2. Aristotle's concept of the state (original) (raw)
Related papers
Aristotle on the Best Form of Government
Scott Farrington (ed), Enthousiasmos. Essays in Ancient Philosophy, History, and Literature, Baden-Baden, Academia Verlag, 2019, pp. 121-145; , 2019
An examination of Aristotle's theory of political regimes
Character Virtues and Forms of Government: Plato and Aristotle
The World Congress of Philosophy: The Philosophy of Aristotle (Vol. 3), 2018
In this presentation Plato's and Aristotle's theories are compared with each other, on whether the character virtues have an effect on the formation of government in the state (polis). In the Republic Plato contrasts the virtues of the individual-wisdom, courage and temperance-with the classes in society: guardians, soldiers and producers (see 370-375). The virtues repeat within the structure of the state (see 435e); e.g. the more courageous the soldiers are, the more successful the state is in its campaigns. Additionally as the balance of the cardinal virtues, justice has a central role in the Republic. On the political level justice is realized in the way that the citizens find positions that are the best fit for their virtues (435b). An example of such case would be one, where the rulers are the wisest and the most courageous individuals would be able to be employed as soldiers, and so on. The character of the ruler determines (through the making of laws among other ways) the form of the government (see 338e-339e). Plato gives examples of five different types of rulers, whose defining characteristics are: just (484ad), belligerent and ambitious (545a, 548a-550b), avaricious (555a-b), self-serving and lazy (561a-d) and, as the worst option, an animal-like madness (571b-d, 573dc-574a). The forms of government representing rulers driven by these characteristics are: aristocracy (445c-e, 497ab), timocracy (545a-548a), oligarchy (550d-e), democracy and tyranny (see IX). The government by the so-called “philosopher-king” or aristocracy is Plato’s ideal form of government, from where the other forms of government degenerate from (see 546d-547c & 572c-573c). Taking into consideration the death penalty of Socrates, it is easy to understand why Plato held democracy in as low position in the hierarchy of the forms of government. His student, Aristotle, might have asked him: “Is it really so, that any oligarchy is better than any democracy, just on grounds that a democratic ruler is self-serving and lazy by definition?” Aristotle’s theory includes a more complex examination of the interaction between the virtues and the state, than what Plato’s theory does. This is achieved among other things through the separation of the character virtues and the civic virtues (see Politics III.4, 1276b34-35). Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics form a seamless whole: the state is composed of citizens who employ moral reasoning (Pol. III.1, 1274b39-1275a1). In contrast with Plato, Aristotle’s forms of government have no preset order of quality. The number of the rulers as well as the telos of the state’s political action (regarding whether the state is directed at securing welfare of its citizens or only of its rulers,) determine the form of government (NE I.13, 1102a5-10, see also I.7, 1097a15-1098b9). Monarchy, aristocracy and polity are the better options according to Aristotle (Pol. IV.9-11). The Stageirite does not leave the role of virtue in government without notice: as exempt from other classes in society, Aristotle’s ruler is expected to be in control of both his civic virtues and his character virtues. The ruler must thus in order to be a good statesman, be also a good person (NE I.4, 1095b4-7). Only then it is possible that the form of government, active in his state is not one of the corrupted regimes. Aristotle writes that “the goodness of the good man, and that of the citizen of the best city, must be one and the same” (Pol. III.18, 1288a32-39). The virtues of the ruler have an effect on the political level for both Plato and Aristotle. In the case of the former the character of the ruler determines the entire form of the government, while in the case of the latter, certain requirements are placed for the ruler of the better forms of government (see Pol. VII.4, 27-38).
ARISTOTLE AND DEMOCRACY BETWEEN FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
ARISTOTLE AND DEMOCRACY BETWEEN FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
Democracy is an uncommon form of government in the history of political regimes. For thousands of years, it was an exception in the midst of autocratic regimes: monarchies, aristocracies, empires, oligarchies, tyrannies. It was practised in a few brief historical periods and only in small political units such as the Greek polis, particularly Athens, and in the early days of the Roman Republic, reappearing after centuries in some medieval and Renaissance communes, at times when they were not dominated by lordships or aristocracies. From the time of the transition from the Greek polis to the Hellenistic and Roman cosmopolis, democracy remained a pale memory for centuries, and it only reappeared in modern and contemporary times, but it has had to compete with authoritarian and totalitarian forms of government to this day. In the second half of the last century, after the end of the totalitarian regimes of right and left (fascism, Francoism, Salazarism, Nazism and Stalinism) and the polarisation of the Cold War, there was a momentary revival and expansion of the democratic form in various parts of the world where it had never existed, for example in the new states that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, or in the transition from military dictatorships in Latin America, while at the same time there was a crisis in the places where it was born, such as Europe and the United States of America. Democracy is a regime that is not only rare, but also fragile and precarious, subject to authoritarian deviations of various kinds, and is also difficult to define in terms of its essential characteristics. The literature is full of definitions: direct, representative, elitist, deliberative, formal, substantial, social, liberal, plebiscitary, etc. The very word "democracy" has long been synonymous with a corrupt, deviant regime, from the time of Plato to Kant, who necessarily considered it a despotism. The main reason for this negative attitude lies in the fear that the elites of all times have had of a government of the many, the masses, the poor, the plebs; a fear that is partly justified when democracy becomes the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Prima facie, we can identify a general division between democratic and nondemocratic doctrines, depending on the answer to the question: who should govern? Democratic doctrines are those that argue that everyone or the majority of citizens should govern, because everyone has political discernment; anti-democratic doctrines are those that deny the people this political competence and claim that only an elite (economic, social, political, cultural) should govern because they know how to govern.
Aristotle on the Foundations of the State
Aristotle's Politics shows an apparent tension between a recognition of the desirability of individual liberty and his claim that 'none of the citizens belongs to himself but all belong to the state'. We can start to resolve that tension by considering Aristotle's doctrine of man as a political animal. Artistotle offers a particular account of the nature of man according to which his specifically human capacities cannot be realized outside of the state. This is not an account adopted arbitrarily for Aristotle's political theory but follows directly from his analysis of substances in the Physics. On Aristotle's account of human nature, man is essentially rational and virtuous and the political theory allows the rational and virtuous man to be as free as possible without intefering with others. Some are less rational and are subject to authority in virtue of this. We can see that Aristotle's theory has advantages over rights-based theories since Aristotle has an account of what constitutes human flourishing, without which one cannot found rights claims.
ARISTOTLE'S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Aristotle (384-322 bce) came to Athens as a young man to study in Plato's Academy. Upon Plato's death nearly twenty years later, Aristotle left Athens to spend time in Asia Minor and in Lesbos, returning in 343 bce to his home in Macedonia. In 335 bce he went back to Athens to set up his own school in the Lyceum, where he remained until the death of Alexander (323 bce) unleashed anti-Macedonian sentiments in Athens and he was charged with impiety. He fled to nearby Chalcis where he died about a year later. Most of the works Aristotle wrote for publication are lost; what survive are later compilations of works written for use within his school. Aristotle's most influential political ideas connect human nature and its flourishing with political activity, ideally under a constitution in which virtuous citizens take turns at ruling and being ruled.
6. The Three Dimensions of Aristotle's Ideology
I just took "political" out of the title as it undermines the careful distinction I made between "political" and "royal." But in the end I am not able to be completely clean in word usage. In that I follow Aristotle and all language users. But we can at least make an effort.. I should also acknowledge that I make no effort to define or defend the use of the word "ideology." To some extent it is an homage to a former professor of mine. The word can be defined and defended, and perhaps someday I will do that, at least in a footnote. This is not meant in a Marxist of Mannheimian sense. Roughly, an ideology has something like core values, general views of the world, and policy prescriptions. Much of what I found, I added in the footnotes (I think). So please read the footnotes too to see additional support for (and even clarification of) my theses. If I get the time, I will probably include some of that in the main text. I gone back and forth on whether to italicize polis. When I made the decision not to before, had the plural be polises. I should have mentioned this elsewhere but from the early-mid 1990s, I ran internet "mailing lists" (some called them listservs) That allowed me to interact with many experts on Aristotle and related topics. There is a description of the mailings lists at paul.bullen.com. We were doing this before there was a World Wide Web, or at least on that had images. Another thing I have gone back and forth about is whether to use the word republic for correct version of popular rule or for any nonmonarchy. The word is used for both things in English. I am now going with polity for well-tempered sempopular rule and republic for any non-monarchy. Aristotle uses the same word (politeia) for both-as well as for any constitution. So you may see an occasional republic when I should have polity.-Nov. 2021.
Polish Political Science Review
This paper offers a reexamination of Aristotle’s Politics 4, chapter 12–13—the so-called account of polity or the mixed regime. Aristotle suggests that the forthcoming discussion delves into either the optimal governing system in general or the most prevalent form of governance across various cities. However, upon closer examination of Politics 4.12–13, a distinct perspective emerges. Working off the account of the meso (the middle) of Politics 4.11, in 12–13 we are not offered an account of the best practical regime, that is of a specific regime form. Instead, Aristotle presents an account on how regimes can achieve moderation and harmony—that is stability. So instead of an account of a specific regime type, we get an account of what moderates and stabilizes regimes generally.
3. Aristotle's Three Kinds of Rule
Aristotle divides forms of rule of a political association into three kinds (one over slaves and two over free people: monarchic and republican), and against Plato says they are essentially different. These forms of rule parallel three forms of rule in the household. I also show how to make sense of Book I of Aristotle's Politics you have to do some reorganizing. Corresponding to the three kinds of rule of the polis, there are three kinds of science, of which one is political science. Political science is what the Ethics and the Politics are primarily about. But political science does not mean what we mean by it these days. It is the art/craft/science/skill of the "statesman" that allows him to increase the collective eudaimonia in a polis by making an environment (especially legal, constitutional, and educational) that that will socialize citizens into being virtuous, in character and thinking. It also, keeps practical things under control so those who can "contemplate" are free to do so.
InterConf
Plato is one of the brilliant philosophers of Antiquity. The thinker made a wide contribution in the philosophy, culture and politics. Plato was the first philosopher who researched the concept of state power and elaborated the mechanism of the changing of the forms of government. Plus, philosopher created the concept of ideal state, based on virtue and the tendency to achieve the common good. The thinker evaluated the position of man in society, his desires and aspirations. In this study, we aimed to analyze the process of the change of the forms of government in the Plato’s point of view, to identify the similarities and qualitative differences between forms of government analyzed by the great philosopher and to compare Plato’s and Aristotle’s doctrines that refers to the forms of government .