Alexander the Great - Aristotle, Plato?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gam197

Guest
Alexander

I watched the movie for purely historical content, skipping nudity and avoided gay theme.

After about a ten year period, in 323 B.C Alexander the Great, from Macedonia, conquered about 12 of the tribal groups, Persians, Indians, etcetera trying to unite them under him. His father had previously conquered about 5 groups, mainly Greeks. He brought to these regions the Hellenistic culture and Greek language “koine”.

Alexander was a pupil of Aristotle.

Upon further reading, I read that the Greek culture allowed homosexual behavior between older men and young boys, in the military, etc. Later the young boys would be expected to marry women. Also according to the movie, since the water was bad, they drank mainly a strong wine. It reminded me of the Mayflower trip; they drank ale.

Saw this on an essay on internet and it was either Aristotle or Plato that wrote it. He wrote about adult homosexual unions and why they were wrong. It went something like this -the person who penetrates breaks down the virtue of courage of the recipient while the recipient breaks down the virtue of temperance in the other.
**
Did Plato or Aristotle see virtues in acts as increasing or decreasing? Is there more on other virtues?
**
Temptation comes from within each of us and we are all different, correct?
 
I think that according to Aristotle it was almost impossible to form good habits if you didn’t already have them; basically, if you were an educated upper class greek you stood a good chance, but that was about it.
 
One of the reasons that Plato was controversial was because he taught that with education, one could become more virtuous. It was, in fact, the role of the good political order to inculcate virtue in her citizens.

Aristotle’s notion of virtue is quite different. Virtue for Aristotle is the midpoint between two extremes: bravery is the midpoint between rashness/foolhardiness and cowardice. Aristotle would argue that one could develop a better ability to discern virtue. Habits help make that virtue a constant part of one’s character.
 
Thanks.
originally posted by Maxply
It was, in fact, the role of the good political order to inculcate virtue in her citizens.
That sounds like a good idea to me.
Aristotle would argue that one could develop a better ability to discern virtue. Habits help make that virtue a constant part of one’s character.
Doesn’t the Church also teach that good habits should be instill at a very young age.

I had never fully understood that my sinful action would change the other person virtues by breaking them down. Maybe this is not Church teaching but it interests me that certain acts not only change the the other person but also break down my virtues. If you lie, what virtue do you break down in the other person and what virtue do you break down in yourself? If you steal, what virtues do you break down?
 
From a historical point of view, disunion among the Greek city-states allowed the Macedonians to gain political control, first under the leadership of Phillip and then his son Alexander. Although the Greeks tried to form alliances, they were never successful and all were conquered by Rome in 197 B.C.
 
You know, that’s an interesting point in history, the reign of Alexander’s Ptolemy generals. Not much gets taught there: you get Thermopylae, the whole Athens/Plato story, the Pelopponesian War, the March of the 10,000, and Alexander, but in my experience, I just haven’t seen many people talk about the situation before Rome grabbed it all.

I like Aristotle and lot; I think Aristotle was a step in my return to the Catholic Church. Much of what he says connects with Catholic teachings.
 
Oh, and with respect to the homosexuality, it was a practice encouraged to bind older warriors to younger ones, to forge a deeper emotional tie. From the bits I’ve read, I’m not sure exactly what kind of homosexual behavior took place.

Given the nature of Greek warfare, YOUR shield would protect MY breast, MY shield would protect the next guy’s. . . this gives you the ability to use a spear in close quarters across a long battle line. So having that extra emotional tie was seen as a way to help make that battle line hold together better.
 
You know, that’s an interesting point in history, the reign of Alexander’s Ptolemy generals. Not much gets taught there: you get Thermopylae, the whole Athens/Plato story, the Pelopponesian War, the March of the 10,000, and Alexander, but in my experience, I just haven’t seen many people talk about the situation before Rome grabbed it all.
You’re right, the post-Alexander era of the diadochi (successors) and their descendants up to the Roman conquest doesn’t get much press, probably because it wasn’t a particularly heroic time. The various successor states squabbled over the remains of the Greek empire while Hellenistic culture and military prowess ossified. Eventually the Roman Republic, with their more flexible tactics and superior strategy/diplomacy, was able to defeat them all piecemeal and take over the whole Mediterranean. A very interesting (and readable) source for this period is Polybius’ history of the Republic, written in the second century BC. 👍
 
thanks for the cite: I’ll check into Polybius. I have to say I’ve been hard slogging through the Clough translation of the complete Plutarch Lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top