Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social class and its effects
Impact of social class
Social class in politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...abilizes the reader by not suggesting a real conclusion. Anyway to be fair if one looks at the text with a more critical and deep analysis, one can assume that he definitively asserts that the state is a place of hierarchies and he is very strong on confirming the inferiority of slaves and women in the polis. Somehow he also has some modern and open-minded ideas such as the one of the rule and be ruled or the balances of classes and the relevance of the middle one. In conclusion to be quite honest enough we cannot debase his stances because we have to contextualise the text and in this sense, putting his work in a more traditional and proper context and maybe also trying to empathize with that time period, it can be in a certain way justified or at least comprehended.
Works Cited
ARISTOTLE, SINCLAIR, T. A., & SAUNDERS, T. J. (1992). The Politics. London, Penguin.
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”
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.
In summation this paper discussed the three correct types of regimes according to Aristotle; furthermore it examined the deviations of these regimes. This was done by firstly examining a regime led by royalty, secondly by observing the characteristics of an aristocratic regime and thirdly by discussing a regime ran by constitutional government. Finally defining the three correct types of regimes the deviations of these regimes: tyrannical, oligarchic and democratic were examined.
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.
The Nicomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, represents his most important contribution within the field of Ethics; it is a collection of ten books, covering a variety of interesting topics, throughout the collection. Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings. Without pretending to exhaust with too many references, it would be rather useful to focus on the most criticized part of the philosopher’s attempt, which is also the very starting point of his masterpiece, identified as eudaimonia (happiness, well being) and ergon (function), in Aristotelian terms.
As in other areas of “The Republic,” Plato carefully outlines the delineations which form the basis for the types of rulers to be installed in the state. “Rulers” (legislative and udicial), “Auxiliaries” (executive), and “Craftsmen” (productive and fficacious) are the titles of the categories and are based, not on birth or wealth, but on natural capacities and aspirations. Plato was convinced that children born into any class should still be moved up or down based on their merits regardless of their connections or heritage. He believes the citizens of the State will support and benefit from such a system and presents the idea in the form of an allegorical myth.
In Plato’s dialogue, Phaedo, Echecrades asks Phaedo the details of Socrates’ last day alive. Phaedo first describes his own countenance as well as the rest of Socrates’ companions as “an unaccustomed mixture of pleasure and pain” because they all know that Socrates’ death is imminent, however they see that Socrates appears happy and without fear (58, e). The conversation with Socrates turns to why a philosopher should not fear death. Socrates defines death as the separation of the soul from the body (64, c). He states that the body is a constant impediment to a philosopher in their search for the truth. Socrates says that the body “fills us with wants, desires, fears, all sorts of illusions and much nonsense, so that… no thought of any kind ever comes to us from the [it].” (66, c). He claims that philosophy itself is “training for dying” and philosophers purify their souls by detaching it from the body (67, e). Socrates concludes that it would be unreasonable for a philosopher to fear death because they will obtain the truth they sought in life upon the separation of their body and soul, or death (67, c). After successfully proves the soul’s immortality, Socrates goes on to tell his companions a myth. This myth tells o the judgment of the dead and their journey through the underworld (107, d). It explains the shape of the Earth and how it has different surfaces (108, c- 113, d). It also tells of the punishment for the maimed souls and the reward for the pure souls, those of philosophers (113, c – 114, d). After concluding this myth, Socrates seems to emphasize that the exact details of the story are not important and “no sensible man would insist that these things are as I have described them” but it is important to “risk the bel...
The concept of justice is an extremely vague and an ambiguous subject. Its characterization in the political arena, as well as in personal spheres may differ from person to person, as explored in Plato’s The Republic. The view of justice by Plato is understood by the need for structure and balance, represented by the groupings of the social classes, as well as of the soul; the incessant need for justice highlights the imperfections of humanity and demands balance and an ideal structure for societal convention.
The main feature of the Roman aristocratic ethos in the second century BC was the set of goals, values that the ancient Romans had and the way they achieved them. These were born out of the military and political careers of ambitious individuals and involved the gain of valued high office and much praised famous deeds. The Roman society revolved around turning the military, the politics, religio and gens to conform to the necessities of the aristocratic class. Through the works of the ancient writers/historians, Polybius, Plutarch, Livy, Apian and Cicero about the life of Scipio Aemilianus, this essay will set out to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of such value system.
To achieve this topic, I have sectioned my paper into three main sections, in which I have subsections supporting. In the first section, I will provide much information about Aristotle and his beliefs in virtue and obtaining happiness. Using information from his book of ethics I will provide examples and quote on quote statements to support his views. In the second section, I will provide my agreements as to why I relate and very fond of Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics. In the third section, I will provide research as to why there are such objections to Aristotle’s book of ethics, and counter act as to why I disagree with them. Lastly I will conclude much of my and as well as Aristotle’s views on ethics and why I so strongly agree with this route of ethics for humans.
In his discussions of constitutions and cities in Politics, Aristotle makes it very clear that his top priority is to provide people with the opportunity to pursue and achieve the good life. An integral part of this is the stability of the constitution. Although Aristotle explicitly states that a kingship is the best system of rule for any given generation, its lack of stability from one generation to the next disqualifies it from being the best in reality. In his attempts to find a constitution with stability, Aristotle comes to the decision that the middle class would be the ruler of such a constitution. This, he says, will minimize the corruption that can easily take place within the rich or the poor, and will ensure lasting stability. In order to enable the middle class to take a role of power, Aristotle allows them to obtain wealth, and more specifically private property—a huge diversion from the opinion of Aristotle’s mentor, Plato put forth in the Republic.
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
In this essay we will discuss and analyze Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean. This topic area can be found in Book II, page 888, 6—15, through 890, 25. The purpose for Aristotle touching on this subject matter was to discern the states of character which are virtuous from those which are not. By this, I mean he is attempting to categorize which virtues are causal of a human “to be in a good state and to perform their functions well”(888—15). In order to keep this paper orderly and comprehensible, we will work in chronological order through Aristotle’s variety of premises and conclusions which lead to his main idea which is ––––––––––––.
In The Metaphysics, Aristotle states, “All men by nature desire to know.” Although, this is a generalization, of this insightful statement about the nature of humans and human understanding this statement truly captures what Aristotle was trying to figure out about humans and their thinking. Everyone has a desire to know or to understand. As rational beings we tend to contemplate very simple ideas to the most complicated, like our existence, or parts of the universe, or the universe as a whole. Aristotle is known as the father of modern day psychology and biology, even though many of his ideas of these two sciences was proven incorrect. The most important concepts of Aristotle’s theory of human understanding are the notion of cause, the infinite, and the soul.
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...