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.
The dilemma starts off with the dispute between who assert that the policial or active life is the most choice-worthy and those asserting that the philosophic way of life is the best. Aristotle continues to explain three different opinions of what makes a happy course for a government. Firstly, some people ruling neighboring cities”
Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics the topic of eudaimonia comes up in various different ways. This paper will focus on what it means to say that virtue is necessary but not a sufficient condition for eudaimonia. This paper will attempt to show that the claim that virtue is necessary but insufficient for eudaimonia. For something to be necessary but insufficient for another thing means that it must be present in order to achieve the other thing, but its presence doesn 't guarantee that other thing.
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
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.
Socrates evaluates four city constitutions that evolve from aristocracy: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. As a result that these four types of cities exist, four additional types of individuals who inhabit them also exist. Although these city constitutions evolve from aristocracy, Socrates deems aristocracy to be the most efficient, therefore the most just, of the constitutions because the individuals within it are ruled by the rational part of the soul.
This is the sort of society in which one family, or person, is of merit so outstanding as to surpass all the other members.there should be absolute kingship” (III.17). When Aristotle speaks about “virtue,” describes a constitution as “good,” or issues any other form of praise, he is almost always speaking about the ability of the constitution to provide its citizens with the opportunity to pursue the good life.... ... middle of paper ... ...
In conclusion, it remains that, even after being around for over 2000 years, Aristotle’s philosophy on human nature remains one of the most accurate questions to the eternal question of “what is human nature?” It may not, in the end, prove to be the correct answer to the question, in fact, it may very well be possible that there is no definite answer possible. But until scholars and students in programs such as ours can find a suitable replacement, his analysis will remain superior to all others.
Aristotle contends that the good man is dissimilar to the good citizen in ways he goes a great length to illustrate. He distinguishes the two for the purpose of facilitating his later arguments concerning the appropriate allocation of sovereignty to the rightful ruler, who he subsequently claims is the good man who excels all others in each and every aspect. Aristotle's distinction further prompts the notion that he advocates a monarchial form of constitution, for the rule of a single good man is equivalent to a constitution of kingship. This can be derived through the following reasoning. Aristotle is convinced that the good citizen can so be defined only in relation to the constitution he is an element of: 'The excellence of the citizen must be an excellence relative to the constitution (1276b16).' The good man on the other hand, 'is a man so called in virtue of a single absolute excellence (1276b16).' He further asserts that the good citizen 'must possess the knowledge and capacity requisite for ruling as well as for being ruledÖa good man will also need both (1277b7~1277b16).' From these conclusions of Aristotle, it is evident that the good man and the good citizen differ in the manner of their excellence, but not in their capacity for ruling or being ruled. It should therefore follow that there should not exist impediments to the ruling by the good citizen in the city as opposed to the ruling by the good man due to the fact that they are identical in their competence to rule. However, Aristotle in his later arguments, crowns the good man as ruler: 'in the best constitutionÖthere is someone of outstanding excellence. What is to be done in that case? Nobody wou...
In the Aristotle’s Politics Book I, Aristotle determines that man is by nature a political animal, and in accordance to that the polis is created naturally. Aristotle’s first argument states how a polis comes into being by stating “Now in these matters as elsewhere it is by looking at how things develop naturally from the beginning that one may best study them.”(Pg 2, line24)
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
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.
Plato supposed that people exhibit the same features, and perform the same functions that city-states do. Applying the analogy in this way presumes that each of us, like the state, is a complex whole made up of several distinct parts, each of which has its own proper role. But Plato argued that there is evidence of this in our everyday experience. When faced with choices about what to do, we commonly feel the tug of many different impulses drawing us in different directions all at once, and the most natural explanation for this situ...
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.
In his book ‘The Politics’, Aristotle places great emphasis on nature and the development of everything to a positive end. He speaks about the development of nature itself into a positive end, which turns out to be the city-state. When considering the meaning of man as a political animal it is necessary to note how Aristotle arrives to the conclusion on how the city-state, in other words the polis, develops.