Benz Natural Science Font

8/3/2019 Benz Natural Science Font

1/31

AS A UNIVERSITY BANGLADESH

ASA University Bangladesh(ASAUB)

Assignment

On

Aristotle's Political Theory

Submitted By;

Md.Abdur Rokib

ID: 071-12-344

Section: 1G

Course code: GED-233

Semester: Summer09(7th)

Submitted To;

Md. Samsuzzaman

Course Instructor, GED-233

Faculty of Business

Submission Date: 19.08.09


2/31

i. Letter of Transmittal

August 12, 2009

To

Md. Shamsuzzaman

Course Instructor

Introduction to Social Science (GED-233)

Faculty of Business

ASA University Bangladesh (ASAUB)

Dear Sir,

Here you have asked me to prepare a report on Aristotles political theory. It is my

greatness to submit the report. I have applied my knowledge & analysis of various rules

and theories in this paper. I sincerely hope this paper will will fulfill all the requirementssuggested by you under the course GED-233, Section: 1G.

I hope that my effort is of some concrete worth to you. If you have further query

regarding the paper, I am gladly remaining standby whenever you ask for it.

Yours Faithfully

.............................

(Md.Abdur Rokib)


3/31

ii. Acknowledgements

This research study was undertaken with the support and help of almighty ALLAH. The

author is thankful to the honorable course teacher for his valuable discussions. Without

his guideline, help and encourage it is totally impossible to prepare this assignment

successfully.

The author is grateful to the friends for their group discussions because without their

discussions it is unbelievable to make it as soon as possible. . However, author is

responsible for remaining errors and inadequacies of the report.


4/31

iii. Executive Summary


5/31

Table of Contents

Description Page

no.

Chapter 1. Introduction.

1.1 Objective.

1.2 Methodology..

1.3 Limitations..

1

1

1

2

Chapter 2. Overview of the International Financial Institution.

2.1: Financial Institution.

2.2: International Financial Institution in Bangladesh...

3

3

3

Chapter 3. Role of International Financial Institution in Bangladesh..

a).Clean air & sustainable environment

b). Higher Education Quality

c). Water Supply & Sanitation facility................................................

d).National agricultural technology..

e).Education Sector Development

f). Preparedness ofAvian Influenza..

g). Recovery from natural disaster

9

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

Chapter 4. Findings ..

&

Recommendation ..

15

16

Chapter 5. Conclusion. 17
http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P084078&theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=228424&piPK=73230http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P102541&theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=228424&piPK=73230http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P102541&theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=228424&piPK=73230http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P102305&theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=228424&piPK=73230http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P084078&theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=228424&piPK=73230http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P102541&theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=228424&piPK=73230http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P102305&theSitePK=40941&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=228424&piPK=73230


6/31

1. Introduction

1.1 Objective:

The main objective to prepare this report is to know the theory of Aristotle. To observe

the theory , how the theory is help to our life and culture and the most important thing is

that to realize own capability to prepare such kind of assignment.

1.2Methodology:

Generally there are one methods for collecting information is from secondery method.

From the primary method we have collected information that is from our course material,

our library, friends etc. on the other hand secondary method indicates the internet, our

honorable teacher etc.

1.3Limitations:

At the time of preparing this assignment I have faced lots of problem., our library is not

so much rich on this type of information, most of the time our Computer lab was

overloaded because of this it takes time to connect with internet. The main problem is to

collect the basic information from different sources, and we dont have any account in

different side and without account no metarial can be downloaded that s which is too

much needed.

Pag

Pa


7/31


8/31

References

1. Course Teacher: Md. Shamsuzzaman

Course Instructor GED-233

2. Books: R.C Agarwal, Political Theory, S Chand & Company

LTD.New Delhi 2007

3. Websites: www.google.com.

www.yahoo.com

www.scribed.com

www.wikepidia.com

www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol

4. Books:
http://www.yahoo.com/http://www.scribed.com/http://www.wikepidia.com/http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-polhttp://www.yahoo.com/http://www.scribed.com/http://www.wikepidia.com/http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol


9/31

Aristotle's Overview

Aristotle (b. 384 - d. 322 BC), was a Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist. Along

with his teacher Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influentialancient thinkers in a number of philosophical fields, including political theory. Aristotle

was born in Stagira in northern Greece, and his father was a court physician to the king of

Macedon. As a young man he studied in Plato's Academy in Athens. After Plato's death

he left Athens to conduct philosophical and biological research in Asia Minor and

Lesbos, and he was then invited by King Philip II of Macedon to tutor his young son,

Alexander the Great. Soon after Alexander succeeded his father, consolidated the

conquest of the Greek city-states, and launched the invasion of the Persian Empire.

Aristotle returned as a resident alien to Athens, and was close friend of Antipater the

Macedonian viceroy. At this time (335-323 BC) he wrote or at least completed some of

his major treatises, including the Politics. When Alexander died suddenly, Aristotle had

to flee from Athens because of his Macedonian connections, and he died soon after.

Aristotle's life seems to have influenced his political thought in various ways: his interest

in biology seems to be expressed in the naturalism of his politics; his interest in

comparative politics and his sympathies for democracy as well as monarchy may have

been encouraged by his travels and experience of diverse political systems


10/31

Political Science in General

The modern word political derives from the Greek politikos, of, or pertaining to, the

polis. (The Greek term polis will be translated here as city-state. It is also translated ascity or polis, or simply anglicized as polis. City-states like Athens and Sparta were

relatively small and cohesive units, in which political, religious, and cultural concerns

were intertwined. The extent of their similarity to modern nation-states is controversial.)

Aristotle's word for politics is politik, which is short for politik epistm or political

science. It belongs to one of the three main branches of science, which Aristotle

distinguishes by their ends or objects. Contemplative science (including physics and

metaphysics) is concerned with truth or knowledge for its own sake; practical science

with good action; and productive science with making useful or beautiful objects (Top.

VI.6.145a14-16, Met. VI.1.1025b24, XI.7.1064a16-19, EN VI.2.1139a26-8). Politics is a

practical science, since it is concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens

(although it resembles a productive science in that it seeks to create, preserve, and reform

political systems.) Aristotle thus understands politics as a normative or prescriptive

discipline rather than as a purely empirical or descriptive inquiry.

In Nicomachean Ethics I.2 Aristotle characterizes politics as the most authoritative

science. It prescribes which sciences are to be studied in the city-state, and the other

capacities -- such as military science, household management, and rhetoric -- fall under

its authority. Since it governs the other practical sciences, their ends serve as means to its

end, which is nothing less than the human good. "Even if the end is the same for an

individual and for a city-state, that of the city-state seems at any rate greater and more

complete to attain and preserve. For although it is worthy to attain it for only an

individual, it is nobler and more divine to do so for a nation or city-state." (EN

I.2.1094b7-10) Aristotle's political science encompasses the two fields which modern

philosophers distinguish as ethics and political philosophy. Political philosophy in the

narrow sense is roughly speaking the subject of his treatise called the Politics. For a

further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:


11/31

Aristotle's View of Politics

Political science studies the tasks of the politician or statesman (politikos), in much the

way that medical science concerns the work of the physician (see Politics IV.1). It is, in

fact, the body of knowledge that such practitioners, if truly expert, will also wield in

pursuing their tasks. The most important task for the politician is, in the role of lawgiver

(nomothets), to frame the appropriate constitution for the city-state. This involves

enduring laws, customs, and institutions (including a system of moral education) for the

citizens. Once the constitution is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate

measures to maintain it, to introduce reforms when he finds them necessary, and to

prevent developments which might subvert the political system. This is the province of

legislative science, which Aristotle regards as more important than politics as exercised

in everyday political activity such as the passing of decrees (see EN VI.8).

Aristotle frequently compares the politician to a craftsman. The analogy is imprecise

because politics, in the strict sense of legislative science, is a form of practical wisdom or

prudence, but valid to the extent that the politician produces, operates, and maintains a

legal system according to universal principles (EN VI.8 and X.9). In order to appreciate

this analogy it is helpful to observe that Aristotle explains production of an artifact in

terms of four causes: the material, formal, efficient, and final causes (Phys. II.3 and Met.

A.2). For example, clay (material cause) is molded into a vase shape (formal cause) by a

potter (efficient or moving cause) so that it can contain liquid (final cause). (For

discussion of the four causes see the entry onAristotle's physics.)

One can also explain the existence of the city-state in terms of the four causes. It is a kind

of community (koinnia), that is, a collection of parts having some functions and interests

in common (Pol. II.1.1261a18, III.1.1275b20). Hence, it is made up of parts, which

Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts: as households, or economic

classes (e.g., the rich and the poor), or demes (i.e., local political units). But, ultimately,

the city-state is composed of individual citizens (see III.1.1274a38-41), who, along with

natural resources, are the "material" or "equipment" out of which the city-state is

fashioned (see VII.14.1325b38-41).

The formal cause of the city-state is its constitution (politeia). Aristotle defines the

constitution as "a certain ordering of the inhabitants of the city-state" (III.1.1274b32-41).

He also speaks of the constitution of a community as "the form of the compound" and

argues that whether the community is the same over time depends on whether it has the

same constitution (III.3.1276b1-11). The constitution is not a written document, but an

immanent organizing principle, analogous to the soul of an organism. Hence, the

constitution is also "the way of life" of the citizens (IV.11.1295a40-b1, VII.8.1328b1-2).

Here the citizens are that minority of the resident population who are adults with full

political rights.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/


12/31

The existence of the city-state also requires an efficient cause, namely, its ruler. On

Aristotle's view, a community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element

or authority. This ruling principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for

political offices, particularly the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8-10; cf. IV.1.1289a15-18).

However, on a deeper level, there must be an efficient cause to explain why a city-state

acquires its constitution in the first place. Aristotle states that "the person who first

established [the city-state] is the cause of very great benefits" (I.2.1253a30-1). This

person was evidently the lawgiver (nomothets), someone like Solon of Athens or

Lycurgus of Sparta, who founded the constitution. Aristotle compares the lawgiver, or the

politician more generally, to a craftsman (dmiourgos) like a weaver or shipbuilder, who

fashions material into a finished product (II.12.1273b32-3, VII.4.1325b40-1365a5).

The notion of final cause dominates Aristotle's Politics from the opening lines:

Since we see that every city-state is a sort of community and that every community is

established for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake of whatthey believe to be good), it is clear that every community aims at some good, and the

community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims highest,

that is, at the good with the most authority. This is what is called the city-state or political

community. [I.1.1252a1-7]

Soon after, he states that the city-state comes into being for the sake of life but exists for

the sake of the good life (2.1252b29-30). The theme that the good life or happiness is the

proper end of the city-state recurs throughout the Politics (III.6.1278b17-24, 9.1280b39;

VII.2.1325a7-10).


13/31

General Theory of Constitutions and Citizenship

Aristotle states that "the politician and lawgiver is wholly occupied with the city-state,

and the constitution is a certain way of organizing those who inhabit the city-state"(III.1.1274b36-8). His general theory of constitutions is set forth in Politics III. He begins

with a definition of the citizen (polits), since the city-state is by nature a collective

entity, a multitude of citizens. Citizens are distinguished from other inhabitants, such as

resident aliens and slaves; and even children and seniors are not unqualified citizens (nor

are most ordinary workers). After further analysis he defines the citizen as a person who

has the right (exousia) to participate in deliberative or judicial office (1275b18-21). In

Athens, for example, citizens had the right to attend the assembly, the council, and other

bodies, or to sit on juries. The Athenian system differed from a modern representative

democracy in that the citizens were more directly involved in governing. Although full

citizenship tended to be restricted in the Greek city-states (with women, slaves,

foreigners, and some others excluded), the citizens were more deeply enfranchised than

in modern representative democracies because they were more directly involved in

governing. This is reflected in Aristotle's definition of the citizen (without qualification).

Further, he defines the city-state (in the unqualified sense) as a multitude of such citizens

which is adequate for a self-sufficient life (1275b20-21).

Aristotle defines the constitution as a way of organizing the offices of the city-state,

particularly the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8-10; cf. IV.1.1289a15-18). The constitution

thus defines the governing body, which takes different forms: for example, in a

democracy it is the people, and in an oligarchy it is a select few (the wealthy or well

born). Before attempting to distinguish and evaluate various constitutions Aristotle

considers two questions. First, why does a city-state come into being? He recalls the

thesis, defended in Politics I.2, that human beings are by nature political animals, who

naturally want to live together. For a further discussion of this topic, see the following

supplementary document:

He then adds that "the common advantage also brings them together insofar as they each

attain the noble life. This is above all the end for all both in common and separately."

(III.6.1278b19-24) Second, what are the different forms of rule by which one individual

or group can rule over another? Aristotle distinguishes several types. He first considers

despotic rule, which is exemplified in the master-slave relationship. Aristotle thinks that

this form of rule is justified in the case of natural slaves who (he asserts without

evidence) lack a deliberative faculty and thus need a natural master to direct them

(I.13.1260a12; slavery is defended at length in Politics I.4-8). Although a natural slave

allegedly benefits from having a master, despotic rule is still primarily for the sake of the

master and only incidentally for the slave (III.6.1278b32-7). (Aristotle provides no


14/31

argument for this: if some persons are congenitally incapable of self-governance, why

should they not be ruled primarily for their own sakes?) He next considers paternal and

marital rule, which he also views as defensible: "the male is by nature more capable of

leadership than the female, unless he is constituted in some way contrary to nature, and

the elder and perfect [is by nature more capable of leadership] than the younger and

imperfect." (I.12.1259a39-b4) Aristotle is persuasive when he argues that children need

adult supervision because their rationality is "imperfect" (ateles) or immature. But he also

alleges (without substantiation) that, although women have a deliberative faculty, it is

"without authority" (akuron), so that females require male leadership (I.13.1260a13-14).

(Aristotle's arguments about slaves and women appear so weak that some commentators

take them to be ironic. However, what is obvious to a modern reader need not have been

so to an ancient Greek, so that it is not necessary to suppose that Aristotle's discussion is

ironic.) It is noteworthy, however, that paternal and marital rule are properly practiced for

the sake of the ruled (for the sake of the child and of the wife respectively), just as arts

like medicine or gymnastics are practiced for the sake of the patient (III.6.1278b37-1279a1). In this respect they resemble political rule, which involves equal and similar

citizens taking turns in ruling for one another's advantage (1279a8-13). This sets the stage

for the fundamental claim of Aristotle's constitutional theory: "constitutions which aim at

the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which

aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve

despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons" (1279a17-21).

The distinction between correct and deviant constitutions is combined with the

observation that the government may consist of one person, a few, or a multitude. Hence,

there are six possible constitutional forms (Politics I.7):

Correct Deviant

One Ruler Kingship Tyranny

Few Rulers Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many Rulers Polity Democracy

This six-fold classification (which is adapted from Plato's Statesman) sets the stage for

Aristotle's inquiry into the best constitution, although it is modified in various ways

throughout the Politics. For example, he observes that the dominant class in oligarchy

(literally rule of the oligoi, i.e., few) is typically the wealthy, whereas in democracy

(literally rule of the dmos, i.e., people) it is the poor, so that these economic classes

should be included in the definition of these forms (see Politics III.8, IV.4, and VI.2 for

alternative accounts). Also, polity is later characterized as a kind of "mixed" constitution


15/31

typified by rule of the "middle" group of citizens, a moderately wealthy class between the

rich and poor (Politics IV.11).

Aristotle turns to arguments for and against the different constitutions, which he views as

different applications of the principle of distributive justice (III.9.1280a7-22). Everyone

agrees, he says, that justice involves treating equal persons equally, and treating unequalpersons unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are

deemed to be equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own

analysis of distributive justice set forth in Nicomachean Ethics V.3: Justice requires that

benefits be distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs

mistakenly think that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political

rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free birth should also have

equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in

Aristotle's view, because they assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-

state. The city-state is neither a business association to maximize wealth (as the oligarchs

suppose) nor an agency to promote liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain).

Instead, Aristotle argues, "the good life is the end of the city-state," that is, a life

consisting of noble actions (1280b39-1281a4). Hence, the correct conception of justice is

aristocratic, assigning political rights to those who make a full contribution to the

political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom

(1281a4-8). This is what Aristotle understands by an "aristocratic" constitution: literally,

the rule of the aristoi, i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the implications of this

argument in the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law

and the rule of a supremely virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case

of aristocracy. Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal constitution inwhich the citizens are fully virtuous.

4. Study of Specific Constitutions


16/31

The purpose of political science is to guide "the good lawgiver and the true politician"

(IV.1.1288b27). Like any complete science or craft, it must study a range of issues

concerning its subject matter. For example, gymnastics (physical training) studies what

sort of training is advantageous for what sort of body, what sort of training is best oradapted to the body that is naturally the best, what sort of training is best for most bodies,

and what capacity is appropriate for someone who does not want the condition or

knowledge appropriate for athletic contests. Political science studies a comparable range

of constitutions (1288b21-35): first, the constitution which is best without qualification,

i.e., "most according to our prayers with no external impediment"; second, the

constitution that is best under the circumstances "for it is probably impossible for many

persons to attain the best constitution"; third, the constitution which serves the aim a

given city-state population happens to have, i.e., the one that is best "based on a

hypothesis": "for [the political scientist] ought to be able to study a given constitution,

both how it might originally come to be, and, when it has come to be, in what manner it

might be preserved for the longest time; I mean, for example, if a particular city happens

neither to be governed by the best constitution, nor to be equipped even with necessary

things, nor to be the [best] possible under existing circumstances, but to be a baser sort."

Hence, Aristotelian political science is not confined to the ideal system, but also

investigates the second-best constitution, the one which is the best that most city-states

are capable of supporting. For it is the closest approximation to full political justice

which the lawgiver can attain under the circumstances. Although Aristotle's political

views were influenced by his teacher Plato, he is very critical of the ideal city-state set

forth in Plato's Republic on the grounds that it overvalues political unity, it embraces a

system of communism that is impractical and inimical to human nature, and it neglects

the happiness of the individual citizens (Politics II.1-5). In contrast, in Aristotle's own

"best constitution" (described in Politics VII-VIII) each and every citizen will possess

moral virtue and the equipment to carry it out in practice, and thereby attain a life of

excellence and complete happiness (see VII.13.1332a32-8). All of the citizens will hold

political office and possess private property because "one should call the city-state happy

not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens." (VII.9.1329a22-3). Moreover, there

will be a common system of education for all the citizens, because they share the same

end (Pol. VIII.1). But if (as is the case with most city-states) the population lacks thecapacities and resources for complete happiness, the lawgiver must be content with

fashioning a suitable constitution (Politics IV.11). The second-best system typically takes

the form of a polity (in which citizens possess an inferior, more common grade of virtue)

or mixed constitution (combining features of democracy, oligarchy, and aristocracy, so

that no group of citizens is in a position to abuse its rights).


17/31

In addition, the political scientist must understand existing constitutions even when they

are bad. Aristotle adds that "to reform a constitution is no less a task [of politics] than it is

to establish one from the beginning," and in this way "the politician should also help

existing constitutions." (IV.1.1289a1-7) The political scientist should also be cognizant of

forces of political change which can undermine an existing regime. Aristotle criticizes his

predecessors for excessive utopianism and neglect of the practical duties of a political

theorist. However, he is no Machiavellian. The best constitution still serves as a

regulative ideal by which to evaluate existing systems.

These topics occupy the remainder of the Politics. Books IV-VI are concerned with the

existing constitutions: that is, the three deviant constitutions, as well as polity or the

mixed constitution, the best attainable under most circumstances (IV.2.1289a26-38). The

whole of book V investigates political change and revolution. Books VII-VIII are

devoted to the ideal constitution. As might be expected, Aristotle's attempt to carry out

this program involves many difficulties, and scholars disagree about how the two series

of books (IV-VI and VII-VIII) are related to each other: for example, which were written

first, which were intended to be read first, and whether they are ultimately consistent with

each other. For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary

document:

Aristotle's Politics did not have an immediate impact because it defended the Greek city-

state, which was already becoming obsolete in his own lifetime. (As mentioned above,

the Greek city-states permanently lost their independence due to the conquest by the

kings of Macedon.) For similar reasons much of his discussion of particular political

institutions is not directly applicable to modern nation-states (apart from his

objectionable defenses of slavery, female subservience, and disenfranchisement of the

working classes). Even so, Aristotle's Politics has had a deep influence on political

philosophy until the present day, because it contains deep and thought-provoking

discussions of perennial concerns of political philosophy: the role of human nature in

politics, the relation of the individual to the state, the place of morality in politics, the

theory of political justice, the rule of law, the analysis and evaluation of constitutions, the

relevance of ideals to practical politics, the causes and cures of political change and

revolution, and the importance of a morally educated citizenry.

Glossary of Aristotelian Terms

action: praxis


18/31

citizen: polits

city-state: polis

community: koinnia)

constitution: politeia

excellence: aret (also virtue)

free: eleutheros

good: agathos

happiness: eudaimonia

happy: eudaimn

justice: dikaiosun

law: nomos

lawgiver: nomothets

master: despots

nature: phusis

noble: kalon (also beautiful)

political: politikos (of, or pertaining to, the polis)

political science: politik epistm

practical: praktikos

practical wisdom: phronsis

right: exousia

ruler: archn

self-sufficient: autarks

sovereign: kurios

without qualification: hapls (also absolute) without authority: akuron

Presuppositions of Aristotle's Politics


19/31

Aristotle's political philosophy is distinguished by its underlying philosophical doctrines.

Of these the following four principles are especially noteworthy:

(1) The principle of teleology Aristotle begins the Politics by invoking the concept of

nature. In the Physics Aristotle identifies the nature of a thing above all with its end or

final cause (Phys. II.2.194a28-9, 8.199b15-18. On Aristotle's view plants and animals arecardinal examples of natural existents, because they have a nature in the sense of an

internal causal principle which explains how it comes into being and behaves (Phys.

II.1.192b32-3). For example, an acorn has an inherent tendency to grow into an oak tree,

so that the tree exists by nature rather than by craft or by chance.

(2) The principle of perfection Aristotle understands good and evil in terms of his

teleology. The natural end of the organism (and the means to this end) is good for it, and

what defeats or impedes this end is bad. For example, he argues that animals sleep in

order to preserve themselves, because "nature operates for the sake of an end, and this is

a good," and sleeping is necessary and beneficial for entities which cannot movecontinuously . For human beings the ultimate good or happiness (eudaimonia) consists in

perfection, the full attainment of their natural function, which Aristotle analyzes as the

activity of the soul according to reason (or not without reason)

Aristotle's perfectionism was opposed to the subjective relativism of Protagoras,

according to which good and evil is defined by whatever human beings happened to

desire. Like Plato, Aristotle maintained that the good was objective and independent of

human wishes. However, he rejected Plato's own theory that the good was defined in

terms of a transcendent form of the good, holding instead that good and evil are in a way

relative to the organism, that is, to its natural end.

(3) The principle of community Aristotle maintains that the city-state is the most

complete community, because it attains the limit of self-sufficiency, so that it can exist

for the sake of the good life (Pol. I.2.1252b27-30). Individuals outside of the city-state

are not self-sufficient, because they depend on the community not only for material

necessities but also for education and moral habituation. "Just as, when perfected, a

human is the best of animals, so also when separated from law and justice, he is the worst

of all" (1253a31-3). On Aristotle's view, then, human beings must be subject to the

authority of the city-state in order to attain the good life. The following principle

concerns how authority should be exercised within a community.

(4) Principle of rulership Aristotle believes that the existence and well-being of any

system requires the presence of a ruling element: "Whenever a thing is established out of

a number of things and becomes a single common thing, there always appears in it a ruler

and ruled. . . . This [relation] is present in living things, but it derives from all of nature."

(1254a28-32)


20/31

Just as an animal or plant can survive and flourish only if its soul rules over its body a

human community can possess the necessary order only if it has a ruling element which

is in a position of authority, just as an army can possess order only if it has a commander

in control. Although Aristotle followed Plato on this principle, he rejected Plato's further

claim that one form of rule is appropriate for all. For Aristotle different forms of rule are

necessary for different systems: e.g., political rule for citizens and despotic rule for

slaves. The imposition of an inappropriate type of rule results in disorder and injustice.

The aforementioned principles account for much of the distinctive flavor of Aristotle's

political philosophy, and they also indicate where many modern theorists have turned

away from him. Modern philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes have challenged the

principles of teleology and perfectionism, arguing against the former that human beings

are mechanistic rather than teleological systems, and against the latter that good and bad

depend upon subjective preferences of valuing agents rather than on objective states of

affairs. Liberal theorists have criticized the principle of community on the grounds that it

cedes too much authority to the state. Even the principle of rulership which Aristotle,

Plato, and many other theorists thought self-evident has come under fire by modern

theorists like Adam Smith and F. A. Hayek who argued that social and economic order

may arise spontaneously as if by an "invisible hand." Modern neo-Aristotelian political

theorists are committed to defending one or more of these doctrines against such

criticisms.


21/31

Analysis4:

Book IV begins with what basically amounts to a justification for political philosophy.

Aristotle recognizes that the best regime really only exists in theory, but speculatingabout it and trying to determine its laws, structure, and underlying principles isworthwhile because it provides a model by which one can judge other regimes in see

which regime is the best possible in a given situation. Political philosophy not only

theorizes about which regimes are the best, but also about which laws are the most

suitable for each type of regime. Aristotle believes that "laws should be enacted . . . witha view to the regimes, and not regimes with a view to laws." The fundamental fact that

decides the type of regime and, by extension, the type of laws that the regime should have

is the structure of authority in the regime.

Cataloging the different types of regimes is helpful in that it allows one to see what the

main distinguishing factors of the various regimes are and what type of laws accompanyeach type of regime. The most common two types of regimes are democracy and

oligarchy. In the sense that all regimes desire to be wealthy, all regimes are oligarchical,but specifically oligarchies are regimes in which the wealthy rule. Democracies are

defined by the rule of the majority, assuming that the majority is relatively poor. An

important point that Aristotle always comes back to when speaking about possiblearrangements for regimes is that the rule of law is fundamental to a regime. Without the

rule of law, there is no regime. For example, when he speaks of a type of democracy in

which the assembly, not the law, has ultimate authority, he writes that this arrangement isnot really a regime at all; "for where the laws do not rule there is no regime." Aristotle

continues, explaining that "the law should rule in all matters, while the offices and the

regime should judge in particular cases." Aristotle recognizes that the law cannot specifyhow it ought to be applied in each specific case. It is the job of the governing body tomake those sorts of judgments, but not to rule by decree.

Aristotle believes that the best attainable regime is polity. It is interesting to note that

throughout Book IV Aristotle never actually speaks of polity as such, but always qualifies

the term, saying "so-called polity" or "what is termed polity." He uses the word polity inan unqualified sense when he is describing the best regime. Aristotle does the same thing

when speaking of aristocracy, which, theoretically speaking is the best regime because it

is the regime in which judges according to virtue and chooses its rulers on the basis ofvirtue. Aristotle recognizes that in its pure form such a standard is impossibly high,

because it requires knowledge of what true virtue is, always as the ability to recognizetrue virtue in others. Therefore only "so-called" aristocracy is possible, not realaristocracy.

Polity is a mixed regimes which combines elements of democracy and oligarchy.

Aristotle enumerates three possibilities for mixing regimes, but in the first twotaking

elements of legislation from each and taking the mean between arrangementsthe rich are

still treated as rich and the poor are still treated as poor. The third, more preferable
http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/


22/31

manner of mixing regimes takes some provisions from oligarchic law and some from

democratic law. This method transcends the divisions between poor and rich by having a

mixture of offices chosen by lot and by election, thereby integrated the oligarchic and

democratic principles into a coherent whole.

An important point which Aristotle brings out toward the end of the book of the idea ofthe "middling element" in society. The middling element is basically what in modern

terms would be considered the middle class. Aristotle praise of the middling element is

logical, in that he believes virtue to be mean between two extremes of vice. A large

middle class is absolutely essential for a stable and well-run government because the

middle class do not covet rule, are not envious, foster friendship because of their

similarity, and can act as neutral arbitrators between the rich and the poor. Hemmed in

between people above it which it dislikes and people below it which it fears, the middling

element is more likely to listen to reason and to help maintain stability in the regime.


23/31

Aristotle's view on the connection between freedom and virtue:

Aristotle's view on the connection between freedom and virtue, which was previously

discussed in the analysis of Book I, explains his assertion that democracy is a deviation

from the correct regime of polity. Aristotle holds that "the presupposition of the

democratic regime is freedom." Following from this emphasis on liberty are two main

principles of the democratic regime: (1) to consider "equality on the basis of number and

not on the basis of merit," and (2) "to live as one wants." [These quotations are from the

beginning of Book VI.] What is wrong with the principle of living as one wants? Indeed,

such an idea seems intuitively to constitute the very definition of freedom; in a sense, it

does. For what one wants, above all, is happiness. Therefore every want is either directly

or indirectly aimed at reaching this ultimate good. What follows from this conclusion is

that what one wants, in the deepest sense, is to live a virtuous life, for such a life is

happy.

The problem with the democratic mentality, however, is that the emphasis on equality

and freedom leads one to treat every manner of acting as equally choiceworthy. Aristotle

addresses this flaw of democracy: "[Democracies] define freedom badly. . . . [E]veryone

lives as he wants and toward whatever [end he happens] to crave,' as Euripides says.

But this is a poor thing. To live with a view to the regime should not be supposed to be

slavery, but preservation." There are two crucial implications of the philosopher's

assertion. First, it is the incorrect definition of freedom, not freedom itself, which is the

problem. Second, this definition is incorrect because it leads one to slavery, and

consequently even acts as a danger to the preservation of the regime. True freedom, as

opposed to democracy's conception of it, entails one objective endhappinessand

necessitates that any manner of action incompatible with this end be considered inferior,

for such an action would in fact defeat freedom itself. One could therefore conclude that

Aristotle's emphasis on living virtuously as the central goal of politics actually stems

from a desire to preserve freedom. When examined in this light, Aristotle's position that

"the city exists not only for the sake of living but rather primarily for the sake of living

well" and his consequent belief that "virtue must be a care for every city" are actually ameans to protect the citizens' true freedom.
http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/


24/31

Nature and Causes of Revolution of Aristotles

This is about the nature and causes of revolution, as well as how to prevent revolution.

Factional conflict results from disagreements about justice, because different parts of the

city have different ideas of equality and each has a partial claim to justice. Those

outstanding in virtue would be most justified in engaging in factional conflict but are the

least likely to do so. Factional conflict can about a desire to change the type of regime or

simply to change specific elements or specific rulers in the regime.

Factional conflict is the result of inequality. The two types ofequality are equality by number and inequality by merit. Neither pure democracy nor

pure oligarchy are lasting because they each have an extreme view of equality which

excludes one of the two types. A regime with a large middling element will be more

stable.

People engage in factional conflict over issues of profit and honor, and are further stirred

up because of fear, contempt, and dissimilarity.

When office-holders are arrogant and aggrandize themselves, factional conflict arises.

When a few people are preeminent to a great extent factional conflict may arise in

reaction against them. When someone is frightened of paying a penalty for an injustice he

has committed, he may engage in factional conflict through fear. Factional conflict may

also result from disproportionate growth of one part of a city. A great shift in the regime

could occur from overlooking small gradual changes. Dissimilarity of the city's

inhabitants could be a cause of conflict until cooperation develops, and a poor location

could cause conflict as well.

Factional conflict resulting from petty disagreements among the rulers can affect the

whole regime. If one group in the city gains a certain acclaim for some reason, the regime

may shift in order to give that group more power. When opposing parts of the citylike

the rich and the poorare equal in number they are more likely to engage in factional

conflict than if there are only a few in one group and many in another.

This chapter examines the causes of revolution specific to democracy. In democracy

revolution often occurs because of the irresponsible behavior of popular leaders. In

democracies where the popular leader was the general, the democracy often turned into a

tyranny.


25/31

There are also specific causes of revolution for oligarchies. The first cause is unjust

treatment of the multitude. Sometimes even the well-off themselves begin a revolution in

an oligarchy if office-holding is limited to very few. Revolution may also occur from the

rise of a popular leadereither with the well-off or with the masses. If the wealthy expend

all their resources in wanton living, or if the type of rule is too much like masterly rule

rather than political rule, a revolution may result. If offices are allotted on the basis of

property assessment, revolution could come about because the assessments were arranged

with a view to the situation when the regime was founded and that situation could

change.

In aristocracies, revolutions occur because few share in ruling prerogatives, much like in

oligarchies. Above all, however, revolutions in polities and aristocracies are the result of

a deviation from justice in the regime. For the most part, revolutions in aristocracies

occur gradually.

There are several methods by which regimes can be preserved from revolution. First ofall, it is necessary to ensure that the laws are enforced. Also, in aristocracies and

oligarchies, it is necessary that the rulers act justly toward the multitude, which has no

share in ruling. It is also helpful to avoid factional conflicts within the ruling class itself.

To prevent revolution in oligarchy or polity where offices are based on assessments, there

should be a mechanism for adjusting the assessments when the economic conditions of

the citizens change. For all regimes, it is important to prevent any one person from

becoming overly powerful in a short period of time, or else he will surely be corrupted. It

is excellent if a regime arranges its laws and offices in such a way that it is impossible to

profit from the offices. In such a case, the poor will not want to rule because they will

make no money from it, and thus the well-off will rule and the poor will be able to spend

their time at work and become well-off. In a democracy, the rich should be treated

welltheir property should not be redistributed. In oligarchies, it is important to treat the

poor very well, such that there is an opportunity for the poor to become well-off. It is

advantageous to assign equality or precedence to those who participate least in the

regimethe well-off in democracies, and the poor in oligarchies.

Rulers need an affection for the regime, a capacity for ruling, and virtue and justice

relative to the regime. Advantageous laws are laws that help to preserve the regime. The

middling element should also not be neglected in this discussion, because they can act as

a stabilizing force.

The greatest thing that helps to make regimes lasting is education relative to the regime.

This means not that democratic people should be educated democratically, but rather that

they should be educated oligarchically, and vice versa, to counteract the natural tendency

of the regime toward its extreme form. The problem with democracies is that they define

freedom badly.


26/31

In monarchy, the causes of revolution are as follows. Kingship and tyranny are

distinguished from one another in that the tyrant seeks his own pleasure while the king

seeks noble goals. Tyranny encompasses the evils of both democracy and oligarchy.

Attacks on monarchs occur sometimes because of their disgraceful behavior to others, or

because of fear, contempt, ambition, or desire for profit. Tyranny is often destroyed from

the outside by a superior regime. It is also destroyed from within when the rulers fall into

factional conflict. Kingship is rarely destroyed from outside.

Kingships are preserved by limiting the king's authority. Tyrannies are preserved by

eliminating all potential rivals to power. Extreme democracy is basically the same as

tyranny. A tyrant above all needs military virtue, and should command awe but not fear.

He should be moderate in his dealings with women and strong drink, and he should show

himself to be attentive to the gods. He should honor the good citizens personally and

make other officials punish the offenders. The tyrant should not give preferential

treatment either to the poor or the well-off. If a tyrant does these things his rule will be

long-lasting and not completely vicious.

Oligarchy and tyranny are the most short-lived regimes. Socrates is wrong when he

argues that there is a cyclical pattern of revolution for regimes. Why should the best

regime ever undergo revolution? Also, it more frequent for regimes to undergo revolution

into their opposite than into a similar type of regime.

Aristotle's understanding of revolution

Aristotle's understanding of revolution is fundamentally different from the modern

understanding. The ancient philosopher considers revolution in completely political,
http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/http://www.gradesaver.com/author/aristotle/


27/31

objective and value-neutral sense. Modern political theorists, however, always connect

revolution with a notion of progress, which presupposes an underlying philosophy of

history. In Aristotle, the term "counterrevolution" would be nonsensical since a

revolution is simply a change in regime. The modern use of that term indicates a

judgment that certain revolutionsnamely, revolutions toward more democratic

governmentsare enacting the right kind of change, and other revolutionssuch as those

that go toward a more authoritarian arrangementare incorrect and are going against the

historical development toward progress. G. W. F. Hegel's Philosophy of History is the

primary basis of this modern theory of revolution.

While Aristotle only speaks about in one section of one chapter of the book, the

importance of education is a key point in his thought. Aristotle writes that "the greatest of

all these things that have been mentioned with a view to making regimes lastingthough it

is now slighted by allis education relative to the regimes." What he means by education

"relative to the regimes" is very interesting and also somewhat counterintuitive. One

would assume that educating citizens relative to the regime means educating them in

accordance with the underlying principles of that regimefor example, educating

democratic citizens to value equality on the basis of number rather than merit, or

educating oligarchic citizens to value equality on the basis of wealth rather than number.

In fact, Aristotle's suggestion is the opposite of what one would expect. Citizens need to

be educated, not to recognize the specific claim to justice of their own regime, but to be

able to recognize the competing claims of justice. The reason that such education is

necessary is that, except in the best regime, the regime is based on a partial view of

justice. Educating the citizens requires helping them to see the elements of justice that are

not emphasized in the ruling structure of the regime. As a result, citizens will be moresympathetic to competing claims of justice from the parts of the regime which do not

have power, and factional conflict will be avoided.

Toward the end of his discussion on education, Aristotle diverges into an examination of

the specific weakness of democracy. This brief section will be analyzed in conjunction

with Book VI, in which Aristotle elaborates on the underlying principles of democracy.


28/31

Politics of Plato and Aristotle

To compare the political theories of two great philosophers of politics is to first examine

each theory in depth. Many experts regard Plato as the first writer of political philosophy,

and Aristotle is recognized as the first political scientist. These two men were great

thinkers. They each had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual

lifetimes. It is necessary to look at several areas of each theory to seek the difference in

each.

The main focus of Plato is a perfect society. He creates a blueprint for a utopian society,in his book The Republic. This blueprint was a sketch of a society in which the

problems he thought were present in his society would be eased.

He lived in times of Peloponnesian War, the time of sunset of Athenian democracy. In

addition, he had witnessed Socrates trial and execution. Shocked by corruption of

Athenian democracy and politics he refused to participate in political life. He believed

that neither rational state nor moral individual could be obtained under the rule of

democracy. In his works he mentions three dangers that he thought were present in

democratic society. Plato believed that common man could not think intelligently about

foreign policies, economic, and other states matters. He also thought that leaders indemocracy were chosen by reasons such a good look, family background, and other non-

essential reasons. The third danger was that too much liberty for citizens could turn a

democracy to anarchy.

In his utopian society Plato sought to cure the afflictions of both human society and

human personality. Essentially, Plato wanted to achieve a perfect society.


29/31

Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society. He just wants to improve

on the existing one. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle

suggested, in his work, The Politics, that the society itself should reach for the best

possible system that could be attained. He thought that utopia is an abstract solution, a

solution that has no concrete problem. There is no solid evidence that all societies are in

need of such drastic reformation as Plato suggests. Aristotle discovers that the best

possible has already been obtained. All that can be done is to try to improve on the

existing one.

Plato\'s utopia consists of three distinct, non-hereditary class systems. The highest class

was Guardians. The Guardians consist of non-ruling Guardians and ruling Guardians.

The non-rulers are a higher level of civil servants and the ruling is the society\'s policy

makers. Auxiliaries are soldiers and minor civil servants. Finally the Workers are

composed of farmers and artisans, most commonly unskilled laborers. The Guardians are

to be wise and good rulers. It is important that the rulers are public-spirited in

temperament and skilled in the arts of government areas. The highest Guardian is to be

placed in a position of absolute ruler. He is supposed to be a philosopher and know what

is best for society.

Aristotle disagrees with the idea of one class holding discontinuing political power. The

failure to allow circulation between classes excludes those men who may be ambitious,

and wise, but are not in the right class of society to hold any type of political power.

Aristotle looks upon this ruling class system as an ill-conceived political structure. He

quotes \"It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even of happiness,

maintaining that happiness of the whole state which should be the object of legislation,\"

ultimately he is saying that Guardians sacrifice their happiness for power and control.

Guardians who lead such a strict life will also think it necessary to impose the same strict

lifestyle on the society it governs.

Aristotle puts a high value on moderation. Many people favor moderation because it is

part liberal and part conservative. There is so much of Plato\'s utopia that is undefined

and it is carried to extremes that no human being could ever fulfill its requirements.

Aristotle believes that Plato is underestimating the qualitative change in human character

and personality that would have to take place in order to achieve his utopia. Plato chose

to tell the reader of his Republic how men would act and what their attitudes would be in

a perfect society. Aristotle tries to use real men in the real world in an experimental

fashion to foresee how and in which ways they can be improved.

Both Plato and Aristotle agree that justice exists in an objective sense: that is, it dictates a

belief that the good life should be provided for all individuals no matter how high or low

their social status. \"In democracies, for example, justice is considered to mean equality,


30/31

in oligarchies, again inequality in the distribution of office is considered to be just, \" says

Aristotle. Plato sees the justice and law as what sets the guidelines for societal behavior.

Aristotle puts emphasis on the institution of the polis. This institution is not the state or

society merely the larger unit of the two. The polis was set up to allow political

participation on the part of the average citizen. This contradicts Plato\'s theory of oneruling class controlling the political power and all decisions that effect the entire society.

The theory of Democracy that Aristotle derived states that democracy is a \"perversion\"

form of government of \"polity\". Aristotle said, \"The people at large should be

sovereign rather than the few best\". Plato would never allow the full public participation

in government, as Aristotle would like. According to Plato public judgments of approval

and disapproval are based on belief and not on knowledge.

Plato thinks that is a revolution were to take place it would be a palace revolution. A

palace revolution occurs when there is a power transfer from one power holder to

someone else. Aristotle sees the cause of revolutions originating with either the rich orthe poor. He feels that the means of preventing revolutions is to anticipate them. Plato

thinks that in a utopia a disgruntled group of Guardians will emerge and break from the

rules. He thinks that in an oligarchy two things may happen to spark a revolution: the first

being the ruler and their offspring grow to be weak rulers and too sympathetic, the second

is that the number of poor grows larger and suffer exploitation at the hands of those in

power over them. Aristotle states that to know the causes, which destroy constitutions, is

also to know the causes, which ensure their preservation.

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. Aristotlewas concerned with the citizen and the design of political institutions. 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.


31/31

Conclusion

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	black-himu
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Benz Natural Science Font

Documents