I need some pointers about Ancient Greek History

[nokmirt]

There are two questions about the Greeks that I am curious about, and would like some extra help to understand them properly. Any help or direction would help me learn a great deal more about Philosophy and the Politics of the those times.

1.) The governmental structures of Ancient Greece, though flawed, impacted Western Civilization in a positive way.

2.) Compare and contrast the philosophies of Ancient Greece and Hellenistic Greece.

Now typically, I try to concentrate more on military matters when it comes to History. Therein lies the problem, I feel the need to learn more about other matters relating to Ancient Greece, and some help with the two fundamental questions I have listed would certainly help me see things in a much larger sense, of how the world worked in those days. Thank you for any feedback.

 

[aelf]

Well, the short answer for the first part is, not all that much. Maybe you could say that ideas first hit upon during the Classical era laid some of the foundations for modern thought, but I'm not sure why you'd necessarily attribute more importance to them than ideas from other eras and places. Just because they conceived of democracy (which wasn't really seen as a good thing anyway, just the other extreme of the tyrannies that held sway in many Greek city-states) doesn't make the Greeks predecessors of Western Liberalism or something.

As for the second, I'm not really a student of ancient philosophy, but it seems to me that Hellenistic Greece produced quite a lot of influential philosophical schools that survived into the Roman period. Just not stuff that have been (re?-)popularised by romantics, who also popularised the notion of Classical Greece as the grandfather of Western civilisation.


EDIT: Of course, that is not to say that Classical Greek philosophy didn't have a lot of influence since the medieval times through the Church and Islamic scholars, just that the more modern secularised perceptions arose from a separate and relatively recent trend.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

There are two questions about the Greeks that I am curious about, and would like some extra help to understand them properly. Any help or direction would help me learn a great deal more about Philosophy and the Politics of the those times.

1.) The governmental structures of Ancient Greece, though flawed, impacted Western Civilization in a positive way.

This is all a lot to take in, but I'll try to summarize it as best as I can.

By governmental structures, I assume you mean democracy, which, in a sense, was an invention of the Greeks. The democracies we have today are very far removed in character from that of the Athenian. For example, the Athenian had no separation of powers, nor universal suffrage, nor checks and balances. It was, in effect, a tyranny of the people against the state, and was not surprisingly vilified even in its own time. So I would say that the Greek democracy was the seed that implanted the notion of representative government in the West.

2.) Compare and contrast the philosophies of Ancient Greece and Hellenistic Greece.

Those would be schools like Stoicism, Epicureanism, and some others I can't remember. The difference, in the broadest sense, was an introspective movement, rather than extraspective. Those philosophies tried to put the person into harmony with the universe, whereas the Classical philosophies tried to explain the order the universe. You have to realize that, by the Hellenistic Age, the Greek city-states had all but lost any hope of independence. They were dominated, either in fact or influence, by powerful neighbors, such as the Successor States of Alexander the Great, or the Romans. No one was any more very interested in determining how to administer a city or government, as Aristotle and Plato had been, knowing it was impossible.

 

[GoodGame]

For part 2, you could also mention Platonism and Pythagoreanism (basically Pythagoras's cult).
Also Aristotle kind of had his own philosophical system.

I don't know too much about part 1 in the strict poli-sci way. I'd guess the Athenian constitution would be a good place to start.

 

[nokmirt]

This is all a lot to take in, but I'll try to summarize it as best as I can.

By governmental structures, I assume you mean democracy, which, in a sense, was an invention of the Greeks. The democracies we have today are very far removed in character from that of the Athenian. For example, the Athenian had no separation of powers, nor universal suffrage, nor checks and balances. It was, in effect, a tyranny of the people against the state, and was not surprisingly vilified even in its own time. So I would say that the Greek democracy was the seed that implanted the notion of representative government in the West.

It actually means all political forms, Tyranny, Oligarchy, Monarchy, and Democracy. And yes there was no equality in early Democracy, no eglitarian philosophy. The egalitarian concept that every human being has been endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights was not a part of the Greek democratic tradition.

But did these forms of government, and the whole idealogy of Greek politics shape Western Civilization? I believe it did, but the full impact of this idea of people governing themselves was not felt until much later on. I believe what we see in politics now, all evolved from earlier ideas, what man learns is always considered and shaped over time. However, revolution does the job everytime, even Greek democracy was brought about from a revolt by angry Athenians. The government could not go back to the status quo, a new approach was needed in Athens. So that means that certain unseen events, are a factor in the determination, of why we live the way we do now.

The basic fact is that man learns and grows over time, and tries to come up with a better plan in order to live more civilised. At least that should be the ideal outlook. But unseen events and occurrences play their part as well.

Those would be schools like Stoicism, Epicureanism, and some others I can't remember. The difference, in the broadest sense, was an introspective movement, rather than extraspective. Those philosophies tried to put the person into harmony with the universe, whereas the Classical philosophies tried to explain the order the universe. You have to realize that, by the Hellenistic Age, the Greek city-states had all but lost any hope of independence. They were dominated, either in fact or influence, by powerful neighbors, such as the Successor States of Alexander the Great, or the Romans. No one was any more very interested in determining how to administer a city or government, as Aristotle and Plato had been, knowing it was impossible.

In other words, from the polis point of view which would be, what is good for the individual, and what is good for the state. The state and the individual think and do the same. A more Hellenistic approach deviates from that. The individual looks more to himself, the state become more of a seperate entity. Each person seeking his own identity, in a sense, within themselves. Does that sound about right?

 

[nokmirt]

Well, the short answer for the first part is, not all that much. Maybe you could say that ideas first hit upon during the Classical era laid some of the foundations for modern thought, but I'm not sure why you'd necessarily attribute more importance to them than ideas from other eras and places. Just because they conceived of democracy (which wasn't really seen as a good thing anyway, just the other extreme of the tyrannies that held sway in many Greek city-states) doesn't make the Greeks predecessors of Western Liberalism or something.

I agree with this, and it would get back to the Greeks coming up with the idea, of people being able to govern themselves. And the fact again that a revolt brought this on. As a result, it reversed the tyranny, into the hands of the people or Polis.

As for the second, I'm not really a student of ancient philosophy, but it seems to me that Hellenistic Greece produced quite a lot of influential philosophical schools that survived into the Roman period. Just not stuff that have been (re?-)popularised by romantics, who also popularised the notion of Classical Greece as the grandfather of Western civilisation

EDIT: Of course, that is not to say that Classical Greek philosophy didn't have a lot of influence since the medieval times through the Church and Islamic scholars, just that the more modern secularised perceptions arose from a separate and relatively recent trend.

I am not either, but I am gathering that people began to look to themselves for ideas about salvation, for instance. Instead of what the state says should be believed and lived by. Hellenistic Philosophy is based on what was good for the individual, rather than society as a whole. I would say classic Greek philosophers tried to explain the workings of the universe, and Hellenistic philosophers try to consider an individuals place in the universe, usually represented as part of god's plan or that the universe is actually a living entity. I think the person's peace of mind becomes important. I am reaching here, and now I know why people smoke marijuana, lol! But seriously, is that anywhere near at least a basic understanding?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It actually means all political forms, Tyranny, Oligarchy, Monarchy, and Democracy. And yes there was no equality in early Democracy, no eglitarian philosophy. The egalitarian concept that every human being has been endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights was not a part of the Greek democratic tradition.

Right. That didn't come about until the 18th century, in fact. Aristotle even scoffed at the notion, saying that equality of birth is no sign of equality in other ways.

But did these forms of government, and the whole idealogy of Greek politics shape Western Civilization?

Only indirectly, I think, as you say. It provided something to build on later, and offered object lessons for what to do and not to do.

In other words, from the polis point of view which would be, what is good for the individual, and what is good for the state. The state and the individual think and do the same. A more Hellenistic approach deviates from that. The individual looks more to himself, the state become more of a seperate entity. Each person seeking his own identity, in a sense, within themselves. Does that sound about right?

Not only that, but this sense of alienation continued even into late antiquity, and eventually spawned Christianity (with some intervening steps, like Serapis worship, various cults, Mithraism, etc). In the first 400 years AD, the only state anyone knew was the Roman Empire, and that shaped a lot of perceptions. The state was some vast, powerful, and distant entity. Long gone were the days when the citizen could make meaningful contact with the state and effect change.

 

[Plotinus]

I am not either, but I am gathering that people began to look to themselves for ideas about salvation, for instance. Instead of what the state says should be believed and lived by. Hellenistic Philosophy is based on what was good for the individual, rather than society as a whole. I would say classic Greek philosophers tried to explain the workings of the universe, and Hellenistic philosophers try to consider an individuals place in the universe, usually represented as part of god's plan or that the universe is actually a living entity. I think the person's peace of mind becomes important. I am reaching here, and now I know why people smoke marijuana, lol! But seriously, is that anywhere near at least a basic understanding?

I agree that hellenistic philosophy was less interested in politics than classical philosophy, but the concerns listed here as hellenistic were certainly important to classical Greek philosophy too. The notion that the universe is a living entity comes straight from Plato. And the problem of the individual's place in the universe is surely central to Socrates.

I would say that hellenistic philosophy tended to be more concerned with epistemology, conceived as a problem, than classical philosophy did. Of course both Plato and Aristotle had a lot to say about epistemology, but neither saw it as much of a problem to be overcome, more of a phenomenon to be explained (especially Aristotle). Whereas the Stoics and, of course, the New Academy saw it one of the most fundamental problems, one which the New Academy considered insuperable.

I think the concern with salvation and the individual's place in the world was really a particular concern not of hellenistic philosophy but of late antiquity, i.e. the period of the Roman empire. This was when Pyrrhonism became more important as well as eclectic philosophy. Above all, you can see this by comparing the doctrines of the Middle Platonists and, especially, the Neoplatonists with those of Plato himself. There was a great movement away from logical analysis and metaphysics towards an emphasis on value and spiritual significance. Case in point: Plato thought that there were Forms of mud and wood, because if there weren't, the general nouns "mud" and "wood" would have no meaning. The Middle Platonists, who identified the Forms with ideas in the mind of God, would have found that notion abhorrent, because how could God have ideas of such mundane things?

Not only that, but this sense of alienation continued even into late antiquity, and eventually spawned Christianity (with some intervening steps, like Serapis worship, various cults, Mithraism, etc).

Christianity came before Mithraism, you know!

 

[GoodGame]

Christianity came before Mithraism, you know!

I thought it also came from Khrisnha?

 

[nokmirt]

I agree that hellenistic philosophy was less interested in politics than classical philosophy, but the concerns listed here as hellenistic were certainly important to classical Greek philosophy too. The notion that the universe is a living entity comes straight from Plato. And the problem of the individual's place in the universe is surely central to Socrates.

I would say that hellenistic philosophy tended to be more concerned with epistemology, conceived as a problem, than classical philosophy did. Of course both Plato and Aristotle had a lot to say about epistemology, but neither saw it as much of a problem to be overcome, more of a phenomenon to be explained (especially Aristotle). Whereas the Stoics and, of course, the New Academy saw it one of the most fundamental problems, one which the New Academy considered insuperable.

I think the concern with salvation and the individual's place in the world was really a particular concern not of hellenistic philosophy but of late antiquity, i.e. the period of the Roman empire. This was when Pyrrhonism became more important as well as eclectic philosophy. Above all, you can see this by comparing the doctrines of the Middle Platonists and, especially, the Neoplatonists with those of Plato himself. There was a great movement away from logical analysis and metaphysics towards an emphasis on value and spiritual significance. Case in point: Plato thought that there were Forms of mud and wood, because if there weren't, the general nouns "mud" and "wood" would have no meaning. The Middle Platonists, who identified the Forms with ideas in the mind of God, would have found that notion abhorrent, because how could God have ideas of such mundane things?

Thank you for a very insightful response. I will keep epistemology in mind, as my main contrast to the two philosophical ideas of thought. And thanks to everyone else for their feedback. I really am starting to see things more clearly.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Philosophy stuff I'll have to give some thought to when it's not 1 in the morning (although it's worth noting that the Romans treated Greece like an ideas Wal Mart and just picked whatever they thought was cool, trendy, or convenient at the moment, so it sometimes had different practical effects).

For government structures, I feel one of the most noteworthy things about Greek government structures were how they relied on lots, instead of elections, for many positions. This seems to be something that has not been followed, even though the rationale was quite logical. The closest thing I can see to "following" Greek style of governance was when John Adams (I think it was Adams, my memory is vague on this point) was looking for the style of government he thought was best. When considering this, he emphatically rejected direct popular rule as something too prone to the inconsistencies of passion (as Thucydides argued).

One area that I do feel was directly inspired by ancient Greece that can be seen in most democratic countries today to some degree is the idea of Civic virtue. It's the idea of both mutual benefit and mutual responsibility of living in a free society and how it is your duty to follow the rules of the system and to help make it a better place (in Ancient Greece and for most of history, this usually included military service to protect it, but I feel it's a bit more broad these days).