Aristotle's Politics PDF

ARISTOTLE’S POLITICS  Plato’s Kallipolis vs. Aristotle’s Polis While the central place in Plato’s understanding of politics is occupied by the philosopher-king who should shape the polis according to the ideal pattern of political order, Aristotle argues that it is only the citizens who s...

ARISTOTLE’S POLITICS  Plato’s Kallipolis vs. Aristotle’s Polis While the central place in Plato’s understanding of politics is occupied by the philosopher-king who should shape the polis according to the ideal pattern of political order, Aristotle argues that it is only the citizens who should choose the most adequate form of political order and implement it realistically. According to Aristotle, politics is not theoretical knowledge consisting of principles and their application to individual cases. Therefore, dealing with politics, Aristotle claims, is always contained in discussing various possibilities, in examining the good and bad sides of each solution. Aristotle’s whole philosophy of politics is actually a dispute (the opposite of Plato’s philosophy of ideal politics).  The Platonic politics deals with the construction of the ideal, or best possible, state, while the Aristotelian politics contains a much more empirical grasp of how politics works in the real political world. He looks at the developments in political life in much the same way that he looks at the developing life of other natural phenomena. For Aristotle, part of political experience is what men have thought of that political experience. So Aristotle has a tendency,which is again absent in Plato, to give common or received opinion about politics a sympathetic hearing.  The Naturalness of the City Every association is constituted for the sake of some good. The city (polis) as the best association, embracing all the others, aims at the highest good for the human beings, which, Aristotle will announce, is happiness, attained through the exercise of moral and intellectual virtue. When Aristotle claims that the city aims at the highest good, he suggests that it is through political activity that individuals can most fully practice these virtues that constitute their happiness. The city offers a more adequate field than its predecessors [i.e., the family and the village] to moral activity, a more varied set of relations in which the virtues may be exercised. And it gives more scope for intellectual activity; each person is more fully stimulated by the impact of mind upon mind. The first argument: “Human beings are by nature political” Human beings are political animals because they possess reason/speech (logos). Through reason people deliberate on and communicate to one another what is advantageous and harmful, and consequently the just and the unjust. The political community (polis) is the prime association through which we seek the advantageous and the harmful, the just and the unjust. Politics is therefore the way in which we fulfill our natural capacity for reason and speech. Politics involves argument about advantage and justice, deliberation concerning alternatives, choices among them, and action to attain them. Implicit in Aristotle's presentation of the human good is our need for others, with whom we share our deliberations, choices, and actions. The second argument: The Teleological argument Here Aristotle describes the natural growth of the city as if it were an organism, which develops naturally out of the first associations of human beings –the relationships between master and slave, and male and female. These relationships exist by necessity rather than by choice: the master and slave come together for the sake of survival, the man and the woman for the sake of reproduction. According to the natural growth, first the families emerge. In the household, humans live "for the day" and hence with little deliberation about the future. Aristotle proceeds in his account of the development of the city with a description of the village – ''the first association arising from several households for the sake of nondaily needs». The village is "most naturally" explained as "an extension of the household." Families branch out and continue to be ruled by the father, or the eldest, who becomes king.  And finally, villages give birth to cities, Aristotle says, which are unions of several villages. Only cities (and the law that is as essential to their existence as human speech) can restrict unholy and savage deeds that arises within families. As a union of several villages, cities are characterized by a certain amount of distance and diversity. Cities are natural, Aristotle concludes, because they grow out of families and because they are the ends of a development originating in families. The core of the teleological argument: "What each thing is when its coming into being is complete, whether a human being, a horse, or a household, is its nature." Aristotle's teleological argument for the naturalness of the city suggests that human beings and their associations are as much a product of the natural world as other natural beings. As a colt grows into a horse, so does a household into a city.  It is through founding the city (and the deliberation and choice implied in founding) that human beings overcome their savage strife and assume the civility of which they are capable. Cities come into existence for the sake of life, not only for assistance in acquiring the necessities but also for regulating the conflict that arises over the necessities, and even over what goes beyond the necessary. In weighing the alternatives and choosing among them, human beings demonstrate that they are not as much a part of nature as other natural beings. While such thought and activity are originally the means for preserving life by limiting conflict, they come to be good for their own sake – the exercise of humanity's highest natural capacities. Humanity's overcoming of nature in one sense is thus a means for fulfilling its nature in another. Nature in both senses is at the heart of political life.  In other words, it’s not the case, then, that humans just happen to live in cities.They are actually naturally predisposed to eventually form such cities. It is the natural end-goal of human maturation. A self-sufficient and organized polis, then, “comes to be for the sake of living, but it remains in existence for the sake of living well.” After Aristotle introduces the idea that the city is natural, he will have to determine which type of political community is best. Rather than beginning by building up an ideal city from scratch, as we saw in the Republic, Aristotle decides that it would be more effective consider a variety of the most highly regarded political communities in his time and compare them with one another. The purpose of this goal, Aristotle claims, is to demonstrate how “the currently available regimes are not in good condition.” Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s ideal city Aristotle tackles with the intense emphasis and incredible effort Plato puts in to creating a unity in the city for he believes that without conflicts the community would become a shared harmony. However, Aristotle finds the emphasis on unity misguided. A city, he argues, is not simply one thing. It is a composition: a multiplicity of many things that function together, without obliterating the distinctions between them. “And yet it is evident that the more of a unity a city- state becomes, the less of a city-state it will be. For a city- state naturally consists of a certain multitude...” The point, it seems, is not to overcome this multitude of difference but rather to manage it effectively. This means that traditional family structures and other allegiances can be preserved, though they should be cultivated in such a way that they contribute to the overall functioning of the whole.  “It is as if one were to reduce a harmony to a unison, or a rhythm to a single beat. But a city-state consists of a multitude, as we said before, and should be unified and made into a community by means of education.” Aristotle acknowledges that Plato talked much of education, but complains that this meant only the education of the elite guardians. By ignoring broader “habits, philosophy, and laws,” Plato left out the vast majority of the city as a diverse multiplicity. A better regime would spend more time arranging the legal and intellectual shaping of all of its parts, not just one part. Only then will the whole benefit. The result of the Platonic regime of guardians is that the guardians live unhappy lives, while the rest of the city is ignored. Aristotle rejects Plato’s argument that the apparent unhappiness of the guardians will support the overall happiness of the city. To Aristotle, the happiness of the whole will depend on the happiness of each of its parts.  Book III: What does it mean to be a member of a polis? Who is the citizen? «Whoever is entitled to participate in an office involving deliberating or judging [whether definite or indefinite office] is a citizen.» However, Aristotle adds that a «citizen» can be defined in many different ways, depending on which form of constitution is in place. So to be a citizen in a certain kind of oligarchy is not necessarily the same as being a citizen in some tyranny. With this definition Aristotle intends to emphasize that citizenship is more about participation in political organization than it is about birthright.  The goal of finding the best politeia [regime, organization, arrangement, constitution of the city] has to do with uncovering a form of political organization that makes being a good citizen most equivalent to being a good person. The best regime, says Aristotle, would be one that emphasized not just living but living well. The goal of politics is not just survival but the cultivation of some “common benefit” for the citizenry as a whole. Like a captain on a ship, the statesman is ruling not only for his own benefit, but so that the whole ship and its crew can prosper.  “Since ‘constitution’(regime, politeia) and ‘governing class’ signify the same thing, and the governing class is the authoritative element in any city-state, and the authoritative element must be either one person, or few, or many, then whenever the one, the few, or the many rule for the common benefit, these constitutions must be correct.” So –regardless of the number of people involved in ruling– any constitution that aims at the common benefit is generally correct. Different kinds of constitutions: Kingship: one ruling for the common benefit Aristocracy: few ruling for the common benefit Polity (politeia): many ruling for the common benefit Democracy: many ruling for the benefit of the rulers Oligarchy: few ruling for the benefit of the rulers Tyranny: one ruling for the benefit of the ruler  Ideally, kingship, aristocracy, and polity would all aim at this goal of preserving just laws, with justice and equality defined in terms of capacity for political virtue. The decision between the three best kinds of constitution would then rely on the contingent contexts in which they came to be. Aristotle’s main argument here is that the three good constitutions should bring the virtue of citizenship as close as possible to the virtue of being a good person.  What will happen when the good citizen is identical to the good person? If a person is "so outstanding by his excess of virtue, he can no longer be regarded as part of the city." He is "a law unto himself." Because he cannot be a part of a city, to whom the same laws apply that apply to others, "it would be ridiculous if one attempted to legislate for [him]."  The virtue of a certain kind of good citizen, however, is the same as that of a good man. That citizen is the one who exercises political rule and who therefore knows how both to rule and to be ruled. Such a ruler rules over free individuals who are similar in kind to himself, and he learns political rule by being ruled. While he shares moderation and justice with other citizens, the virtue peculiar to him is prudence (practical wisdom). Characterized by prudence, his virtue consists in the good deliberation and judging with which Aristotle defined citizenship.  He rules, but others also participate. Unlike the absolute ruler, he is bound by law, for law regulates the manner in which he shares rule with others. His ruling therefore occurs within limits set by the past and is modified in the future as others rule in turn. He is not a god among humans who rules others as if they were absolutely different in kind and whose absolute rule is analogous to household management. He is virtuous, without possessing "an excess of virtue," for he is, Aristotle says, both moderate and just.  Polity: The rule of the Many for the benefit of the Many While none of the many may be individually an excellent human being, nevertheless when joined together the many can be better than the few. More important, if the prime criterion for rule were virtue, as Aristotle argues, the many can still make a valid claim: «because they are many, each can judge a part of virtue and prudence, and on joining together, the multitude becomes like a single human being, and so also with respect to character and mind.» Even with respect to judgment the many have much to contribute, for each knows some part better than anyone else does, and on the basis of his knowledge is a useful and even necessary participant in political deliberation and judgment. The highest claim of the many to rule is therefore on the ground of virtue rather than on the ground of equality or free birth. It is precisely because the members of the multitude have different contributions to make that they have a just claim to rule.  Aristotle's argument in favor of the many, however, points to the need for statesmanship, that is, for some reflection that can see a whole that the parts can form, some judgment to guide the individual contributions toward the common good. Statesmanship is needed to understand the whole city and to unify the diverse interests that the many represent. The city as a heterogeneous whole must be protected from the opposite threats of the many -from the homogeneity of democratic justice. The task of statesmanship is to protect the city against the worst side of the many while harnessing their positive contributions. As Aristotle says, "all of them joined together have an adequate perception and, once mixed with those who are better, benefit cities."  Aristotle’s Method of Inquiry in Politics Aristotle enters the political debate, building his own political philosophy by sifting through and modifying the various opinions that human beings might hold. As a result of his entering this debate, the philosopher sees what he is able to contribute to the opinions of others in order to reach a more complete view of politics. At the same time, he learns from the debate, from the opinions of others, and from the limitations on his thought that they constitute. He comes to understand what he can and must gain from others, the truths, if only partial, that they see and that he must take into account. For him to recognize that he needs to consider the opinions of others in order to philosophize and that others need his contributions to provide a context for their own is to understand that human beings are political animals.