The Spartan Republic

[WHEELER]

This is for the discussion of two articles: "The Spartan Republic" and for "The Confusing State of Sparta". It is only by understanding the philosophical currents of their thought can one understand their form of government. The Doric Greeks of Crete and Laconia did create this mixed form of government called a Republic.

These two posts are about clearing up the huge misconception that attends the meaning of the term "Republic". Paul A. Rahe in his three volume massive work describes how this term "republic" was changed by Niccolo Machiavelli. The classical term is not the modern term. The modern term is synonymous with democracy and so republic is now confused with democracy. It is quite funny to see anti-hierarchical egalitarian movements like the communists call their societies "republics" when the classical republics were based on Hierarchical patriarchical societies. There is a huge disconnect and confusion of political terms.

If there is such a confusion of political terms---how can political "science" exist? Science requires precision and clarity and non-confusion. I think these two articles go a long way in dispelling confusion and bringing accuracy to bear.

[WHEELER]

The Spartan Republic article is based on my work on the Classical definition of a republic at Wikinfo, an online encyclopaedia.

[Nikolaos]

An excellent thread William. Thanks for that!

I went through the Wikiinfo article and I would like to draw the attention to the following phrase:

[WHEELER]

Socrates began his mission to the Athenians by asking for definitions! Definitions are important. A is A and not B or C or Z but A is A. How difficult is that?

Very.

Clarity and precision of definition is clarity and precision of thought! This is what Logic is. One of the first principles of Logic, of reasoning, of Indo-European thought is Paramenides principle of non-contradiction. One can't subscribe opposing predicates to one subject at the same time. Either a dog of solid color is black or white but not both. This is the principle of non-contradiction.

One can not have clarity of thought and start doing philosophy. Logic, clarity, precision, are the prequisites of philosophical thinking. Yet, confusion reigns throughout academia and in the world on politics.

Aristotle and Plato point to how the Greeks defined their forms of government----by their dominant factor. (There are also minor standards such as if someone was directly voted in or chosen by lots. The Greeks seemed to take into consideration much more parameters. In accordance with Occam's razor---keep it simple-----they defined things by what class had dominance.)

Socrates recognized this danger when he said, "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Political science professor Carl J. Richard writes that humans exhibit a notorious inconsistency and "have always proven quite capable of holding contradictory views simultaneously." The use of words has an ethical impact and bearing upon the success of human society and endeavors. The "love of ACCURACY" is mentioned in Plato's Republic. (sec 340) This is at the beginning of the Republic. "To be a lover of accuracy is the beginning of philosophy; one must have clarity and precision.

This is why the term, "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. It should never be used. And this term has been used extensively throughout modern history, by academics and so called "political scientists". Philosophy is important for all other sciences. Without logic, there can be no science.

I have written an article called Principles of definition which gives the rules and steps of defining which is the first step in philosophizing.

[WHEELER]

Sometimes I cry. And sometimes it just begs the question of why to continue.

Yale, that prestigious center of learning in America, has made some of its courses available to the public. It is called Open Yale courses. They have introductory courses on their website that are videotapped, MP3 and even transcripts. It is a wonderful setup.

There is one course in particular that I was curious in and have studiously followed, that on Introduction to Political Science. Prof. Smith has three sessions called "The Mixed Regime and the Rule of Law, Aristotle".

Mixed regime is not covered in any detail and hardly brings up Sparta. That there was an actual historical government that practiced that---nowhere.

But this is the real kicker, in the Classics section they have Prof. Kagan give an introductory course on Greek civilization and history.

Prof. Kagan actually says, Sparta had mixed government but is actually an oligarchy! Sparta had mixed government but is an oligarchy.

I really wonder what goes on in academia.

In the 9th lecture on Sparta, he says this:

[Nikolaos]

I am glad to see you back to the Forum and I must admit your comment has a true reason to it!

I have to agree with you with your statement of the current standard of the academic teaching. However these are just the formulation of a past scholarly generation that their ideas and attitude towards ancient Sparta - and for many matters of ancient Greek civilization - are going backwards.

I want to cheer you up, for that reason I will suggest you the following title to read Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political And Social History written by Anton Powell, an eminent academic figure of the British academic research on ancient Sparta and its Constitution. Read it and I am sure you will find many of your suggestion to be supported by the author.

[WHEELER]

Well I found Anton Powell's book on Questia and in the midst of reading it, Prof. Powell says this:

[WHEELER]

There is no such thing as education today. What goes on in the university, is political indoctrination.

If anybody hasn't caught it yet, the second to the last line of this paper, "The Spartan Republic" is a direct refutation of the Oxford Companion Classical Literature.

[Nikolaos]

[WHEELER]

This post is going to be replicated in two other threads because it is very important and many people, I'm guessing, will not figure this out.

In my paper, "Doric Crete and Sparta, the home of Greek Philosophy", I wrote that "the establishment of the Senate is the signature characteristic of a republic".

Why did I say this?

(from my paper "The Classical definition of a republic" at Wikinfo.)