"Philosopher Kings"

Hellios
Yes, most monarchs had a good education & privileged background, but (in terms of philosophy) that's not the same thing as personal tutoring by the Aristotle-Plato-Socrates lineage. In terms of philosophy, that's something quite extraordinary.

True but the teachers of a later age were knowledgable of the famous Greek philosophers aswell as other world philosophers. However, their education must have had some impact on him somewhere along the line.

Hellios
Most conquerors destroyed cities, but not all of them built as many as he did. Try to look at the big picture.

I think its safe to say he destroyed more or at least as many cities as he built

Hellios
You must have some political or favoritistic issues to be saying that his interest in cultures & sense of philosophy were the same as Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. All I�ve been trying to say is that he wasn�t as un-philosophical as you portrayed him in your earlier post.


Genghiz Khan had the secret history of the Mogols written, was an expert in millitary philosophies being bought up in a millitaristic environment.

However, ultimately they were "Warrior Kings". Not all philosopher kings are great rulers and not all warrior kings are great leaders.

Each category has its greats, I wasn't trying to be derrogative about "Alexander the Great", he's one of the greatest "warrior kings".

Originally posted by Bulldog True but the teachers of a later age were knowledgable of the famous Greek philosophers as well as other world philosophers. However, their education must have had some impact on him somewhere along the line.

Thanks for agreeing.  Yes, what philosopher wouldn't want to have been personally tutored by the Aristotle-Plato-Socrates lineage?

Originally posted by Bulldog I think its safe to say he destroyed more or at least as many cities as he built.

Originally posted by Bulldog Genghiz Khan had the secret history of the Mogols written, was an expert in millitary philosophies being bought up in a millitaristic environment. However, ultimately they were "Warrior Kings". Not all philosopher kings are great rulers and not all warrior kings are great leaders. Each category has its greats, I wasn't trying to be derrogative about "Alexander the Great", he's one of the greatest "warrior kings".

 

If you prefer to call him a "warrior king", go ahead, but most people will think that you're under the impression that fighting is the only thing he was good at.  I've accepted that he was a product of both; his father's military excellence, and his philosopher educators.  The latter was surely going to be more evident today if he hadn't died so soon, because it's quite logical that in his old age he would've started to write more & fight less.  The philosophical writings would surely have been something comparable to his philosopher educators', with the added elements of his experiences as a great conqueror.

 

Edited by Hellios - 13-Oct-2006 at 14:36

Originally posted by Bulldog We could debate about what "might" and "might not have" happened but unfortunately can only go on what we have. Which is that Alexander the Great is known for fighting and not philosophy.

Edited by Hellios - 13-Oct-2006 at 19:54