The rise of the political thought is related to the birth of society and thus the state. This is perhaps one of the least controversial asseverations in the field of political thought due to, not the simply endorsable characteristic of that claim for any social scientist, but the inevitable derivation of what we call as politics from what we call as societal relations. In spite of the fact that early examples of a civilised society and political thought can be observed in Mesopotamia, Egypt as well as India; the birth of the western political thought, which is the most influential one in contemporary era, is usually dated back to the ancient Greece and Rome. In this regard, Greek and Roman philosophers have particular significance for their effects on the modern western political philosophy.

Ancient Greek civilization is well-known for its specific political, social, economic, and cultural habitat that is known as “polis”. Polis is both the
name of a social milieu and its political institution. This in fact underlines an important initial point that political administration is not something detached from the social life. On the contrary, it is an indispensable part of it in ancient Greece. The members of the Polis, in other words citystate, consist of polites, namely the citizens; and the citizens of the polis consist of free Greek men among which foreigners, women, and slaves are not included. Polis was an output of economic and social division of labour and stratification within the society.

Institutionalisation of the politics arose upon social and political struggles within the polis. Indeed, the term politics originally means “related
to the polis”. Since there was an organized society, the process of decision-making for the sake of this organization was called as politics. So, the purpose of politics was about the questions such as “how the decisions related to the common good of the society must be taken?”, “who decides what common good for the society is and how people shall behave within a society?”, “how these decision-makers take these decisions?” Thus, we see that although modern politics seems to be determined as a separate professional field of knowledge and occupation, for the ancient Greeks, the questions above were the common ones that had to be engaged in by each citizen.

The early philosophy of the ancient Greece was called as “philosophy of nature”. These philosophers were considered as early “scientists” who were attempting to deal with the laws and the order of the nature. The first philosophers were those who speculated on natural events. They aimed to explain the principles of the order of cosmos and to understand the order of society. Thus, while some philosophers, such as Pythagoras from the Elea school, sought the order in mathematical principles, some others, such as the material monist like Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximender, found it in some material elements, such as earth, water, air, or fire. Although the latter group of philosophers was materialist rather than idealist, they were called as “abstract materialists”. Finally, there were also some philosophers, such as Democritus and Epicurus, who tried to understand the transformation of the universe and the movement of cosmos. These early investigations only partly aimed to deal with the social life.

The first social philosophical school of the ancient Greece was Sophists. Since the term sophist also meant “quibbler”, it has been said that philosophers of nature underestimated the sophists due to their name and philosophy. Indeed, they were laying the foundations of social sciences. By them, the main theme of Greek thoughts, rather than being the order of universe, began to be problematic for humanity and society. While the Persian wars caused the participation of masses in social affairs, new ideas were required in order to explain and describe the new socio-political order. But also, for the first time in history we know, masses were interested in philosophical thoughts in order to be an active participant of politics. Thus, sophists became active in mainly Athens where daily political life was quite vivacious. The reasons for the birth of sophist thought in Athens, then, can be associated with three factors: 

1. A relatively liberal atmosphere, which was the result of development of democracy, 

2. An interest in explaining the transformation of society, 

3. The need of mass for social knowledge in order to take an active role in politics.

One of the main separations of Sophists from the traditional Greek philosophy was the aim of their investigation. Till to Sophists, the Greek philosophy was a search for the objective reality. However, the aim of the Sophists was not contemplative, but practical. Hence, they became an educational movement in Greek polis. They were teaching the art of life and how to control it to the youth. Lectures given by several sophists included grammar, commentaries of poets, mythology, philosophy of religion, and rhetoric. These were also the themes that an ordinary Greek citizen needed to participate in the socio-political life. In summary, it can be said that Sophists were lecturers, who earned their life through teaching rhetoric or politics and “the trappings of culture”. Serving also to the youth of nobles in Athens, Sophists provided them a significant advantage to be successful in politics and social life. However, they were criticised for giving lecture for earning and inciting the youth against to the conventional rules of society

Academia was the first academic institution of Europe. Its founder was Plato. In Academia, he taught his philosophy and political views. The institution was sponsored by some rich friends of Plato himself. He had two options for the salvation of Greece: Either the philosopher should be the king or the king should be a philosopher. 

According to Plato, public and republic were both natural beings, rather than being artificial or contractual. But their forms were depended on people’s will.For Plato, republic (state) was not something that the Sophists defended; it was not contractual or artificial. Republic was natural, as the public itself. Since human beings were incapable of living by themselves, society and the state were natural beings. But, forms of societies and states were up to wills and conditions of humans. On the other hand, social life requires a division of labour. This division of labour does not mean a completely segregated society. Indeed, the society is portrayed as an organism. Thus, each elements of this organism, according to Plato, has their own functions. Upon this organisational understanding, an ideal state is based on a stratified society, which has three occupational sections. These sections are production, protection, and administration. These are also three different classes of the society, namely producers, protectors, and administrators. They all have different features and virtues. Accordingly, the first one, namely the producers, is the lowest part of the society. They look for material satisfaction. The virtue that corresponds to them would be moderation. They would be accepted as virtuous, if they are sufficiently moderate. The second main group, namely the protectors, has noble wills. They pursue fame, admiration, and honour. The virtue that corresponds to them would be bravery. The last group, namely the administrators, is hierarchically on the top of the society. They represent the logic and reasoning. Thus, they pursue for knowledge and wisdom. Their virtue is wisdom. They are philosophers identified as the one who loves knowledge. So, there are not only three occupational classes but also three virtues for an ideal society: Moderation, bravery, and wisdom. But Plato adds a fourth one, which influences the relationship of these three classes; this is justice. A state is just as long as all classes fulfil their duties. Justice occurs if all other three virtues occur simultaneously in a society.

Aristotle was a follower and student of Plato. However, he followed a different methodological path. Instead of emphasizing a dualist world order, idealism and episteme; he rather preferred to follow an empiricist methodology. He constructed his philosophy on experimental and observational conclusions. Still, politically, he followed Socrates and Plato. According to him, politics was a supreme activity, related to virtue, and the good of polis, general interest, was the supreme aim of individual life.

Aristotle classified the sciences under three categories: Productive, practical, and theoretical sciences. Productive sciences are similar to agricultural science and engineering that are not, nevertheless, sufficiently explained by Aristotle. Theoretical sciences are ones aiming to achieve only knowledge. Physics, natural sciences, mathematics, metaphysics, or theoretical philosophy are examples of this form of science. Practical sciences are normative disciplines by which people know how to behave. Politics or ethics are practical sciences. Logic is not classified under one of the categories mentioned by Aristotle since, according to him, logic is not a form of science but it provides rules for argumentation. Thus, logic is a tool for scientific inquiry. Parallel to this view of him, Aristotle’s works were collected under the title of Organon (tool, instrument) by his students.

For Aristotle, stability of the regimes should be ensured. He was against to the revolutionary movements. He considered revolutions as a disease. Then, the disease should be cured. There were several reasons for revolutions: 

• Inequalities 

• Drives for profit and dignity 

• Cruelty, excessive force application of the ruler 

• Improvidence of rulers 

• Conflicts of different races or nations, who did not learn how to live together 

• Minorissues,such as personal disagreements and etc. 

• Empowerment of the ruler 

• Lack of middle-classes; that is to say, economically a highly polarized society 

• External interventions

Aristotle classified the governmental types on two dimensions: The first dimension was the rightness and aim of the states. According to this measure, states were classified as being right or wrong. The second dimension was the number of people who possesses the power. There can be only one single person, there can be a minority, or there can be a majority. Thus there occur six different types: The right single person, or minority, or majority regimes and the wrong single person, or minority, or majority regimes. These types can be listed as  follows: 

• The government of a single person who aims the common good: Monarchy

• The government of a minority group who aims the common good: Aristocracy

• The government of the majority of the people which aims the common good: Politeia

• The government of a single person who targets the interests of single person: Tyranny

• The government of a minority group who aims the interests of the rich: Oligarchy

• The government of the majority of the people aiming the interests of the poor: Democracy

The destruction of polis started during the age of Plato. Yet, polis had a chance for surviving. While Plato was portraying a strong ideal of city-state, he was considering this opportunity. When Aristotle took the turn, it was too late for a city-state to survive. Even though Aristotle sided with monarchy and aristocracy, as he noticed that polis was arriving to the end, he opted for politeia, which was a moderate regime. His try was not adequate enough. Philip II conquered the Greek peninsula at 339 B.C. and a new period, called Hellenistic Age, started. Son of Philip II, Alexander the Great, captured all Mediterranean geography and established a Hellenic Empire. It was consisting of western and eastern cultures. The legacy of this empire continued during the Roman Empire and ended up with Christianity.

Epicurus developed his philosophy based on four different sources: Platonic lecturers of Athens, atomist doctrine of Democritus, septic views of Pyrrhus, and hedonist philosophy of Aristippus. Even though he was affected by all these philosophers, he was a strong critic of them.

Epicurus was a materialist philosopher, who followed Democritus. He developed an ethical philosophy, consistent with the materialist philosophy of nature. Contrary to idealist philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, a materialist contribution to social philosophy was important. According to Epicurus, the cosmos was consisting of material and space. The smallest parts of the material, atoms, while falling down within this space, crashed to each other and thus came together or separated. Happenings or changes occur as a result of the movements of materials. Thus, the fate of the cosmos was not a priori described.

The aim of Epicurus was not political. He was trying to establish an internal ethical philosophy for individuals. As it can be understood, main aim of Epicurus was ethical, not political. He did not have social targets or social solutions. Thus, Epicureanism could not be successful against to the Stoicism and Christianity, which also emphasised a transcendental power.

Roman political thought was a simple follower of the Greek political ideas. Theoretically saying, their contribution was limited. But still practical implication and political organizations were detailed and very well developed than that of Greek equivalents.

The main problem of Cicero was conserving Rome despite all its social contradictions. In order to achieve this, collaboration of all institutions and unity of faithful supporters of the republic were needed. Aristocrats started to turn away from politics. The democratic developments scared them of huge masses of people. Cicero tried to provoke them for politics again. He wrote that politics was a virtuous activity. Against the Epicurean views, which recommend giving up with social issues and searching for individual happiness, Cicero argued that egoism was against nature. The nobility of the spirit had to be shown by entering to the politics. Cicero’s main aim was to turn back to old aristocratic days. According to Cicero, public and republic –state- were the same. When people united within a stable order, a need for administration occurred. Society was a result of sense of community and state was a result of political differentiation. State was a unity, in which people were united with a common objective and connected to each other with legal bonds.

Republican Rome fel down between 55-31 B.C. There was an ongoing civil war in Rome, almost from 90 B.C. Octavius, successor of Caesar, won the war and neutralized the army against the political affairs. Thus pax-Romana, which would take two hundred years, officially started. Octavius was called as the imperator, a title given to the victorious commanders. He based on the power of imperium during his ruling and then gained the title of Augustus, which meant the supreme or  the magnificent. It can be noticed that even the senate still existed; the regime was transformed to a monarchy.

Political question of this new era changed: Who would be the next emperor? The emperors were successors of important families. Although the senate kept its entity and the political regime was called as a diarchy, the emperors were holding the full power. Emperorship was combined with religious features and the emperor started to symbolize the unity of Rome. The politics of empire was not problematized around res publica anymore. The fate of the empire was a universal issue. Emperor Caracalla accepted all free people of the Empire as citizens. Thus the citizenship expanded. Infinity, divinity, universality were the main conceptions of empire.

Stoicism had several representations in different ages. Stoicism of the Imperial Rome was represented by Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C.- 65 A.D.). The main problem of the age was balancing the order of a great empire and freedom. The main instrument was ethics. But this would be an ethics founded on the reason.

Saint Augustine (354-430 A.D.) was the last stop before the so-called darkness of mediaeval ages. He was the prominent philosopher who tried to systemize Christian thought on religion, world order, and society. He tried to set up the Christianity on philosophical underpinings. Since he wrote before the Teuton invasions, he found opportunity to transfer the antique Greek philosophy to the Christianity. He adapted antique thought to the Christianity. He used the thoughts of Plato and Stoicist in order to achieve this. Augustine believed that the universe was created by the God from nothing. According to him, the God created everything from nothing only in six days. His motto was “God and spirit. That is all I would like to know. Nothing else is needed”. This was a strong negation of reason and philosophy. He thought knowledge was impossible for human being. Human beings were deficient and transgressor. The only way of reaching knowledge would be faith and the scare of God. This was the starting point for wisdom.