An examination of Aristotle’s critique of the different claims to rule reveals that because of our nature as political animals, living the good life is most practicable under the regime of the polity. Therefore, by separating the utopian theory of a regime and the practicable application, Aristotle shows that we can live in a state where our virtue contributes to the being of the city, and in the process, bring forth the ultimate goal of the city: achieving happiness through the good life.
By laying out the case for a ruling oligarchy, Aristotle claims the wealthy regard justice in strictly monetary terms, saying, “[oligarchs] think if they are superior in one point, for example in wealth, they are superior in all” (Aristotle 103). In other
…show more content…
In this utopian state, the members that rule are “absolutely the best” (Aristotle 150) possible citizens. Giving out positions of government based on merit alone is theoretically the most just, but Aristotle gives the same criteria to the “well-born” and kingship. He states that kingship is necessary when “a single individual among the ordinary people, is of merit so outstanding as to surpass that of all the rest” (Aristotle 131). If the best regime is the best for all, then how does one define the best of the best when many are of outstanding merit? We can begin to see the issues with abstraction. Where are these best persons located? Further, at what point does the best person in an aristocracy usurp the rest and become a candidate for kingship if they all possess outstanding merit? Also, Aristotle states that the best constitution is “the type in which there is a single man, or a whole family, or a number of people, surpassing all others in goodness” (Aristotle 132). By muddying the waters here, Aristotle removes the ability to apply this sort of regime in any real-world context. How is the “best rule for all” possible if there are three different ways of building that city? If aristocracy is reduced to “the best rule” and can comprise of various styles of a regime, it is practically impossible to implement because it lacks true …show more content…
In the ideal polity, the middle class is the binding glue of moderation among the excess (‘the very rich’) and the defect (‘the very poor’). It is essential to understand that by applying his ethics to his politics, Aristotle is claiming that we can find the mean between the god-like virtue of his perfect state through the more practical application of moderation. True, the majority of men who rule in a polity will not be of the most excellence, but they will be the second-best excellence, which is those in possession of much moderation. By acting as a voice of reason amidst the excessive and defective, the middle can serve as a barrier against those who would overstep the mean, and therefore act against virtue. This mean of moderation in cities offers the best chance for the most people to live the good life, as Aristotle reaffirms when he says, “[in cities] moderation and the mean are always best” (Aristotle
In Aristotle's Politics, he focuses much on the regimes of an oligarchy and of a democracy. Democracies exists when the free and poor, being a majority, have authority to rule, and have an equal share in the city. Oligarchies exists when the few wealthy and better born have authority and grant benefits in proportion to a person's wealth (1280a:10-30;1290a:5-10).
The subject which the question focuses on is the view of Aristotle’s ideal state. The distinction between hierarchy and equality is at the heart of the understanding of Aristotle’s ideal state. He claims that an ideal state ought to be arranged to maximise the happiness of its citizens. So happiness together with political action is the telos of human life. This end can be reached by living a better ethical life. However, he endorses hierarchy over equality. On one hand we have the equality which benefits everyone; on the other hand we have the distinction of classes meant in terms of diversities and differences where the middle one appears to be the means through which the state is balanced. Furthermore what is clear for Aristotle is that
Ancient Greece, not being able to settle on the best way to govern, instituted several vastly different political structures across ancient Greek city-states. They equally contributed to the cultural change in the overall region’s history as well as the history of governments across the world. In this paper, I will compare and contrast monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, which will also provide insight at which influential characteristics of these governments are still present in modern-day politics.
This idea reminds of the Nietzsche’s Ubermensch, who is the one to power the others. The similarity of these ideas lies in the fact that in Elitist’s theory they assume that all people are not created equal: some are stronger, more intelligent, more artistic, etc. Of course, not all abilities lead to economic wealth or political power-however, those people who have the most of the particular abilities which a society rewards become the political elite. Here we can draw a line to cross out Marx’s idea that people are born equal and the only thing that makes them different is being attributed to certain social class and therefore, there personal characteristics defer the social structure-the economic structure. Another Elitist Gaetano Mosca proposed the idea that there is a ruling elite, so-called “Classe Politica” (political elite) and “Social forces”-those social and economic categories on whom the society depends on because of their particular abilities. In other words, not the whole layer of elite actually rules-political power is the representative one-social forces have a major influence in them. Moreover, political elite are also the representatives of the masses- all elites stabilize their rule by making it acceptable to the masses. This is achieved by “political formula”, e.g.:
Wisdom, courage, moderation and justice are four essential virtues the ideal state must be built upon, as explained by Socrates in Plato’s Republic. Throughout the eight books of Socratic dialogue the ideal state and ideas of justice are debated, on both individual and state levels. The guidelines for a perfect state and how it will come about are thoroughly described. Socrates covers every aspect of political life and how it should work stating that “until power and philosophy entirely coincide… cities will have no rest form evils” . In Plato’s Republic Socrates emphasizes the superiority of the philosopher and their abilities to rule as kings above others. He believes that they are best suited to rule as a result of their pure souls and
Is life really about the 'money', the 'cash', the 'hoes', who has the biggest gold chain or who drives the shiniest or fastest car, who sells the most albums or who has the most respect? Aristotle challenges views, which are similar to the ones held and shown by rap artists such as Jay-Z and the Notorious B.I.G., by observing that everything in the universe, including humans, has a telos, or goal in life. He states that the goal of a human life is to achieve happiness or eudaimonia. I believe that Aristotle is completely correct in his reasoning of the purpose of human nature. He even explains how happiness is different for every person, and each different type of person has a different idea of eudaimonia. He then
In Plato’s The Republic, the theory of appointing a ruling class is a major aspect in his political theory of a just state. As communicated through Socrates, Plato believed in the appointment of only a few citizens of the just city that possess a soul that craves all truth, knowledge, wisdom, and through proper education are competent enough to rule the just state and to decide on legislative policies. In my paper, I will be arguing against Plato’s political theory of who is best fit to be chosen as leaders to rule the just state. I will argue that Plato places too much confidence in the morals of citizens and that the soul is naturally rational and those who are chosen to lead will not necessarily uphold justice and make the right decisions. Placing the powers of democracy in the hands of the masses is more secure rather than designating power to only a selected few because the masses know what they want and know more for what is best for themselves. Although Plato was correct in requiring that leaders must be knowledgeable, but the best way to approach this problem is to not exclude people but that all people should be given the right to decide what is the greater good for their own societies. Citizens should have the right to appoint their own rulers based on their own knowledge. I will also argue that Plato’s political theory of the just state is ideal and not practical because it has not yet existed.
The Greek philosopher, scientist and student of Plato, Aristotle made significant and long-lasting contributions to nearly every aspect of human knowledge, from logic to biology to ethics, and aesthetics. Aristotle had a vast intellectual range covering most of the sciences and many of the arts, including biology, botany, chemistry, ethics, history, logic, metaphysics, rhetoric, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, physics, poetics, political theory, psychology, and zoology. (2) He was also the founder of formal logic. Aristotle wrote an estimated of 200 works in his lifetime. He was the Author of a philosophical and scientific system, which became the framework for Christian Scholasticism and medieval
Aristocracy as a form of government is ruled by a philosopher king, and has it its base wisdom and reason. Ideal state is composed of 3 casts like parts: ruling cast made of kings, auxiliaries cast made of soldiers, and the majority of the people, who are allowed to own property and produce goods for themselves, but are required to sustain their rulers.
Aristotle’s theory on ethics deviates from the attempts of prior theories to develop absolute and universal rules. Instead, he suggests that an individual’s character should be developed to help guide their actions. For Aristotle, the path to happiness, the one thing that is in itself good, involves the acquisition and expression of virtues (McBrayer and Markie 312). In context, Aristotle defined virtue as “a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to individuals which is determined by a rational principle” (McBrayer and Markie 315). To support his point that “happiness is an activity of the soul in perfect virtue”, Aristotle has utilized examples which are plausible to the extent that they are theoretically sound and logical, however, are limited by the vagueness of the theory itself (McBrayer and Markie 312).
Prevalent flaws within most modern democracies are evident in their social and economic systems. One such problem, in a system that advocates freedom to do whatever you please, is the consequential wealth disparity (Wong, Oct. 24 lecture, tutorial). Aristotle once said that, “democracy is the form of government in which… the free are the many and the rich are the few”. This highlights a paradox of democracy in that it attempts to be equal to all, yet often the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and an increasing wealth divide will influence governance. Constant writes (pg. 12), “wealth is a power more readily available at any moment… more
A democratic regime presents itself as a pure regime without despotic rulers. As such, equality is echoed throughout the city, with equality being bestowed upon both equals and unequals alike (558 c). The city is full of free speech and freedom, with the choice to do as one wishes, granting the private citizens to organize their lives as it suits them (557 b). With such a variety of dispositions found in the citizens, Socrates introduces the metaphor of a many-colored cloak, decorated in all hues, representing the most pleasant and fair looking object (557 c). The eclectic variety of the democratic city ensures a harmony unakin to any other regime.
Though we’ve discussed many kinds of governments, ideal cities and even ideal rulers over the course of the semester, from Aristotle’s Politics to the city described in the Melian dialogue, there is one that undoubtedly left a greater on me than the other- the city described in Plato’s Republic. From Plato’s remarkably feminist ideals and vague sense of barebones socialism, there’s a lot in this city that I hypothetically would throw my support behind. This is not to say that I think that this is the “best” option of the cities that we studied options, or even that it would even work if applied to real life. However, the ideas brought up about how to create this city and what would be required of all it’s citizens in order to make it work are undeniably fascinating and are never black or white. But what I love about the Republic, and why it so personally resonates with and has impacted me, is that it brings up interesting questions about morality and how far one should go in order to create a perceived “perfect society”. Questions that there is no easy answer to.
Aristotle proposes that the city naturally results from the physical necessity, as the natural completion of small partnership of household and village. Aristotle points out in his ethics that "man is naturally social" so therefore he is "naturally political." Humans have speech, which can be used to communicate their ideas about what is right or wrong as well as just and unjust. If the nature of man is not revealed then the man itself is an animal without any potential. Speech serves man as a weapon to protect himself from what is just or unjust. A man naturally belongs to the city because that is where he can exercise his sociability and can debate with others upon his virtue. Virtues are habits of the soul by which one acts well. Virtuous actions express correct, high reasoning, which are acquired through practice and habituation. The city is prior to the individual because the individual apart from the city is not self-sufficient and therefore he has to be something else rather than a human being. A man has potential to do good, but if he is not capable to use his virtue and is without any boundaries, he can be worse than any animal. In Aristotle's point of view the city is self-sufficient because it contains all the necessities for humans to lead a good life. The city provides humans with partnership with others, which plays a big role in the sake of basic survival, but it exists for the well being of human kind.
It is in Book VII that Aristotle further elaborates on the polity, or “ideal city,” and the way it is composed (Somerville and Santoni 95). He begins chapter four by stating that the city-size of the state must be manageable in both population and size so that the “due supplies of life” (Somerville and Santoni 95) are available, it can be governed effectively, and foreigners cannot attain citizenship without the knowledge of the city-state (Somerville and Santoni 96). The power of a city-state should not be determined by its geographical size, but rather by its ability to provide the “purpose[s] of life” to its citizens (Somerville and Santoni 98). It must also have the ability to provide food, art, military equipment, revenues for war and internal changes, religion, and a method to decide what is in the public’s interest. Within the city-state, these duties will be performed by the