Aristotle Citizen

In the discussion between Socrates and Glaucon that involved how to create an ideal city, they divided the people into three classes: rulers, auxiliaries, and craftsmen. In this city each class has a certain role. The rulers are the highest of rank in the city. They are older, wise men who govern the state and make decisions in the best interest of the

Aristotle’s society in The Politics, is that of a realistic society, a city of man. Aristotle defines a citizen as a political animal, which means that for man to optimize the society in which he lives in, he must be politically active (Aristotle 1253a). By nature, they want to cooperate together in society. Aristotle defines a citizen as a person who has full political rights to participate in judicial or deliberative office. (Aristotle 1275b) Each citizen has the ability to possess moral virtues. This is in contrast to Plato’s ideal state, where only the ruling class is able to be politically involved. Each citizen is able to posses private property, for one should call the city-state happy not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens (Aristotle 1329a). This means that all classes of the state as a whole should be happy, not just one sole tier.

This allows the rulers to dictate exactly who will serve what purpose in society following the political and economic structure without the individuals questioning the system. Because the strongest and wisest people carry the most power, they will have the ability to make the judgements for assigning citizens to their classes, creating laws, and creating sanctions. Because they’re known to have the best judgement, the things they say and do and are considered the most just, which supports Thrasymacus’ claim that justice is the advantage of the

What is of greater underlying significance for Aristotle, however, is not so much the size of the citizen-body as the stark contrast between the respective ideas that “those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice” and “those which aim only at the common good of the rulers are wrong” (The Politics, 3:6, 1279a16, p. 189). In practice, Aristotle’s juxtaposition is implicitly suggestive that if one is ruling in their own self-interest, regardless of the size of the group, and be that for themselves or the minority to which they belong, then they are in essence missing the point of what it is that they are supposed to be doing. Thus, the key point Aristotle is trying to make is this: the ruler of a polis or state; be that one person, a few people, or many people; should govern in accordance with the interests of the polis or state as a whole at heart rather than with the interests of a select few.

As Socrates was building the city, according to his different accounts of how city ought to be. There were different classes of people and the position they held in the cities community. In a just city as Socrates claims there will be citizens, guardians and a philosopher king as the ruler of the city. In order to maintain order, politics influence on human nature by politically influencing laws such as stopping peoples from changing their division of labour. For example, Socrates claims that it is impossible for an individual to practice many crafts proficiently as discussed by the companions earlier. (Plato, 1992, p. 49). The reason there is division of peoples in the city is so the city can run efficiently, if there were many people doing many thing, there will not be an efficiency of work. For this reason, politics constrained human nature in which individual as human nature wants to do more than one thing, but it is stopped through influence of ideology of how one ought to be. That individual does not want to do one job for the rest of his life; this form of ideology is first form pre capital which was discussed in the republic. Continuing, as politics influence increases in the republic the more constrained human nature becomes. In politics, the political thought of Socrates creates a guardian for city, a protector to defend against an enemy or to conquer land for the city. In

“Virtue can only flourish among equals.” - Mary Wollstonecraft. In Athens, all citizens were equal, therefore a strong community thrived. Starting in 500 BCE a new idea of citizenship was starting to form. This idea was used by Athens and Rome, and included giving citizens a balance between rights and responsibilities. This paved the way for modern day citizenship in our countries and many others. Athens had a better system of citizenship because they chose government offices by lottery, to keep a strong democracy they made sure no one had too much power, and citizens in all social classes could participate in government.

While his perspective of the government is positive, he does acknowledge the problems Pseudo-Xenophon has with democracy. One of the Pseudo-Xenophon’s main concern is the ignorance of the mass and their inability to serve in public office since “such practices do not produce the best city, but they are the best way of preserving democracy.” Pericles revitalizes the trust that Pseudo-Xenophon lacks in the masses of the common citizen. Pericles states the virtues of the democracy and the ideal that “no one is held back by poverty or because his reputation is not well-known, as long as he can do good service to the city.” While acknowledging the potential issues of having an ignorant representative, Pericles supports that trust in fellow citizens is a building block in democracy and everyone who has the potential to prove themselves a good public servant should be given the opportunity to show their ability and voice their ideas. He also addresses Pseudo-Xenophon’s issues with the common people’s rule of self-interest. Pseudo-Xenophon does not have an issue with the self-interest of the few overriding the self-interest of the many and even refers to it as ‘an excellent system [where] the common people would very soon lose all their political rights.” Pericles does not differentiate

To begin with, it is important to understand the city states did not outline the division of politics, society, religion, and economy as clearly as modern day western societies do or even

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).

Like other ancient philosophers, Aristotle and Plato had two different conceptions of the state, justice, and politics. They both lived in Greece but had different points of views on the natural of all citizens and how citizens were capable of being perfect in the state. Surprisingly, the same debates that guided Plato and Aristotle’s work remain with us today. What is a good citizen? What makes a good man? Justice? Society? Moreover, the question is why they had different views on the same perspective that has helped shaped many governmental rules and societies.

In book VI of The Republic, Plato uses Socrates as his mouthpiece to reveal the ideal city. Plato points out that the idea city is based on the foundations of three basic forms. Consequently, these three forms are manifested in the individuals that make up the city. The functioning of the city will thus depend on the analogy of the structures within the city and within the souls of the people. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the argument by Socrates with respect to the three forms in the city and in the soul. Additionally, the paper seeks to analyze the rationale behind Socrates’ comparison and subsequent establishment of analogy between the forms in the city and the forms in the city in the context of justice. The paper also

Some are democratic and others are not. This is also the same for individuals, as the same logic applies to individuals as it was applied for cities. Adeimantus would have joined Socrates and Polemarchus by this point in their colloquy. Per Adeimantus and Socrates’ conversation, a city is formed because men are not self-sufficient enough and we need help. It is also easier to find justice in a city than it is on one individual, as the city is larger in size than the one individual. During the conversation between the two, a city was defined as a man’s quest for help from another man and the other man’s similar hunt for aid. They established the most important need is food for survival, housing second and clothing third. They referred to the three as the utmost necessities that can be accomplished “by four or five men.” Adeimantus told Socrates that one man can only be good at one job i.e. farming or painting and not both. When a project is been completed, it is crucial that everything is done correctly as otherwise everything will be ruined. A man shall not take his job as a part-time gig. Socrates alerted Adeimantus that since the project they are discussing and based on Adeimantus’ assertion one man needs to do one job, four men are not enough to accomplish the task. Adeimantus agreed. Adeimantus answered affirmatively to Socrates’ question in terms of the need of men of cooperating with each other as partners. They established that it is easier to find a city in a jurisdiction where there is the need to import. This also necessitates the need to produce products other cities want to sell to them in exchange for what is desirable in one’s city. They discussed how the city needed people around a sea and merchants as an example. They figured this will create a market and a currency. Adeimantus and Socrates discussed how it would have been hard if one needs to sit and wait for

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

During the 4th Century B.C, Aristotle rose as a critic of direct democracy based on two grounds: are all individuals qualified to govern? Should we select a few individuals who are fit for leadership? Bernard Crick writes, “ while democracy was for him a necessary condition for good government, it was far from a sufficient condition”(Crick 1). Aristotle had a negative outlook on human nature. This led to his belief on how a government system should rule and the dismissal of a direct democracy. Similarly to Ancients, Aristotle believed that a ‘direct democracy’ would only crumble. For this reason, he introduced ‘Checks and balances’. Checks and balances gave limited power to each branch of power and to the people. He identified his a polity by representative government, balanced government, and a mixed government. Representative government is one ruled by a ‘leader’. And yet, he questioned the idea of placing trust in the hands of the uneducated, incompetent. More importantly, he believed that in order to be a leader, one must meet the five characteristics to be considered a ‘leader’. The characteristics required: intelligence, knowledge, experience, wisdom, and virtue. It was especially important for one to attain wisdom because that is the end result of knowledge

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.