Whereas the Ethics focuses on the good life for the individual, the Politics focuses on the good life for the community as a whole. As we might expect, however, these two "lives" are importantly related to one another. So, what do you think of Aristotle's prescription for the happy life? Are his critiques of Plato's ideal "Republic" justified? Is it even possible to give an account for the best sort of human life and the best sort of political state? Certainly not easy questions, but important ones to consider nonetheless.
4 comments:
For Aristotle, living well in a city means living in accordance with what is best for the city. To be a citizen is not simply to be someone who resides in the city. Citizens are those who have virtues and morals that ultimately aim at the success of the city. Aristotle compares this to a ship; the citizens being the sailors and the ship being the regime. The ultimate goal of the sailor is to ensure a safe voyage for the ship. I believe these ideas are a bit utopian in nature, but are brilliant considering the rationality and potential for success. However, it is difficult to carry out this formula for a successful state because in doing so, every single citizen must agree with the belief that the city comes first and foremost; a difficult task considering familiar relationships and conflicting personal theologies.
"For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is more dangerous." this quote from politics shows us that Aristotle believes that we as humans must be a perfect citizen in order for a city to succeed becasue without a good citizen, which is a person that can rule and also be ruled compared to a good person who cannot be ruled, the city will fall apart becasue if there are too many people that cannot be ruled then the ruler will have no power over them. We can compare a good city to a household, there is the main political leader of the household the man of the house and he has many relationships in that house, he has a relationship with his slaves, a relationship with his wife, and finally a relationship with his children. He is the master, father, and husband of the house and without the support of the others the household would fall apart...like a city when the leader does not have a good relationship with his people.
One of Aristotle’s theories that I found very interesting was the distinction between the slave and the master. According to Aristotle the difference between the two is established from birth and therefore it is unethical to force others into that position by means such as war. Aristotle feels that in order to have a self sufficient city people must perform different positions in life such as either being the slave or master. If you have a “master” born person working as a slave he will not follow the rules being instructed to him for he is not that type of person; he is the instructor, just as the “slave” born person could not have the responsibility to be in charge of something for he does not have the type of personality required; a demanding one. But whether a person is a slave or a master they each need to know that they depend on one other for their well being. The city cannot function without either. Aristotle shows the connection between the two by relating it to the soul/body and also the relationship of the husband and wife. The husband is apparently better fit to command so by nature he is the ruler of the household (but I’m not so sure how true this is today) just as the master rules the slave. But both the husband and the wife know that they need each other for the well being of the family. Without the father the son will not know how to become a man and without the mother the daughter will not know how to become a good wife for a future husband; if either parent is taken out of the picture the child suffers consequences that might not be present now but will become relevant in their future.
In reading Aristotle's politics there was a particular passage that stuck out to me as interesting. It is when Aristotle is discussing how the city naturally comes prior to the household and to the individual. He explains this thought by comparing a city to a dead but whole animal. He goes on to stay that if the whole animal is dead then neither it's foot or hand could survive. The animal alive as a whole is the only way for the hand or foot to survive. In this way Aristotle says a city must come before the household or individual. Aristotle says, "Anyone who is incapable of membership in a community, or who has no need of it because he is self-sufficent, is no part of a city, and so is either a beast or a god"(291) I thought this was an excellent idea because our drive to reproduce is human nature, and in pursuing this drive we seek compainionship from others. Through this companionship forms a household and the household resembles and ultimately through time household flourishes into a city. Yet the ideals of the city reside in the original ideals of the individual. Therefore the city must have become a whole before the individual. Yet the only thing that could come before is a god. Perhaps Aristotle is trying to insinuate in some way that all politics arises from some divine aspect of our humanity and coming to be?
Post a Comment