AN ACCOUNT OF ARISTOTLE’S RESPONSE TO
THE PLATONIC IDEAL STATE WITH REFERENCE TO ARITOTLE’S POLITICA.
The Republic is a sketch out of the best
political order of philosopher kings founded on and aimed at the promotion of justice.
It gives insights on matters relating to possession of power, the end of the
state, ownership of property, children and women and system of education. Plato
argues that Philosophers kings must rule. “Unless political power and
Philosophy meet together there can be no rest in trouble” (Rep, Ch.xvii :177)[1].The
Philosopher Kings are to be permanent rulers. Thus, Plato lays a blueprint of
an ideal state. He further says that children and wives be owned in common and
that guardians must not possess private property. If guardians own property
privately, “they will give up their guardianship for the management of their
farms…”and that family ties leads into quarrels and then disunity (Rep ch, xvi:
166). On women, for Plato, there is no management of social affairs, which
belongs to man or woman exclusively, “both are of the same nature and must be
allowed the same pursuits” (Rep,
Ch.xv:153). The following is a detailed account of
Aristotle’s response on Platonic ideal state.
To begin with, Aristotle’s asserts that
there is nothing as a best political order. Any form of government is good
relative to circumstances, arguing, “The best is often unattainable” (Pol. Bk2: 31)2.
The citizens should choose a form of government according to their aspirations
or the ends they desire to meet. Therefore, the best legislator is one who is
acquainted with that which is best suited to circumstances (Pol. Bk4:92). Briefly, Aristotle does
not create a blueprint for an ideal state (Stumpf, E.S. 1966:112). Unlike Plato,
Aristotle proposes a government of alternation. He argues, “The government by Socrates
contains elements of danger, for he makes the same persons rule” (Pol. Bk2:33). He proposes that there
should be an alternation so that each one rule and be ruled.
Proceeding from the above, Aristotle
questions the platonic system of Education, which only targets the guardians,
and leaves the husbandmen. He contends that though Plato says, “having so good
education the citizens will not need many laws…he confines his education to the
guardians” (Pol Bk2:33). This concern
arises from his conviction that education is essential in preserving regimes. Better
education produces a better character, which in turn produces better government,
which is the common end of all citizens. Therefore, “Since there is a single
end for the city as a whole, it is evident that education must necessarily be
one and the same for all” (Pol, Bk8:207)
Responding on the communism of property,
Aristotle argues that private property makes individuals happier and makes them
practice the virtue of liberality (Pol., Bk2:31). In the Nicomachean Ethics liberality is the virtue of giving wealth and by
wealth “we mean all the things whose value is measured by money” (Nic
Eth, Bk4:48)3.
Therefore, communism will lead to the annihilation of that virtue and other
pleasures. In Politica, he states,
“there is greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or a service to friends which
can be rendered when a man has private property”, but this advantage is lost by
common ownership (Pol. Bk4:31).
Redressing the problem, Aristotle strikes the mean in stating that, though
everyone will have his own property, some will be left at the disposal others
and it is the business of the legislator to create in men this benevolent disposition.
Realism and practicality are the main concerns for Aristotle. He observes that
excess in both private owning and commonality are impractical. He therefore concludes
that “property in a certain sense be common, but as a general rule private” not
as Socrates alludes (Pol Bk2:31).
Aristotle also argues that the means,
which Plato employs in attaining unity in the ideal state, are flawed.
Socrates, he argues, “makes the women common and retains private property, the
men will see to the fields”, but who will see to the household (Pol. Bk2:33).
To appreciate this concern it is necessary to remember that in Aristotle’s
teleological ethics, everything is created for a purpose (telos) and the
function of women is to look for a household and of man to look for the field.
Therefore, if women are to be communised none will look for households.
Moreover, communism of women will not enable the virtue of temperance to
manifest itself in society, for temperance “is to abstain from another’s wife
for temperance sake” (Pol. Bk2:31).
On state ownership of children to severe
the bond of parenthood, Aristotle observes, “Children are born like their
parents and they will necessarily be finding indications of their relationship
to one another” (Pol, Bk2:27).
So, owning children in common as a means of unification is also flawed. He
further highlights that severing relationships is the perpetration of
immorality. The evils such as homicide, assaults, quarrels and slanders “which
are most unholy when committed against fathers and mothers of near relations
but not equally unholy when there is no relationship” may be common (Pol. Bk2:28).
There will also be illegal love of sons and daughters
In addition, Aristotle argues that the
ends, which Plato has in communising women, children and property, are wrong (Pol, Bk2:24). Plato makes unity a result
of uniformity, but cities are preserved, not by complete unity, but reciprocal
equality (Clayton, E 2006). He points out that “the nature of the state is
plurality and in intending to create unity, from being a state it becomes a
family and from being a family an individual” (Pol. Bk2:25).
Thus, contrary to Plato’s thought, excessive unification destroys the state rather
than preserving it, and the good of something must be that which preserves it,
not that which destroys it. Therefore, “we ought not to attain that unity even
if we could…” (Pol. Bk2:25). This
argument is founded on the doctrine of golden mean. According to Aristotle the
mean involves avoiding the two extremes of excessiveness and deficiency each of
which is a vice (Russell, B 2008:169). Therefore, a good state is neither the
one with too much unity nor that with too much disunity, but the one in the
middle path.
The other problem, which Aristotle has
with communism, concerns with care. He notes that, “that which is common to the
greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it” (Pol. Bk2: 27). It is
usual to see people destroying public property, while exercising care towards
their own property. This is the problem which social scientists call the
problem of “collective goods” (Clayton E, 2006). This problem also comes about because
communism has a built in ambiguity and a contradiction. One has to say of the
same thing “mine” and not “mine” and the same time (Pol. Bk2:33). Moreover, individuals
will procrastinate in the performance of duties, as the communism would lead to
each individual assuming someone else would care for the children and property,
with the result that no one would. Substantiating this Aristotle argues, it is
not lack of common property alone that leads to factionalism and conflict.
Competition for honour is also another source of conflict which common
ownership cannot eradicate. Considering these problems holding property in
common is not a proper means towards state unification.
With regard to the social and political
status of women in the family and society, Aristotle holds the view that “The
male is by nature superior, and the female inferior and the one rules and the
other is ruled” (Pol. Bk1:9). Following from this natural determination, women
are not supposed to take part in politics as Plato assumes, just as the slaves
and children, because all being inferior they should be under a master. “The
slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it lacks authority
and the child has but it is immature” (Pol. Bk2:9). Therefore, the courage of
man is shown in commanding and of woman in obeying, for silence is the woman’s
glory. However, in the household, Aristotle says, a woman has to be ruled in
political fashion: Meaning the husband is to treat his wife as an equal to the
degree that it is possible to do so, but must retain control over household
decisions (Clayton E, 2006).
In conclusion, despite these
differences, both Aristotle and Plato agree that the end of politics is the
best ends and its main concern is to bring forth virtue in citizens. Both hold
the view that the state is logically prior to the individual and that, it is
only in the state in which humanity can manifest itself fully. Both agree that
society is a diversity of interests; however, they differ on how to deal with
such differences to avoid conflict. Plato goes for extreme uniformity by means
of communism, while Aristotle for moderation in those interests, by means of
inculcating virtue and moderation via a mean. However, despite these
agreements, it is easy to see the divergent in Aristotle’s and Plato’s
political thought, than the convergence in the qualities of the ideal state.
REFERENCES:
Aristotle, Politics/Politica Jowet, J and Twining, T (Translators).
Viking Press, New York, 1957
________ Nicomachean Ethics. W.D
Ross (Translator).
Clayton, E Aristotle: Politics
[Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy] 2006
Plato. The
Republic, Conford F.M. (Translator) Oxford University Press. 1965
Russell, B. History of Western
Philosophy. Routlegde, London: New York, 2008.
Stumpf. E.S. Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. Mc Graw. Hill,
New, 1966
No comments:
Post a Comment