Thucydides and Plato have a clear set boundary in their writings as to what type of assertion they are fabricating. Thucydides sets a very narrow view with his piece of The Peloponnesian War that holds more weight in solid evidence of what a “good life” is demonstrated as. Plato, on the other hand, has several writings that go into depth of weighing what someone’s soul ought to have within itself. The statement of Thucydides making empirical claims, with Plato making normative claims, is supported with evidence in their respected works.
For a claim to be considered similar to an empirical one, it must be almost like it is a law to be followed. Thucydides has protested, with the Athenian and Melian relationship, that a prosperous lifestyle can
…show more content…
From the Apology, Plato shows how Socrates was unyielding in his morals. Any sensible person would have taken the choice to evade death and accepted the ignorant life was the best. However, Socrates defies this by stating the conjecture to the court that to fall to the swift wickedness is worse than death. With this, Plato is defining the logic of Socrates soul is right rather than the evident fact of what the court laws describe. In his passage of Crito, Plato examines the thought of honor in following through one’s own promise. Socrates cannot leave or escape because it would not acceptable. His whole life, he had the choice of leaving this city. However, he welcomed the knowing of what the laws stood for to take advantage of the city had to offer. Again, Plato is addressing the idea that a person's inner virtues are worth more than the circumstances that attempt to govern him. In The Republic, Plato moves to have Socrates debate the multitude of traits that can lead to a “just” man who can really live the good life. “The happiest man is he who is first in goodness and justice, namely the true king who is also king over himself.” (Plato) In view of this quote, Plato is making the affirmation the ideal life of prosperity is only achieved through holding true to one’s self. All of these writings come from the logic of what is judged, not by …show more content…
Thucydides focuses more of his observations on practical experience. He takes into account what has happened and what can be common sense. The Melians would not win with the Athenians purely because the did not have might. Thucydides deduced that by this manifest truth that if someone was able to hold their own against other conflicts, the good life would come naturally. On the other hand, Plato takes a stance of a more theoretical view. His study into the soul is showing what is logical to the individual’s values. His stories consider that while conditions may be applied, what should be right is still a higher value Thus, this leads me to conclude that Thucydides makes empirical claims and Plato makes