Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle ideal about Leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle ideal about Leadership
The Wise Ruling and the Unwise Seeking Consent of the Masses
The most difficult thing for a regime to achieve is that of acquiring the best ruler, with the consent of the ruled. Aristotle acknowledges this in his works The Politics, and Caius Marcius Coriolanus faces this difficult task in the Shakespeare play The Tragedy of Coriolanus. We even see this same difficult task arise in contemporary politics, as the masses are wooed one way or the other with sound bites, and talk show appearances, by candidates who may not be the best leader for the republic. To this day I don't know if there is a real solution for this dilemma. There is, however, a better way to go about seeking the consent of the ruled then the route Coriolanus took, and there is a good way to go about achieving a threshold in our republic where we better our chances so that those who Know have the consent of those who do not Know, so that the common good can be achieved.
Aristotle believed that those who ruled must be wise. They must possess certain virtues and knowledge that can allow for him to rule for the common good. For someone to Know, he must understand man and the common good of man. Aristotle believed every man is by nature a political animal. Man must forge partnerships with other humans to live the good life. Man is not self-sufficient. It is these partnerships that provide for the basis of the polis or city-state. There is a natural hierarchy of partnerships that lead to the polis. The most basic is that of the family. Marriage is in essence a political partnership. There are certain tasks and duties that neither a man nor a woman can do without another therefore making marriage a necessity for the good life. Following the famil...
... middle of paper ...
... prudence.
If these actions, as described by Aristotle, are carried out then the best ruler will receive the consent of the ruled without compromising the uniqueness of the ruler. Had Coriolanus been moderate in his actions and applied Aristotle's belief of government and its relationship with man perhaps he would not have met his demise in the end. Aristotle's The Politics and Shakespeare's Tragedy of Coriolanus leave future generations with lessons on representative government. Coriolanus shows us how those deserving office should not go about seeking the consent of the ruled, while Aristotle provides a timeless observation of man and how government applies to his existence here on earth. If we apply these two schools of thought to today's governing process we will have a clear, and reasonable way for the wise ruler to have the consent of the unwise masses.
In conclusion the power of being put into office differinates between these three documents With the power of the election of being placed into office by the people themselves, this can be seen in the Athenian constitution less but more in the roman and U.S. constitutions as these documents represent the symbolism of democracy at hand. But meanwhile their similarities can be found in the aspect of being found worth and right for the position the one running for office is seeking and that is something that can be understood by all that it’s never to be
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for
It will be discussed whether Coriolanus’ difficult personality is due to his upbringing, and/or due to his own nature, men of his manner are not uncommon in the socio-political landscape, even in today’s day and age, and we may well be moved to wonder what formative childhood experiences shaped the personality of these difficult, although at times necessary leaders. Above all, Shakespeare's words seem to provide us with a simple, direct answer. But I intend to argue that the text also contains some signs that the history she provides is incomplete.
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
Throughout The Prince and The Discourses of Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli demonstrates multiple theories and advocacies as to why popular rule is important to the success of a state. Popular rule is a term that will be used to define an indirect way to govern the people of a state. In order to rule the masses, a leader must please the people or revolts will occur, causing mayhem and a lack of stability in one’s state. During both written works, Machiavelli stresses the importance of obedience and order needed for a state, and especially for a leader to be successful. Machiavelli thoroughly states that anything and everything must be done to keep the peace of the masses, even if acts of immorality are used. However, instead of advocating immorality, Machiavelli is saying that to serve the people and the state well, a ruler must not restrict himself to conventional standards of morality. His use of immoral tactics in leadership would appear to be unpopular; however the acts of immorality have limitations and are done solely to avoid displeasing the masses or creating disorder. Therefore it is acceptable to practice immorality if it is done only to a small number of constituents, if it is not repeated, and if it is performed to please and benefit the public. It is these limitations that prove Machiavelli is arguing that the use of immoral tactics, to rule the people and in turn be ruled by the people, is needed. He suggests that if the majority of the population is unhappy with a leader, that particular leader’s rule would be in jeopardy, thus falling victim to popular rule.
Moore, J.M. Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983.
In consideration to Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s view of the great-souled man is that of an individual that represents happiness and obtains the five virtues: wisdom, justice, bravery, self-control, and the overall goodness within an individual (happiness). The magnanimous person is very complex and displays the proper virtues at the proper time, and in the proper way. In addition, the great-souled man accommodates to his surroundings where he is honorable but not boastful in his actions. Aristotle believes that it is only possible to attain happiness within a political organization because happiness represents living well without being concerned with others, they solely live for the truth and not approval.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Throughout history, powerful empires with boundless control have had a tendency to fall victim to corruption. It is common knowledge, among political scientists and historians, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. William Shakespeare's "Othello, the Moor of Venice" (reprinted in Laurence Perrine and Thomas R. Arp, Literature: Structure, Sound, and Sense, 6th ed. [Fort Worth: Harcourt, 1993] 1060-1147) contains several themes, but one theme in particular supports the truth of this knowledge. In "Othello, the Moor of Venice," the theme of control is one that causes corruption. Othello's control is stolen by Iago and, Iago's overbearing control of Othello's emotions causes chaos and absence of control until Lodovico arrives at the end of the story.
Aristotle is one of the earliest philosophers to help establish woman’s place as Other. For Aristotle, individuals act as parts whose participation contributes to the good of the polis (Femenias, 165). Women are not beneficiaries of this relationship, rather, they are subordinate by nature which prevents them from sociopolitical gain (166). Patriarchy in the Greek family and society have influenced Aristotle to believe it’s impossible to change the nature by which women are confined
...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates.
His first reform, in 48 BC, was to give himself tribunician powers which thus allowed him to veto the Senate and in theory, dictate the Plebeian Council. He hoped to prevent the election of opposing tribunes, and used the same theory of popular sovereignty that had been introduced by Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC (Ostwald, 1989). With no opposition from opposing tribunes, Caesar was able to keep sole power to himself and this caused many, prominently the Senate, to fear that Caesar was going to change the once stable Republic into a monarchy, with himself as the figurehead. However, in Monroe Deutsch’s 1928 book ‘Classical Philology’, it is stated that Caesar responded to these accusations with one sentence; “I am Caesar, not king.” The relevance of this quote shows that while Caesar had no ambitions to be king, his reforms had weakened the tradition structure of the Republic so much that many were then questioning its existence. In 47 BC, he increased the number of senators to nine hundred, which he filled with representatives from all classes and not just nobles; Spaniards, Gauls, military officers, sons of freedmen, and others who acted as an advisory group rather than a legislative body (Morey, 1901). This political change served to break down the distinction between nobles and common folk and was an attempt to unite the nation as a whole and again took great power
Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments
This paper will explain Aristotle’s idea of the good life as well as how virtues fit into the equation and if they are stable and enduring. Pertaining to the prompt, I will explain the three types of friendships Aristotle describes and how one of the friendships is the best according to him. I will also show the reason why Aristotle views friendship as one of the greatest goods. To answer the critic, I will show that although Aristotle holds that the good life is self-sufficient, because he holds friendship in such a high regard, he believes that a person will not be able to obtain perfect happiness without friendship.