You should have an informal working definition of Athenian Democracy by now. By the end of this week you should be able to discriminate between the idea of direct democracy and representative democracy or republicanism.
We've also begun to explore the importance of context as an explanation for the rise of (and success of or failure of) ideas and institutions. Keep in mind this idea as well, as we'll be looking to put Aristotle and his political theories in a context.
Read, in Greer and Lewis, The section on
The Founders of Western Philosophy, pp. 67-73,
The link on this title will take you to a more detailed exposition of Aristotle's Thought. I really do urge you to look it over. Two things to look for here. First, the arguments Aristotle makes for representative democracy over direct democracy. Second, I'd like to have you think a little bit about your "class" membership. Which class is yours? Upper? Lower? Middle? What are the defining characteristics of your class from your point of view? Is it economics, lifestyle issues? income? what? After deciding what you are, look at Aristotle's definition of the "middle". Assess his valuations of the virtues of the "middle". Is he right? wrong? a bit of both? Note the kinds of restrictions Aristotle puts on political participation, and the reasons for them.
The form of representation that Aristotle recommended was designed for the city-state, but it proved very well suited to the emerging nation state.
We will want to think about how republican forms overcame some of the limitations of the technological context of classical Greece and Rome.
Read in Greer and Lewis, pp. 94-103.
This section concerns the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. The transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire concerned American political leaders of the Revolutionary Era. If our republic was modelled on the Roman republic, might not the same outcome happen here?
