Politics of Aristotle

Politics of Aristotle Aristotle's Politics is fascinating and significant at the same time. It reveals the prevalent preconceptions held by educated Greeks in his day, and it is significant because it forms the foundation for many ideas that influenced thought long after the Middle Ages ended. It does not include much that a modern statesman may find useful, but it does contain a lot of information that sheds light on the disputes between various groups in the Hellenic world. The ways of governing in non-Hellenic States are not well known. True, there are references to Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and Carthage, but they are largely cursory, with the exception of Carthage. Alexander is not mentioned, nor is there even the slightest indication of the total revolution he was bringing about in the globe. There is no mention of City States' impending obsolescence during the whole conversation. Greece was a political experimentation laboratory because of its split into separate cities; yet, from the time of Aristotle until the establishment of the Italian cities in the Middle Ages, nothing existed to which these experiments were applicable. The experience that Aristotle draws upon is, in many respects, more applicable to the relatively contemporary world now than it was to any that existed during the fifteen hundred years after the composition of the book. Numerous amusing side comments exist, a few of which should be mentioned before to delving into political philosophy. We am informed that a certain Decamnichus accused Euripides of halitosis while he was a guest at the court of Archelaus, King of Macedon. The king permitted him to scourge Decamnichus in order to soothe his rage, which he duly did. After waiting for several years, Decamnichus participated in a successful scheme to assassinate the king, but Euripides had already passed away. It is said that one should avoid indecency because "shameful words lead to shameful acts," that conception should occur in the winter, when the wind is from the north, and that obscenity should never be allowed outside of temples, where ribaldry is legal. It is not advisable for people to marry too early since the males' growth will be stunted, the wives will become wanton, and the offspring would be weak and feminine. For males, thirty-seven is the ideal age to get married, and for women, eighteen. We hear about how Thales, mocked for his lack of wealth, amassed all the olive presses on a pay-per-use basis so he could demand monopoly prices. He did this to demonstrate that philosophers may be wealthy and that, should they continue to be impoverished, it is because they are preoccupied with matters other than material prosperity. All of this, though, is incidental; let's move on to more important topics. The role of the State—the highest form of society that strives for the greatest good—is highlighted early in the book. The family is the most important social unit as it is based on the two basic and naturally occurring relationships between a man and a woman, as well as between a slave and a master. A village is made up of many families; a state is made up of multiple villages, if the total number of families is almost large enough to be self-sufficient. Since "what each thing is when fully developed we call its nature," and since human society, when fully developed, is a State, and the whole is previous to the part, the State, albeit being later in time than the family, is prior to it and even to the individual by nature. The idea at play here is that of an organism: we are told that a hand is no longer a hand when the body is destroyed. It is implied that the function of a hand is to be defined by its ability to grab, which it can only do while attached to a live body. Similarly, a person can't accomplish his goals unless he's a member of a State. According to Aristotle, the person who established the State was the greatest of benefactors since, in the absence of law, humans are the lowest of animals and the State is necessary for the existence of law. The happy life is the ultimate goal of the state, not only a place for trade and criminal prevention. And the State is the union of towns and families living a perfect, independent existence—a joyful, honorable life, to be precise” (1280b). "Noble deeds, not just camaraderie, are the reason a political society exists" (1281a). Since a state is made up of homes, each of which is made up of a single family, the family should be the starting point for any political conversation. Slavery is the main topic of debate since, in the past, slaves were always considered members of the family. While slavery is morally acceptable and practical, the slave should naturally be subordinate to the master. Some people are destined for ruling from birth, while others are suited for servitude; a man who is by nature not his own but rather another man's is by nature a slave. Slaves ought to be of a lesser race with less spirit rather than Greeks (1255a and 1330a). Both tamed and naturally lesser animals do better under human authority than under that of their superiors. One may wonder if the practice of turning POWs into slaves is morally acceptable; yet, greater morality is not necessarily implied by force, which is what wins a battle. However, war is only justified when it is directed against those who, although being predisposed to submit to authority, refuse to do so (1256b); in this scenario, it is inferred, it would be justifiable to turn the vanquished into slaves. This would seem to be sufficient justification for any conqueror in history, as no country will acknowledge that it is meant to be ruled by nature and the only way to determine nature's intentions is to look at the results of battle. Thus, in every fight, the winners are right and the defeated are wrong. Extremely fulfilling! The topic of commerce, which had a significant impact on scholastic scholarship, is discussed next. Something can have two uses: the appropriate use is to wear it, and the incorrect use is to swap it. As an example, a shoe can be worn or exchanged. Given that a shoemaker needs to replace his shoes in order to survive, it implies that there is something inferior about them. We are informed that the skill of acquiring riches does not naturally involve retail commerce (1257a). Managing a home and land well is the natural path to riches. There's a limit to the amount of money that can be generated this way, but there's no limit to what can be made through trade. Money is involved in trade, yet acquiring coins does not equate to prosperity. Trade-derived wealth is naturally despised due to its artificial nature. "The most despised type, and for good reason, is usury, which profits from money itself rather than its inherent value. Because money was not meant to grow at interest, but rather to be utilized in exchange. This is the most artificial way to become wealthy out of all of them (1258). You may read about the consequences of this statement in Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Although his background is trustworthy, his commentary favors pre-capitalist ideas. "Usury" refers to any form of loan at interest, not only high interest rates as they do now. Humanity, or at least the more developed part of it, has been split into debtors and creditors from the time of the Greeks until the present. Debtors have opposed interest, while creditors have supported it. Historically, men involved in business have been creditors, and landowners have often been debtors. With very few instances, philosophers' opinions have aligned with the class's financial goals. Greek philosophers were against interest because they were either members of the landowning class or employed by them. Because the Church had land in large part, mediaeval philosophers were churchmen and did not see the need to change Aristotle's teachings. Anti-Semitism strengthened their opposition to usury because the majority of flexible capital was held by Jews. While clerics and nobles occasionally engaged in nasty arguments, they were able to band together to oppose the evil Jew who had used a loan to help them get through a difficult crop and believed he should be rewarded for his frugal ways. Things changed during the Reformation. Lending money at interest was necessary to many of the most devout Protestants, who were also businessmen. As a result, Calvin approved interest before other Protestant theologians did. The outdated bans did not make sense in the contemporary world, thus the Catholic Church was finally forced to adopt a more modern approach. Philosophers have always supported interest because they were no longer associated with land ownership because their earnings come from investments made by universities. There has always been a plethora of theoretical justification for the politically expedient viewpoint. Aristotle criticizes Plato's utopia for a number of reasons. First, there's the fascinating criticism that it would turn the State into an individual and give it too much unity. Next is the type of objection that any reader would naturally have to the planned eradication of the family. In contrast, Aristotle asserts that that which is common to the greatest number receives the least care and that if "sons" are common to many "fathers," they will be neglected in common; it is better to be a cousin in reality than a "son" in Plato's sense. Plato believes that by simply bestowing the title of "son" upon all who are of an age that makes their sonship possible, a man will acquire towards the whole multitude the sentiments that men currently have towards their actual sons, and correlatively as regards the title "father." The odd argument that follows states that since refraining from adultery is a virtue, it would be unfortunate to have a social structure that outlaws both the virtue and its corresponding evil (1263b). Next, we are asked, "Who will manage the house if women are common?" I previously published an essay titled "Architecture and the Social System," in which I made the argument that anyone who supports communism along with the dissolution of the family also supports large-scale communal housing with shared dining rooms, kitchens, and nurseries. One way to define this arrangement would be as celibate monasteries. Although it is necessary for implementing Plato's ideas, it is not any more difficult than many of his other suggestions. Aristotle finds Plato's communism annoying. He claims that it would cause resentment against indolent individuals and the kind of arguments that frequently occur among fellow travelers. It is preferable for everyone to keep to themselves. Although property should be private, individuals should be taught to be so charitable that they may utilize it in a shared way. Generosity and benevolence are qualities that cannot exist without private property. Lastly, it is said that someone would have thought of Plato's proposals sooner if they were excellent. * Although I disagree with Plato, Aristotle's criticisms of him would persuade me to do so. Aristotle does not support equality, as we have shown in relation to slavery. Notwithstanding the subordination of women and slaves, it is still debatable whether or not all people ought to have political equality. He claims that some males find this desirable, using the argument that property regulations are the root of all revolutions. He disputes this claim, arguing that excess, not poverty, is the true cause of the worst crimes; no man turns into a dictator to keep from being cold. When a government acts in the best interests of the entire society, it is good; when it acts in self-interest, it is terrible. Tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy are the three types of poor government; the three types of good governance are monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional government (or polity). Numerous mixed intermediate types also exist. It will be noted that the moral standards of those in positions of authority, not the structure of the constitution, determine what constitutes good and bad governments. But this isn't entirely accurate. According to Aristotle, wealth and virtue are not mutually exclusive. An oligarchy is the government of the wealthy, while an aristocracy is a government of men of virtue. According to the golden mean doctrine, he maintains that a moderate level of competence is most likely to be associated with virtue: "Those who are most highly cultivated in their mind and character, and who have only a moderate share of external goods, are more likely to find happiness, whether consisting in pleasure or virtue, or both, than those who possess external goods to a useless extent but are deficient in higher qualities" (1323a and b). Because the best are likely to have only moderate fortunes, there is a distinction between the rule of the richest (oligarchy) and the best (aristocracy). Beyond the ethical distinctions between the two types of governance, there is further distinction between democracy and polity since the latter preserves certain aspects of the oligarchic system (1293b). But there is just an ethical distinction between a monarchy and a tyrant. He makes a strong distinction between oligarchy and democracy based on the financial standing of the ruling party: oligarchy occurs when the wealthy rule without taking the needs of the underprivileged into account, whereas democracy arises when the underprivileged hold the reins of power and neglect the interests of the wealthy. Aristocracy is superior to politics, and monarchy is superior to both. However, the worst corruption comes from the finest, therefore tyranny is worse than oligarchy, and oligarchy is worse than democracy. Aristotle gets to a qualified defense of democracy in this way: democracies are often the best actual governments since the majority of actual governments are terrible. In many respects, the Greek understanding of democracy was more radical than our own. For example, Aristotle asserts that choosing magistrates by lot is democratic, but electing them is oligarchic. In extreme democracies, the people's assembly made all the decisions on its own and was above the legal system. The Athenian law-courts were made up of many individuals chosen at random without the assistance of a jurist; naturally, this meant that they may be influenced by political emotion or eloquence. It is important to realize that criticism of democracy often takes this form. The reasons of revolutions are extensively discussed. Revolutions were as common in Greece as they had been in Latin America in the past, so Aristotle had a wealth of experience from which to draw conclusions. The battle between oligarchs and Democrats was the primary cause. According to Aristotle, oligarchy results from those who are superior in some way making excessive claims, whereas democracy stems from the idea that people who are equally free should be equal in all aspects. Though not the ideal sort, both have some fairness. "Therefore, both parties incite revolution whenever their respective shares in the government do not align with their preconceived notions" (1301a). Compared to oligarchies, democratic regimes are less vulnerable to revolutions since oligarchs may have disagreements with one another. The oligarchs appear to have been active individuals. Reactionaries are not as forthright these days; we are informed that in certain places, they took an oath that stated, "I will be an enemy to the people, and will devise all the harm against them which I can." Three things must happen in order to avert revolution: fairness in law and administration, or "equality according to proportion, and for every man to enjoy his own," government propaganda in education, and respect for the law, even in little matters (1307a, 1307b, 1310a ). The challenge of "equality according to proportion"—which, if it is to be true justice, must be of virtue— appears to have escaped Aristotle's notice. Nowadays, morality is a contentious issue that is hard to quantify. Therefore, morality tends to be assessed in political practice by income; Aristotle's attempt to distinguish between oligarchy and aristocracy is only conceivable in situations when there is a strong hereditary nobility. Even Nevertheless, they must be allowed to hold positions of authority until a sizable class of wealthy but uneducated males emerges for fear that they may start a revolution. Except in cases when property is almost the main source of income, hereditary aristocracies are unable to hold onto power for very long. In the end, economic disparity is the root cause of all social inequality. This is one of the points made in favor of democracy: any attempt to establish a "proportionate justice" system that is based on factors other than money is bound to fail. Proponents of oligarchy assert that wealth and virtue are correlated; the prophet claimed he had never seen a virtuous person starving for food, and Aristotle believed that excellent people made around his own income—neither extremely great nor extremely tiny. However, these viewpoints are ludicrous. Any form of "justice" that is not based on complete equality is wrong because it will ultimately reward characteristics other than virtue. An intriguing portion is devoted to dictatorship. A monarch seeks honor; a tyrant seeks wealth. The monarch has guards who are citizens, whereas the tyrant's are hired guns. Tyrants are mostly demagogues who seize power by vowing to save the populace against notables. What a tyrant has to do to stay in power is explained by Aristotle in a tone that is satirically Machiavellian. He must, if need be, carry out an assassination in order to stop any individual of extraordinary merit from rising to prominence. Common meals, clubs, and any instruction that could incite animosity must all be outlawed by him. There can be no literary gatherings or talks. He needs to keep people from getting to know one another well and force them to live in his gates in public. Spies, like the female detectives at Syracuse, are what he should hire. He has to foster discord and make his subjects poorer. Like the Egyptian monarch, he ought to occupy them with monumental projects like building the pyramids. He ought to empower women and slaves to become informants. He ought to start a conflict so that his people would have something to do and would constantly need a leader (1313a and b). The fact that this line is the most relevant to the current day out of the entire book is a somber observation. Aristotle comes to the conclusion that no evil is too big for a despot. But he also claims that seeming moderate and devout might be another way to maintain an oppressive regime. Regarding which approach is most likely to succeed, there is no consensus. An extensive argument demonstrates how many individuals adopted the imperialist perspective, demonstrating that foreign conquest does not signal the end of the State. It is true that there is one exception: it is ethical and proper to conquer "natural slaves." Since Greeks are not "natural slaves," this would, in Aristotle's opinion, justify wars against barbarians but not against Greeks. In general, however, war is merely a means, not an end; a city in a remote location where conquest is impossible may be happy; isolated states do not necessarily have to be idle. Even though they are unable to conquer other countries, God and the cosmos are still in motion. Thus, even if a state may occasionally need to use force to achieve its goals, the pursuit of pleasure should come from peaceful endeavors rather than from military action. This raises the question of how big a state ought to be. We are informed that large cities are never effectively managed because such a large number of people cannot be kept in check. A state should not be too big for constitutional government, but it should be big enough to be mostly self-sufficient. If it is too tiny, people won't know one other's personalities, which will hinder fair elections and legal proceedings. The area need to be sufficiently small to be completely inspected from a hilltop. It is inconsistent because we are instructed that it should be export and import oriented (1327a) and that it should be self-sufficient (1326b). Men who are employed should not be granted citizenship. Because they need leisure, citizens should not become mechanics or tradesmen or husbandmen, as these careers are ignoble and antagonistic to virtue. Although the husbandmen should be slaves of a different race, the property should belong to the citizens (1330a). We're informed that intellectual people live in the south and spirited people live in the north, therefore as it would be troublesome if the slaves were spirited, they should be of the latter kind. Only the Greeks are lively and clever; they are superior to barbarians in governance and, if they banded together, could take over the entire planet (1327b). At this time, some allusion to Alexander could have been expected, but none is found. Aristotle commits the same error that many contemporary liberals do when it comes to the size of states, but on a different scale. If a liberal culture is to endure, a state needs to be prepared to defend itself both in times of war and even in everyday situations. The size of a state needed for this depends on industry and warfare tactics. The City State was rendered obsolete in Aristotle's day because it was unable to hold off Macedonia. As recent research has demonstrated, Greece as a whole—including Macedonia—is out of date in this regard. * It is now as pointless to support total independence for Greece, or any other small nation, as it is to support total independence for a single city, whose territory is visible in its entirety from a height. True independence is only possible in the case that a State or coalition is powerful enough on its own to thwart any attempts at foreign takeover. The United States and the British Empire taken together are the only entities that can meet this condition; yet, even this could be too tiny of a unit. The book finishes with a discussion of education, however it seems incomplete in its current form. Naturally, education is reserved for children who will become citizens; slaves may be taught practical skills like cooking, but these are not considered forms of education. The citizen should conform to the type of administration that he lives under; as a result, there should be distinctions based on whether the city in question is democratic or oligarchic. Aristotle, however, makes the assumption that each citizen would hold a certain amount of political authority throughout the discussion. Youngsters should be taught skills that are beneficial to them rather than vulgar ones; for example, they shouldn't be taught any skills that would allow them to become self-employed or cause physical deformities. It is recommended that boys engage in sports in moderation, but not to the extent of developing professional competence. The health of boys training for Olympic games is compromised, as evidenced by the fact that male athletes who have excelled as boys are rarely successful as adults. Children should study drawing, in order to appreciate the beauty of the human form; and they should be taught to appreciate such art and sculpture as reflects moral values. They might pick up enough singing and instrument playing to be able to appreciate music critically, but not enough to be proficient performers—after all, no freeman would pick up an instrument or sing until they were intoxicated. They must of course learn to read and write, in spite of the value of these arts. But the objective of education is “virtue,” not utility. What Aristotle means by “virtue” he has informed us in the Ethics, to which this work frequently references. Aristotle’s essential assumptions, in his Politics, are considerably different from those of any modern writer. The purpose of the State, in his opinion, is to generate cultured gentlemen—men who mix the aristocratic attitude with love of learning and the arts. This combination existed, in its fullest perfection, in the Athens of Pericles, not among the people at large, but among the well-to-do. In the last years of Pericles, it started to fall apart. The cultureless people revolted against Pericles' associates, who were using deceit, murder, unlawful dictatorship, and other less than dignified means to protect the privileges of the wealthy. While Athens continued to be the epicenter of classical culture following Socrates's death, the political power of Athens shifted elsewhere. In later antiquity, culture and power were typically kept apart: culture belonged to the helpless Greeks, who were frequently slaves, while authority was held by stern warriors. This is unquestionably true before Cicero and after Marcus Aurelius, but it only applies to Rome in its heyday. Following the advent of barbarians, the "gentlemen" were barbarians from the north, while the delicate cultural men were southern ecclesiastics. This situation persisted, essentially, until the Renaissance, when the laity started to pick up cultural traits. The Greek idea of cultivated nobles leading countries steadily gained traction starting in the Renaissance and peaked in the seventeenth century. This situation has been ended by a number of forces. First, democracy as it was expressed during and after the French Revolution. After the time of Pericles, the cultured gentlemen had to defend their privileges from the general public, and in the process, they lost their ability to be considered gentlemen or cultured. The advent of industrialism, which used scientific methods very dissimilar from those of traditional culture, was a second factor. The ability to read and write but not culture was granted by popular education, which was a third factor. This allowed a new breed of demagogue to use propaganda that was different from what was used in dictatorships. Thus, the era of the refined gentleman is over, for better or worse.