Friday, January 22, 2016
Debate of Sparta and Athens
Today I will be reflecting on our debate of which city-state was superior, Athens or Sparta. I believe that for this being our first debate, we did pretty well, however, I think that our working together was not as well as it could have been, and that we could've backed up our arguments better. I think because of this, our arguments had many holes. This meant we were constantly on the defensive, and could hardly ever ask them good questions about their arguments which were well presented, backed up, and hard to rebut. Overall, I believe all did well.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Lycurgus
Based on your reading of Plutarch's "Lycurgus", and the background information (handout) on Plutarch, explain why you think has written this "biography", and what you understand to be Plutarch's point of view regarding the Spartan constitution. You must give evidence to support your claim.
I am going to answer this in two parts, part 1(explain why you think has written this "biography"), and part 2(what you understand to be Plutarch's point of view regarding the Spartan constitution).
1) I believe Plutarch wrote the biography of Lycurgus to emphasize many things that Lycurgus did that were what people needed in their education, moral beliefs, and tactics about doing things. Plutarch, I believe, was in complete, and is not then mostly agreement with Lycurgus, and wants his generation to see what Lycurgus was trying to set in stone.
2) I believe Plutarch sees the constitution as something that everyone should know, and so an unwritten law for Sparta works well, because every citizen now has it constantly ingrained in them, and it becomes less of a law, but more of a tradition, or common knowledge, like praying before food, or 2+2=4. Plutarch values this, and sees it as a great thing. For instance, he says in his biography of Lycurgus," Lycurgus...was of the opinion that the principles which make the most substantial and important contributions towards the prosperity and excellence of a state remain stable if they are implanted in the characters and training of the citizens,..."
I am going to answer this in two parts, part 1(explain why you think has written this "biography"), and part 2(what you understand to be Plutarch's point of view regarding the Spartan constitution).
1) I believe Plutarch wrote the biography of Lycurgus to emphasize many things that Lycurgus did that were what people needed in their education, moral beliefs, and tactics about doing things. Plutarch, I believe, was in complete, and is not then mostly agreement with Lycurgus, and wants his generation to see what Lycurgus was trying to set in stone.
2) I believe Plutarch sees the constitution as something that everyone should know, and so an unwritten law for Sparta works well, because every citizen now has it constantly ingrained in them, and it becomes less of a law, but more of a tradition, or common knowledge, like praying before food, or 2+2=4. Plutarch values this, and sees it as a great thing. For instance, he says in his biography of Lycurgus," Lycurgus...was of the opinion that the principles which make the most substantial and important contributions towards the prosperity and excellence of a state remain stable if they are implanted in the characters and training of the citizens,..."
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Achilles Returns
Should Achilles have returned to the fighting following the "Embassy to Achilles"? Why or why not? Give evidence to support your line of argument.
While yes, the Achaean needed him, I believe Achilles had the right to say no. Agamemnon insulted him, took his prize, and left Achilles alone. The Iliad put it like this,"...(patroclus)all for a girl, just one, and here we offer you seven-outstanding beauties-that, and a treasure trove besides.... (Achilles)but my heart still heaves with rage whenever I call to mind that arrogance of his- how he mortified me right in front of the Argives - that son of Atreus treating me like some vagabond, like some outcast stripped of all my rights!...", so yes, based off of that, I'd say yes, Achilles had the right to say no.
While yes, the Achaean needed him, I believe Achilles had the right to say no. Agamemnon insulted him, took his prize, and left Achilles alone. The Iliad put it like this,"...(patroclus)all for a girl, just one, and here we offer you seven-outstanding beauties-that, and a treasure trove besides.... (Achilles)but my heart still heaves with rage whenever I call to mind that arrogance of his- how he mortified me right in front of the Argives - that son of Atreus treating me like some vagabond, like some outcast stripped of all my rights!...", so yes, based off of that, I'd say yes, Achilles had the right to say no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)