Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast plato and aristotle political philosophy
Compare and contrast plato and aristotle political philosophy
The aristotelian ethics essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Comparing Aristotle and Plato
Aristotle argues that in order for a polis to emerge, a union between man and women must convene. Later a household must be introduced which unites with other households to form a village, villages come together to form city-states. This theory is Aristotle’s natural view that an individual can not be self sufficient Plato argues that, in order to achieve absolute justice, a city-state is needed.
In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers. Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his discussion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, 'Why do you need ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers?' There are many layers to the answer of this question. The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal without having philosophers as rulers. This answer leads to the question, 'Then why do you need ideal states to begin with?' The Republic starts with a discussion of Justice, which leads to the creation of the ideal state. The reason why an ideal state is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice. This does not mean, though, that there cannot be states without Justice. Actually, Plato provides at least two reasons why the formation of a state cannot be avoided. The first reason is that human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and the second reason, each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp. 56-62). Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of people--a state--satisfies the needs of all its members. Furthermore, members can specialize on their natural fortitudes and become more productive me...
... middle of paper ...
... States. Aristotle’s own view of how city-states are created is almost paralleled when reviewing our own history.
Plato and Aristotle alike were two men who had ideas on ways to improve existing society. Plato, a political philosopher, was in the pursuit of philosophical truth (Hacker 114). Aristotle was concerned with the citizen and the design of political institutions (Hacker 114). They both had well thought out ideas and plans on how to build a better society. Both Aristotle and Plato have had a tremendous impact on political scientists of today. Aristotle helped to develop some democratic ideas. In conclusion these men were great thinkers. Their opinions on society and its functions were quite different, but they both had the same intention, to build a better way of life for the societies they lived in and for the societies that would come to be in the future.
The idea of polis, or city-state, was developed in Greece in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE. A polis can be understood as an autonomous region, an urban centre which has its own political, religious, economic and culture centre (P108, Stokstad). According to Aristotle’s Politics, a polis is the union of several villages (Politics, 125b27). Although it lacks accuracy, we can get the impression that the Greeks consider a polis to be a community. As a community, the Archaic and Classical poleis were primarily a political and a military organisation, a male society from which women and children were excluded, not to speak of foreigners and slaves.
Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.
In The Republic by Plato, Plato constructed an ideal city where Philosophers would rule. Governed by an aristocratic form of government, it took away some of the most basic rights a normal citizen should deserve, freedom of choice, worship, and assembly were distressed. Though the idea of philosopher kings is good on paper, fundamental flaws of the human kind even described by Plato himself prevent it from being truly successful. The idea of an ideal democratic government like what our founding fathers had envisioned is the most successful and best political form which will ensure individual freedom and keep power struggle to a minimum.
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
Plato who was a Greek philosopher and was the founder of the academy in Athens. Plato was Socrates student, but as education furthered, he began to form his own ideals. Plato’s Republic, translated from the New Standard Greek Text and an introduction by C.D.C. Reeve is the compilation of Plato’s teachings. An incredibly common concept that is discussed throughout the text is the idea of Justice and what it truly means to be just and to live a just life. Plato is asked to argue his definition of justice and explain why his definition is the correct one. Plato is not the only philosopher who analyzes what it means to be just and what it truly means to be considered a good citizen. Aristotle: The Politics is another compilation of texts and teachings
Plato believed that everything had an ideal form, but Aristotle looked into the real world and studied that. Instead of inventing a system of government, Aristotle explored more of practical things that you can realistically put into effect. Aristotle’s main aim was to “consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable”. Meaning that he wanted everyone to be able to relate and adapt to his form of power. He wanted people to be servant to his laws because if the law were an order, it would make a good society. He ended up maintaining a government somewhat like a democracy, where the middle class is strong. Aristotle produced natural domination as one of his biggest theories. Aristotle believed that people were born into being a ruler or in slavery. He wanted people to accept what they are and do what they were born to do. It was the only way that he thought the world would be able to work and not come out with a lot of problems. This is way he believes that everyone is born with a color that tells you your placement in the world. Your placement is not genetic and can’t run in the
...is own desires rather than his subjects needs is not virtuous. Second, a person in the military, who is supposed to be courageous may desert his fellow troops in fear. Third, many common people commit crimes, and create conflict within the community. None of these people are virtuous. However, this is exactly what Plato was getting at. Plato believes that when each of these classes performs its own role and does not try to take over any other class, the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, showing the harmony that is genuine justice. (ln 433e) What makes the Republic such an important and interesting piece of literature is that by examining what brings true justice and harmony to the world, we can therefore understand all of the virtues by considering how each is placed within the organization of an ideal city.
Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato were two of the most influential and knowledgeable ancients in our history. Their contributions and dedication to science, language and politics are immensely valued centuries later. But while the two are highly praised for their works, they viewed several subjects entirely differently, particularly education practices, and human ethics and virtue.
His opinion on life was that all people should live a fair and happy life. After many attempts of forming the perfect government, his facts allowed him to believe that a perfect government could be formed only by those who have a middle class. The middle class would consist of those who were not rich, yet not poor. Both Aristotle and Plato had different thoughts on the division of the government. Aristotle claimed to believe that a government should consist of many classes for the protection of the people and the state.
... state. In Plato's argument for the ideal state, the fundamental bonds which hold together his republic are unity and harmony. He explains how the just state is held together by the unity of each individual in each social class, and harmony between all three social classes. Plato explains how the ideal state must have citizens who are united in their goals. It is not the happiness of the individual but rather the happiness of the whole which keeps the just state ideal. At the same time, Plato argues that there must be harmony within the individual souls which make up the state. The lack of unity and harmony leads to despotism through anarchy which eventually arises within a democracy. Plato makes a clear argument, through The Republic, that without the unity and harmony of the individual and the state there can be no order and therefore there can be no ideal state.
Both men lived in 4th century BCE Athens, so much of their background and experience was shared. Aristotle was the younger of the two, and he was Plato’s student. Where leadership is concerned, both philosophers agreed that the “best men” should rule, and that the purpose of leadership was the betterment of the State. They also agreed that education was paramount to forming these best men. They disagreed, however, on whether or not leaders were born with inherent qualities, or if these qualities depend solely on education. They also disagreed about whether or not a strict separation between leaders and followers is required, and what form of government the best State should take.