Rating: 
Summary: Worth the effort...
Review: Aristotle was an important thinker, born in 384 BCE at Stagirus (a Greek colony), who is considered by many the founder of the realist tradition in Philosophy. He wrote many noteworthy books, among which "The Politics" stands out. "The Politics" is one of the first books I read at university, and even though it took me a lot of time to read it, I ended up being grateful to the professor that included it as obligatory reading material for History of Political Ideas I :) In "The Politics", the author begins by analyzing the human being, that is in his opinion a political animal by nature. Afterwards, he explains what are, for him, the origins of the polis: family, small village and then, polis. Aristotle says that even though the polis is the last chronologically, it is all the same the most important, because it is autarchic. The polis (not exactly like our states, but similar to them in some aspects) is a natural community, because it answers to something that human beings need. Only in the polis will men find perfection, only there will they be completely human. Aristotle distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens (the vast majority), and points out that only citizens have political rights. The author delves in many other themes, for example the causes of revolution, the good and bad forms of government, and the "ideal" form of government. What is more, he also considers several constitutions, and talks about the adequate education that forms good citizens for the polis. Now, why should you read a book that was written many centuries ago and that on top of that isn't especially easy to read?. The answer is quite simple: "The Politics" is worth it. Of course, you will find faults in some of Aristotle's opinions (for instance, he thought that slaves were "live property", and that slavery was a natural institution), but you cannot ignore that most of his book is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. "The Politics" is a book that teaches the reader to analyze reality, and to watch things differently, from another perspective. It also mentions several times that it is always necessary to take into account the context, because there are not perfect solutions good for every circumstance. Even though that seems merely common sense, it is an often forgotten truth... On the whole, I can recommend this book to all those who are interested in Political Science, History of Ideas, or simply curious. I can guarantee that if you are patient enough to end it, you will learn a lot. Belen Alcat
Rating:
Summary: The father of medieval thinking
Review: Aristotle was in fact a Macedonian by birth and had as one of his utmost desires to be accepted in Athens as a full-fledged citizen, something he never attained. To be or not a citizen at those times, was the determinant factor in the importance each one attained in the social structure. One has to keep in mind that all the political concepts that we inherited from the Greeks, got a different perspective at those times, where slavery was normally accepted and practised against the non-Greeks human beings. Aristotle was a disciple of Plato, whom he quotes many times in a derogatory manner, and he lived in Athens many years after years of tutorship of Philip and his son Alexander of Macedonia, to whom he did not mention a word of praise or reprimand in this book. What amazed most after reading this excelent book is the maturity the institutions had attained at his times, and the degree of accuracy and detail to which he devotes many chapters analysing the constitutions of many Greek states, Sparta included. One word of caution has to be addresed to the student of poltics: this is not a book about statecraft or the arts of governing people at 350 BC. All in all, the text seems to lose some strenght due to the impossibity of translating so rich a text and by the lack of precise terms for each and every situation there described. But, in the end, the reader will get a glimpse of this very important period of western civilazation, specially if one has in mind that the heyday of Greece was gone and what lays ahead was the supremacy of Rome as world militar empire. To add interest to the reader, one has to keep in mind that the powerfull influence the aristotelian thought had in the medieval thinking.
Rating: 
Summary: It's Aristotle...
Review: Aristotle was one of the greatest men that has lived on Earth, and his contributions are numerous, however, I found this book to drone on and on about the types of government...I had to put it down, because I was so bored. If it gets better later in the book, please let me know.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Know For All Who Desire To Vote!
Review: Aristotle's constitutional theory is the most important aspect of this book. Every high school world history should become familiar with the 6 forms of government that Aristotle identifies, and every college poli-sci student should commit Aristotle's analysis into their core knowledge.
Of course Aristotle lived in a time when social norms were different. Much of what he writes applies to a different age, but the constitutional theory of government remains a timeless set of observations -- especially important in our times.
Rating:
Summary: Essay, Aristotle's Proportional Equality
Review: Aristotle's Proportional Equality
Aristotle does not believe in equality, but proportional equality. He believes that people are naturally different in their intelligence and moral qualities, that these qualities naturally give them differing arete (this word has been translated into:goodness, excellence, merit and virtue), and that they should naturally be given different political rights based on these arete. However, Aristotle does not have any viable methods for detecting the nature of people. Instead, he artificially locks rulers, citizens and slaves into three unequal classes based on wealth and birth, and he tries to appease the lower classes with deceptive schemes. From its very core, Aristotle's proportional equality is unfair and does not allow freedom.
In Book Three, Aristotle establishes the theory that political equality does not mean everyone getting the same as everyone else. He believes that different groups of people in the city have equally valid claims to political rights based on differing criteria. To him, the different interest groups are, "The people at large, the wealthy, the better sort, the one who is best of all, the tyrant" (1281a11)
In fact, Aristotle states that political equality for one of these groups will always be inequality for the other groups. He claims,
"For example, justice is considered to mean equality. It does mean equality-but equality for those who are equal, and not for all. Again inequality is considered to be just; and indeed it is-but only for those who are unequal, and not for all." (1280a7)
After rejecting the distribution of political rights according to the interests of various groups, Aristotle states that the right basis by which political rights should be conferred is the degree of arete one contributes to the city. Through this, proportional equality could be achieved. He writes,
"Those who contribute most to this association have a greater share in the city than those who are equal to them (or even greater) in free birth and descent, but unequal in civic excellence (arete), or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in excellence (arete)." (1281a2)
The rationale for this proportional equality based on arete is simple: the city "exists for the sake of a good life*" (1252b27), and the good life is only achieved with arete. Therefore, naturally those who have more arete should be given more political rights because they can best utilize the resources of the city to make life good for all. Aristotle establishes the full connection between good life of the city and arete in Book Seven.
This connection can be summarized as the following: the city is for the best life possible, the best life is the life of happiness, happiness requires action, and action is the exercise of "arete". Aristotle first defines the good life as the life that aims at happiness. He says that the object of the city "is the best and highest life possible. The highest good is happiness..." (1328a26). Aristotle also proposes that "happiness is a state of activity; and the actions of just and temperate men bring many fine things to fulfillment." (1325a16) The purpose of activity or action, "praxis", however, is exactly to do or achieve "arete". Aristotle writes, happiness is realized by "the actualization and perfect practice (praxis) of goodness (arete)" (1328a26).
The structure of the differing arete is as follows: Aristotle states that the rulers/statesmen have the arete of good man which allows them to rule, the citizens have the arete of good citizen that allows them to rule and be ruled, and the non-citizens/slaves have only enough arete that they are condemned to obedience.
To Aristotle, the reason that people have different arete is that they naturally have different levels of intelligences and moral qualities. And since these qualities are what make a person and a city good, people are allotted proportionally equal but unequal political rights. On intelligence, he believes that some are just intrinsically better. For example, regarding slaves, he says,
"...(and this is the case with all whose function is bodily service, and who produce their best when they supply such service)-all such are by nature slaves...... if he participates in reason to the extent of apprehending it in another, though destitute of it himself." (1254b16)
On moral qualities, in Chapter One of Book Seven, Aristotle says that external goods are not as important as moral goods are for achieving happiness, however, only some are capable of achieving high morality. He says,
"you can see for yourselves that the happy life-no matter whether it consists in pleasure, or goodness, or both-belongs more to those who have cultivated their character and mind to the uttermost..." (1323a21)
In Chapter Two, he makes it clear that the statesmen and philosophers, in another word, the rulers are most fit for the cultivation of morality and intelligence, which combines to be their arete. And since the goodness of the state needs morality, those statesmen and philosophers should rule. He writes,
"Here, we may say, are the two ways of life-the political and the philosophic-that are evidently chosen by those who have been most eager to win a reputation for goodness (arete), in our own and in previous ages...for whether individuals or cities are in question, wisdom must aim at the higher mark." (1324a19)
Certainly, Aristotle is right in pointing out that there exist differences between people. For a state to operate well, the people who are more equipped for intellectual and moral tasks should have more political rights. And if there really are those who have no "deliberative elements" in their soul, then certainly those people should be under the command of a master if not a doctor. There is an identical interest between the good rulers and the ruled, which Aristotle rightly points out in Book One,
"The part and the whole, like the body and the soul, have an identical interest; and the slave is a part of the master, in the sense of being a living but separate part of his body. There is thus a community of interest, and a relation of friendship, between master and slave, when both of them naturally merit the position in which they stand." (1255b4)
From the above summarizations of Aristotle's positions, it is clear that Aristotle's whole theory of proportional equality is based his belief that some have better moral and intellectual capabilities. However, although these qualities are important, the test that Aristotle uses for determining them is not an equal educational system in which all could compete equally or some ingenious device for detecting people's IQ, rather, the test is about people's wealth and birth. These are not the right standards by which one's abilities could be judged upon, and thus Aristotle's theory fails.
The importance of money and wealth is explicit in Aristotle's differentiation of the citizens from the non-citizens/slaves (the mechanics and laborers' works have a "servile character" [1277a29] ), and less explicit in his differentiation between the citizens and the rulers/statesmen. The first differentiation is as follows,
"There are thus good grounds for the claims to honor which are made by people of good descent, free birth, or wealth, since those who hold office must necessarily be free men and pay the property assessment. (A city could not be composed entirely of those without means, ay more than it could be composed entirely of slaves.) But we must add that if wealth and free birth are necessary elements, the qualities of being just and being a good soldier are also necessary......The one difference is that the first two elements are necessary for the simple existence of a city, and the last two for its good life." (1283a3)
It is easy to look at the second part of this passage and be left with the impression that Aristotle is saying that money does not matter and that been just is the most important quality according to which one should be judged by. But the first part of this passage is far more important; it shows that Aristotle is building a city for the better off. As shown later in the book, Aristotle does not even consider the majority of the city citizens of the city. He says, "the conclusion which clearly follows is that we cannot regard the elements which are necessary for the existence of the city......as being `parts' of the city..." (1328a21). While the wealthier people must strive for intelligence and morality, try to be just and exercise their sacred political rights, the poor people are forgotten and are not even given the chance in the good constitution that Aristotle talks about.
Although it is obvious that wealth and birth are not "natural" qualities that define people, Aristotle still insists throughout the book that the non-citizens/slaves are naturally inferior. Aristotle believes they have no arete other than those that allow them to be subservient to others. In Book One, he says about the slaves,
"...in treating of slaves, that they were useful for the necessary purposes of life. It is clear, on that basis, that they need but little goodness (arete); only so much, in fact, as will prevent them from falling short of their duties through intemperance or cowardice." (1260a24)
This idea of "naturalness" is easily disprove by the fact that Aristotle later says that what really makes the non-citizens/slaves, the mechanics and laborers, naturally bad is that they have no time for arete and the cultivation of their souls. He argues,
"The best form of city will not make the mechanic a citizen. Where mechanics are admitted to citizenship we shall have to say that the citizen excellence (arete) of which we have spoken cannot be attained by every citizen, by all who are simply free men, but can only be achieved by those who are free from the necessary tasks of life." (1278a8)
This argument is nonsensical. All along, Aristotle has been saying that those who should receive no political powers are borne lacking the qualities that contribute to their arete. But here, by saying that citizens who do no hard-labor are better than mechanics and laborers simply because they have more time, Aristotle is indicating that the lower class lacks arete because of their lack of education, which is a social, not natural result. This is a gross contradiction.
The second differentiation between that of citizens and ruler/statesmen is trickier. Aristotle superficially says that the two are equal, but subtly there is difference.
The arete of the good citizens is to both be ruled and to rule. Aristotle writes,
"...the fact remains that the good citizen must possess the knowledge and the capacity requisite for ruling as well as for being ruled, and the excellence (arete) of a citizen may be defined as consisting in `a knowledge of rule over free men from both points of view'"(1277b7)
Aristotle frequently mentions this view that the ruler/statesman and the citizens are political equals and should rotate positions. He says in Book One that "the rule of a statesman is rule over free and equal persons." (1255b20) He also says in Book Three when he tries to define citizenship that, "the citizen in this strict sense is best defined by the one criterion that he shares in the administration of justice and in the holding of office." (1275a19)
However, hypocrisy emerges when he defines the arete of ruler/statesmen, who are the only good men. Contrary to before, he differentiates between rulers and the citizens, and makes one class higher than the other. Aristotle says "practical wisdom is the only form of excellence (arete) which is peculiar to the ruler... the virtue (arete) of a person being ruled is not practical wisdom but correct opinion." (1277b16)
This is strange. If "practical wisdom" is what distinguishes the ruler from the ruled, then, when the ruler becomes a citizen again, is he suppose to loss his "wisdom" and become someone who only has "opinion"? And if the citizens are suppose to have "a knowledge of rule from both points of view" as mentioned above, why is Aristotle saying here that they are only capable of "opinions", which is far inferior to knowledge.
Aristotle seems to be trying to fool most of the citizens into believing that they have equal rights as those who are ruling, while disenfranchising their rights at the same time. Aristotle does not explicitly say that wealth and birth would decide who should rule, but it follows from the arguments before regarding free time that they must. While many people could qualify as citizens if they are moderately well off (1279a25, in polity, the property requirement for citizenship is only arms), and could hence afford some leisure to cultivate their arete, but those most wealthy people who could spend all of their time for the cultivation of their soul must be the ones with the best qualities to rule.
To be sure, this hypocrisy in another form is apparent right from the First Book in Aristotle's discussion regarding woman. Although he calls the relationship between husband and wife the relationship of statesmen and citizens, he in fact subjugates women to man. He writes,
"In most cases where rule of the statesman's sort is exercised there is an interchange of ruling and being ruled: the members of a political association aim by their very nature at being equal and differing in nothing...the relation of the male to the female is permanently that in which the statesman stand to his fellow citizens." (1259a37)
Aristotle is offering a grand contradiction within the space of a paragraph. He defines the relationship between masters and citizens as equal just before he says that one is "permanently" subjugated to the other, and yet, he still maintains that this relationship is indeed equal.
To be certain, Aristotle is right in that even today, those who are of good birth and wealth are more likely to be suitable for higher social positions than those who are from lower social-economic backgrounds. And when one looks at the current President of the USA, one could trace his family's wealth and fame three generations back. However, these people who are borne in families of higher social status are only what they are because of the good family influence and the good education they had.
The President went to the best of boarding schools, of universities and of businesses schools and his father was everything from the head of the USA to the head of the CIA; how is it fair to compare him to the Hispanic dish-washer whose parents worked illegally in that restaurant off the high-way, and who despite all eagerness to learn had to stay home to take care of his five younger siblings when he should have gong to highschool?
Aristotle is right in saying that people should achieve what their nature allows them to achieve, but he does not allow people's true nature to come into being. If slaves are given as much opportunity to study and work, then some of them surely will become philosophers, poets and other politicians. A city that allows that would be the city that is capable of achieving the best life possible for everyone.
Aristotle was intelligent, but he lacked the humility to realize that he did not know everything about human nature. There is nothing wrong with proportional equality, because the better should have, and have always had more power in states, but the key is how to find those good people who could contribute more to the arete of the society. Aristotle pointed out some of the right qualities that they need, but he wrote the Politics from the vantage point of the higher class, and classified people not according to their true abilities, but according to their social and economic conditions. In order to appease the lower social classes, he deceived them by giving them the rights of citizenship or by simply telling them that they are intrinsically incapable. And even for those who were citizens, he still tricks them into believing that they have more political rights they than really do. In this world, there is certainly no equality, not even traces of proportional equality, but most importantly, there is no freedom. There simply can be no freedom when people are locked into castes and can not realize their full potentials.
Rating:
Summary: Not a Bad Book
Review: As a mystery novelist, I find that reading a wide variety of materials helps enormously in my work. This book is one I read regularly. I first read POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE during my college days at Claremont McKenna College. The political science department insisted on a classical background for its students, and this book was one of the canon. It impressed me then. It still impresses me today. I only wish Aristotle could collect royalties on the books sold.
Rating: 
Summary: uninspiring and lacking focus
Review: I began my study of political philosophy with the best - namely Plato - so I suppose that when I began reading Aristotle's The Politics, I was optimistic. That optimism didn't last. I find that Aristotle takes many arguments for granted and ignores entirely others that would call into question some of his premises. Often while reading The Politics, I found his analysis entirely lackluster, and his criticisms of The Republic, Gorgias and Laws (all by Plato) flawed or at least overly simplistic. It's not that I'm incapable of appreciating the brand of philosophy Aristotle uses, after all I do consider myself more or less a realist. But rather I did find it lacking of vision and insight. Aristotle focuses on such parochial matters such as classifications of constitutions and mastery over slaves in the household versus statesmanship in the nation, that it never moved me or left me in deeply pensive state. Ultimately, if you want to be truly inspired - read Plato, not Aristotle.
Rating: 
Summary: Important issues
Review: It's amazing how much of what is discussed in the book is still common in today's laws and world. I really enjoyed reading it and applying some of the issues to today's political arena. I do feel that some politicians need to read this and maybe get a better understanding of what they're there to do...
Rating:
Summary: Important issues
Review: It's amazing how much of what is discussed in the book is still common in today's laws and world. I really enjoyed reading it and applying some of the issues to today's political arena. I do feel that some politicians need to read this and maybe get a better understanding of what they're there to do...
Rating:
Summary: Interesting yet Boring
Review: Some monumental observations considering the time it was written. But a very difficult read that requires concentration and will-power to finish. No-one has ever accused philosophy of being practical.
|
