Paper on Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle

1237 Words5 Pages
1. The “classical model of politics” is where there are a number of different correct forms of government, and each form of government can devolve into a dishonest form of government, in which it can, and often times will, become corrupted. Thucydides has been called the father of the school of Political Realism, which basically is the idea that states’ main motivation is the desire for military and economic power, and not ideals and ethics. It is like power politics. Thucydides does not directly support the argument of the “classical model of politics” but his views of Political Realism sort of allude to it. If a government’s main motivation is just for power and it does not care at all about how ethical it is, there is a good chance it will end up becoming corrupt, as the “classical model of politics” suggests. Plato, in The Republic, argues that all of the political systems (democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and timarchy) are inherently corrupt, and that the state should be governed by an elite class of educated philosophical-rulers, who would be trained from birth and selected on the basis of skill, as Plato describes: “those who have the greatest skill in watching over the community.” Plato also advocates, in The Republic, the abolishment of private property and the family among the ruling classes. This has caused many people to say that he was a communist, but many political scholars disregard this view, saying that the text implies that this will only extend to the ruling classes, and that ordinary citizens “will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern.” Essentially, Plato’s view goes along with the “classical model of politics” I mentioned above. He believes there are a number of different forms of government and he says that they are all inherently corrupt, which implies that, as mentioned above, each form
Open Document