Aristotle and Plato - The differences between the two philosophers

Studying the course of Greek philosophy in the world, meet great personalities with thinking and their work carved deep cultural history and their influence on the shaping of thousands of years after their time.

Picture 1) Plato

Among these include Plato and Aristotle, two real giants of intellect and spirit, closely associated with each other, taught great truths were recognized and honored by subsequent generations until today for their contribution.

In their works we find many similarities in their views on life, man, ethics, something that also is natural if connected together as teacher and student. But we find some differences in their perception of the world, politics and the place of women in society.

Picture 2) Aristotle

The differences between the two philosophers

Plato was born in 428 BC Athens. His parents came from aristocratic line. So education was meticulous. From his youth expressed an interest in politics and what was happening in Athens. When he was 20 years old, experienced beyond his teacher Socrates, near which he stayed for eight years, until his death.

With Socrates developed a special relationship as a student, as his teaching influenced decisively shaping the inner world of Plato. Plato saw, after the death of his teacher, to preserve and transmit the teachings and sublime character, writing the famous Socratic dialogues.

When he returned to Greece after many trips, founded in 387 BC Athens School coenobitic a philosophical character, which he named in honor of the Academy Hero Academy.

There he taught for 40 years, until his death, in accordance with the ideals and the Socratic spirit. Academy emerged in Greece in a catalytic body of knowledge and formation of important personalities of the era and revealed many big names in the field of philosophy and science. One of these was Aristotle.

Aristotle was born in Stagira in 384 BC His father was a famous doctor, which probably influenced his son's interest in biology and physics.
In the Academy of Plato came at age 18 and stayed in it 19 years, until the death of his teacher. He developed a close relationship with him and respect for him, but he disagreed and differed greatly on some ideas and positions.

This is why it is said that Plato called him "pole", ie foal kicking his mother in the abdomen just born. The disagreement between these two great philosophers is a worthwhile topic to study it. Let us examine more precisely the places where they had a different approach.

Point One: The Theory of Ideas

The first and main bone of contention was the perception of the world. Plato believed that behind the world of the senses and of Matter was another reality, which he calls "the world of ideas." In this world there are molds, causes, patterns of all things and phenomena that we perceive through the senses around us.

All are made based on a timeless form, which remains unchanging despite changes time brought to everything. These timeless styles seem to be the primary elements of nature, like mentally and abstract shapes that form the natural phenomena and that their number is specific.

Aristotle for his part had completely opposite view. For him Plato had knocked over reality. Agree that the physical world is governed by variability, transience and decay. But the "ideas" of Plato him are not the primary forms of things, but it is an artifact of human reason, which is created through the experience. That is our idea of ​​the horse formed from our logic, as we have seen in nature compares a large number of horses and we have come in those characteristics that are common to all, beyond their differences.

This set of common features is the idea or 'form', as he called Aristotle, which has not existed in a special world, but occurs in katheti.Gia Plato the supreme reality is the world of ideas and archetypes.

For Aristotle, the ultimate reality lies in what we perceive with our senses. For Plato everything we see around us are reflections of other things that exist in the world of ideas-and thus also in the soul of man. For Aristotle, that exists within the soul of man are reflections of things and objects in the physical world.

Point two: The Policy

Another major point of contention between the two philosophers is the vision for who the best way (polity) governance of a state. Aristotle's work in "Politics" and Plato's "Republic" expressed their political positions with several common but different perceptions.

Plato speaks of the ideal state, which is ideal because it is governed by the constitution of the "nobility", that is governed by a set of people that stand for wisdom, knowledge, virtue, justice and governance capacity of each politon.O citizen within it has an important position, which is consistent with the nature, abilities and work undertaken to offer depending on the inclinations.

So it may belong to the class of rulers (rulers) in the class of guards - warriors (defenders of safety of the city from attacks), and the class of farmers, merchants, artisans (those that ensure the resources needed by the city to keep alive and survive).

The classes are more symbolic than real, and not formed by socio / economic or professional criteria. Associated with the four elements (earth, water, air, fire), which correspond to characteristics of human nature. So, every citizen belonged to one of these classes according to the characteristics and according to the training they need to take in order to cultivate character, spirit and generally his inner world.

According to Aristotle, people are divided based on economic criteria classes farmers, artisans and merchants, while socially divided into poor and rich media. The relationship they have between them the poor and the rich will shape the form of government.

The poor are usually more than the rich. Depending on how the power is shared and where it is concentrated, and determined the kind of government that can have three forms: monarchy or kingdom (one rule), aristocracy (rule few) Democracy (many govern).

To avoid degenerate and deteriorate these state forms into tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule respectively, shall be the purpose of incipient be the common good and not the interests of one or a few. The preference of Aristotle turns to the "Middle State", ie to what we understand today as a democratic polity, where the middle class ensures a balance between the poor and rich and keeps the center of gravity in the middle in their conflicts.

Point Three: The image of women

Another point of differentiation between the two giants are their views on the woman. The position that Plato gives to it in the state is equal to that of man. He believed that women can govern as well as men, because the wisdom, logic, valor, virtue is not a matter of gender, but the soul, training and education.

Emphasized that a state that does not give education to women, "like the man who does not exercise and not trains but only his right hand" (The World of Wisdom, J. Gaarder). Unlike Aristotle considers the woman's husband subordinate as he believes that in relation to this something is missing and that is an "imperfect man".

In the process of reproduction, because the woman has a passive role (receiving) and an energetic man (giving), the child inherits only the properties of the husband (which as we know today is not). The image and vision of Aristotle Women adopted in the Middle Ages, where the woman was downgraded, it was a source of evil and wickedness and limited to reproductive role only.

Despite the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle, it is important to stress that we encounter and "agreements" that is common. Both talk about the soul and its significance for humans, both emphasize that happiness is synonymous with virtue and high ideals and values, both remind us that the purpose of the State should be good and the cultivation of all its citizens.

But surely we find that both the wise Plato and Aristotle give the logical many useful and important answers to questions and concerns of today, so it can be both modern and timeless.

ONCE UPON A TIME ... It was a small debt-ridden state ...

Once upon a time there was a small, heavily indebted state. But because money was flowing everywhere as unstoppable global tide (produced foolish banks in Wall Street, the City, in Northern Europe), borrowing costs were zero everywhere so nobody paid attention.

Suddenly, in the autumn of 2008, the tide gave way to low tide. With the ebb to "dry" the banking sector cash, slowly came the ... stagnation in the real economy. Inevitably, the national income of the small, heavily indebted state began to decline while the growth rate of debt (the interest rate) grew (by the grace of international liquidity that pushed interest rates up). Eventually, nobody loaned this small state to serve (ie epanakylyei) the debt in 2008 amounted to € 260 billion.

Somewhere there arrived a good troika to help not bankrupt the small state. For two years pay to avert bankruptcy. Initially gave € 110 billion putting some terms in the small state as it is logical to make each lender. Half years after he promised other € 130 billion. And, as if that were not enough, he added the "gifts" they bring and a "haircut" previous debts of around (allegedly) of € 100 billion.

Anyone who knows nothing other than the above (correct) data should be concluded that this lady troika is merciful and generous: Overall gave € 240 billion from the "pocket" and acted like the old lenders small state to "extinguish", delete that, other € 100 billion. That is, countess € 340 billion as gifts in the small, heavily indebted state.

Let us accept this. Suppose that lady troika is indeed merciful and generous. That means that it is hopelessly stupid. I know it's heavy word but, alas dear friends, how can we come up with different designations (from the Troika deserves the Nobel Vlakias) where, in order to fight a debt of around € 260 billion, € 298 billion fuck in 2010, spent € 340 billion, but the small, heavily indebted state, although this goldmine of money main troika came again to owe more than € 345 billion!

I'll say it once again to capture it and the same: A small nation eurozone two years ago had an unsustainable debt of about € 300 billion. The troika offered in this small state, with one or another way, € 340 billion to help. And we got today? Arrived our little state to owe € 340 billion and counting. But if the 2010 Ms. Merkel and Mr. Strauss-Kahn (remember this truth ;) had told Papandreou "George, our child, please do not run away, we will repay the entire Greek public debt today," would save € 40 billion and Greece will not chrostage penny!

Defending course of themselves (ie monumental obtuseness of them) would say that they are not to blame but the Greek State did what they promised. Rectum but off topic. It may, indeed, be no doubt that the Greek state has failed to do in two years, as promised, all reforms lingering for decades. It is, however, not true that the Greek government lowered the primary deficit of the last two years (with misanthropic cuts, of course-of course, the income of the weakest) by about 9%?, Or not true that such reduction does not been done anywhere, ever, in peacetime and in times of recession, the economic history of mankind? On both questions the answer is absolutely positive.

So the unworthy though is the Greek government (surely is) the truth remains relentless troika: were received in May 2010 a debt of less than € 300 billion, they put the Greek government to shake violently in his girdle, they found € 340 billion for the Greek government and came despite the sacrifices of the Greek compact and other European taxpayers, increase (!) in Greek government debt by € 40 billion. And as if that was not enough, at the same time managed to shrink (as warned them that they do), the national income, from which you will have to repay the debt by 15%. Well done troika!

And now?

Now realized, too late, of course, top the stupidity. Got a problem which could have been settled with an amount of € 40 or € 50 billion (ie an interest-free loan in January 2010) and turned it into a black hole of a trillion and counting - if we take into "account our understandings of pesousis Ireland and Portugal, the hidden understandings of stagnant Italo-Spain, and so on.

Now understood that something similar succeeded to both good, but almost as weak, pupils in the class: Portugal and Ireland, wherever there, despite the enthusiastic flagellation of these peoples, the figures are equally damning for lady Troika. As for tinIspania and Italy, and these are exactly the same path. Only when their own multiple debt, and their own national income into the stage light-headed which are the smallest of the bankrupt member states, it will be too late for the eurozone. It has come to the end of the road and Germany will have to create a new monetary union east of the Rhine and north of the Alps - at the cost of loss of Asian markets and a tripling of the German unemployment.

Faced with this realization, has broken an old war between essentially Frankfurt and Berlin. On the one hand we have the financial sector, to Frankfurt, where there is almost unanimous: Loans of Greece will normally repaid over the next two months, until the end (hopefully "hopefully"), the French presidential elections. Following Greece and Portugal will "amputate" and "cauterized" which did not extend to the rest of the eurozone gangrene. On the other we have the Chancellery where there is a unique cacophony: Some agree with Frankfurt, others insist that the only "solution" is the withdrawal of Germany from the euro (and, in particular, monetary secession from France), some third persist that the eurozone should be kept as it is but bankrupt countries be strengthened substantially.

Faced with the option of this cacophony, Ms. Merkel tends conservative Being in favor of the status quo. That is, the continuation of the current nonsense where states like ours receive hundreds of billion so the debt grows ... and national income to decline. Not that the German Chancellor did not understand that the current path leads to the precipitation of the whole eurozone. The ambivalence of the German leadership simply reflects the fact that on the one hand they feel they lack the political support to deal rationally Crisis (since that requires a permanent commitment of Germany with the euro area), while the other disagreed (and rightly so) with the solution Frankfurt - what I call the amputation-cautery.

The solution of Frankfurt

A few days ago I was in Frankfurt turning a documentary on the English Channel 4. As part of the filming I had the opportunity to talk with three bankers with the President of the Stock Exchange and director of a domestic shadow bank. Although I met them separately, the consensus among them was impressive. Briefly, consider that (as I wrote above), after the French elections, Greece and Portugal will lead them to the exit from the eurozone. Why? Because it admitted Germany was wrong. Because therapy for the past two years proved toxic (as above documents). Admit in other words folly memoranda not only in Greece and the rest. They consider Memoranda kill Greece or Portugal.

Converted them to members whose gangrene caused by wrong treatment can no longer be healed and that we need: (a) to stop the poisonous treatment (ie tight rigor) to the other members who have not yet reached the stage of gangrene (Italy Spain and with little effort, Ireland), and (b) cauterized the wound that will leave amputations of Greece and Portugal (namely, our departed from the euro.) And how cauterized? By providing nearly € 2 trillion of fresh money from the ECB to the banks of the remaining members (notably Italy and Spain) and while deleting much of the debt of Greece and Portugal, while sustaining some of our banks, so the two countries under amputation do not collapse completely.

Error miserably

The solution of Frankfurt, although it has not prevailed, gaining ground daily in Germany. This partly explains some of the sayings of Mr. Schauble and overall dystocia noted with regard to the Memorandum 2. (Another reason is that, before the revelation of jewelry policy towards the Greek debt, the German leadership earns some points appearing not to want to throw and other twice in this black hole.) Nobody knows if eventually prevail whether the conservatism of Merkel or will prevail soon the excitement of Frankfurt for the solution of amputation-cautery. In Arades that follow, and which close, allow me to quote six reasons why optimism Frankfurt (namely that it is possible to rescue the eurozone's ouster two or more countries) based on error miserably.

Frankfurt assumes it knows what is by definition unknown, at least before the disaster: the cost of an amputation. The interfaces of the banking systems of Greece, France and Germany, and Portugal and Spain, will be seen in daylight only after the disaster - just as interfaces to the relatively short Lehman's international banking system was impossible to look only after the collapse.

The massive supply of freshly money on eurozone banks (after a crippling Greece and Portugal) will act as a colossal cortisone injection in cancer patients: although it would relieve for some time but in the meantime, the cancer will do the job at " internal ', growing, becoming more vicious and ultimately, more lethal. Briefly, as Japanese banks during the 1990s, assisted by rivers liquidity hid the iniquities accelerating stagnation of the real economy, something similar will happen in countries like France, Italy, Belgium, Spain.

So when I break out from the ranks of those same banks, a new wave of crisis, then amputation of Greece and Portugal will get and harrow Italy, Spain, the last and best of France. All these trillion will have been spent to save the Franco-German axis will have gone down the drain. And the worst? Would have lost at least three years of economic growth. Enough to stay in Europe permanently behind the ecumenical developments.

The losses of taxpayers in surplus countries from bankruptcy in Greece and Portugal, will increase the contrast of the peoples of Germany, Holland etc to new rescues Member States can not be saved only through the provision of liquidity to banks. While it will take more money for new loans, northerners Taxpayers will need to guarantee they will refuse stubbornly.

Foreign investment (eg China, Russia, the U.S. firms) in the eurozone will dry before the hideous spectacle of mutilation-cautery and uncertainty that would cause for what lies ahead.
In an interconnected world, the solution of Frankfurt will sow uncertainty in every corner of the earth, and thus invigorate the winds of recession, as the earth is round, will return to the continent fiercely growing recession in both countries North and South, making the attempt to salvage what remained of the mighty eurozone impossible.

The sixth reason is structural. The problem of the eurozone is not Greece, which, as we have seen, would have avoided two years global headlines with a softer approach. The problem of the eurozone is the lack of a unified pan-European regulatory framework for banks, the unmet need for a monetary union to a degree of consolidation of public debt and, finally, the absence of a truly pan-European investment policy to shift their savings (which roam around the world as an unjust curse) to productive (and profitable) investments in areas and sectors most need (from Greece to East Germany).

No part of this trilogy structural problems will not be solved by the method of mutilation-cautery. None. Operas, being interpreted, if the view prevailed Frankfurt, very soon the same collapsing reappear in what is left of the eurozone.

Epilogue

Everyone, except some of our policies have understood the folly top we came in the form of loan contracts (which became known as Memoranda medium etc). Proved poisonous for the entire eurozone. Even in Frankfurt and Berlin understood that, if continued this policy will sink themselves. Until there agree (for this and awake Mr. Monti is not afraid to proclaim, even in front of German leaders, "Enough austerity!).

But somehow, there begins the controversy that tends to take the form of a fight: While Frankfurt acquired recently optimism that it may not change anything just throwing Greece and Portugal than euro, Berlin hesitates. This is good. But not enough: The reluctance of Berlin means continuing poisonous 'treatment' memoranda, the closer you come to our countries in real gangrene and the more we approach the time that Frankfurt will prevail, resulting in disaster for everyone: North and South, East and West (and not only thinking in Europe).

And we? Voting every folly that give us, from May 2010 until now, let's view the Frankfurt gaining ground, coming increasingly closer to the time of amputation-cautery us. If instead we had a leadership with the courage to say no to new loans before the prevalence of Frankfurt, while specifically stating that the position of Greece in the euro zone is non-negotiable, then we gave in Berlin (which will not leave as remains contrary to the view of Frankfurt proceed amputation) one last chance to save the eurozone from the double threat (s) in the boxes Memorandums and (b) the absurd logic of Frankfurt.

We take them with us!

Greece will be the first country to be defeated by the state Troika and the IMF! Whatever do, whatever money you pay at the end we will bankrupt. Quite simply because we do not want to be saved. And down - after all, we are not the ones who asked them to save us.

In Northern Europe, where govern Protestants, there is another concept for the management of the commons. There is what they call themselves boxing and determination of the Prussian administration, while the joy of Christian indoctrination. The average German will experience a religious and national uplift if he can get out of hand the unruly Greek and lead him on the right track.

And who is this "right way?" But we can embrace their own dream, we become Germans. They can not understand that the rest of Europe does not want to even know what the Prussian administration. And also can not understand the culture of the South. It's not that they are worse or better than us. Is that we are different from them ...

You will see that there is a sacred commitment to the issue of taxes. As if it were the holy grail. Even from people who want to belong to the liberal camp. The curiosity is exactly: that taxes are not associated with the liberal concept. However, they are so deeply rooted views about taxes and the role of the State is unable to accept something different.

We see this every day with the management of Greek case. Persist in tax again and again and again. That is right and proper that we pay our taxes. We, however, do not believe it! We do not want our own money to fund a lavish state. Not for our state what represents for the Germans. Not the same as the Greek and the German state. Watch now. Despite their rhetoric so far has been quite tolerant to the issue of reforms in the state, but rigid, ultimately, to taxes.

This policy proved impossible. Because it could not for a moment accept that the state is not necessarily a healthy organism. In Greece and southern Europe in general, people do not have the same view with the Germans for the state and therefore, do not trust it. The Greeks are not Germans. We have the same roots, the same experiences, nor the same mentality.

The troikanoi So came here and thought that if we put in order to pay our taxes, then all would become then themselves, by magic. The problem, however, was not taxes, but this function of the state. The troikanoi trusted a deeply corrupt political system to advance reforms in the country and of course there was the slightest. The troika believed that the Greek capital would make efforts to protect the environment in which it operates, but did not calculate the fact that in Greece there was previously national bourgeoisie, as in their countries.

With Greece made a mistake and that's why they failed. Because they did not bother to try to understand what is really happening in this country.

Source: www.capital.gr

Thucydides, the Greek origin of the name Hellas

The Peloponnesian War between the Athenian and Peloponnesian League, under the leadership of Sparta lasted, with some truces, since 431 BC to 404 BC and ended with the total defeat of the Athenians, ending the cultural "golden age."

As you may know from our school years, the Greek historian Thucydides lived between 460-398 BC. and became world known for writing the classic History of the Peloponnesian War. In life's work recounts events that occurred during the civil war between Athens and Sparta; the Peloponnesian War lasted from 431 to 404 BC, a seven-year break "suspicious truce."

The preamble to the project read:

1. Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians. The syngrafin that was initiated at the outset of an explosion because proeiden that he will run counter large and more memorable than any previous war, and esymperaine so by the fact that both states katirchonto at him while they were at the edge of all kinds of military force of, and that he saw the other Greek prescribed either directly or intellectuals at least make the case to one or the other party. [1] Preamble (1-23).

This movement etaraxe toonti deeply to Greece, and part under barbaric and almost the whole world. The earlier events and the further past can not be identified clearly, due to the long passage of time. But presumptions, which, pusher my research so far distant past, judging reliably agomai to believe that there were not large, nor under polemikin or under another epopsin.

As to its origin, he says were Thracian, as father was Oloron, a name which also belonged to many kings of Thrace. The Oloron was the owner of gold mines in the coastal area opposite Thasos and therefore wealthy. Thucydides was born in Alimos had family ties with the Athenian political and general Miltiades and one of his sons, Cimon. During a campaign in the Crimean peninsula, Miltiades married Hegesipyle, daughter of Oloron, king of Thrace. The great historian received classical education and epireasike the great philosophical tradition of the Sophists, although it was rather aristocratic origin policy. The affinity and interaction with the circles of the aristocracy brought him into contact with people who shaped the history of the period for which he wrote. His character was said to be chilly, melancholic and pessimistic.

Alcibiades, politician with many skills and too ambitious, using as a pretext the war two Sicilian cities, Egesta and Selinus, convinced the ecclesia, despite the objections of Nicias, to organize a major expedition to Sicily under the guise of aid mission to Egestaious, friends of Athens. The Church appointed as leader of the expedition, three generals giving them full powers (generals emperors): Alcibiades, who was the initiator of the campaign, Nicias and Lamachos.

Thucydides was about 25-30 years old when he began the Peloponnesian War (431 BC). He fell ill during the plague that struck Athens between 430 and 427 BC and killed a quarter of its population between them and himself Pericles. In 424 BC elected general and assumed command of seven ships anchored in Thasos, probably because he had past dealings in the region. During the winter of 424/3 BC The Spartan general Brasidas hit Amphipolis, a coastal city of Macedonia to the west of Thassos, which was strategically important for the Delian League because of shipbuilding timber offered by the area and being close to the goldmines Pangee. The Athenian commander of the Macedonian city sought help from general Thucydides.

Brasidas, knowing that the forces of the Athenians was in Thassos because he feared would get reinforcements from the sea, rushed to offer favorable terms of delivery to the residents of Amphipolis and the latter accepted them. So when Thucydides arrived, the city was already under Spartan control. As was expected, the news of the loss of Amphipolis caused great political upheaval in Athens.

For his failure to save the city, Thucydides states:

"It was also written to be exiled from my country for twenty years after the events of Amphipolis, and being present with both sides of the conflict and especially with the Peloponnesians by reason of my exile, I had time to watch the situations somewhat impartially."

With the status of the exile, with deep knowledge of local conditions, as evidenced in his work, the perceptive historian travels almost freely in theaters of war and have the opportunity to see the conflict from different sides. Probably traveled in Sicily during the Sicilian Expedition. According to Pausanias, someone Oinovios managed to pass a law allowing Thucydides to return from exile, probably shortly after the surrender of Athens and the war ended in 404 BC Pausanias also mentions that she was murdered on his return to Athens. Many dispute this version, considering that there are indications that he lived until 397 BC Whatever happened, certain is that although he lived after the war and the final defeat of Athens, did not live to complete his story. The narrative is interrupted somewhat abruptly in the middle of the year 411 BC, suggesting perhaps that died during the writing of the project. According to a tradition, the text was to end with an unfinished sentence. His remains were returned to the city of Pallas and buried in the family tomb of Cimon.

Migrations

Thucydides did not title his work, nor divorced in books. The division into eight books and the title Thucydides Histories writer due to the ancient grammarians. In the first book - after the preamble - follows the so-called archeology, which is a comparison between the Peloponnesian War and previous major events of Greek history:

"This movement etaraxe toonti deeply to Greece, and part under barbaric and almost the whole world. The earlier events and the further past can not be identified clearly, due to the long passage of time. But presumptions, which, pusher my research so far distant past, judging reliably agomai to believe that there were not large, nor under polemikin or under another epopsin. "

Map of ancient Attica

According to him, Attica - because the terrain is meager and poor - it existed always free stops and for this reason it has always maintained the same residents. In contrast, efforotera above all apartments subject to perpetual variations of residents. As such areas indicate Thessaly, Boeotia, most of the Peloponnese, in addition to Arcadia and the rest of Greece the best parts:

"Because it is obvious that the country is now called Hellas was not permanently inhabited outset, but were done in the past sychnai migrations and residents without much difficulty abandoning Tash dormitory, forcing thereunto by young noumerous individual settlers. Since neither the trade as taking place today, there was then, nor safe by land or sea transportation, and everyone exemetallefeto the ground, which was in the possession of, both only in irkei for his maintenance.

Esorefan nor riches, nor the earth efytefan, both true since centuries facilities were not ochyromenai and therefore feared lest from moment to moment and other raiders made them remove everything they have. Because, moreover, believed that anywhere can ensure the necessary nourishment kathimerinin, emetanastefan not grudging and thereby were not strong, either by size of cities, nor at the polemikin general preparation. But efforotera above all apartments subject to perpetual variations of residents - as, for example, eparchies century, century opoiai now called Thessaly and Boeotia, and most of the Peloponnese, except Arcadia, and another from Greece's best places. "

Map of the Peloponnesian War. The map shows the alliances and military operations of the war (Italian).

The increase in wealth brought about conflicts and many fled to safer Athens, which over time became crowded and could not feed its population. Initially, the colonization of Ionia gave a solution to the problem:

"Because the fertility of the land he brought increasing the power of certain persons which eprokalei civil strife, of which these apartments eftheironto both probably because they were more exposed to external aggression. Attica, in any event, because the terrain is meager and poor, it existed always free of stops and for this reason he kept always the same people. And here we have apodeixin of my claim that because of immigration, the other parts of Greece there were increased in a population such as Attica. Is stronger because of those, who, owing to external wars or internal attitudes exediokonto from another Greece, fled to Athens Tash as in locally safe, and politografoumenoi, made the polis, straight from very old times, even more crowded, so that because Attica proved inadequate for the population of the city, the Athenians sent a colony to Ionia.

The name of Greece

According to ancient Greek mythology, Hellen was the son of Deucalion and Pyrrha and had three sons, Aeolus Doros and Xanthus. Aeolus and Dorus together with his sons Xanthus, the Achaean and Jonah were the founders of the four major Greek tribes were the Achaeans, Dorians, Aeolians and Ionians. The name Greeks in Homeric times did not correspond only to a Greek tribe that inhabited the area around the river in today Spercheus Fthiotida (ancient Phthia), which was the leader of the mythical hero Achilles, head of the famous Mirmithones:

"The 't they had been Fthiin hd' Greece kalligynaika. > / Kalefnto not Myrmidons and Hellenes and Achaeans "(Iliad II 683-4)

The Greeks in Homer's work also referred to as Achaeans Panachaiko, Danaans, Argives and Panhellenic:

"Encheii d ekekasto / Ajax the ruler of Locris / Panhellenic and Achaia" (Iliad II 530).

According to Aristotle, Greece was initially named area near Dodona. The etymology of the word Gentile has caused various discussions. The most popular version is that the word comes from the Selli (

Until the Trojan War, Greece did not attempt anything in common:

"The inability, after all, the old times it seems to me that demonstrates the fact above all that, before the Trojan War is nothing epecheirisen jointly by Greece. I suggested that this name had not yet dothi crushes him the place, not even existed before the Greeks, son of Deucalion, but different genders, and to a greater stretching the Pelasgian, the latter placed his name in the goods which they inhabited apartments. But from that time like the Greeks and his sons proved powerful in Fthiotida, and was calling the help of the residents of other cities, the various tribes as a result of this communication, were called already for rather more Greeks, although much time went before the name of this imporesi prevail generally. Better apodeixin provides Homer. Because, although he lived much later and more from the Trojan War, nowhere they called with this name everyone, nor other than those they followed Achilles on Fthiotida, who were also the first Greeks, but calls them in his poems generally Danae and Argives and Achaeans. "

Homer does not make a distinction between Greeks and barbarians:

"Neither barbarians, moreover, mentions for the word, as I think, that neither the Greeks were still distinguished by common name otherwise. Certainly the various Greek tribes, on whose name the Greeks, that community of language, exiploneto successively from one periphery to another, until it was extended subsequently in total, did not do kammian koinin enterprise before the Trojan War, due to weakness and lack mutual communication. Besides, the ekstrateian even against Troy then only tried together, when they had already acquired considerable empeirian the sea.

Thucydides (ca. 460 -398 BC) was an ancient Greek general and historian, world renowned for writing The History of the Peloponnesian War. This is a classic historical work, the first of its kind that tells the events of the war between Athens and Sparta

Greek and Greece

Dictionary of Mpampiniotis refers and type Ellopos, identified inhabitants of Dodona and northern Evia. Aristotle defines Dodona as original homeland of the Greeks. From a morphological point of view it is understood that Greeks and Greece are derivatives of noun Elloi - Elloi - Selli, as these types are found in Homer and Pindar. The Christian Hesychius interprets as follows: Elloi; Greeks in Dodona and priests. " All these language types are unknown etymou and importance when Mr. Mpampiniotis. [3]

As already mentioned, in Homer the word is restricted locally in the Thessalians Fthia, while the use of later authorities. adj. Ellanodikai increased its prestige due to the importance of the Olympic Games. Thucydides explains the geographical extension of the term from the Greek mythological Greek hero, who traveled often and acted in other cities. The ancient historian Herodotus believes that the term "Greeks used to emphasize the common origin of the various breeds of Greek space. [3]

The exclusion of the mythic from the history I might make it less terpnin as Akroama, I will be not sufficient, however, if my work is perceived as beneficial who want to have accurate perception on events, you have already taken place, and those which in the anthropinin nature may hereafter occur approximately similar. Thucydides [2]

The "Gender of the Greeks'

Unrest in Greece revives an ancient name of the Greeks, the Greeks name, used even before the Greeks established the word. An inscription of the 4th century. read: '"Greeks onomasthisan the previously called Greeks." Aristotle (Meteorology 1352 a) writes: "okounn [techniques, etc in Dodona in Epirus] the Selloi (the so Ellous] and then called true Greeks, now not Greeks. "Information of Aristotle and the general tradition of antiquity are that both the Greeks and Greek names and the area the initial installation of the Greeks placed in the region of Epirus around Dodona and the current Ioannina.

The south side of the Parthenon, Athens

In Alexandrian times, the name Greeks encountered but less parallel to the Greeks. In Byzantium alongside the Romans used to a limited extent, and the Greeks, hiring the particular significance "Greek Orthodox" as opposed to the Greek (= pagans, polytheists) and Latinos (= Western Christians / Catholics). In the 15th century (at the Council of Florence) refer 'meeting Latinos TE and Greeks. " The keen antiquarian Adamantios Korais before the revolution and other writers and fighters (King, Christopoulos and others) talk about the "Gender of the Greeks" and anaskolopistheis Athanasios Diakos - refusing to join the Ottoman army ... - Turks answered proudly: "I Grekos born, Graikos each to die. " With the establishment of the new Greek state, the name Greeks replaced by the Greeks. The Greeks, either as residents (later) the Graeae in Euboea and Evian Kimi colony in southern Italy either directly (older) from the region of Epirus, became known to the Italians, who were named Graeci, they are alien names of the Greeks as Greek (GATE), Grec (gall.), Grieche (germ.). However, foreigners use for the Hellas Hellas, as an official name of Greece to the European Union, alongside the names of Greece (GATE), Grece (gall.) and Griechenland German.

A lost unknown film of the Refugees of 1922, Izmir

And amazing documentary film found after 86 years! The film shot by George Magarian, during the events of Smyrna.

The George Magarian, born in 1895, studied at the "American College" in Iconium (Konya), Turkey. Later, he served as director of the Annex to the Konya YMCA (Christian Brotherhood Youth) or YMCA.
Although the YMCA is not charity, the period of events in Asia Minor, in 1922, organized structures relief of the victims of this tragedy. The George Magarian, at the same time participating in these events, at the same time, with a camera 35 mm, filmed many scenes of humanitarian disaster, Smyrna, Athens and Thessaloniki.

These dismaying images remained for 86 years in the apartment of his wife in New York. All were unaware of their existence until the 2008's grandson found this unique document, saved it from the ravages of time, and so, we are now able to see these unique fragments of memory.

The Egyptian chaos and the fallacy of U.S.

The military overthrow of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi was a triumph for the mass of protesters flooded Tahrir Square in recent days. Among them were found many of the youngsters, technology specialists activists who had captured the world's imagination more than two years ago when it helped to drop the authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak. This is one of the reasons why the Obama administration did not attempt to stop or even to condemn the coup. The dismissal of Morsi may well cede power to forces that are friendly to the U.S. from the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time marks the end of the ten year project of the U.S. to bring democracy to the Middle East.

In the wake of the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, the government of George W. Bush had made a radical change in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. would not continue longer give "carte blanche" in authoritarian Arab regimes that deprive their citizens political freedom. The logic behind the Agenda of Liberty, as it became known, was that democracy eased the disappointment of the restless Arab populations and reduce the attractiveness of Islamic extremism.

This theory was one of the main reasons Bush's invasion of Iraq, a decision that finally brought to power a government allied with Iran. The Bush administration Bush also pressed for elections in the Palestinian Authority - which were won by Hamas, an organization that aspires to destroy Israel.

In 2008, Barack Obama risked his presidential candidacy of his opposition to the war in Iraq. When he took office, Obama sought to distance itself from the excesses of Atzentas of Liberty, saying in a speech in Cairo that while the government's support for the democratic aspirations of the Egyptians, "no system of government can not and should not be imposed by a nation to another. " But as the Arab Spring unfolding in 2011, Obama spoke openly in favor of democratization. The government provided silent support for the revolution in Tunisia, calling public Mubarak to resign and took military action to help the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.

The result was, in a word, chaos. From the Middle East where the U.S. supported the regime change of 2003, only Tunisia, one can say, that reminds me stable, functioning state. Even there, the Islamist parties are the biggest election winners-just like the Muslim Brotherhood proved the strongest political organization in Egypt when it finally took place in the elections last year. Not surprising that the U.S. has almost stopped talking about the goal of implanting democracy in the region. The Obama administration is not pushing for elections in Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. The Obama agreed to send weapons to the rebels who fight against the dictator of Syria Bashar al-Assad just when it seemed to be on the verge of military defeat. And in Egypt, the U.S. attended aloof tanks to penetrate the center of Cairo and throwing its doors for the first democratically elected government of modern Egypt.

Strategically, this careful inertia may be sensitive. The government has much to gain by being strengthen incompetent leaders like Morsi, who are not interested anyway to cooperate with the U.S.. But it is now impossible for Obama to claim that America supports democracy in the Middle East. The illusion is over. The "realpolitik" had triumphed over idealism. Happy July 4th !