Aristotle

Aristotle

Born	384 BC Stageira,
Died	322 BC (aged 61 or 62)
Nationality	Greek
Era	Ancient philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
Main interests	Metaphysics, Poetry, Ethics and Politics, Biology, Zoology
Notable ideas	Golden Mean, Logic, Syllogism
Influenced by Socrates, Plato, Heraclitus, Democritus
Influenced Alexander the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Galileo

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy.

Aristotle was born in Stageira east of modern-day Thessaloniki. His father Nicomachus was the personal physician to King Amyntas of Macedon. Aristotle was trained and educated as a member of the aristocracy. At about the age of eighteen, he went to Athens to continue his education at Plato's Academy. He becomes a metic because he was n'\t born in Athens as you cannot change your citizenship. Later, Aristotle was invited by Philip II of Macedon to become the tutor to his son Alexander the Great in 343 BC.

Aristotle Politics

Why do human beings live together?. It is becuase we are political animals. If we want to flourish we have to actualize our capabilities. We are naturally inclined to live in communities, drawing a distiction between nature and culture. Other sophists argued that people are best served if we live according to cultural laws not nature. Aristotle says this is a false dichotomy. We live in a natural state in a polis

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle describes his subject matter as political science, which he characterizes as the most authoritative science. It prescribes which sciences are to be studied in the city-state, and the others -- 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. Populations should live in city states of max. 100 000 people. For Aristotle, it is important who should make decisions.

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” 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 . The constitution is not a written document, but an organizing principle. Hence, the constitution is also “the way of life” of the citizens. Here, the citizens are the minority of the resident population who possess full political rights. 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. He suggests that, although women have a deliberative faculty, it is “without authority”, so that females require male supervision

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”

	Correct	Deviant
One Ruler	Kingship	Tyranny
Few Rulers	Aristocracy	Oligarchy
Many Rulers	Polity	Democracy

He observes that the dominant class in oligarchy (literally rule of the few) is typically the wealthy, whereas in democracy (literally rule of the demos, i.e., people) it is the poor, so that these economic classes should be included in the definition of these forms. Also, polity is later characterized as a kind of “mixed” constitution typified by rule of the “middle” group of citizens, a moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor.

Aristotle and Plato

Although Plato and Aristotle share many principals and ideals they disagree on method. For Plato, man must access the knowledge of what is good. He must climb out of the cave and view from above and craft the city in the light of the knowledge gained. Aristotle is highly critical of the ideal constitution set forth in Plato's Republic on the grounds that it overvalues political unity. Unity will destroy polis. Pragmaticaally, Aristotle says we find what is good by collectively seeking the ideal together through diversity. In contrast, in Aristotle's “best constitution,” 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. Moreover, there will be a common system of education for all the citizens, because they share the same end.

The Best and Worst Constitutions

Tyranny, democracy oligarchy are all part of the corrupt constitutions because they govern in the interest of the ruler not the ruled. If (as is the case with most existing city-states) the population lacks the capacities and resources for complete happiness, the lawgiver must be content with fashioning a suitable constitution. 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, where possible, aristocracy, so that no group of citizens is in a position to abuse its rights). Aristotle argues that for city-states that fall short of the ideal, the best constitution is one controlled by a numerous middle class which stands between the rich and the poor.

Although Aristotle classifies democracy as a deviant constitution (albeit the best of a bad lot). In a democracy, the mass rules stead of the law, which is a bit unfair because in Aristotle's time, Athens was very concerned with constitution. It seems as if Aristotle is taking an implicit swipe at Athens. Democracy is a class based society governing on behalf of the poor people. Theoretically the majority could be rich but it would not be a democracy becasue the essential essence of oligarchy is wealth and the essential essence of democracy is poverty.

He does however argue that a case might be made for popular rule. The central claim is that the many may turn out to be better than the virtuous few when they come together, even though the many may be inferior when considered individually. For if each individual has a portion of virtue and practical wisdom, they may pool these assets and turn out to be better rulers than even a very wise individual.

The Citizen and the City State

Wealth should be a means to an end i.e. virtue. It cannot be the thing itself. The citizen needs free time, a slave or servant to carry outtasks so he can pursue virtue and acquire the education. (It implies wealth)So Virtue is the life to be sought for which can be best reached through an structure because of the wealth, free time, education etc. It is faculty of reason which separates us from natural slaves and animals.

The Impact of Aristotle ideas

He starts a lyceum. He and his researchers study 158 city states including Sparta, which was a kind of ideal city and Carthage. At Sparta he says women had too much license. He sees the pairing of wife and husband as a political role. Although women should learn about citizenship as they will be creating citizens and they are different from children or slaves so it was a different kind of rule over women. But fpr women their reason is not dominant. They are too emotional to practice reason.

His Lyceum thrived but a few centuries later Aristotle writings disappeared until the 8th century translations into Arabic and then later by Thomas Acquinas into latin where he sought to linked it to Christianity in Summa contra gentiles taking up the idea of man goverened by natural law.

In his writings, Aristotle gives advice to the tyrant hoping it will push him towards a more virtuous course rather than a defence and support for tyranny. Machivelli takes this up and see an opportunity to codify many of these thougths as a way of bolstering and maintaining a way of tyranny

Is Aristotle likely to be taken up by authoritarian regimes? If misconstrued, yes. Aristotle says that we should strive towards public community virtue. Therefore, he would be in favor of some kinds of restrictions if it is the public good. Alternatively he is critical of extreme democracy where private virtue allows you to do what you like but this is not an advocacy for authoritarian governments like the ones we have seen in eastern Europe.

Aretaic Ethics

From the Greek 'aretai' Arete meaning 'virtue' or 'excellence': this Normative Ethical Theory is more commonly known as 'Virtue Ethics'. As a normative theory, it is attributed to Aristotle, and maintains that normative evaluations are rooted in the character of a moral agent rather than the consequences of an action (contra Consequentialism) or some intrinsic feature of an action itself (contra Deontological Ethics). Contemporary adherents contrast Virtue Ethics with traditional normative theories by saying the latter focus on 'doing' while the former on 'being'. The fundamental question of ethics, they believe, is not "What should I do?" but rather "What kind of person do I want to be?"

Kant and the Deontic

Immanuel Kant (1724 to 1804) is credited with the development of the idea of deontic ethics - another form of normatice ethical theory. He felt that morality should be defined as categorical rather than hypothetical. That is, it should be universally agreed upon; it should not depend upon individual taste or abilities. He put forward the idea of the "categorical imperative," a requirement, based on human reason, that is unconditionally authoritative and requires that certain action be taken. Action is based solely on duty and looks at the input rather than the outcome. If an action adheres to duty, it is morally right. If not, it is morally wrong. Consequences, according to Kant, do not matter.

Aretaic vs. Deontic Ethics

Aretaic ethics asks the question, "What sort of person should I be?" It defines virtues and says right acts are those that are performed by virtuous people, regardless of the consequences. Deontic ethics asks: "What should I do, and what should I not do?" Right and wrong depend upon a set of principles based on human reason or a religious platform, such as the Ten Commandments. Doing the right thing is more important than its consequences. In some cases, however, dire consequences may result from acting purely out of duty, in which case Kantian absolutism may need to be abandoned in favor of "threshold deontology," where the mitigation of wrong consequences becomes more important than strict adherence to duty.

Criticisms of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics

1. He does not suggest criteria which anyone and everyone can use to determine who is a virtuous agent and who is not. Persumably because the belief in your virtue comes from within and is not something that can be measured. There can be a tautology here. For instance you are not supposed to search for riches and fame. However, if you become virtuous you might attain these goals. Knowing this you strive to be virtuous so you can become rich. Are you virtuous or not?

2. He does not discuss the situation in which two virtuous agents disagree seriously with one another. And consequently he does not notice what seems to be an implication of his view: that if two allegedly virtuous agents strongly disagree, one of them (at least) must be morally defective. Given that virtuous is borne our of your self-belief in your moral charatcter, does that mean that one of the agents is defective. Perhaps under a deontic perspective but not an aretaic one.'

Reversal and Recognition

In order for a plot to function, for instance in a tragedy there should be Catharsis through Reversal peripeteia and Recognition leading to a feeling of catharsis. Recognition is the state by which we move from ignorance to knowledge, which leads to a reversal. The objective of the tragedy to engender of catharsis by exercising fear and pity through the agency of the play. If we take the example of Oidipous the recognition and reversal are deployed in various ways. The recognition that he is the son of Laius and Jocasta leads to the plot reversal of gouging his eyes out, losing his kingdom and being banished. For the audience the Reversal is the reversal of expectations. We expect that when the messenger comes with news that he was the son Laius and a noble person in his own right the expectation of the messenger is that it is good news. But for us and Oidipous and ourselves the penny drops. Both he and ourselves are flawed. He is flawed because he has unknowingly brought shame to his family. We are flawed because we were caught out by the plot twist. We exorcise our feat and pity through Oidipous' actions and subsequent events. Aristotle does not mean for fear and pity to no longer be part of our psyche (as future analysts may have sought to do) He sees the feelings as innate and useful However, catharsis allows us to better manage those emotions through the depiction in others (like plays). Aristotle is careful to explain that the plot twist should have a shock value in itself but as a consequence of the actions that come before it and actions that will lead on from it.

See also Ethics and Politics <comments />