radical democracy. It is stated that it is a tempting hypothesis that such a binary view on democracy laid the Athenians open to the oligarchic coup of 411.

The article discusses the origins of politics and political theory in classical Athens, Greece. The Battle of Salamis is the only historical event that was elevated to the mythical status and accorded the heroic legends from which tragedy drew its inspiration and stories. The Salamis was interpreted as a democratic victory which competed for renown and significance, and their triumph became the basis of claims by the poor sailors for greater political equity and that the Athenians are an aristocratic democracy and are collectively great in both word and deed.

The article discusses the connection between the "Nicomachean Ethics" and "Eudemian Ethics," both written by Aristotle, to "Politics," a work of political philosophy also written by Aristotle. In doing so, the author briefly discusses the relationship of Aristotle's values and presuppositions in ethics and politics to those of his culture. He opines that to suggest that Aristotle is not a great moral and political philosopher simpliceter, but a great moral and political philosopher who lived in Greece in the fourth century B.C., is sometimes held to diminish him. Significant analyses relative to the matter are provided.