Politics: Book VIII

I

The primary attention of a state’s legislator should be to the education of the youth as their development of character leads to the betterment of the government. And as the whole city has one end, the education should be made public rather than private because no citizen belongs to himself, but all belong to the state.

II

Arguments exist on the character of public education and the way of teaching as the confusion lays between practicability of education, issues of moral virtue and intellectuality being the aim for education; and opinions vary. Education should neither overburden nor vulgarize the mind. As occupation is divided between liberal and illiberal, knowledge, that is good for the sake of the person and friends should be imparted, but the same education, if it becomes a skill that is rendered as servile and menial, is dangerous and is to be avoided.

 
III

Education has four customary branches – i) reading & writing ii) gymnastic exercises iii) music, and iv)drawing. Reading, writing and drawing have their practical purposes and gymnastics promote courage. The problem comes at determining the value of music and Aristotle ascribes the value of leisure to it, which he says, is the first principle of all action. Leisure must not always be filled with amusement, otherwise amusement shall be the end of life, should be for suitable times as medicines for the exertions of occupation. The pleasure from leisure for different people are varied in form. Thus, whereas knowledge used for business exists for the sake of the branches of knowledge related to leisure that exist for their own sake. For this, music exists for intellectual pleasure and not for its necessity or utility. Similarly, the branches of reading, writing, and drawing can have application beyond their practicality as they can widen man's knowledge and teach him to appreciate beauty; thus making a sort of education that is noble. Children should begin with physical aspects of education as education in practice must predate that in theory as training of body must predate that of the mind.

 
IV

Development of athletic habit as the sole goal in children's education leads to malformation of holistic growth. Devoting children to only gymnastics and neglecting other forms of education vulgarizes their character. The state of decadence Lacedaemonians face is due to the aforesaid condition which has lead to the replacement of nobleness with ferocity. Boyhood should include light gymnastic training along with studies without any strict diet and then at the end of boyhood, three years should be devoted to other studies and only after that strict dietary methods and hard physical exercises should be introduced because simultaneous mental and physical labors prove to be counter-productive.

 
V

Aristotle returns to the question of music’s place in education and its nature and need. For the use, he forwards three arguments, as i) amusement and relaxation ii) development of moral character, and iii) cultivation of the mind. But why must a boy learn to play music himself when he can enjoy it as a mode of leisure and amusement being played by others like kings? It's because to gauge the correctness of music and to attain true pleasure that one should learn it with pain only to enjoy it later on. Amusement gives relaxation that relieves past pains; and this pleasantness along with the element of nobleness from intellectual enjoyment of music gives happiness. In addition, it has influence over ethical part of the soul and character and thus is a source for enthusiasm as the mimetic quality of the various modes of music and rhythm in portraying and arousing movement of varied emotions change the soul. Thus music is necessary for education because the harmonious blend of sounds results in the soul's balancing of the passions harmoniously in accordance with reason.

 
VI

Children should be taught music so as to be not only critics but performers too. To the objection that may rise as the study of music being vulgar, Aristotle says that though certain types of teaching and learning music may have degrading effect, one must carefully select the rhythm, melody and type of musical instrument to avoid the problem of degradation. The right measure of study of music will be attained if the student does not learn to the point of being professional players, i.e. playing in contests or being paid performers, but being limited to feel delighted in noble melodies and rhythms. By the same principle, instruments like flutes, harps, etc are to be excluded as they require exceptional skill to play and are merely for excitement of senses and thus have no true educational value.

 
VII

Music is produced by melody and rhythm and of the former, philosophers have made three divisions, which are ethical melodies, melodies of action and passionate & inspiriting melodies, with each having a corresponding mode. Music should be studied for i) education, ii) purgation, and iii) relaxation, enjoyment & recreation. Ethical modes are preferred in education and modes of passion and action while listening to performance of others. Purgative melodies work by creating emotions, like pity, fear, etc. in human soul which then purges it by the dint of excess of it, in a cathartic effect, and are thus sources of innocent pleasure. The performing musicians must perform varied melodies suiting the taste of the different rungs of society. Whereas the Phrygian mode is too exciting and frivolous and the Lydian gentle and relaxed, the Dorian is the ideal mode for education owing to its graveness and manliness. Aristotle ends with giving the three principles upon which education should be based: i) the mean, ii) the possible, and iii) the becoming.

- Shubhankar Das@PG I

Politics: Book 6

In Book VI of Politics Aristotle explores the constitution and functioning of democracy in greater detail, also taking into consideration its ideological opposite, oligarchy. There are various kinds of democracy, and variations of this form of government can be created by different combinations of the elements of self rule. The form of governance is to be tailored to suit particular cities or populations.

Democracy does not imply the ability to do as one pleases, but to rule and be ruled in turn, that is, according to the general will of the population. Liberty based on equality is the basic tenet of democratic constitutions, and the majority holds authority over the state, which means that the poor are more powerful than the rich by virtue of outnumbering them. However, if public opinion is equally divided, the side with more merit or value shall win over the other.

A democracy is characterised by paid offices of government, with limited tenures, checks on the repetition of terms in these offices, eligibility of all citizens to be elected into office, elections by lots, and a judiciary made up of citizens, as well as a popular assembly vested with considerable authority. As a counterpoint to oligarchy, in a democracy low birth, poverty and mean employment are the focus. While democracy grants absolute power to the majority, oligarchy grants power to the aristocracy, neither form is completely just.

Aristotle lists the four kinds of democracy based on the nature of the population. The most successful kind is that constituted of farmers, who are content with their work and do not interfere with the functioning of the assembly, and can be pacified with a limited amount of power over elections and governance. The next best kind is a population of herdsmen, followed by merchants and labourers. In each case, the effectiveness of the democracy is somewhat reduced. The stability of a democracy depends on the constituency; no one section of the population should vastly outnumber the others.

The difficulty lies not in forming a democracy, but in maintaining it. The legislator is to make laws to safeguard the democracy against destructive elements, as well as ensure the perpetuation of the system. Aristotle recommends a few legislative measures such as making confiscated property sacred instead of redistributing it, regulating taxation of the rich, ensuring a degree of prosperity for the poor, and penalising frivolous lawsuits, in order to keep the population interested in polity, but not in a position to acquire personal gains from it. If there are insufficient revenues to pay citizens to attend the assemblies, fewer assemblies should be held

While a democracy can survive on the basis of the mass of its population, an oligarchy must be well organised in order to remain stable. The best form of oligarchy is similar to constitutional governance. There should be elections to offices on two distinct levels based on the assessment of property, less important offices having a lower requirement, and the most prestigious having higher requirements as well as significant public service requirements, so that the individuals holding them gain the admiration of the people.

Based on the nature of the military of a city, it may tend towards one form of governance or the other. Aristotle opines that while heavy infantries and substantial cavalries make cities best suited to be oligarchies, those with a large number of light infantrymen, or dependent on naval forces, are usually democracies.

Certain executive offices are necessary for the governance of any given state; among these are six that manage state affairs such as trade, public property, taxes, private contracts, law enforcement and persecution of offenders. Four other offices, also indispensable but ranked higher since they require greater expertise, are: the command of military forces, regulation of finance and auditing, handling the functioning of the deliberative assembly, and directing public worship and taking care of priests and religious leaders in the state.

Depending on the size and population of a state the number of offices required to run it may vary.

-Nilanjana Chakraborty, PG II

Politics: Book 5

In Book V of Politics, Aristotle considers the causes of revolution in a state, how a state may be preserved and how it is destroyed. He mentions how democracy is based on the notion that those who are equally free should be absolutely equal while oligarchy is based on the idea that those who are unequal in one respect, namely property, must be absolutely unequal. Both forms of government are partially correct but neither is entirely so. When their share in government is not at par with the conceptions they happen to have, conflict is inevitable. Inequality is thus an important cause of revolution. Aristotle also distinguishes between those who are virtuous or genuinely worthy and those who possess rank in society due to wealth and ancestry.

Two kinds of equality in a regime must be observed - numerical or equality in numbers, and proportional or equality of ratios. In the abstract, people agree that justice is proportion but when applied to the state, numerical equality is considered. There are those who think that if they are equal in some respect, they should be equal in all respects while there are others who think that if they are unequal in some respect, they must be unequal in all respects. Hence, both democrats and oligarchs exist. But states ordered by one particular principle never last and the best regime is one wherein both types of equality are used. Democracy tends to be less liable to revolution as compared to oligarchy because democracies may only have a conflict between rich and poor, while oligarchies also result in conflicts amongst the those in power. According to Aristotle, a regime that is moderate, is one that will endure.

The chief reason behind feelings that lead to revolution is a desire for equality, when men think they are equal to others who have more, or for inequality, when they think they are superior to those around them and deserve more. However, the desire for gain and honour or the fear of dishonour and loss may also be responsible for revolution. Various other causes of revolution are given by Aristotle such as the insolence of magistrates, disproportionate increase in some part of a state and differences in race. Aristotle says that democracies undergo revolution on account of the ‘wanton behaviour’ of the popular leaders. Leaders such as this rile up owners of property to join against democracy and in the process, turn the poor against the rich in order to maintain themselves in power. He mentions the overthrown democracies of Cos and Heraclea as examples. In earlier times, democracy was more likely to turn into tyranny because of demagogues or manipulative leaders who were also generals of great power, such as the tyranny that arose at Miletus. In oligarchies, the chief cause of revolution is when the multitude is unjustly oppressed and any person becomes worthy of leadership, as in the case of Lygdamis at Naxos. Revolution may also occur when members of the wealthy feel excluded from a rightful share in government.

Inspite of the flawed nature of every regime and the risks involved in a particular regime being overthrown, Aristotle does discuss how a state may be best preserved. Firstly, it is important to know the reasons behind a revolution and taking precautionary measures to avoid such circumstances. Secondly, laws must be in place and trivial matters should not be disregarded in an existing regime. The laws of government should be arranged in such a manner that it is impossible to take advantage of positions of power and the masses do not mind being kept away from ruling. Aristotle mentions three qualifications for persons holding offices in a government - “(1) first of all, loyalty to the established constitution; (2) the greatest administrative capacity; (3) virtue and justice of the kind proper to each form of government; for, if what is just is not the same in all governments, the quality of justice must also differ." Although it is difficult to find all these qualities in men, the choice must be made considering which quality is common and which is rare. A regime is long lasting when the government in power, whether it is an oligarchy or a democracy is not hostile to the other group.

Aristotle believes that education, adapted to the form of government, plays a vital role in the permanence of a constitution and the well-being of the state. This does not mean that people living in an oligarchy should be made to believe that democracy is the enemy of the state or that the wealthy must regard the less fortunate with disdain. Instead, to be educated in ‘the spirit of the constitution’ is to understand the values of moderate democracy and moderate oligarchy such that revolution is avoided and the regime is stable.

In the rest of Book V, the causes of monarchy and its two forms, aristocracy and tyranny are discussed in detail. In the case of aristocracy, an individual is appointed king because he possesses superior virtue as compared to all other citizens and he rules by merit for the welfare of the state. For example, Codrus prevented the state from being enslaved in war. A tyrant, on the other hand, has no regard for the good of his people and rules with selfish intent such as the Ionian tyrants who achieved tyranny by holding great offices. Therefore, the rule of the best man over others, is far better than the rule of a master over a regime in which all are slaves. Stating reasons for the destruction of these regimes, Aristotle mentions hatred, fear and contempt as having brought about conspiracies in monarchies as well as in other forms of government. For instance, at Mytilene, Megacles and his friends attacked and slew the Penthilidae out of fear, as they were going about striking people with clubs. Aristotle concludes by analysing and refuting certain arguments made by Plato in The Republic regarding the causes of change in government.

Politics: Book 4

Politics 'Book IV'

Politics, like other practical arts, has to '[C]onsider the different methods appropriate to the different categories of its subject.'¹ Thus, one must consider the following.

1. What is the best i.e ideal constitution when there are no factors to hamper its formation.
2. Which sort of constitution suits which sort of civic body.
3. The study of constitutions that are not the ideal and are not the best possible under the given circumstances.
4. What constitution is best for cities generally.

The constitution being proposed should be such that it is acceptable to the majority of the people, given the system they currently have. The statesman (politikos) should thus know how many different kinds of constitution there are. Aristotle opines that there is not, as is believed, only one sort of democracy and one sort of oligarchy. This understanding is also essential for the framing of laws. Laws must be framed according to each constitution if they are to be appropriate for that constitution. A constitution is an organization of offices in a city which fixes the method of their distribution, the sovereign authority and the nature of the end to be pursued. Laws set the rules by which magistrates can check transgressors and exercise their authority. A law appropriate for one constitution need not be appropriate for another.

Having discussed aristocracy and kingship in 'Book III', Aristotle now proposes to discuss 'constitutional government', oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Oligarchy, democracy and tyranny are perversions of ideal constitutions, according to Aristotle, with tyranny being the worst, followed by oligarchy and then democracy.

A city is composed of different parts and the different ways in which these parts share in the control of the constitution gives rise to different constitutions. Aristotle argues that democracy cannot be defined merely as a constitution where the greater number are sovereign. In all forms the decision of the majority of those who share in the constitution is sovereign. Similarly, oligarchy cannot be defined as a constitution where a few people have sovereignty over the constitution.

“There is a democracy when the free-born and poor control the government, being at the same time a majority; and similarly there is an oligarchy when the rich and better-born control the government, being at the same time a minority.”

-- Politics,1290^b20

Having established that a city is composed of different parts, Aristotle says that the same set of people may possess the capacity to act in different roles ( as soldiers and as part of the judicial court, for instance) but since the same people cannot be both rich and poor, these two are regarded as parts of the city in a special sense. They appear to be opposed elements since once is usually larger than the other. This is why constitutions are established based on the predominance of one or the other and the different ways in which offices are organised gives rise to different types of democracy and oligarchy.

The various types of democracies that Aristotle defines are

1. The poor and the rich share, as far as possible, on the same terms in the constitution and the decision of the majority is sovereign
2. There is a low property qualification, with everyone who achieves it eligible for a share in office.
3. Every citizen of unimpeachable descent is eligible for office but the law is the final sovereign.
4. Everyone, provided only that he is a citizen, is eligible but the law is the final sovereign.
5. The fifth is the same in other respects [by which I understand that every citizen is eligible], but the people and not the law are the final sovereign i.e. popular decrees are sovereign and not the law.

Where the people and not the law are the final sovereign, demagogues arise and the people then becomes a monarchy. Aristotle likens them to tyrannical forms of monarchy, despotic and likens their decrees to the edicts of the monarch. He argues that they are not democracies in the proper sense since decrees can never be general.

Having classified democracies, Aristotle proceeds to classify oligarchies under the following categories.

1. Where there is a high enough property qualification to exclude the poor but where anyone who attains that qualification is eligible.
2. Where the property qualifications are high and those eligible themselves choose the replacements for vacancies.
3. Where sons succeed their fathers but the law is sovereign.
4. Where sons succeed their fathers but the officials, not the law, are sovereign and this is equivalent to tyrannies and the fifth form of democracy mentioned earlier.

Aristotle then provides another system of classifying democracies and oligarchies, this time on the basis of the amount of leisure available. Where those eligible to participate do not enjoy the leisure required, the rule of law is sovereign. In democracies, when there is state payment for attending assemblies, the mass of poor become the sovereign power while in oligarchies when those eligible acquire considerable property and are able to wield considerable influence, a 'dynasty' akin to personal rule appears.

Other forms of constitution are aristocracy and 'constitutional government'[or polity]. Aristotle opines that a constitution can with strict justice be called an aristocracy when the members are not merely 'good' relative to some standard but absolutely the best[aristoi] in excellence.

“[M]erit is the criterion of aristocracy, as wealth is the criterion of oligarchy, and free-birth of democracy.”

-- Politics, 1294^a9

In a mixed form of constitution, we must ideally consider free birth, wealth and merit. However only the first two are usually considered with the wealthy being considered gentlemen. A 'constitutional government' contains elements of both democracy and oligarchy. This can be achieved by either combining elements or taking the mean between them.

After a brief discussion on tyrannies, Aristotle goes on to consider the best constitution and way of life for the majority of people and cities. The best form of political association, if the best kind of life is in a mean attained by every individual, is one where power is vested in the middle class (which is the mean between the rich and the poor) and where the middle class is large enough so that they are at least stronger than each singly. This form is free from factions and its members are most ready to listen to reason.

Having established that the best constitution will follow the mean, Aristotle considers what type of constitution is suited for which people, based on quantity (superiority in numbers) and quality( free birth, wealth, culture and nobility of descent). However, he urges the legislator to always make the middle class partners in the constitution. Similarly, various devices are adopted to “fob off the masses” and Aristotle recommends honest compromise instead of deception.

Finally, Aristotle deliberates on the methods of establishing constitutions. He identifies three elements or powers in a city : the deliberative, concerned with common affairs, the legislative, concerned with public offices, and the judiciary. The deliberative deals with issues like war, alliances, capital punishment and auditing of offices. He enumerates various methods of achieving this like assigning responsibility to all citizens on all decisions, to all on some decisions and not on others and so on. However he advices that those assigned these responsibilities be drawn from all sections.

The legislative is concerned with public offices (defined as directing either the whole body of citizens or some part of them in a particular sphere of activity.) Aristotle again enumerates different arrangements based on the number of offices, the subjects with which they deal, their tenure and their method of appointment. The last point raises further questions regarding who should be eligible, who can appoint them and how they will be appointed.

Those eligible for office and to appoint to office can be all the citizens or some of the citizens and the method of appointment can be by election or by lot. Various combinations of these factors are democratic or oligarchic depending on whether all are appointing from all, whether by lot or election or whether some are appointing from some. Other combinations are aristocratic when appointment is done by a section from all or by all from a section by election.

Aristotle ends by discussing the judicial element. He categorises courts into eight parts discusses courts that deal with a political nature further. Again the courts will be democratic or oligarchic depending on whether the entire citizen body is eligible to give decision or whether only a section is eligible, and whether they are chosen by lot or election or a combination of these two.

'Book IV' thus gives an empirical view of constitutions with Aristotle defining various types of constitutions and the different arrangements possible that give rise to them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Politics, 1288^b10

All quotations are from the Oxford edition of Aristotle's Politics translated by Sir Ernest Barker, revised by R.F. Stallley.

Politics: Book 3

A city is a self-sufficient [autarkeia] whole made of different parts: citizens. A citizen, not defined by his place of residence or by his right to justice, is one who “shares in the administration of justice and in the holding of office.” ‘Citizens’ differ from constitution to constitution. Some become citizens by birth, some by changes in the constitution. A city changes its identity with a change in its constitution even if the people or the space remains the same.

Excellence  in a good man, and in a good citizen is not the same. Excellence in the citizen is relative to the city’s constitution, while in a good man it coincides with that of a ruler (though in a well-ordered state one may not be able to distinguish between the good man and the good citizen). The ruler need not know how to perform tasks, but how to use those who do: the manual labourers. One learns ‘political rule’ (rule over those similar in birth) by being ruled first. Ruler and ruled require different virtues.  The city tries to ensure eudaimonia for citizens. Therefore, under most constitutions, “all who are necessary to the city’s existence” [barnausoi], cannot be considered citizens. Shortage of genuine citizens calls for relaxed rules of citizenship.

The Civic body [politeuma] (synonymous with Constitution [politeia]) is sovereign. The sovereign (one, few, or many), who considers public interest is good, while all else is despotic. Kingship, Aristocracy, ‘Constitutional Government’ are the right forms; their perversions being Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy. Each constitution has its own view of Justice. All parties concerned think that they profess absolute justice. Equality and inequality are both considered just, but one for equals, and the inequality for unequals. He tries later to determine the criteria for judging of ‘equality’. Contribution to the state is to be the deciding factor. Proximate habitation, mutual safeguard of justice, and commercial exchange are necessary conditions for a city’s existence, but it is ultimately a community engaged in a ‘good life’.

Although Aristotle maintains faith in people, who according to him, act in judicious and prudent manner as a group, he concludes that sovereignty should ultimately lie not in human beings, but in law. He then discusses the possibility of the coexistence of ‘the good, the wealthy, and wellborn, and some general body of citizens’, all fit to rule. If there is a person, superior in all aspects to the rest, it would be unjust to give him a share equal to what the others receive. In perverted forms, Aristotle explains with illustrations, these persons are ostracized. But in the best constitution, all else would pay him willing obedience.

There are five types of kingship: i) Spartan (in charge of military); ii) (barbarian) law-governed tyrannies; iii) (‘Heroic Age’) elective tyranny [aisumneteia]; iv) consensual tyranny; and v) absolute kingship. Since a ‘numerous body’ is less easily corruptible, Aristotle seems to argue for limited powers of kingship. Even if there is one person ruling, he should be made ‘servant’ of the law. When a family surpasses the ordinary people it should be vested with kingship. He may then command absolute subservience, and his rule need not be time-bound.

Aristotle commends most highly a constitution administered by the best (one, few, or a number of people). “[T]he same method… by which a man becomes good, should also be used to achieve the creation of a city on the pattern of aristocracy or kingship; and thus the training and habits of action which make a good man are the same as those which make a good statesman or a  good king.”

Politics: Book 2

In Book 2 Aristotle’s goal is to demonstrate the need for a new theory of government, since neither a perfect theory nor a perfect government exists. Aristotle examines other

Theories of government and reviews existing constitutions of well governed states. He begins with an extended criticism of Plato's Republic, interpreting its main thrust to be that citizens should share in common as much as possible, including wives, children, and property. The goal of this community is to achieve as much unity in the city as possible, but Aristotle counters that the city involves an essential plurality: different people must make different contributions, fulfill different roles, and fit into distinct social classes. Otherwise, a city will not be able to perform the many functions necessary for it to remain self- sufficient. Aristotle disapproves of Plato's suggestion that men share the women of the city and that children be taken from their mothers at birth and raised collectively in state nurseries. By this proposal, no child would receive proper parental care, and the lack of family ties would render citizens less capable of showing friendship and love. Aristotle also notes that Plato does not explain how children can be transferred between social classes without great discord.

Aristotle also attacks Plato's remarks on the community of property, stating that the practice of generosity, an important virtue, requires individual ownership of property. The problems people often associate with ownership of private property arise not from privatization but from human wickedness. Most significantly, Aristotle sustains a defense of private property. Most of the theorists he attacks that seek to abolish private property do so with the intention of abolishing the greed and selfishness that accompany private property. Aristotle argues that these vices result from human wickedness, not from the mere existence of private property. Consequently, abolishing private property is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for eliminating vice. If people were equal and equally wealthy, for example, they would become lazy in their luxury. If people were equal and equally poor, they would quickly become discontented. The history of communism in the twentieth century has done a great deal to support Aristotle's claim that the abolition of private property is not enough to make people happy or virtuous. The solution is to share education, not property.

Aristotle then details the faults he has found with Plato's Laws: Plato's proposed city requires a vast territory but makes no provision for safe relations with neighbors; generosity, like temperance, should be a guiding principle regarding wealth; Plato says that land should be divided into even lots and distributed evenly between citizens but makes no allowance for fluctuations in population; and Plato seems to want a politeia, or balanced constitutional government but ends up with an oligarchy.

Aristotle also criticizes the theories proposed by Phaleas of Chalcedon and Hippodamus of Miletus. Phaleas's primary concern is the equalization of property, but he does not realize that material equality alone cannot make people good; rather, happiness arises out of moderation and education. Hippodamus's class distinctions are confused, his legal reforms unsavory, and his system of rewards dangerous.

Aristotle turns his attention to existing constitutions and finds none that is wholly satisfactory. He finds a number of problems with the much-admired Spartans' government: the system of serfdom leaves the ever-present danger of revolution; the undue freedom given to women presents many hazards, the worst of which is a dowry system that hurts the economy and the military; the Ephors, or overseers, are elected almost at random from the general populace; both Ephors and councilors are susceptible to bribes; and the state's two kings are not elected on the basis of merit.

Aristotle is dissatisfied also with Crete and Carthage. The Cretan system is elitist, susceptible to feuds, and has only remained safe thanks to its isolation from other states. While Carthage is superior to both Sparta and Crete, it rewards the rich too much, which encourages greediness.

-Soumita Adhikary

Politics: Book 1

Aristotle begins his Politics by talking about the highest community of all i.e., the state or the political community, which aims at the highest good. He goes on to differentiate among the roles of various authoritarian figures like the king, the household manager, the master, for which he feels it is necessary to consider the constituent units of a state.

A community is formed by bringing together beings interdependent for their sustenance and preservation, like the master and the slave, the male and the female. A combination of these two relationships leads to the formation of a family. Many families unite to form a village and many villages unite to form a self-sufficient state which originates in the bare needs of life, and continues to exist for the sake of a good life for its inhabitants. A state is thus a natural creation and its inhabitants, the men, are naturally socio-political animals who cannot exist by themselves. A man who is not part of any state is either beastly or superior to man. 'Men', who are in an advantageous position compared to the animals, having speech and the ability to judge, can aspire for a good life only if they remain within the bounds of law and justice within the state.

Aristotle then goes on to talk about household management with reference to the three types of relationships possible in a household-

• that between master and slave
• marital relationship between male and female
• procreative relationship between father and children.

To manage a household one needs to have the expertise of acquiring necessary property, which can be done with instruments of action, living or non-living. The most effective instrument of action is a slave who is also a possession of his master. Some feel the relationship between a master and a slave to be akin to political rule but in political rule the king rules for the subjects’ good where as the master rules the slave for his own good. Again, some see turning a person forcefully into being a slave as unjust, as nature has created all men to be equal. Aristotle opines that the superior in ‘virtue’ should be the master and not the superior in ‘strength’.

Aristotle believes in the theory of natural and unnatural slaves. Some are born to rule and some (the inferior) are naturally born to be ruled for the better. Those who are unnatural slaves, made by law, are usually the ones defeated in a war and thereby possessed by the victors. This seems unjust to Aristotle especially when the cause of the war is unjustified. The natural relation between a master and a slave is friendly, where as the one imposed by law is torturous.

In Book I, Aristotle also compares the art of household management to the “art of wealth-getting”. This wealth can refer to that supplied by nature, which is to be acquired in keeping with the ways of lives of various animals who try to be self-sufficient. The household manager accumulates this wealth for the proper running of the household. This would comprise the proper use of a thing. Things would be used improperly when they are used as means of exchange. The need for exchange arises in a society between some people who have excess of something and others who are in dearth of that same commodity. Exchange leads to barter system from which grows the practice of import and export among countries. Gradually money comes into use as a result. Use of money further teaches men the art of retail trade and consequently the art of getting wealthy by accumulation of money through profit making. However, as Aristotle feels, coins are useless as they themselves cannot meet the necessities of daily life, as did the earlier means of barter where people exchanged necessary articles. While ‘wealth-getting’ for the household remains in limit, is necessary and honourable, the wealth produced by trade and interest (“money born out of money”) has no limit to it, leads to usury and is unnecessary. One can desire more and more but neither desire has any end nor the means of satisfying it. There is also a third type of ‘wealth-getting’, that through industries which exploit the resources of nature to earn profit.

Aristotle then returns to talk about the last two types of rules-

• royal rule of the father over children, which comprises love and respect for the father, by virtue of his age, and 
• constitutional rule of the husband over his wife who is seen as an unequal and naturally less fit compared to her husband being a female.

Although the latter type of rule is termed as constitutional, the actual rule in a state is over subjects who are free and equal unlike the females. However, the females are different from the slaves in that, that females are ruled for their good. Aristotle seems to accept this subordination of women to men but is unable to justify it.

Aristotle ends Book I by raising the question as to whether the natural ruler and the natural subjects like the slaves, women, children, who are human beings of the subordinate kind, share the same virtues. The answer to this would be in accordance to what Socrates believed; each possesses moral virtue such that each can perform his(her) duty perfectly. Women can also have intellectual virtues, but in a subordinate way.  However, all the virtues should be in keeping with the constitution of the state.

Book I gives way to Book II where Aristotle will examine the theories of a perfect state.
--Koyel Ghosh (PG II)

Individual and Community in Greek Thought V

I think it is high time that the class starts to show that it is alive.

Participants are requested to post brief summaries of Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics. Each person should take one book (the Republic has 10 books, the Politics has 6) and write a 500 word (max) summary. This will be very useful later. This means that I will expect these 16 posts before August 1. Those not writing now will write on Cicero and Polybius starting perhaps next week.

Plagiarism will invite severe penalties.

----------------------------------------------

Ευδαιμονια
2. Aristotle 

Plato's conception of the good life is one which is both heroic and tragic. It works by submitting the constituents of living to the most searching forms of scrutiny and rejecting whatever does not meet its requirements: `an unexamined life is not worth living'. The attempt to strip life of its accidents and its inessentials in the quest of an absolute purity has to be conducted through a process of exclusion, and at the end a great part of what normally passes as the human has to be placed aside: material benefits, poetry, rhetoric, the imitative arts, madness. That all these return at important points to complicate the argument is familiar to us, but that need not concern us at the moment. When we turn from works like the Philebus to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics one of the changes we are likely to notice is in the attempt to seek accommodation for a variety of constituents within the fold of ευδαιμονια:

Yet evidently it (the good life) needs the external goods as well; for it is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the proper equipment. In many actions we use friends and riches and political power as instruments; and there some things the lack of which takes the lustre from happiness, as good birth, goodly children, beauty; for the man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or solitary or childless is not very likely to be happy,and perhaps a man would be still less likely if he had thoroughly bad children or friends or had lost good children or friends by death ... happiness seems to need this sort of prosperity in addition; for which reason some identify happiness (ευδαιμονια) with good fortune, though others identify it with virtue. (1099 a-b)

Aristotle is linking and virtually equating two major technical terms in his ethical vocabulary: ευδαιμονια and μακαριοτης [eudaimonia and makariotes], the good life and happiness or blessedness. But in this argument both are seen as being to some degree contingent upon circumstance: both apparently can be disrupted by the vagaries of fortune. Thus one view or version of ευδαιμονια  can seem more like ευτυχια [eutuchia], good luck. This is not the sense we have generally in Aristotle's writing though. In other places we do find the state of happiness being connected with inner virtue. Evelyn Cope distinguished between good fortune and good luck in Aristotle by pointing out that the former is related to αυταρκεια [autarkeia], self-rule, and so is impervious to changes in material circumstance. In a famous passage in the Politics Aristotle describes the happiness of the virtuous and says: `herein of necessity lies the difference between good fortune and happiness; for external goods come of themselves and chance is the author of them, but no one is just or temperate by or through chance.' (1323 b 25-30). The debate is a substantial one and has drawn attention in contemporary ethical writing.

The question that concerns us here relates to whether the notion of happiness in Aristotle can be conceived of purely as a state of being, or whether it necessarily a form of activity - not merely mental, but social and political. The drift of Aristotle's thought is towards the latter option: as he says in the Poetics, the end and aim of human life is a kind of activity not just being a certain kind of person (1450a). Thus though in the tenth book of the EN he is prepared to accept the view that philosophical wisdom is the pleasantest of all activities, and that the contemplation of truth is the most permanent pleasure known to human beings (1177a), he is also aware that even the philosopher and the perfectly just man needs the necessities of life and it is only through the possession of these that the just man is able to operate: he needs other people in respect of whom he can be just. There is more than a shadow of Plato in his encomium of the philosophical life as being the most self sufficient, on account of the fact that the philosopher contemplates only truth. But though the pleasures of deliberation of the truth are sufficient in themselves and engaged in for any other reason (as the action of the politician is directed ideally at personal and communal happiness) the kind of life that they entail would, in the final analysis be beyond the realm of the human (1177b). To be perfectly in tune with reason would be to be like a god: `(i)f reason is divine, then in comparison with man, the life according to it is divine in comparison with human life'.

What remains possible within the human realm is a more modest definition of virtue:

But in a secondary degree the life in accordance with the other kind of virtue is happy; for the activities in accordance with this befit our human estate. Just and brave acts, and other virtuous acts, we do in relation to each other, observing our respective duties with regard to contracts and services and all manner of actions and with regard to passions; and all of these seem to be typically human. (1178a)

The god-like philosopher sets no store by actions and sees them even as a hindrance to contemplation, but the just man `in so far as he is man and lives with a number of people, he chooses to do virtuous acts'. For Aristotle then, politics is an ethical activity as much as the inquiry into the realm of ethics is `political science, in one sense of the term' (1094b). The necessity for community as condition for responsible living is powerfully presented in the detailed discussion of friendship, φιλια [philia], in which Aristotle refuses to countenance the suggestion that the eudaimon individual can be happy without friends, who are called the greatest of external goods (1169b9-10). `Surely it is strange' he writes, `to make the supremely happy man, μακαριος [makarios], a solitary man ; for no one would choose the whole world on condition of being alone, since man is a political creature and one whose nature is to live with others' (loc. cit. 16-19)

Aristotle's version of the good life thus is necessarily a social one. Nussbaum perceptively remarks that it is formulated that in a critical juncture in Greek history, a period of political upheaval and uncertainty, when philosophy was turning `to philosophical defenses of the solitary good life' (FG 346). As such the cultivation of selfhood is at the same time a supreme form of altruism. The good man, says Aristotle, is a lover of self, for it is in the interest of the self that he will engage in noble acts for his friends and country and if necessary die for them. Renunciation of offices, wealth and pleasure, and even action for one's friend is, in the end, a form of the care of the self. (1169a)

-----------------------

See: Martha Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness (1986)