Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:19:24.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides' Melian Dialogue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Hayward R. Alker Jr.
Hayward R. Alker Jr.*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If the realist tradition has underappreciated the formalizable quality of Thucydides' scientific investigations, neorealist teachers and writers have generally failed to see the normative and dramatical features of Thucydides' political science, each an expression of his dialectical epistemology and ontology. Nicholas Rescher's partial formalization of dialectics as a controversy-oriented approach to knowledge cumulation and Kenneth Burkes dramaturgical approach to textual understanding are both shown to fit Thucydides' argumentation in the Melian dialogue. Thus argumentation produces new knowledge about the inner determinants of Athenian imperialism; simultaneously it dramatically reveals the constituting practical rationale of Athenian actions to be unjust. Once Thucydides' determining essences of power politics are properly uncovered, their false “eternal, mathematical necessity” can be appropriately criticized. A case is thus suggested for a “neoclassical polimetrics” more fundamentally grounded in “political argumentation” about practical choices in particular contexts than in ahistorical laws, inductive statistics or deductive mathematics.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 82 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 805 - 820
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alker, Hayward R. Jr. 1975. Polimetrics. In Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7, ed. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W.. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Alker, Hayward R. Jr. 1982. Logic, Dialectics, Politics, In Dialectical Logics for the Political Sciences, ed. author. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 7. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Alker, Hayward R. Jr. 1984. Historical Argumentation and Statistical Inference. Historical Methods 17:164–73, 270.Google Scholar
Alker, Hayward R. Jr. 1987. Fairy Tales, Tragedies and World Histories. Behaviormetrika 21:1–28.Google Scholar
Ando, Albert, and Fisher, Franklin M.. 1962. Two Theorems on Ceteris Paribus . American Political Science Review 56:108–13.Google Scholar
Ando, Albert, Fisher, Franklin, and Simon, Herbert. 1963. Essays on the Structure of Social Science Models. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1964. Prior and Posterior Analytics. Ed. and trans. Warrington, John. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Arnhart, Larry. 1981. Aristotle's Political Reasoning. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Aron, Raymond. 1984. Politics and History. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., and Krabbe, Erik C. W.. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy. 1986. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1982. Experiments As Arguments. Knowledge 3:327–37.Google Scholar
Cornford, Francis M. 1971. Thucydides Mythistoricus. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Der Derian, James. 1987. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Devereux, Erik. 1985. Processing Political Debate: A Methodology for Data Production with Special Application to the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Bachelor's thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Dunn, William N. 1982. Reforms as Arguments. Knowledge 3:293–326.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., and Kruiger, T.. 1987. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1978. Logic and Society. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Finley, John. 1939. The Origins of Thucydides' Style. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 50: 35–84.Google Scholar
Finley, John. 1942. Thucydides. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Freiberg, J. W. 1977. The Dialectic in China: Maoist and Daoist. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 9:2–19.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1973. Theory and Practice. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Harré, Rom, and Secord, Paul. 1972. The Explanation of Social Behavior. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Werner. 1976. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Vol. 1. Trans. Higet, G.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert. 1983. Theory of World Politics. In Political Science, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert, ed. 1986. Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, Paul, and Lorenz, Kuno. 1978. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Mefford, Dwain. 1985. Changes in Foreign Policy across Time. In Dynamic Models of International Conflict, ed. Luterbacher, Urs and Ward, Michael. Boulder: Lynn Rienner.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1978. Politics among Nations. 5th ed. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Ollman, Bertell. 1971. Alienation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Anatol. 1960. Fights, Games, and Debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Reichman, Rachel. 1985. How to Get Computers To Talk Like You and Me. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1977. Dialectics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Romilly, J. de. 1963. Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Sergeev, Victor. 1986. Strucktura politicherskoy argumentatsii v «Meliyskom dialoge» Fukidida (The structure of argumentation in Thucydides' Melian dialogue). In Matematika v. izuchenii sredneoekovykh povestvovatel'nykh istochnikov, ed. Kloss, B. M.. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1978. The City and Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thucydides. 1951. The Peloponnesian War. Trans. Crawley, Richard. Introduced by Finley, John H. Jr. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of Internerionel Politics. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wight, Martin. 1978. Power Politics. Ed. Bull, Hedley and Holbraad, Carsten. New York: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
Winograd, Terry. 1980. Extended Inference Modes in Reasoning by Computer Systems. Artificial Intelligence 13:5–26.Google Scholar
Zinnes, Dina. 1975. The Scientific Study of International Politics. In Handbook of Political Science, vol. 8, ed. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W..Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.