Aristotle 's Views On Political Philosophy

In his ground-breaking text The Politics, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was a staunch advocate of a mixed constitution. A mixed constitution is a form of government in which there is an amalgamation of characteristics that comprise differing types of constitutions. There are a plethora of reasons that are argued to have contributed to his adoption of this stance. However, this essay will hone in on three that are posited to be crucial: firstly, the well-known philosophical principle that two extremes cancel out the worst excesses in each other, from which stability will result; secondly, […] ; and thirdly, […] Prior to a discussion that will ensue on why and the grounds on which Aristotle advocates a mixed constitution, this

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

Two of Aristotle’s most famous works, Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, offer an outline of his perfect society and how Athens could ascend to his ideals. According to Aristotle, the strive for the most good society starts with individuals and then collectively builds up to the Chief Aim through active participation in politics. He explains that an Athenian earns his freedom and citizenship by subduing his animal instincts and passions. Instead of succumbing to these urges,

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man (...)

The United States is known for its many liberties to all, liberties that lead to all sorts of bad according to Socrates and Aristotle. Plato-Socrates in The Republic and Aristotle in Politics criticize democracy, a form of government that tries to equalize all. Centuries have passed and many of the democratic elements described in their works apply to current democratic regimes in particular the United States.

While some differences between Aristotle and John Locke’s nature and purpose of a political community are obvious, the similarities are noticeable. According to Aristotle, the nature and purpose of a political community is for the greater or highest good of all its citizens, which according to him, is virtue and happiness. The purpose of the community is to make it possible for the citizens to achieve this virtue and happiness. “It is constituted out of numerous households for the sake of satisfying the needs of its citizens other the everyday ones” (Aristotle, Politics 1252b -15). For example, if someone in the community wants their roof to be fixed, they can get it done by a carpenter from the community. Likewise, if the carpenter wants a shirt to be mended, he can get it done by a tailor from the community.

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).

Politics may have been the tool by which man creates good, but politics does not mean the same thing as living a political life. Aristotle claimed that those who engaged in a political life do so out of vanity in order to gain personal honor. Because this only serves to inflate a single person's ego, this is considered to be an empty and vain course of action. Two other ways of life that Aristotle believed were

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

One of the first political theorists, Aristotle once wrote in his novel Politics, “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle 4) Dating back to Ancient Greece, the state of nature has been observed and disputed for centuries. It wasn’t until the 1600s, was Aristotle’s theory ever seriously debated. Thomas Hobbes developed his own theory on what is the state of nature in his novel The Leviathan. This writing sparked interest in philosophers as to what human nature truly is, not just what Aristotle had suggested. Just thirty-eight years later, John Locke anonymously published his writings Two Treatises of Government, suggesting a differing outlook on the state of nature to Hobbes. Through a summarization of each philosopher’s depiction of the state of nature and explanations of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, one will be able to find which argument is the most compelling.

In Book 1, Aristotle starts with introducing what political community or city is like. He says, “Since we see that every city is some sort of community … for the sake of some good, it is clear that all communities aim at some good”. It is safe to say that an established community is for the sake of others. For Aristotle, a city that “embraces all the others” is a community that strives the good of all.

What one can take away from both the implicit and explicit criticisms given by Xenophon and Aristotle is that political life is incredibly messy and problematic and, moreover, the best regime, the telos of political life, may not be unattainable. Both works indicate that virtue must be a main component of the regime, yet it appears human beings have difficulty remaining virtuous in the face of 1) material wealth and 2) the allure of

In "The Politics", Aristotle would have us believe that man by nature is a political animal. In other words, Aristotle seems to feel that the most natural thing for men to do is to come together in some form of political association. He then contends that this political association is essential to the pursuit of the good life. Finally he attempts to distinguish what forms of political association are most suitable to the pursuit of this good life. In formulating a critique of "The Politics", we shall first examine his claims as to what is natural to man and whether the criterion of the natural is sufficient to demonstrate virtue. We shall then examine what it is about political association that

Not everyone will agree with Aristotle's political theory, but it is essential to understand the principals that underline the new political theories. Aristotle's politics is one of the most influential books of political philosophy. His main ideology consists in that a man is by nature a political animal because he can reason and communicate with others, therefore, has the potential to alter or change his living conditions for better because he can recognize the difference from right or wrong. Aristotle is proposing that a man with reason has to base his approach towards politics on the fundamental concept of good for human beings. However, based on the evaluation of modern politics, we can conclude that the idea of politics aiming at