Western Lit. 1-40: Hesiod: Mankind's Past and Future

    The ancient Greek poet Hesiod provides a unique perspective on mankind's past and future in his epic poem, "Works and Days." In this work, Hesiod explores the relationship between the gods and man, and the importance of a moral code in shaping the future. The relevance of Hesiod's view of the past and future lies in its enduring influence on Western literature, philosophy, and theology. This essay analyzes Hesiod's view of the past and future through the five points of the covenant outlined in Works and Days. Each point is uncovered through a close reading of the text, and an exploration of the historical and cultural context in which it was written. Ultimately, this essay argues that Hesiod's view of the past and future is one that emphasizes the cyclical nature of history and the importance of maintaining a moral code to ensure a prosperous future.

    The first point of the covenant, God, is a central theme throughout Hesiod's work. In the poem, Zeus is the supreme god who judges in terms of justice. However, he is not always predictable, and the consequences of his temperament can be mitigated by keeping track of time and conditions. Additionally, farmers must pray to Demeter for a bountiful harvest, recognizing the unpredictable nature of the soil. Overall, the ethical code for living is to submit your actions to the will of the heavens without complaint, as proper ethics will be rewarded.

    Regarding the second point of the covenant, Man, Hesiod argues that the current generation of men is "an iron generation. In a metaphor illustrating five generations of men as metals, the current generation is the least of all men, but the hardest and sharpest. Men must forge themselves with the fire of civilization into useful tools. Prometheus, who gave fire to man, represents rebellion against the sovereign power and the consequences for men who dare to advance civilization. The fire itself triggered a new age of cultural and technological progress in man. But because of their rebellion, Zeus sent Pandora, representing feminine chaos, suffering and death, but also salvation by hope for a better future. The need to master chaos and impose order in one's life is a theme throughout the poem. Hesiod warns of the dangers of the uncontrolled feminine, while also acknowledging the blessings of the gods on men, even through women.

    The third point of the covenant, Law, is a higher law that represents justice. Hesiod recognizes that the courts are corrupt with bribery and bad will and that real justice is harmony without conflict. Justice is the daughter of Zeus. Because of her Father, following an ethical code of living and avoiding violating justice is wise. Additionally, there are laws of regularity in nature that vary, but omens regularly convey changes. Reverence to nature and accepting fate without struggle is a component of good ethics. But Ethics themselves are composed in 'living well', which is construed by Hesiod as a productive and self-sufficient life.

    Sanctions, the fourth point of the covenant, relate to the consequences of cause and effect in history. Through his daughters, and the rest of the pantheon, Zeus brings justice in history. This argumentative demonstrates that sins against nature (Greek ethics) have real consequences. The poem also reinforces that the wisdom, education, and incentives of the ruling class are grounded in the wisdom of the muses, the inspiration of the arts, who teach princes judgments through wisdom. In the agricultural context of the poem, timing is everything, and omens, signs, and festivals are important for success, but for Hesiod prosperity itself is an ethical matter sanctioned by higher powers. To sum it up, The poem demonstrates an awareness of an ineffectual and uniform system of causation. Within the worldview of a farmer good ethics must consist of managing works and days in accordance with this system, what else matters?

    The fifth point of the covenant, Inheritance, is where Hesiod discusses the past and future of mankind. He predicts that the gods will destroy man for having an ungrateful and troublesome spirit, and that only sorrow will be left. The ethical rebellion of man against the right order will destroy them. This is partly a call for Perses to return what he did not rightfully earn, the inheritance. Owing to the nature of this religion, Hesiod has no hope for a future, and this must have been painfully apparent during conflicts like the Peloponnesian war. There is no hope for the ultimate inheritance of man, which is death, pain and suffering. However, at the bottom of Pandora's jar is hope, hope that men can live in relative peace with nature and the gods, but never for salvation. Even by preserving their household and living virtuously, men cannot hope for much but a peaceful life, a little bread, a cheese, and a short nap in the summer breeze.

    In conclusion, Hesiod's epic poem, "Works and Days," provides a unique insight into the nature of reality, the gods, and man's place in the world. Through his account of the Five Ages of Man, Hesiod outlines a view of mankind's past and future. He depicts humanity's descent from a Golden Age of abundance and harmony to a current state of turmoil and suffering, with a bleak future predicted in the form of the final Iron Age. Hesiod's work shows an awareness of the cosmic reality of humanity and the importance of living a virtuous life in accordance with the divine order. His emphasis on hard work, justice, and respect for the gods reflects the values of his time and provides a moral framework for later generations. Overall, "Works and Days" is a timeless masterpiece that offers a wealth of insights into the human condition and the eternal struggle to find meaning in a constantly changing world.

Western Civ. 1-40: Alexander the Great: How Great?

 3. What, in Plutarch's opinion, makes a "great man"? Is Alexander great?

    What makes a "great man"? According to Plutarch, the Greek biographer and philosopher, greatness comes from the combination of natural ability and education. Plutarch believed that great men are born with innate talents and characteristics, such as courage, intelligence, and ambition, but that these traits must also be cultivated through education and training. Plutarch's views on greatness are best exemplified in his biography of Alexander the Great, who he considered to be one of the greatest men in history. This essay explores Plutarch's ideas on what makes a great man, and examines how he applied these ideas to his portrayal of Alexander the Great.

    Plutarch believed that a great man must possess certain innate qualities, such as courage and intelligence, which set him apart from ordinary people. He argued that these qualities were not enough on their own, however, and that great men must also have a strong desire to achieve greatness and the ability to act on that desire. Alexander the Great exemplified these traits, as he was known for his fearlessness in battle and his strategic genius on the battlefield. Indeed, He was said to be driven by a grand worldview of noble revenge and the diffusion of Greek culture throughout the world. Like his father, he dreamed of unifying the Greeks and conquering the Persians, a desire he made manifest. But it was his courage and intelligence which allowed him to carry on some 50 campaigns over more than a decade without loosing a single battle.

    In addition to natural ability, Plutarch believed that education and training were essential for cultivating greatness. He argued that great men must be well-rounded and have knowledge in a variety of fields, including philosophy, politics, and the arts. Alexander the Great was a product of his education, tutored by Aristotle and exposed to a wide range of ideas and cultural influences. This education contributed to his ability to pacify a vast empire and foster cultural exchange between different peoples. He took on foreign customs, first of his Greek neighbors, then the Egyptians and Persians. Eventually, he and his men even took Persian wives. Eventually though, practices such as forcing his men to bow alienated them from his cause.

    Another important characteristic of a great man, according to Plutarch, is the ability to make difficult decisions and take risks. He believed that great men must be willing to take bold actions in order to achieve their goals, even if those actions are unpopular or risky. Alexander the Great demonstrated this quality in his decision to pursue an aggressive military campaign that ultimately resulted in the conquest of much of the known world. It seemed he wasn't afraid of death, battle, or much of anything really. It is said that he wanted to conquer all the way to the 'distant waters' of the pacific ocean. Apparently his men didn't share his drive, as they mutinied at the Hyphasis river in 326 BC.

    In conclusion, Plutarch's views on what makes a great man are exemplified in his biography of Alexander the Great. According to Plutarch, a great man must possess innate qualities, such as courage and intelligence, but must also receive a well-rounded education and be willing to take risks in order to achieve greatness. Alexander the Great embodied all of these qualities, making him one of the most celebrated figures in history. By examining Plutarch's ideas on greatness and their application to Alexander, we gain a deeper understanding of what it takes to be a truly great individual.

Western Civ. 1-40: The Liberty of Moderns Compared with that of the Ancients

The concept of liberty has been a fundamental issue for philosophers throughout history, Benjamin Constant's "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns" provides significant insight into this debate. Constant argued that ancient liberty was characterized by political participation and direct democracy, a focus on public life and the common good, and subordination of the individual to the state. Modern liberty, on the other hand, emphasizes individual freedom and autonomy, private life and civil society, and limits on the power of the state. In this essay, the focus will be on analyzing the differences between ancient and modern liberty, the benefits and drawbacks of each, and the necessity of self-government as the final evolution of modern liberty.

To understand the differences between ancient and modern liberty, it is essential to provide historical context. Ancient liberty originated in the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome, where political participation and state sovereignty were central to the idea of liberty. Classical liberty was about a sense of community and belonging, shared purpose, and solidarity. It was marked by free and active participation in public life facilitated by the small and direct nature of the state. Men with liberty, that is to say property-owning men, had the ability to pursue politics in their own polis, and because of the scale, participation had a real effect on the community. This kind of political liberty has drawbacks, including tyranny and oppression, limited individual freedom and autonomy, and a tendency towards conformity and groupthink. Sparta and Rome serve as examples of how excessive emphasis on political freedom leleadso the decay of society through the suppression of individual rights and the growth of oppressive regimes.

Modern liberty, on the other hand, can be traced back to the Enlightenment era. It emphasizes individual freedom and autonomy, a plurality of perspectives, and the limitation of state power for the protection of individual rights. Constant was particularly concerned about the potential for mob rule in democratic societies. He argued that in large, developed states, political participation was no longer possible for the average free man. As a result, the population could become isolated, alienated, and egotistic. When individuals lose control over their own political life, they are easily tempted to make rash decisions that serve their own interests. This, in turn, could lead to the rise of demagogues who exploit the fears and prejudices of the population to gain power. Constant feared that without proper checks and balances, individualism could lead to the tyranny of the majority, the suppression of minority voices, and the erosion of social order.

One of the crucial aspects of Constant's argument is the relationship between economic liberty and political liberty. He argues that economic liberty is necessary for political liberty to exist. Without economic liberty, individuals would not have the means to exercise their political rights. In this sense, economic liberty is a precondition for political liberty. However, Constant still feared that unfettered liberty could lead to inequality, social unrest, and the erosion of social cohesion. His ideas led him to believe a compromise must be found between ancient and modern ideas, manifested in the form of a representative republic. He had no idea that modern republics would inherit all the worst qualities of both systems without any of their benefits. Fortunately, there is a way to solve this paradox.

Unfortunately, Constant doesn't take his point far enough to get us there. We are all products of our times, and he was no different. The French revolution had made him fear mob rule, and rightly so. If only he had considered his point further. Commerce promotes personal responsibility, accountability, and innovation. In the ancient world, the condition of commercial freedom was best exemplified by the city of Athens. Now, the public spiritedness that Constant was looking for relies on individual virtue. It is true that commerce nourishes one's virtue, but it is even more true that liberty makes one love one's independence. Self-government relies on true liberty, but the power of commerce enforces self-government and reduces the need for the state to provide.

Trading reduces the need for force to secure individual prosperity, but it also encourages public virtue and the love of liberty. The very basis of success in the market is not mob rule, but personal virtue. If something were not deemed socially virtuous, it would not be encouraged by the market, and the market is the purest form of democracy, producing exactly what consumersneed. Self-government solves the problem of mob rule without compromising to the barbarism of the ancients. It is the ultimate solution to the question of liberty. The importance of balancing individual freedom and social responsibility is paramount for self-government to succeed, but this is done spontaneously through the expedient market. The need for active and engaged citizenship in modern society is crucial to prevent extremists like Robespierre from taking power. Commercial liberty solves this by putting force and demagougery to the side in favor of virtue.

In conclusion, the difference between ancient and modern liberty is vast, with each system emphasizing different values and priorities. The ancient model valued political participation and the common good, while the modern model emphasizes individual freedom, autonomy, and the limitation of state power. Moderns would find lacking in ancient liberty the protection of individual rights, the plurality of opinions, and economic freedom. Modernity is often criticized for its tendency towards conformity and groupthink. However, the evolution of modern liberty towards individual freedom and autonomy is essentially progress in the human condition. Conservatives are more concerned with social consequences of progress, not progress itself. Constant's argument for a republican compromise falls flat in the face of history, but the solution lies in self-government. Market darwinism encourages social virtue, and the production of social goods. The progress of modern liberty relies on the economic power of commerce to enforce self-government and reduce the need for the state to provide. In other words, balancing individual freedom and social responsibility is the self-defeating task of the republic, but commercial liberty solves the problem of mob rule spontaneously by dismissing what society does not value. The ultimate goal is to achieve a balance between personal liberty and social cohesion, and self-government provides the best solution to this challenge.

Gov. 1A-40: Prices: The State And Human Action*

Most people believe price controls protect customers, but that's not entirely true. Rather than safeguarding the economy, price regulation is a direct threat to individual freedom and choice. This essay explores how price regulation impacts personal freedoms and human action. In an effort to protect consumers, the state often imposes price regulations on certain goods. While price controls might seem appealing at first glance, they are, in essence, people controls. By altering pricing they are able to shape the choices of individuals and the future of whole communities. A thorough understanding of the social and economic implications of price regulation allows readers to explore their unintended consequences By examining the their effects on personal freedoms, market efficiency, and economic outcomes, the unfortunate realities of this policy become evident. Despite all appearances, price controls are ultimately people controls. This kind of regulation harms the interests of everyone, and that is why it is so important to understand how and why it does so.

One way to view pricing regulations is through their impact on consumer behavior. When prices are artificially lowered, customers are more likely to purchase goods or services, even if they do not need them or would not have bought them at the market price. These factors ultimately lead to a misallocation of resources and distortions in the housing market. For example, if the state sets a price ceiling on rent, landlords are forced to lower their prices, leading to an increase in demand and a shortage of available housing. Existing tenants will be protected from paying a fair price, but at the cost of harming other families who will then have trouble finding better opportunities for housing. Thus, pricing regulations have countless unintended consequences, changing the incentives for decision making and harming the interests of the very same people they seek to help.

Price regulations can also impact the behavior of businesses and producers. When the state imposes fixed prices, businesses may be less motivated to invest in developing new and innovative designs, or to expand their current product line. This can result in a shortage of appealing options for potential buyers. For instance, if the state sets a price ceiling on rental apartments, property management companies will be less likely to invest in the construction of risky and highly regulated affordable units. Instead they will spend their money more wisely investing elsewhere, thereby limiting the availability of low-income housing. High demand and low competition means owners have few incentives to repair or maintain the building, leading to a decrease in quality options. This harms consumers who are unable to access the goods or services they need. In effect, price regulations can have a chilling effect on business activity and innovation, ultimately narrowing the range of housing options available to consumers.

Another way to view state pricing regulations is through their impact on labor markets. When wages are fixed by the state, employers are less inclined to hire workers, leading to a decrease in employment opportunities. The effect is to 'knock the bottom rungs off the ladder' for low-skilled workers who may have trouble finding jobs. If the state sets a minimum wage that is above the market rate, businesses may have to lay off workers reduce hours, or stop hiring for some position to compensate for the increased costs. The effects may not be immediate, but they will be felt on the margins where it truly matters. Thus, pricing regulations harm the labor market and limit the opportunities available to low-skilled workers.

Price regulations can also have an impact on the quality of goods and services. When prices are fixed by the state, producers have less incentive to care about the quality of their products or services. This leads to a decrease in quality and a reduction in customer satisfaction. For example, if the state sets a price ceiling on airline tickets, people will demand more and seats will be packed. Good experiences come out of fat margins, and at a lower price, customers care less about their experience. High demand and low prices mean airlines have fewer incentives to invest in comfort and amenities on planes. The most profitable airlines will be the ones that can cram the largest number of people in the cheapest planes. Contrary to their aim, pricing regulations harm consumers by reducing the quality of goods and services for everyone.

Finally, State intervention in the market through cost constraints, such as price controls and subsidies, can have detrimental effects on both personal and commercial finances. Imposing price constraints can lead to market distortions, which cause arbitrary shortages and surpluses. The state then responds by subsidizing costs to ensure that providers can continue to operate. However, this spending must be financed by debt, taxes, and inflation, ultimately punishing more productive citizens and industries. Placing an additional burden on businesses increases their operating expenses. If the owners aren't willing to absorb a massive loss costs get passed on to customers in the form of higher prices or reduced services. For customers, this means getting less value, even if they want something better they are not allowed to pay for it. This reduces real purchasing power and harms their financial stability. Furthermore, the ability of everyone to act freely is compromised by state seizure of their finances. While subsidizing price controlled industries may seem like a solution to high prices, it can have severe consequences for both individuals and businesses. Free markets and free choice are the best solution to ensuring fair prices and access to goods and services.

In summary, the effects of state-enforced cost constraints go beyond their intended purpose and have far-reaching effects on the rest of society. By limiting the scope of human action, price controls become people controls. The misallocation of resources, stagnation in innovation, reductions the quality of service, and disincentives for providing controlled goods are just a few unintended consequences of controlling free choice. Each one limits personal and commercial choices, ultimately harming consumers. Good economics consists of perceiving the unseen consequences of regulations, and in considering the alternatives. Free markets insure competition, innovation, and diverse choices for consumers. Price controls may well be implemented with good intentions, but their unintended consequences and insistence on control mean they are harmful to both personal liberty and the interests of those they intend to help. Prices controls may seem to protect customers, but in reality, they threaten individual freedom and choice, harming the interests of all.

Gov. 1A-35: Prices: The Market, or the state?

    Among the numerous clichés of socialism is the notion that the state should control prices. At first glance, the idea of price controls may seem to offer many benefits. However, it is important to grasp the full implications of this policy, even before naive do-gooders make it so. The key force behind human action is profit, whatever we weigh against it is called the price. The market, driven by supply and demand, is the most efficient way to set prices, provide incentives for innovation, and ensuring efficiency. Ironically the 'scientific' planning state is impossibly wasteful in setting prices, it can't react quickly to changes in the economy, and creates artificial shortages and surpluses. It might not work, but price fixing does imply that coercion is useful, or even necessary for increasing the quality of life. Worse yet, the outcomes of price controls are far from desirable, meaning the real question at hand not about price controls, but who should have the power to set prices. Who indeed? The free market or the state? When the facts are examined honestly, it is clear that the market is superior to any 'alternative' method for economic calculation. What follows is the answer to why only the market is fit to set prices.

    To begin, prices are not arbitrary, in simple terms prices are set by the available supply of goods, and the relative demand for those goods. Prices serve as a way to inform the economy about the value of any good relative to other goods, and about alternative uses for those goods, making economic calculation possible. Thus the market allows individuals to make decisions based on their own preferences and the prices they are willing to pay. This creates a market price that is both fair and efficient. By definition, the market is a self-correcting mechanism that ensures prices stay in line with both supply and demand. In contrast, the state struggles with the socialist calculation problem and the economic struggles it imposes on consumers. Since supply and demand are always known, the market can set prices more efficiently for both consumers and producers. Any attempt to alter this arrangement results in a sub-optimal allocation of scarce resources. Alternative distributions might benefit a few parties in the present, but will also compromise the efficiency of the whole in unforeseen ways

    A free market provides the best possible incentives for individuals to innovate and create new products and services. How is this possible? Price systems reward those who are able to offer the best products at the lowest prices. The market also encourages competition, which drives innovation. When companies compete with each other, they are constantly trying to improve their products and services in order to stay ahead of the competition. This leads to continuous improvement and progress in the market where competitors will become more productive and efficient over time. This competition is compromised by state intervention, which arbitrarily advantages some competitors over others. Whatever advantages gained by manipulating prices come at the cost of future innovations.

    The market ensures that resources are used efficiently because individuals make decisions based on the prices they are willing to pay. This means that resources are only used in ways that are considered valuable to the individuals who are using them. This leads to an efficient allocation of resources, as resources are only used in ways that generate the highest value. The market also encourages individuals to conserve resources and to use them efficiently. The dialectics of power are not valid here. In a free market the spending power of any party is backed by their cash flow, which is ultimately determined by consumers. In any case, a higher level of demand signals more resources to be allocated for production, leading to the level of abundance actually desired by everyone.

    Now the antithesis. The state cannot be efficient in price setting (resource allocation) because it lacks the information that is required to set prices efficiently. The state cannot be aware of the needs and desires of everyone. As a result, it is not able to set prices that accurately reflect supply and demand. The state also lacks the incentives to innovate and to use resources efficiently. Despite the best attempts of regulators, bureaucrats are not subject to the same incentives as private actors. More often than not they are wholly irresponsible for their actions, but given authority over huge things they don't understand to act at their own discretion. As explained, the free market avoids these problems by adopting a decentralized system of calculation know as pricing. Private actors are responsible for their actions exactly to the degree that they choose to invest themselves, but with prices they are informed by a picture as broad as their canvas.

    Another problem, Hampered by its bureaucratic structure, the bloated leviathan state is unable to react quickly to changes in the economy. In order to accurately set prices, a centralized system must constantly adjust its calculations of supply and demand. But this is made even more difficult since they have no idea what ought to be calculated in the first place. All this means means that prices will be out of line with supply and demand for long periods of time. Prices are information, and bad information leads to surpluses and shortages which are really good for nobody. Both extremes waste resources and endanger alternative uses of scarce resources. The market on the other hand is able to spontaneously respond to changes in supply and demand, which ensures that prices stay in line with the actual supply and demand.

    Beyond the realm of economics, the best argument for the market is that it increases the personal freedom of the individual in every possible way. First of all, by definition the market self-assures that individuals are free to make their own decisions based on their real preferences, not those of far-flung magistrates. This means that people are free to choose the products and services that they want, and they are free to set the prices that they are willing to pay. That leads to greater economic freedom, more options, more value, and more power to the people than a state could ever provide. The market incentives individuals to act on the opportunities they see to create value for society leading to greater wealth and prosperity for everyone. Entrepreneurship provides a way for people to achieve financial independence, which is a key component of personal liberty. When the state interferes with prices it interferes with the personal liberty of everyone to financially benefit a few. What it fails to realize is that the two are twins, you don't get one without the other. Price fixing is like race fixing, only the race being fixed is someone else's life, and in so doing you harm the futures of everyone in countless ways you couldn't even imagine.

    In the realm of economics there is a central conflict of authority: People vs. Their magistrates. There is a conflict of law: legislation vs supply and demand, either the state is our sovereign or we are a free nation under God. There is a conflict of sanctions: the state vs the market. Which is a better guide to prosperity: Dependence on Bureaucrats, or our own Thrift? Ultimately it comes down to this question: Which side of the dialectic is morally superior? This is a question of covenant. Will we have Spontaneous order, or will be taking orders from the machine god? What choice will you make? Liberty or this tragic cliché?

    In the realm of economics there is a central conflict of authority: People vs. Their magistrates. There is a conflict of law, which is best for the individual: legislation or supply and demand? Finally there is a conflict of sanctions: the state and the market. Which is a better guide to prosperity? Ultimately it all boils down to this: Which side of the dialectic is morally superior? Spontaneous order or ordered chaos? State price controls are not effective and they harm the interests of everyone but a few. The free market, on the other hand, is driven by the real factors of supply and demand. It provides the best incentives for innovation and virtually ensures efficiency. The market allows individuals to make decisions for themselves and act on opportunity. Freedom provides the entrepreneur with unique opportunities for financial independence and personal liberty. In the end, the market is a uniquely moral and practically superior method for setting prices

Western Civ. 1-35: The Times and Fury of Medea

    In ancient Greece, drama was a significant cultural contribution and offered a unique lens into the values and attitudes of the time, as students of history it is important to understand these themes. Greek tragedy and comedy have greatly influenced Western civilization through our literature, sadly only a small number of plays have survived. Euripides was once of these few famous surviving writers. He was known for his criticism of the gods and social norms. His play "Medea" serves as a critique of the mistreatment of foreigners and women in Athens and a powerful commentary on current events. An analysis of this work takes into consideration the writer's writing style, the cultural context in which he lived, and his views on religion, politics, and social norms. Through the examination of works we can obtain a more nuanced understanding of ancient Greek attitudes towards foreigners, women, religion, and learn more about the time period. Armed with this information we will have a better appreciation for the role of drama in shaping our cultural heritage.

    Medea explores the themes of revenge, power, fate, and justice through the character of Medea, a foreign woman who is mistreated and oppressed by her husband, Jason. The play was written in 431 BC just as Athens was engaged in a devastating war with Sparta and its allies. The play's depiction of Medea's rage and terrible revenge against her wrongdoers reflected the anger and frustration of many Greeks in the terrible war they were fighting. As a foreign woman, Medea is an outsider subject to discrimination and mistreatment society, especially in a time when foreigners were considered enemies. This narrative clearly illustrates Euripides liberalism. During the play, Medea decides to take control of her own fate and seek justice for herself. At that time in history rhetoric like this was on the uptake, yet opposed by key conservative figures like Aristophanes in his "Lysistrata". The play wars about the dangers of mistreating, and conveys the importance of treating everyone with dignity and respect. In conclusion, Euripides' "Medea" was a extreme but popular critique of the attitudes towards foreigners, religion, and social norms in ancient Greece.

    Now we know that Greek attitudes towards foreigners and women are central to Euripides' "Medea." The play also portrays Medea as an actor who, despite her circumstances, takes control of her own fate by will by force. This depiction highlights the Greek ideas about foreigners, who were often viewed as a threat to the security of the state. This why Medea is oppressed as an outsider and a foreigner. In parallel with Lysistrata, the play also demonstrates the Greek sentiments towards women with power, suspicion and mistrust. This is expressed through her characterization as a dangerous and violent woman. At the same time Euripides seems to praise her for taking control of her own fate despite the societal sanctions placed on her as a woman and a foreigner. In conclusion, the Greek attitude towards foreigners and women was complex. They were treated with suspicion and mistrust, yet there was an increasing pus to include them in society. These attitudes provide insight into the cultural context of the late fifth century BC and the social and political issues of the time.