Question

is anybody here good at history?? there isn't very many people on in history and i need help on this last question have...

Answer 1

i have*

Answer 2

No.. thats why this is A MATH FORUM not a MATH AND HISTORY FORUM :P

Answer 3

people can be a part of more than one group nobody in history is answering and there isn't many people on either but there are tons on here so i didnt know if someone good at math was good at history to =p

Answer 4

Might as well give it a shot. Ask away :-)

Answer 5

thank-you =) =) 'how are Plato and king Louis similar and different? which one is the most Democratic and why?'

Answer 6

I know pluto was a former planet, but plato...?? hmm :D!!

Answer 7

lol =p

Answer 8

Louis the XIV? Well, I would say both are un-democratic in the sense that whilst Plato defended the existence of philosopher kings, the ones most enlightned in Kallipolis (as discussed in "The Republic", Louis the XIV defended the centralization of the power in the hands of the king ('L'Etait c'est moi', as the saying goes). Both are important in themselves, as the centralization of the power in France, at that time, was a necessity to avoid constant conflicts, while Plato was arguing against the sophists' plutocracy that was installed in Athens at the time. If you would say which one is more democratic, it's Plato, that was against slavery (as slavery was in ancient Greece, that is), and defended the rule of a city by more than one person, i.e., several philosopher-kings.
That's a bit of an awkward question, tho. Both belong to very different historical periods(and historical necessities), and comparing them like that could be a bit of a faux statement and clearly anachronistic.
But all that is my perspective of the issue rather than a true statement, after all, it's a humanities question :-)

Answer 9

lol thanks =) i really appreciate it!!! =) one more question.. what is anachronistic?

Answer 10

It's when we try to evaluate a historical event by using our own modern judgement and somewhat moral judgement also. It's more or less like saying, when looking upon Avicenna's work and say "Well, he was wrong". That's easy to say if you have Huygens, Newton and Galileo but you have to consider when he was doing his observations(The XI century!) and their limitations. What I am saying is that democracy, as we think of it, is a fruit of the late XVIII, early XIX century, the American Independence and the French Revolution. It's hard to look back to Louis XIV and say "How democratic are you?" disconsidering that there wasn't a democracy at that time. Even Greek democracy is far different than our modern democracy.
The dictionary entry will read: "something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare."

Answer 11

oh ok thanks again

Answer 12

I will underline it again that's my opinion based on what I read/studied in History. You should read the wikipedia entry for Louis XIV and skim through "The Republic" so you have an idea to formulate your answer to it :-) Anyway, good luck with that