I don’t know how to name my topic. “Ancient Greece” is too vague. It is used as a label for different, opposite approaches.
“Revolution in Ancient Greece” doesn’t really fit the title, as we’re dealing not with a radical change in the mode of production. However, this study is for theory of revolution. “Revolution must be a science” are words of Hegel, if we substitute “philosophy” for “revolution”. To make revolution a science, a subject of study, has been the goal of my life. “Ancient Greece” is a part of that study.
So, what has been accomplished and not accomplished, so far?
- I have tried to study all aspects of the society and its knowledge, not limiting oneself to any one thing.
- I preserve the method of historical approach, i.e. break up the whole into periods and study them in chronological manner.
- However, notably missing from this study has been the aesthetics, although some material I have obtained from the book on “Greek civilization” by Bonnar, and is present throughout the text, e.g. illustrations of Amazons, when I am discussing sexuality in ancient Greece.
- Another thing missing has been a comparison of 2 or more similar systems of society. This is necessary for understanding the general, which is present in the given type of society. This is what’s present in Plutarch’s “Comparative Lives…” The comparative method is really essential, when it comes to making a science out of revolution.