Thucydides versus Plato

Thucydides versus Plato on the nature of the Good Life

Plato and Thucydides both had strikingly different views on their approach on the good life. Some have claimed that Plato is making normative claims, whereas Thucydides is making empirical claims. Let's start by taking a look at Plato.

Plato's theory on the good life was based on the belief that everything has an objective or use that is typically suited for virtue, beauty, justice, and excellence of the precise thing, and everything will depend on the completion of that role. He considers the good life as being attained through the perfect love and lack of desire.

Plato views the good life as the condition a person exhibits total virtue. Virtue tends to come from the absence of desires, or expectations , so true happiness means being pleased to the point one doesn’t have desires. He’s convinced that everyone has the power to be virtuous. He also believed the man and citizen are the creation of the City; they are it’s property (like slaves) and it’s children, and the individual has no right to assert individual rights against the City. In his case justice is accepted as a compromise, and valued, not as good in itself, but for lack of power to do wrong; no man worthy of the name, who had that power, would ever enter into such a compact with anyone; he would be mad if he did. The general in the Athenian army and a greek historian, Thucydides believed the good life was self-sufficient; “the good man” was the strong man that could handle himself well in all circumstances, protect himself and his own, be generous with friends, and justly terrible to enemies.

He chronicled the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta, which he described as lengthy and empirical. His narration of events raised numerous questions when it came to justice when it applied to war and