Thucydides’ continuing influence in contemporary political debates rests in large part on the perception that he offers a ‘realistic’ portrayal of human nature and of the impact of human nature on the behaviour of both individuals and states. This chapter analyses and contextualizes the two principal varieties of realism that have been attributed to Thucydides. First, the conventional realist reception, which reads Thucydides as a structural analyst of classic power politics. Second, a new political realism, which sees Thucydides as a witness to the complexity of politics and to the tragic consequences of that complexity. Finally, the chapter introduces a third possible mode of responding to the text, which brings back into the frame the question of what should be counted as ‘realistic’ in the first place and insists on ‘the usefulness of anachronism’ rather than the usefulness of lessons on reality.

The global success of BTS demonstrates that their artistry and message have captured the attention of many. Similarly, their fandom, ARMY, has received attention for its ability to organize around social justice causes. While BTS and ARMY are pushing against and connecting across borders that often seem impermeable, this work does not happen with ease. How do people in a fandom that spans the globe both organize and educate within this fandom community? This chapter examines fandom through a case study. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests called attention to violence and racism against Black people after the murder of George Floyd. There were concerted efforts within the ARMY fandom to raise money and awareness for BLM. Many of these efforts began before BTS and their company announced support for BLM. It is important to recognize the fandom’s public-facing, collective work, and it is equally important to recognize the effort required to educate within the community about this and other social justice issues. This chapter identifies, tracks, and analyzes attempts being made in the fandom to educate and discuss race and racism around BLM by sharing stories of personal experience with racism, hashtags meant to encourage solidarity, and visual art.

The Megarians and the Stoics were different philosophical schools, and also presented internal variations in a number of respects. Their logics, however, are interrelated enough to be usefully outlined together.1 To indicate their differences and to identify historical connections between the two, I use biographical data, on the one hand, and continuities in logical developments, on the other.

This chapter looks at the work of the contemporary Noongar writer Kim Scott, focusing both on its portrayal of his family history and the history of Indigenous settler contact in Western Australia. It emphasizes the importance of the university as a context for Scott’s historical fiction, focusing on creative-writing programs and practice-led research. It demonstrates how the rise of “the doctoral novel” plays a vital role in a more plural and more just model of literary engagement.

Several ancient philosophers and philosophical schools address issues about terms and propositions. The most important contributions are offered by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. In the Sophist, Plato distinguishes names and verbs (which roughly correspond to subject-expressions and predicate-expressions), he claims that truth and falsehood qualify only speeches (which roughly correspond to complete sentences), and he sketches accounts of truth and falsehood for speeches of the simplest sort. In De Interpretatione, Aristotle picks up Plato’s distinction between names and verbs and identifies the bearers of truth and falsehood with sentences of a special sort, namely, declarative sentences. In the Prior Analytics, he develops a theory of inferences constructed from propositions and terms, but he ignores the distinction between names and verbs. With the Stoics, a contrast analogous to that between terms and propositions is found at the level (not of speech, but) of sayables, incorporeal items signified by utterances. The Stoics single out a special type of sayable, the statable, as the bearer of truth and falsehood. Of the four sections of this chapter, the first is dedicated to Plato, the second to Aristotle’s views in De Interpretatione, the third to his position in the Prior Analytics, and the fourth to the Stoics.

Chapter 5 locates Montesquieu in an intellectual context he fashioned through his own choice of interlocutors in The Spirit of the Laws – his world of ancient political writers and lawgivers. Montesquieu turns to the classical world in search not of models for imitation but knowledge of the science of politics. This chapter considers the relationship between Montesquieu’s critique of the substantive ideals of classical politics and his significant debts to the Aristotelian mode of regime analysis.

Greek mathematics may not have been unique, among the ancient mathematical traditions, in its very use of proof (in the last generation, Høyrup and Chemla have shown the role of proof in the Babylonian and Chinese mathematical traditions, respectively1). But in no other ancient mathematical tradition was proof so explicit and foregrounded. Other mathematical civilisations proved: Greeks did so self-consciously.

This chapter clarifies the philosophic dimension of Montesquieu’s essay on Rome, which comes to sight when, in chapter 18, Montesquieu makes explicit that he is presenting here a preeminent case study vindicating the contention that “it is not Fortune that dominates the World”; there are “general causes, some moral, some physical, which operate,” and “all the accidents are subject to these causes.” This foreshadows the claim with which Montesquieu opens his Spirit of the Laws: “I have posed the principles, and I have seen the particular cases unfold therefrom as if by themselves; the histories of all the nations are nothing but the consequences.” These statements signal the emergence of the modern philosophy of history, as a major component of Enlightenment rationalism’s most ambitious project and hope: to show that human reason can provide a system of universal causal explanation that will leave no room for plausible evidence of governance by supra- and contra-rational providential and legislative divinity (which is profoundly opposed not only to revealed religion but to ancient political rationalism.)

The notion of validity and the systematic codification of valid forms of deductive argument are central to the discipline of logic. This chapter will reconstruct how, in antiquity, Aristotle and the Stoics constructed two different deductive systems meant to capture and codify an especially important subset of valid inferences, which they called ‘syllogisms’.1 In the process, we will also emphasise some key similarities and differences between the two systems, and between both of them and modern conceptions of validity and formal logic. Because of space limitations we will not include in our presentation other interesting and for the most part subsequent developments in the classification of valid forms of inference.2

Whereas much scholarship still associates migrant fiction in Australia with social or documentary realism, this chapter emphasizes its playful, iconoclastic, and experimental qualities. It questions the conventional long form as a closed, stable narration that relies on summation and style. Instead it turns to short fiction, examining writers such as Tom Cho, Nicholas Jose, and Melanie Cheng who operate as transnational, experimental, and decolonial forces in Australian writing.