Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle and modern day politics
aristotle's politics essay
reflection on aristotle
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle and modern day politics
In what follows, I shall consider Aristotle's’ argument of the polis, or the city-state, as presented in his Politics I.2, and expound on the philosophical implications of this particular thesis; namely, a thesis which claims that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is ‘by nature a political animal’. Along the way, I shall present two objections leveled against each claim. The first pertains to the invalidity of the argument on ends; specifically, I shall protest that when a thing’s process of coming to be is completed, even if we regard this as an end, this does not necessarily confer that such an end is a natural end, for artificial processes too, like natural processes, share the potential to arrive at ends. The second pertains to the ‘part-whole’ argument, which in a sense takes from the argument of function. Here, I shall discuss that it is not quite clear whether the claim that human beings - as parts of the whole - are necessarily political animals, and so the view that the state is ‘prior by nature’ is uncertain. After that, I will present two Aristotelian responses against these objections; and judge whether or not these appear succeed. I conclude that he is correct in asserting that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is a political animal. Let us begin briefly by rehearsing Aristotle’s account of the growth and origin of the city-state. In the first place, Aristotle suggests, couples come to be because of the natural impulse for reproduction; namely, a male and a female pair form so that their race may continue to exist, for without this union, which arises not from deliberate reason but from the inherent desire for preservation, the continuing ... ... middle of paper ... ... against him. With regard to the second objection, Aristotle can begin by accepting that whereas it is indeed true that the parts prior to the whole or the polis - the single associations, respectively - do not contain the virtue for the achievement of eudaimonia in themselves alone, it is through the conjunction of them all that the capacity for this virtue emerges. Indeed, the parts of the city-state are not to be taken distinctively. For instance, whereas five separate individuals alone may not have the capacity to each lift a 900 lbs piano, the five together, nonetheless, can be said to be able to accomplish this. Similarly, it is the city-state with all of its parts that can achieve the good life. In any case, it remains that humankind is essentially political since it fulfills the function of reason, and this function is best performed under the city-state.
Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for
Aristotle raises the function argument in order to find out what the “final good” is for a human being. He describes this “final good” as some goal that every human’s actions should strive for. At first, he chooses happiness as this ultimate goal, and contends that it is a self-sufficient good in which all human do and desire. He also mentions that this final good can only be achieved by being “virtuous”. However, he is not satisfied with happiness; happiness is a mere feeling/sensation and does not provide a clear explanation of what the “final good” is. Furthermore, couldn’t a psychopath achieve his self-sufficient happiness when he murders for the pleasure/happiness
Examining the texts of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” side by side, one is bound to find parallels between his reasoning with regard to the individual and to the state. In “Nicomachean Ethics” Aristotle discusses happiness, virtue, and the good life on an individual level and lays out necessary provisions for the good life of a person. He maintains that virtue is a necessary element of happiness: a man will be happy if he has virtues of justice, courage, and temperance, each constituting a balance between the extremes. But this requirement of virtue for the happy life goes beyond the individual level, as we see it in “Politics”. There, Aristotle claims that man is by nature a “political animal” , and for that reason he can only achieve the above-mentioned virtues as part of a state. And since the city is formed by many individuals, the virtue of the state is constituted by the individual virtues of its citizens. It is therefore clear that fulfillment of requirements for the happy life of an individual, namely being virtuous and self-sufficient, is equally necessary for the state as a whole in order to be happy. We thus see that the virtue of a state is directly linked to the virtue of an individual, and that therefore the means of achieving the former will run parallel with those of the latter.
Arguably, in the history of ideas, Plato has planted the strongest and deepest seeds to the mind of humans and we have been pondering and trying to exercise them ever since. His “theory of forms” will be discussed, and somewhat hesitantly dismissed, in the context as he writes in the works of “The Republic”, because his theory is sound the same way math equations are sound and lead to undisputable answers, but problematic in how it can be proved and to whom it actually benefits will always vary. The definition of knowledge is too undetermined for Plato’s ideas to be necessary. Lastly his notion that philosopher kings must rule the ideal city will be decisively dismissed because the word “ideal” leaves room for creation and I argue that permanent procedures can be placed in the “ideal” society, which leaves open the position or positions of power for anyone to operate and the philosopher king no longer is needed for the “ideal” city to it run.
ABSTRACT: I show that Aristotle’s ethics is determined by his notion of communities which are in turn determined by hundreds of themes in his Topics-sameness and difference, part and whole, better than, etc. These are tools for all dialectical investigations into being and action (viz. Top. I.11 104b2) for they secure definitions and get at essences of things or their aspects. Reflecting structures of being and good, they allow Aristotle to arrive at objective reality and good. Being tools for all investigations into being and values, we are not free to reject them, nor can we have any discourse or claim to reality or good. I show how permutating the combination of these topics allows for subsequent ‘sub-communities’ which are common to some. I offer an Aristotelian explanation for the origin of these topics and conclude that ethics is determined by communities, which in turn are determined by education.
This paper is an initial attempt to develop a dynamic conception of being which is not anarchic. It does this by returning to Aristotle in order to begin the process of reinterpreting the meaning of ousia, the concept according to which western ontology has been determined. Such a reinterpretation opens up the possibility of understanding the dynamic nature of ontological identity and the principles according to which this identity is established. The development of the notions of energeia, dynamis and entelecheia in the middle books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics will be discussed in order to suggest that there is a dynamic ontological framework at work in Aristotle’s later writing. This framework lends insight into the dynamic structure of being itself, a structure which does justice as much to the concern for continuity through change as it does to the moment of difference. The name for this conception of identity which affirms both continuity and novelty is "legacy." This paper attempts to apprehend the meaning of being as legacy.
...ublic is the guardians the highest class. Politics influence on human nature constrains its natural upbringing for an individual. As discussed in the republic, the guardians needed to be educated and trained in a manner that fit the good of the society and anything bad was excluded. The main function of this was to raise loyal guardians that will think best for the city. Therefore, it is human nature that brings politics together, where through human nature a community is made and through that community different ideologies emerge. If there was no community, Socrates himself would have not talked about this issue creating a best city. For this reason, it is not only the human soul that creates the city but also the community’s ideologies create it.
He further states that the city-state comes into being for the sake of life but exists for the sake of the good life. The idea that good life or happiness is the proper end of the city-state recurs throughout the Politics (Book III & VII)
The final argument made by Aristotle, that man is a political animal is made in the last paragraph of chapter 2. Aristotle argues that human can be the most save and cruel animals without the presence of law (Pg 5, line 31). Reason and speech works both ways for humans. Humans can reason anything even violence and death (Pg 5, line 35). Reason naturally was made for virtue and prudence, but is susceptible to be used for its opposite. Justice, which is created from a self-sufficient polis, is the only thing that can make humans virtuous. The task of a polis is to be able to bring out the best life in their citizens, and the best life for citizens is a virtuous life. Poleis are a creation of humans for humans. Humans naturally cannot survive on their own, and naturally can sometime not be virtuous.
Without this “equipment,” he says “it is impossible or not easy for someone” to do what is noble. In agreement, to be a great-souled man requires one to also be concerned with external goods—albeit in measured ways. The great-souled man is concerned with “wealth, political powers as well as all good and bad fortune.” These external instruments correspond with honor, yet they are not great honors so their presence or lack thereof does not cause much grievance to the great-souled man. In fact, honor, itself is deemed the greatest external good. More importantly, Aristotle introduces the natural segment of the conversation by inferring that the “wellborn” perhaps deem themselves superior and therefore worthy of honor. He makes the same point about those who are not by nature superior, but are deemed so by convention. They are the ones who possess political power or wealth and also view themselves superior and worthy of honor. Although these external prosperities bring honor to one, the person who is honored due to his goodness is as a result more honorable. Those who are both good and possess external goods are then deemed to be the truly great-souled so long as they maintain the middle term and discharge in measured
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 there is a notion of natural inequality which can be evidently seen with the argument of slavery by nature and the role of women in society. Thence, in this paper I argue that Aristotle’s ideal state is a place of hierarchy rather than equality. This essay will focus on several reasons why we can define Aristotle’s ideal state as a hierarchical structure. These reasons are mainly: the exclusiveness of groups in the society, the division of classes, and the concept of inferiority of slaves and women. To do so, the paper has been divided into four parts, which will show, through direct quotations from the text and then with my personal opinion linked with several arguments and counterarguments, how hierarchy is more relevant in Aristotle’s view of society. The first part analyses the importance in a state of ruling and being ruled in a cyclical way, in opposition to the exclusion of groups from power. The second part focuses on the divisions of classes and their double possible interpretation. The...
Aristotle and Plato are known as the great political philosopher of their respective time.. The two illustrate some difference in thinking, but also share some similarity in their political ideas such as: supreme rules, political order, and virtue. Plato illustrating an idealist view while Aristotle brings more of a practical view to political philosophy. This paper would focus on the differences these political genius bring to the political realm.
Aristotle’s emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural occurrence. He says “every city-state exists by nature, since the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the notion that the creation of a community comes from necessity; individuals aim at the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a household and a village to the creation of the city-state in which citizens are able to come together to aim at the “good which has the most authority of all,” (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this necessity for the formation of a city state comes from the idea of man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except for a human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, human beings are political animals because of their ability to speak, their ability to communicate pleasures and desires, and their ability to reason. Aristotle’s state com...
Compare Aristotle’s claim that man is a ‘political animal’ with Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature is a state of war. How would you summarize their respective views of the relation between nature and politics? Which is the more persuasive and why?
Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.