Aristotle's Political Ideal
¡§It is not Fortune¡¦s power to make a city good; that is a matter of scientific planning and deliberative policy.¡¨ Aristotle, along with most of the prominent thinkers of his time, theorized upon what the Ideal Political State would be and through what means it could be obtained. Aristotle wrote on this discussion of the Ideal State in books VII and VIII of The Politics.
What Aristotle observed around him were the prevalent city-states of ancient Greece. It is commonly believed that he did not have a vision of the large nation-state and especially not such great federations as the United States and Russia. What Aristotle referred to when he spoke about state, is a limited sized city-state that is formed by the grouping of several villages. He also believed that a nation is too large for a state: his state was about the right size so that all members of the state could meet in a single assembly. Aristotle¡¦s state was nearly self-sufficient so that the bare needs of life were met and continued ¡§for the sake of a good life¡¨ for its people.
This continuing prosperity for the sake of a good life is what Aristotle believes the goal of the ideal state should be. Aristotle said ¡§that life is best, both for the individuals and for the cities, which has virtue sufficiently supported by material wealth to enable it to perform the action that virtue calls for it¡¨. He feels that since man, as individuals, strives for happiness, then man, as a collective group, should strive for the happiness of the state. Since it is now established what the ideal state should aim for, we may begin at what and by the Ideal State is composed.
The Ideal State, of which Aristotle thought of, has as its qualit...
... middle of paper ...
... trouble conceiving the world without such large nations, it may be that such large centrally run nations are just too big to control. Therefore, it is important to note that the largest and longest standing empire of the world is the Roman Empire, one that implicated small municipalities that were run in ways similar to the Aristotelian and ancient Greek ideals. Most modern, western nations have faired no better than a few years without war, or revolution or something to that effect, so perhaps we need to look back and take lessons from the great thinkers of the ancient past. As old and forgotten as they are, the ideas Aristotle originally presented are new and fresh should many of them be thought about and greeted.
Bibliography:
„h Aristotle, The Politics, ed. S. Everson (Cambridge, 1988).
„h Mulgan, R, Aristotle¡¦s Political Theory (Oxford, 1977).
... 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.
Summary # 1: In Aristotle, Book VII, Chapter 2, Aristotle illustrates what are the characteristics of an ideal city. Aristotle starts by making a comparison between a city and human what they need to be happy. He states that for both they need internal virtue in order to have happiness. The man focus of Aristotle in this chapter is all about what is the most worthy way of life and which regime is the best.
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” As to the question of what influence Aristotle may have had on the architects of the Federalist Papers, it seems clear that at the very least, his writings contain ideas that are in no small way shared by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for
...kingship, aristocracy and polity are all good forms of ruling because each serves the interest of the people or community. Overall, Aristotle believes that we must not question how many rule, but instead ask how they are capable of ruling or do they rule in a manner that best serves the community. Aristotle’s Politics gives a simpler critique of democracy than Plato’s Republic, however it is convincing in the sense that in order to rule for the good of the community or the good life (Bios) one should only question that capability of those ruling rather than ask the quantity.
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
Immediately, Aristotle alleges that all actions aim for good, thus proposing that all human activity is to be of some good. These activities attempt to meet a greater end; a chief good met by subordinate desires. However, Aristotle introduces that the nature of good is presumed by convention, not nature, and are administered by politics. Governments determine which sciences and arts are studied, who studies them, and the extent to which they are studied.
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...
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...
It is debated as to what philosopher mentioned above had the right idea of what the relationship between citizen and state should be, as they all have some overlapping ideas, and there is no consensus as to how the relationship should be today as well. The idea of a mixed government that Aristotle had proposed seems to incorporate a lot of themes that others have as well, and so Aristotle would appeal
It was Aristotle’s belief that everything, including humans, had a telos or goal in life. The end result or goal was said to be happiness or “eudaimonia”. He explained that eudaimonia was different for each person, and that each had a different idea of what it meant. Further, he said that people must do things in moderation, but at the same time do enough. The theory, of “the golden mean of moderation” was the basis to Aristotle's idea of the human telos and concluded that living a virtuous life must be the same for all people. Aristotle maintained that the natural human goal to be happy could only be achieved once each individual determined his/her goal. A person’s telos is would usually be what that individual alone can do best. Aristotle described the humans as "rational animals" whose telos was to reason. Accordingly, Aristotle thought that in order for humans to be happy, they would have to be able to reason, and to be governed by reason. If a person had difficulty behaving morally or with ethics, he was thought to be “imperfect”. Moral virtue, a principle of happiness, was the ability to evade extremes in behavior and further to find the mean between it and adequacy. Aristotle’s idea of an ideal state was one where the populous was able to practice eth...
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.
1.) Aristotle begins by claiming that the highest good is happiness (198, 1095a20). In order to achieve this happiness, one must live by acting well. The highest good also needs to be complete within itself, Aristotle claims that, “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification, since we always…choose it because of itself, never because of something else (204, 1097b1). Therefore, Aristotle is claiming that we choose things and other virtues for the end goal of happiness. Aristotle goes on to define happiness as a self-sufficient life that actively tries to pursue reason (205, 1098a5). For a human, happiness is the soul pursuing reason and trying to apply this reason in every single facet of life (206, 1098a10). So, a virtuous life must contain happiness, which Aristotle defines as the soul using reason. Next, Aristotle explains that there are certain types of goods and that “the goods of the soul are said to be goods to the fullest extent…” (207, 1098b15). A person who is truly virtuous will live a life that nourishes their soul. Aristotle is saying “that the happy person lives well and does well…the end
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...