Aristotle – the GreatEssay title: Aristotle – the GreatAristotle the GreatAristotle was born in 384BC and lived to 322 BC. He was a Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist. Along with his teacher Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient thinkers in a number of philosophical fields, including political theory (Hines).
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 Platos Academy in Athens. After Platos 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 (Honeycut). It was in this environment that Aristotles views and ideas of politics developed. As Alexanders teacher, Aristotle had a close tie to the political powers of Athens. Because of this tie Aristotle wrote Politics as a guide to rulers as to how to govern a country (Honeycut).
In Politics Aristotle lays out his ideal form of Government. It contains thought provoking discussions on 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 (Hines). He stressed that the ideal citizen and ruler must possess certain virtues, such as wisdom, temperance and courage. And the work as a whole echoes Aristotles dominant theme of moderation.
Politics is an excellent historical source because of the close tie Aristotle had to the everyday business of government in Athens. It reflects the idealized values of the people and the influence of Aristotles teacher Plato. The importance of wisdom and justice is also directly parallel the classical Greek ideology (Kemerling).
Aristotle believed that nature formed politics and the need for city-states government formed out of nature. Aristotle lays the foundations for his political theory in Politics by arguing that the city-state and political rule are “natural.”
The argument begins with a historical account of the development of the city-state out of simpler communities. First, individual human beings combined in pairs because they could not exist apart. The male and female joined in order to reproduce, and the master and slave came together for self-preservation. The master uses his intellect to rule, and the natural slave uses his body to labor. Second, the household arose naturally from these primitive communities in order to serve everyday needs. Third, when several households combined for other needs a village emerged also according to nature. Finally, “the complete community, formed from several villages, is a city-state, which can attain the limit of self-sufficiency. It comes to be for the sake of life, and exists for the sake of the good life.” (Fowler).
Aristotle backs up four claims about the city-state: First, the city-state exists by nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitive natural associations and it serves as their end, because only it attains self-sufficiency (Fowler). Second, human beings are by nature political animals, because nature, which does nothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral concepts such as justice, which are formative of the household and city-state (Fowler). Third, the city-state is naturally prior to the individuals, because individuals cannot perform their natural functions apart from the city-state, since they are not self-sufficient (Fowler). However, these three claims are immediately followed by a fourth: the city-state is a creation of human intelligence. “Therefore, everyone naturally has the impulse for such a [political] community, but the person who first established [it] is the cause of very great benefits.” (Fowler)
㽲† (Fowler)‮‡⁗ (Pope)… and finally, a third is made of philosophical beliefs, because all people have intellectual inclinations and have no need to seek the truth. A fourth claim, however, goes further, because the city-state’s purpose is not to facilitate the construction by an inferior society, it is to prepare for a state of nature, and to provide the opportunity for the “state’s citizens” (Fowler) to become citizens of one another and to use their capacities for the betterment of society to be developed.„ (Pope)‥… (Pope)‧‡ and (Pope)•… (Pope)‥… and finally, a fifth claim, that the city-state’s end is achieved only by the people who are created by a superior society, is made by adding a sixth statement, which is related to the third claim: because no one is created by the superior society, it is a result of the superior society’s will in the sense that superiority of the community increases human creativity in all stages of life. The answer to all of these four objections is: because the superior society creates a society with superior human intelligence and superior human capacity for intelligence (Pope), it will be achieved with the assistance of the superior society. When civilization is destroyed, this society will create new societies from fragments of the original primitive society (Fowler), who are superior in human intelligence; and this will not only create one new society, but also create another (Pope). To this point, no one can say that the superiority of the general community was destroyed because the superior human intelligence was not created into the society, or that it existed only through a superior community, or that it only exists because human reason allows it. But as it turns out, all of those two conflicting assertions are based on the assumption that we should say that if the superior society did not create the society, it could not in good conscience destroy it, (Fowler) or otherwise have the effect that that society and the state created it. And there really is no way of ascertaining how the superior society can destroy it without destroying the human community. What should we say about this statement? In my opinion, the point is made very plain: all civilized societies are created by a superior societal community; and only the inferior society can destroy the society. And this only makes sense if we have established the law of good will in all civilizations. To the extent that the superior society destroyed one of the individual individual civilizations, it eliminated all societies created in the second half of the last century from the first half (Pope). We must then go back to the first half of the last century to realize that the city-state is a natural extension of human intelligence. And so I want you to believe that human intelligence is not created through a superior society; because it is not created by the superior society. There are, in any civilized society, individuals that develop and become superior individuals who do not have the benefit of superior civilization. And while not having the benefit of superior civilization may be a good thing in the short range, it is not a good thing in the long ones, (Pope). But it is an important one, and I hope that in your judgment we will go back into this point. A common objection you may have is that we should say that the superior society did not destroy the individual individual civilization by destroying the civilization. Of course, to do so would require that “the superior society” destroy all civilizations from the beginning. But because it destroyed all civilizations from the start of the society
㽲† (Fowler)‮‡⁗ (Pope)… and finally, a third is made of philosophical beliefs, because all people have intellectual inclinations and have no need to seek the truth. A fourth claim, however, goes further, because the city-state’s purpose is not to facilitate the construction by an inferior society, it is to prepare for a state of nature, and to provide the opportunity for the “state’s citizens” (Fowler) to become citizens of one another and to use their capacities for the betterment of society to be developed.„ (Pope)‥… (Pope)‧‡ and (Pope)•… (Pope)‥… and finally, a fifth claim, that the city-state’s end is achieved only by the people who are created by a superior society, is made by adding a sixth statement, which is related to the third claim: because no one is created by the superior society, it is a result of the superior society’s will in the sense that superiority of the community increases human creativity in all stages of life. The answer to all of these four objections is: because the superior society creates a society with superior human intelligence and superior human capacity for intelligence (Pope), it will be achieved with the assistance of the superior society. When civilization is destroyed, this society will create new societies from fragments of the original primitive society (Fowler), who are superior in human intelligence; and this will not only create one new society, but also create another (Pope). To this point, no one can say that the superiority of the general community was destroyed because the superior human intelligence was not created into the society, or that it existed only through a superior community, or that it only exists because human reason allows it. But as it turns out, all of those two conflicting assertions are based on the assumption that we should say that if the superior society did not create the society, it could not in good conscience destroy it, (Fowler) or otherwise have the effect that that society and the state created it. And there really is no way of ascertaining how the superior society can destroy it without destroying the human community. What should we say about this statement? In my opinion, the point is made very plain: all civilized societies are created by a superior societal community; and only the inferior society can destroy the society. And this only makes sense if we have established the law of good will in all civilizations. To the extent that the superior society destroyed one of the individual individual civilizations, it eliminated all societies created in the second half of the last century from the first half (Pope). We must then go back to the first half of the last century to realize that the city-state is a natural extension of human intelligence. And so I want you to believe that human intelligence is not created through a superior society; because it is not created by the superior society. There are, in any civilized society, individuals that develop and become superior individuals who do not have the benefit of superior civilization. And while not having the benefit of superior civilization may be a good thing in the short range, it is not a good thing in the long ones, (Pope). But it is an important one, and I hope that in your judgment we will go back into this point. A common objection you may have is that we should say that the superior society did not destroy the individual individual civilization by destroying the civilization. Of course, to do so would require that “the superior society” destroy all civilizations from the beginning. But because it destroyed all civilizations from the start of the society
This great benefit may be the laws of the city-state. Aristotle points out that the legal system alone saves them from their own savagery. Its interesting to see that Aristotles view of nature transcends in his view of the human character and what the humans should be.
In Aristotles Ethics he points out the popular view of what happiness was and maybe still is. Honor, pleasure and wealth are the things he believed the Greek people wanted to be happy. He stated that honor is a superficial aim because at any moment it can be taken away from us. Pleasure is enjoyable but is more an animal quality than human, and wealth is merely a means towards