Greek philosophy is where the West begins asking political questions in a form it still recognizes, and the decisive move was to treat the arrangement of a city as something that can be argued about at all.
Before Socrates, the answer to why a people lived as it did was custom, or the gods. The sophists broke that by teaching that laws are conventions, made by people and therefore changeable, and by charging fees to prove it. Socrates turned the same corrosive questioning on the sophists in turn, and was executed by a democracy for it, which planted the tradition's oldest suspicion: that a city and a philosopher may not be able to tolerate each other.
Plato's answer was to subordinate the city to knowledge. If there is a truth about justice, then ruling is an expertise, and the qualified should hold power whether or not anyone votes for them. Aristotle's answer was to subordinate theory to practice: collect the constitutions, ask what actually lasts, and settle for the best a given people can sustain. Almost every later dispute about expertise and consent runs along the line between those two.
Around them the historians were doing something different and equally durable. Thucydides described power without moralizing about it and gave realism its founding text; Xenophon and later Polybius asked what makes regimes stable and what makes them decay.
The schools that followed each took one thread and pulled: the Stoics the universal law, the Epicureans the contract of mutual advantage, the Skeptics the suspension of judgment. This entry holds the Athenian core they came out of.
