Aristotle’s Politics - The Good Man Should Not Rule the City

Pericles takes time to laud democracy as a form of government. He believes the division of political power equally amongst citizens inevitably leads to laws that benefit the Athenian people as a whole. This in turn increase overall equality, and by extension, social mobility. Such a government is a just government in the eyes of Pericles, and thus, a shining example of Athenian superiority. “[Athens’] administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition.” (2.37.1).

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.

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.

Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant and ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle offer conflicting viewpoints concerning the merits and possibilities of ancient Greek democracy. Aristotle’s political theory attempts to justify his city-state’s political structure by providing a model of the common good, or Chief Aim, his end goal for Athenian democracy. He believed Athenians could reach the Chief Aim as a society by individually learning to be virtuous and then instilling laws and morals based on these ideals. In his lecture, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Constant highlights that the individual liberties protected in a modern representative democracy are much more important than the political liberties that one was given in antiquity. Constant illustrates that while some ideas of ancient Greek democracy are precious, Aristotle’s political theory is not an obtainable reality and it was beneficial that modern democracies transitioned to a system that protects individual liberty.

Even with established laws, men would pursue their self-interest at all costs. Aristotle explains this, “man by nature is a political animal… though man is born with weapons which he can use in the service of practical wisdom and virtue, it is all too easy for him to use them for the opposite purposes”(Aristotle, 60). To clarify, Aristotle believes that men will pursue their own prerogatives in the political arena of government. And while some may use their power for good, many will use it for their own-self interests, which Aristotle defines as a deviation from the idea of common

Throughout the time of recorded history, humans have had the natural desire for protection and order. That desire is where government comes in. There have been many forms of government throughout history, according to Aristotle, there have only been two types, oligarchies and democracies. Aristotle goes on to say that there are variations of these governments; for example, an aristocracy is considered to be an oligarchy where the wealthy land owners make the decisions in government. Later in that same paragraph, he states that a republic is a form of democracy; these are not the only variations of democracies and oligarchies as there are many variations of these two types of government along the spectrum (Aristotle 3). Societies all through history have one thing in common, they all had some form of government; This raises the question though, what is the difference between a good and bad government?

In the Athenian Constitution, Aristotle, goes through the different constitutions the city of Athens has had. He also explains how certain people came into power, and tried to reform Athens. In this essay I will compare and contrast two significant people, Solon and Pisistratus, and how they ran the Athenian government. Solon and Pisistratus both wanted to create a fair city, and although they had the same mindset, they had completely different end results. The way Pisistratus and solon ran Athens can be a useful example on what will and will not work, when running a city.

Plato was the father of the “Utopian” idea in which several features were essential. He broke down the human soul in three parts; Desire spiritual and rational. Plato addresses the three features as being a key to the establishment of the perfect society. If every person counterweights with the whole of society and these features than society can understand each other and progress and work towards the advancement of the society. Aristotle takes the same concept but more clearly defines it and takes it to the next level that goes beyond the perfect state and allows its applications to influence the whole system rather that purely serve as its basis. Aristotle has a perfect society but is not as nearly exaggerated as that of a utopia. Aristotle takes a more lenient attitude in his philosophy in

Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term? A citizen is a member of a city or town that who is entitled to the rights and privileges of a free person. Everyone should be able to live and have freedom. Many historical events has played a part in everyone being free. People being able to have the freedom to become a citizen, no matter how much a person worth is. Being a citizen of a city or town shows that you honor and respect you’re rights and others as well. In Aristotle time everyone one was characterized has a citizen, only the people who were involved in the government of some sort.

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

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

Plato’s Socrates is a character plagued and prized with contradictions. He professed to care for nothing so much as virtue and human excellence but was incriminated by the greatest and most open democracy in ancient history. He was wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. He is at once the most Athenian, citizenly, patriotic, and other-regarding of philosophers—and yet the most critical and self-regarding of Athenians. In exploring that contradiction, between “Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen” and “Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society,” Aristotle’s Politics comes to mind: “the

For Aristotle the human is "by nature" destined to live in a political association. Yet not all who live in the political association are citizens, and not all citizens are given equal share in the power of association. The idea of Polity is that all citizens should take short turns at ruling (VII, 1332 b17-27). It is an inclusive form of government: everyone has a share of political power. Aristotle argues that citizen are those who are able to participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of government (III, 1279a32-34). However, not all who live in a political association are citizens. Women, children, slaves, and alien residents are not citizens. Some groups; the rich, the poor, those who

Plato was a mentor of Aristotle lending ideas to his student about composition and operation of citizens, city state, and political regimes. Although Aristotle criticized Plato’s notion of ranking democracy at a fourth position out of five competing systems of government, he agreed with Plato that democracy is the corrupt form of government as it violates justice of proportionality. The concept of justice of proportionality is to answer who is the most deserving. This is explained in an analogy of whoever deserves the best flute. A rich or a handsome man have no business with the flute, but the best flute player does. Similarly, in political competition, according to Plato, the man most deserving to rule is the either a philosophers king or for Aristotle, the most educated man in the field of politics.

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.