Thucydides vs. Plato

799 Words4 Pages
Thucydides vs. Plato The meaning of a good life can be drastically different depending on your point of view and the way you look at the world in front of you. Greek philosophers Thucydides and Plato were no different in this matter as they saw the world in two completely different ways. Thucydides used empirical claims to describe what he believed a good life was based on what he observed amongst the men fighting in the Peloponnesian War. On the other hand, Plato used normative claims to describe his beliefs based on what he believed, not observed, a good life entails. First off, it is important to note what the differences between these two types of thinking are. Ethics in America: Study Guide defines empirical statements as “assertions about the world out there, the physical environment of our existence, including the entirety of scientific discourse, from theoretical physics to sociology.” In other words, your findings, beliefs, ideologies, etc. are based on your observation of the physical world. This is true in the case of Thucydides and his views on what a good life is. Thucydides believed that a “good man” was a strong man that could defend himself and his family and could handle himself in any adverse situation. He could be a kind and gentle person but also ruthless to his enemies. He would become self-sufficient both physically and spiritually and his body and soul could survive any change to world around him. We can compare this to modern times in which a man is judged by how he takes care of his family, putting food on the table and a roof over their head. When a man is about to die he can look back at his life and determine if it was a “good life” by analyzing what took place during his life. Was he a good friend and neighbor, did he love and protect his family, and did he live his life for others and his god if he chose to? We can

More about Thucydides vs. Plato

Open Document