MVRblog

Ancient Athens was home to some of the greatest minds the world has ever known. Arguably, one of the most important individuals to have shared his insights with the rest of humanity is Aristotle. Perhaps the most lasting of Aristotle’s contributions were his writings on Politics and the nature of man. For Aristotle, “man is by nature a political animal.”[1] This paper seeks to develop a deeper understanding of Aristotle, his view on the politics of mankind, and an understanding of the context of his time in which the work was produced. This understanding will be achieved through a review of scholarly material on the life of Aristotle and an analysis of two excerpts from Politics, in particular portions concerning the polis and democracy.

Aristotle was born in Stagerius, a Greek settlement in Thrace of central Macedon. His father was court physician to Amyntas II, who sat on the Macedonian throne and was grandfather of Alexander “the Great”; incidentally this family connection would lead to Aristotle’s tutoring of Alexander. [2] It is thought that Aristotle’s education was initiated with education in science and medicine under the tutelage of his father, though most of his learning occurred under Plato in the Academy of Athens.[3] Though Aristotle’s initial training in medicine is often considered to be a root to the marked conflict between Plato’s metaphysics and Aristotle’s emphasis on scientific observations.[4] Evidently this “warring of two great minds” was fruitful for Aristotle, as he would go on to great insights into the physical sciences, most importantly in biology, and within the more Platonic field of metaphysics, where his credits include establishing frameworks considered foundational to understanding man’s political and moral nature.

The extent of our knowledge of Aristotle beyond the few aforementioned biographical details, some of which themselves may be mythologized[5], is limited and in recent years the accuracy of his authorship has even come into question. Jacob Klein, in his introduction to Aristotle recalls an apt elucidation of our knowledge on Aristotle: “As regards Aristotle himself, as regards the circumstances and the course of his life, suffice it to say: Aristotle was born, spent his life in philosophizing, and died.”[6] While this statement is clearly facetious and purposefully provocative, a significant element of truth is probable; the authorship of some Aristotelian treatises, including books IV-VI of Politics, may in fact belong to his successor Theophrastus. In Master’s analysis of Aristotle’s texts and the history of their transmission he presents primary source evidence from other thinkers from Antiquity and delineates several credible arguments based on the fractured continuity of the text itself. A summation of the key elements that cast doubt upon some of Aristotle’s work consist of: the texts were in question were essentially unavailable for the span of 180 years, yet elements of Politics once it was compiled by Andronicus of Rome appear to include significant similarity with Theophrastus and disunity with elements of Aristotle’s philosophy;[7] the overly repetitive and confusing continuity of the texts themselves have led many scholars, prior to the authorship question coming to fro, to question the order in which they were compiled;[8] the Roman Senator Cicero’s comparison of Aristotle and Theophrastus could account for some of the confusion in logic that appears in the text, implicating that the rightful author of some of the works was Theophrastus; and the most compelling factor involves the compilation of the texts by the Roman Andronicus, who’s bias towards the Imperialist hegemony on ideas prevalent in the day, would benefit by attributing the texts of Theophrastus to those works of someone as prolific as Aristotle. While the relevance of an investigation into the true authorship may prove, in the end, arcane, it is nonetheless in keeping with the methods Aristotle himself encouraged. Or as Master’s, in his conclusion to his investigation argues:

Like the Bible, the intellectual power and status of classical philosophy is only confirmed by an open-minded and scholarly analysis of its origins. Such a procedure is all the more justified by Aristotle’s own method, which combines study of the “growth” of a thing with emphasis on its “end” or “perfection” as something transcending material causation.[9]

Within book I Aristotle discusses communities as being established in the interest of achieving some good.[10]

Aristotle approaches the subject based on the assessment that a community organized in a state is the natural order of things; he illustrates by way of deducing the characteristics of the political state down to the lowest element, which he concludes is the family which grows into much larger groups:

The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men’s everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas ‘companions of the cupboard,’ and by Epimenides the Cretan, ‘companions of the manger.’ But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled ‘with the same milk.’ And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood. … When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the

“Tribeless, lawless, heartless one, “

whom Homer denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.[11]

Aristotle’s focus on the community and its aim for achieving what is good is fundamental to understanding his works. Of particular importance is his claim that “Man is by nature a political animal”, which he backs up with an account of his observations as to the distinction between “speech” & “voice” among animals: voice is common to all animals and is used to express pain or pleasantry; whereas speech is reasoned and enables humans to express plainly, without emotion and in the abstract, what is painful or pleasant and more importantly what is just and unjust.[12] Further attention ought also be paid to his account of man as a “social animal”:

A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society. [13]

The concepts of justice, social cohesion, and the critical importance of social and political participation that Aristotle explicates in these passages are highly relevant to the modern world. In fact such concepts to this very day dominate the field of anthropology, sociology, ethics and political science. His accounting of such ideas demonstrate the timelessness and lucidity of much of his writing.

Within book IV, chapter XI of Politics we read of Aristotle’s conception of democracy as the “best form of government”. As was learned from book I, Aristotle posits that man is interested in achieving what is “good”. As seen in the below quote, Aristotle argues for a political structure which is almost egalitarian or at least holds the potential for each person to achieve a modicum of influence over society.[14]

We have now to inquire what is the best constitution for most states, and the best life for most men, neither assuming a standard of virtue which is above ordinary persons, nor an education which is exceptionally favoured by nature and circumstances, nor yet an ideal state which is an aspiration only, but having regard to the life in which the majority are able to share, and to the form of government which states in general can attain. … For if what was said in the Ethics is true, that the happy life is the life according to virtue lived without impediment, and that virtue is a mean, then the life which is in a mean, and in a mean attainable by everyone, must be the best. And the same the same principles of virtue and vice are characteristic of cities and of constitutions; for the constitution is in a figure the life of the city.[15]

Such a government as interpreted solely on the basis of the above quote might seem overly-optimistic or perhaps naive. However, Aristotle goes on to present a reasonable set of conditions by which a democracy could indeed provide not only the best situation for a majority of citizens, but also the most stable form of government. His approach is to advocate that democracy must consist of a large middle class, as those belonging to such a group would have the political clout given their numbers to protect their vested interests. In essence Aristotle contends that such a system institutes checks and balances upon the very rich and the very poor, thus provides stability while at the same time enabling a larger amount of the population to enjoy more leisure and success.. The interplay between these three classes, the poor, the middle class and the rich, outlined below provides a reasoned and pragmatic justification for democracy.

The middle class is least likely to shrink from rule, or to be over-ambitious for it; both of which are injuries to the state. Again, those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience. On the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded. So that the one class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically; the other knows not how to command and must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this: for good fellowship springs from friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best constituted in respect of the elements of which we say the fabric of the state naturally consists. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors’ goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich; and as they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely.[16]

Aristotle’s pragmatic point of view may, in the opinion of moderns, seem to lack compassion for the very poor. While perhaps true in many ways, after all Aristotle throughout politics seems to imply that slaves are not even human. Nonetheless it is important in reading the works of Aristotle not to “beg the question of Aristotle” as Simpson puts it[17]. In other words to focus on the flaws in logic or perceived moral deficiencies, which are largely based on cultural divergences between modern Western and Ancient Greek values and norms is to lose sight of the real value that can be found within Politics and also succumb to ethnocentrism. Moreover the core elements of his views on democracy are relevant in the context of the modern era and can easily be extrapolated to argue for democratic systems which seek a balance not only based on wealth, but also religion, ethnicity as well as all the many factors which drive man to division and instability.

A reading of Politics ought to lead a reader that the main thrust of Aristotle’s thesis was meant to apply to all people of reason, regardless of the age in which they live. Though his work is informed based on the historical context of Ancient Athens, his aims were to provide something which is common to man and not tied down to any particular era. Below is an excerpt from Simpson’s essay concerning the context of Politics.

The Politics, according to Aristotle himself is not about a historical phenomenon, nor is it about a Greek phenomenon. It is about a natural phenomenon which, if prominent in ancient Greece, could in principle exist in any place and at any time and which, moreover, is necessary at every place and at every time if human beings are to attain happiness.[18]

In conclusion, Aristotle offers a compelling analysis of man’s relation to his fellow man, the need for people to engage socially, and the participatory role we have to play within the political sphere. Furthermore Aristotle’s analysis of democracy are highly applicable to providing a well ordered state, and in fact his philosophy has influenced Western Liberalism thought and impacted the enlightenment in many ways and we continue to benefit from his precepts to this day.

Bibliography

Aristotle. The Politics ; and, the Constitution of Athens. Edited by Stephen Everson. Rev. student ed. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Durant, Will. The Life of Greece; Being a History of Greek Civilization from the Beginnings, and of Civilization in the near East from the Death of Alexander, to the Roman Conquest. New York,: Simon and Schuster, 1966.

Lord, Carnes, “The Character and Composition of Aristotle’s Politics,” Political Theory 9, no. 4 (1981): pp. 459-78.

Lorde, Carnes, “Aristotle” in Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 2d ed. Chicago :: University of Chicago Press, 1981: pp. 118-154

Masters, Roger D., “The Case of Aristotle’s Missing Dialogues: Who Wrote the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Politics?,” Political Theory 5, no. 1 (1977): pp. 31-60.

Simpson, Peter. A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

---

[1]

Aristotle, The Politics ; and, the Constitution of Athens, ed. Stephen Everson, Rev. student ed. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996),

p. 13.

[2] Will Durant, The Life of Greece; Being a History of Greek Civilization from the Beginnings, and of Civilization in the near East from the Death of Alexander, to the Roman Conquest (New York,: Simon and Schuster, 1966), pp. 1-2

[3] Ibid., p 1-2.

[4] Ibid., p 1-2.

[5] Carnes Lord, “Aristotle,” in L. Strauss and J. Cropsey, History of Political Philosophy, 2d ed. (Chicago :: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 118-119.

[6] Roger D. Masters, “The Case of Aristotle’s Missing Dialogues: Who Wrote the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Politics?,” Political Theory 5, no. 1 (1977). p. 31.

[7] Ibid. p. 32-33.

[8] Ibid. p. 33.

[9] Ibid. p. 49.

[10] Aristotle, The Politics ; and, the Constitution of Athens, p. 11.

[11] Ibid., p 12-13.

[12] Ibid., p 13.

[13] Ibid., p 14.

[14] Ibid., p. 106.

[15] Ibid., p. 106.

[16] Ibid., p. 108.

[17] Peter Simpson, A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), p XXI.

[18] Ibid., p. XXI.