Near the end of the second book in The Politics, Aristotle begins to examine a number of regimes that deviate from what he considers to be the best. Of the five political systems, two are idealized and respond to what their creators believe to be the major problems in society. These issues restrain the people, in their current predicaments, from truly experiencing their greatest possible life. Though Phaleas of Chalcedon and Hippodamus of Miletus each mold their cities into what they think will fix the ills present in their current world, they overlook major stepping stones in the way that human nature and political life function in the real world. According to Aristotle, not only do both of these ideal cities go against what he believes is the best regime, the flaws present in …show more content…
He does not take into account desire and man’s penchant for wickedness brought about because of that desire. After all, as Aristotle asserts, “the greatest wrongs… are committed because of excess and not because of need” (1267a13). Factions do not only arise when a deficit in physical property makes itself known; there is also honor, possessions, and the desire to accrue these items that drives their formation. Whether it be a desire for necessities, things beyond necessity, or pleasures without pain, human want is the strongest force when left alone and not tempered by things like hard work, moderation, and philosophy (1267a2-11). As Aristotle says, desire must be tempered to achieve equality and that comes about not just through equal education, but the right education (1266b28-1266b37). Therefore it cannot just be universal because improper schooling could run the risk of, “[setting] people on a greedy pursuit of money or honors or both” (1266b36-37). Because Phaleas fails to acknowledge human wickedness the limitations and parameters his city requires, and the major role desire plays, his regime is bound to
He pointed out the flaws of the four main political systems, and sought a new way of government. He came up with a subsidiary of a democracy, called, as his book was, a republic. This new form of government would have leaders be elected by the people they governed, and lead to the new political concept of popular sovereignty. This meant that in a democracy or republic, if citizens felt that who they elected wasn’t doing a good job, they wouldn’t have to re-elect them. On the other hand, Aristotle denounced Plato's idea of an “ideal state,” in his book titled The Politics. Instead of trying to theorize an ideal state, Aristotle took a more practical approach in trying to make a Constitution that could be easily implemented. He divided some of the types of governments in Greece into either “True,” or “Defective.” After researching he figured that the easiest to implement and least problematic was a system called a polity. hybrid between an oligarchy and a democracy that would uprise with a strong, educated middle class. It is also referred to as a “Middle Class Polity.” In ancient Rome, they implemented a republic, and the Romans
Action from necessity is a constantly recurring theme in Thucydides’ The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. A sentiment used to explain the growth of the Athenian Empire which some Athenians espoused to an assembly at Sparta best quantifies necessity, “. . . we were necessarily compelled at first to advance the hegemony to where it is—especially by fear, and then by honor, and later by benefit.” (Selected Passages 1.75.3). This claim, referred to as the Athenian Thesis, is used to advance the two following implications: all states act with the motivations of fear, honor and interest and no one can condemn a state for doing so. The Athenian Thesis influences the way many of the Athenian elite structure their patterns of reasoning in both noticeable and subtle ways.
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.
A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,
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
Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would
Over the course of history there have been several attempts at defining what it means to be the ideal person, and by extension how to create an ideal society. In doing so, several characteristics are generally defined, some of which are courage, moderation and self control. The concept of courage has been fluid in its meaning but has been highly valued across ancient Greece. In this paper I will be observing two societies and the ideals that they hold for generating better people, as well as what values they would want to instil. One city is theoretical, and one real: Kallipolis, Socrates’ economic city, the city that would essentially be the opposite of Athens if it were established, and Sparta.
Artemis recognizes Phaedra’s nobility and honour, telling Theseus she came also for, “…[his] wife’s frenzied lust, or in a way, / nobility.” (Euripides, 1300-1301) Artemis recognizes Phaedra’s concern to maintain her reputation, as well as her struggle to fight off the emotional attachment to Hippolytus instilled in her by the goddess Aphrodite.
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,
In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in
Athens is a major Greek city-state in European history. It was a great center of cultural and intellectual development, and thus home to philosophers. Socrates and Pericles, two of these philosophers, had polarizing opinions about the city-state and its citizens. While Pericles chooses to praise the Athenian citizen, Socrates criticizes Athens’ people. Pericles gave his opinion at a funeral during the first battles of the Peloponnesian War, while Socrates gave his during the trial that ultimately led to his death. The Athenian city-state has become a model for today’s systems of government and a hearth for western philosophy, so Pericles’ opinion seems to be the one that is more accurate.
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.
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
This paper will argue that money is problematic to Plato largely because his ideal city Kallipolis is filled with virtuous leaders and citizens living in harmony and unity. When money is involved, Plato believes that it is human nature for even the most virtuous leader to lack the will to resist the temptation. Plato discusses the five different types of regimes and constitutions people can live under, Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. As regimes shift into the next, virtue decreases and corruption in the state arises. When obtaining wealth and acquiring private property is a motivating factor for humans, people start making self-interested decisions; choosing to take part in politics and fighting in wars for personal gains, and not for the benefit of the whole. When education and training is not the priority from an early age, citizens become lazy and there is a divide in the city between the rich and the poor. Plato goes to great lengths to ensure that the city is just by abolishing private property and creating the noble lie.