What do you think?
Rate this book
Politics
PIETY towards Dr. Jowett, whose munificence has made possible the production of this translation of Aristotle, suggested that no new rendering of the Politics should be attempted, but that his translation should be re-issued. Much valuable work has been done, however, on the Politics since his translation was published in 1885, and of this I have endeavoured, in revising his translation, to take account, while preserving as far as possible the ease and grace of the original rendering. The revised translation is based on Immisch’s edition in the Teubner series (1909), but I have not hesitated to depart from his text where he deserts the MSS. unnecessarily, or where a better emendation seemed possible; all such departures have been indicated in the notes. In particular, I have added one more to the many attempts that have been made to emend the corrupt passage iv. 1300a 23–b 5.
194 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 351
2797 people are currently reading
81853 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
4,336 books5,598 followersAristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 991 reviews
May 14, 2025
All people desire the Good. So says Aristotle.
Yes, EVERYTHING works for the Good. Whose Good, though?
Well, he says, their OWN version of Good! And THAT’s why all politicians are so inherently different - AND why some get on our nerves. And WE’VE all got different preconceptions - ourselves!
You see, he learned from his teacher, Plato, that the Good is naturally in our human subconscious - and is also an Ideal - ABOVE us!
Want a friendly tip?
When you’re finished browsing through the latest headlines screaming blue murder over political dirty double dealings, browse through THIS!
It’ll open the windows of your mind and let in some fresh air...
Meet the vigorous, affable philosopher Aristotle, as he jostles through the Polis Agora, bumping into old friends, cheerfully waving to others in the distance, and stopping to join his buddies in friendly talk about the government’s latest projects.
Some of his interlocutors may gripe that it’s just more of the same old tired routine.
Not Aristotle!
His well-thought out rebuttal to these naysayers would have been a detailed and densely populated paysage moralisé of plain, optimistic good sense.
For Aristotle, bless his soul, always ac-cen-tu-at-ed the Positive!
His jauntiness and well-mannered public ease Radiated Good Health.
And bonhomie too... He was a good man.
He knew what goodness was: because he avoided evil.
And he also had a nifty way to get us out of any bad moods - with his twin teaching of ens and potens. For if a person isn’t acting all too nicely now, he always has the potentiality to be Good inside himself!
And everything changes.
Does that remind you a bit of The Power of Positive Thinking?
Maybe, but WHERE did this great thinker get his eternal Optimism and Presence of Mind?
You know, there are TWO answers to that question: one simple, the other complex.
The simple answer is that Aristotle, through constantly meditating on the Good, gradually let it saturate his Entire Awareness.
The difficult answer is the old Zen Koan, to wit, “WHO is this little man who goes in and comes out of your mouth several times a day?” Well the answer, of course is... your Self - in its private, and its public personas.
When we open our mouths, we escape into an empty public space.
We’re suddenly in the Political Centre Stage. We risk pride, anger, embarrassment - and possible Collapse of this little travelling man, our Self.
Aristotle, you see, by fully imbuing himself with the Goodness of Pure Being, had made himself from two separate selves, into One Whole - and the Original - Self!
Well, that was Aristotle for you - 2,500 years BEFORE Norman Vincent Peale was even born!
And maybe you can’t make a big social splash that way. But your enemies will be few and far between if you practice it!
And so we can easily imagine Aristotle put a LOT of otherwise wary people at their ease.
But that’s not the picture we’ve been given of him...
No - for we’re accustomed to think of him as totally above and beyond us - a gloomy, tendentious old soul who must always remain the privileged property of persnickety professors.
But he’s not.
Are you fed up with the multitude of cynical atheists in our modern world? Relax, says Aristotle: the Seed of God is within them. And Aquinas infers that this Seed will Sprout on Judgment Day!
He will always be a fresh summer breeze refreshing our calloused cynicism!
And he will sweep all our dreary snap political judgments right off the table.
And begin right back at the beginning with a Level Playing Field.
So, there ARE indeed wise, positive-minded thinkers who point us to the straight and narrow road to truth.
Like Aristotle, who believed that Good Politicians really DO exist.
Yes, EVERYTHING works for the Good. Whose Good, though?
Well, he says, their OWN version of Good! And THAT’s why all politicians are so inherently different - AND why some get on our nerves. And WE’VE all got different preconceptions - ourselves!
You see, he learned from his teacher, Plato, that the Good is naturally in our human subconscious - and is also an Ideal - ABOVE us!
Want a friendly tip?
When you’re finished browsing through the latest headlines screaming blue murder over political dirty double dealings, browse through THIS!
It’ll open the windows of your mind and let in some fresh air...
Meet the vigorous, affable philosopher Aristotle, as he jostles through the Polis Agora, bumping into old friends, cheerfully waving to others in the distance, and stopping to join his buddies in friendly talk about the government’s latest projects.
Some of his interlocutors may gripe that it’s just more of the same old tired routine.
Not Aristotle!
His well-thought out rebuttal to these naysayers would have been a detailed and densely populated paysage moralisé of plain, optimistic good sense.
For Aristotle, bless his soul, always ac-cen-tu-at-ed the Positive!
His jauntiness and well-mannered public ease Radiated Good Health.
And bonhomie too... He was a good man.
He knew what goodness was: because he avoided evil.
And he also had a nifty way to get us out of any bad moods - with his twin teaching of ens and potens. For if a person isn’t acting all too nicely now, he always has the potentiality to be Good inside himself!
And everything changes.
Does that remind you a bit of The Power of Positive Thinking?
Maybe, but WHERE did this great thinker get his eternal Optimism and Presence of Mind?
You know, there are TWO answers to that question: one simple, the other complex.
The simple answer is that Aristotle, through constantly meditating on the Good, gradually let it saturate his Entire Awareness.
The difficult answer is the old Zen Koan, to wit, “WHO is this little man who goes in and comes out of your mouth several times a day?” Well the answer, of course is... your Self - in its private, and its public personas.
When we open our mouths, we escape into an empty public space.
We’re suddenly in the Political Centre Stage. We risk pride, anger, embarrassment - and possible Collapse of this little travelling man, our Self.
Aristotle, you see, by fully imbuing himself with the Goodness of Pure Being, had made himself from two separate selves, into One Whole - and the Original - Self!
Well, that was Aristotle for you - 2,500 years BEFORE Norman Vincent Peale was even born!
And maybe you can’t make a big social splash that way. But your enemies will be few and far between if you practice it!
And so we can easily imagine Aristotle put a LOT of otherwise wary people at their ease.
But that’s not the picture we’ve been given of him...
No - for we’re accustomed to think of him as totally above and beyond us - a gloomy, tendentious old soul who must always remain the privileged property of persnickety professors.
But he’s not.
Are you fed up with the multitude of cynical atheists in our modern world? Relax, says Aristotle: the Seed of God is within them. And Aquinas infers that this Seed will Sprout on Judgment Day!
He will always be a fresh summer breeze refreshing our calloused cynicism!
And he will sweep all our dreary snap political judgments right off the table.
And begin right back at the beginning with a Level Playing Field.
So, there ARE indeed wise, positive-minded thinkers who point us to the straight and narrow road to truth.
Like Aristotle, who believed that Good Politicians really DO exist.
November 5, 2024
Politics is intrinsic and fundamental to human life, as Aristotle knew well. One of the most famous quotes from this definitive work of political philosophy is “ὁ ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον.” This Greek phrase is often translated as “Man is by nature a political animal,” though I prefer to think of it as saying that “Humankind is by nature a political species.” However you translate Aristotle’s words, the fact remains that, 2400 years after Aristotle wrote the Politics in the 4th century B.C., we in the 21st century A.D. are still comparing societies in terms of their political structures, just as Aristotle did. As long as citizens care about the shape their nations take, Aristotle’s Politics will remain relevant.
Regular readers of Aristotle’s work will detect echoes of other Aristotelian texts while reading the Politics. For instance, I hear echoes of De Anima, with its declaration that human beings are the only animals with souls, in the way Aristotle in the Politics follows up on his statement about humankind as a political species by declaring that “obviously man is a political animal in a sense in which a bee is not, or any other gregarious animal. Nature…has endowed man alone among the animals with the power of speech” (p. 60) – a classically Aristotelian declaration.
Contemporary researchers who study communication among the more intelligent of our fellow animals – apes, dolphins, whales – might take issue with Aristotle’s claim. But then Aristotle, like any good scientist, reasons from the verifiable and replicable evidence available to him, and then sets forth his conclusions – knowing that someday, future scientists will challenge his findings, the way a young Aristotle challenged his old teacher Plato.
For Aristotle, it follows that, as humankind is a political species, human beings will inevitably organize themselves into societies that will organize themselves according to some sort of set of rules. For the remainder of the Politics, Aristotle reviews the relations among different groups of human beings, looks at the constitutions of various Greek states of his time, and considers the different options available to those who are trying to set up a state: democracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, tyranny. And the stakes are high: as Aristotle points out, “a state’s purpose is not merely to provide a living, but to make a life that is good” (p. 196). Think about it: if you had two options, and only two, would you rather be a citizen of Sweden, or of North Korea?
As he is considering the position of the citizen in a wide variety of states – Athens, Carthage, Crete, Sparta, Syracuse – it is good that Aristotle provides a definition of the citizen: “[O]ne who has a share in ruling and in being ruled….So far as the best constitution is concerned, he is a man who is able and who chooses to rule and to be ruled with a view to a life that is in accordance with virtue” (p. 213). Aside from its restrictiveness in terms of gender – Aristotle’s attitude toward women is always one of the weaknesses of his philosophical system – it is a definition of citizenship that is still applicable today.
The first-time reader of the Politics may be surprised to discover that Aristotle, like his mentor Plato, is not at all enthusiastic about democracy. Today, people around the world use the terms “democracy” and “democratic” to describe what is assumed to be the most desirable state for a society: one in which each citizen has equal rights, and no citizen has more rights than others. International organizations like Freedom House issue regular reports that indicate which countries of the world are most or least free, meaning most or least democratic.
Aristotle, by contrast, did not think about democracy that way. Readers of Aristotle know that he always follows “the principle of the middle way” (p. 330); and for him, the form of government that is most to be desired is what he calls the "polity," meaning “a mix of oligarchy and democracy” (p. 259). The polity gives the wealthy and well-born a stake in maintaining the features of society that have protected their high social position, and at the same time gives the more numerous members of the general public a sense that they too have a fair chance of ascending into the highest levels of wealth and status.
In the Constitution of the United States of America, one sees Aristotle’s influence, particularly in Article I that sets forth the responsibilities of the Congress. The numerically more numerous House of Representatives – 435 strong, as of this writing – has always been voted on by all eligible citizens (though the definition of “citizen” has repeatedly had to be expanded at various points in American history). By contrast, members of the Senate – a numerically smaller body whose members serve longer terms of office and have more power – were originally selected by state legislatures, not by the people generally, and were expected to represent the interests of the wealthy.
That Aristotelian desire to create an American polity, a moderate form of government that would avoid the excesses of mob rule and tyranny, also seems to have nourished the creation of the Electoral College – a body through which, twice in the last two decades, a candidate has been elected President of the United States while losing the popular vote: once by half a million votes, the second time by three million. You can decide for yourself how you feel about that.
The English-speaking reader of the Politics should not be surprised to find him- or herself comparing constitutions across the Anglosphere the way Aristotle compared constitutions across the Greek-speaking world. I found myself comparing the United States Constitution, in its particular features, with the constitutions of Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. The U.S. constitution came off the better in some of these comparisons – not so well in others.
Sometimes, the Politics must be read in historical context. It is disheartening in the extreme, for example, to see how Aristotle not only takes for granted the existence of slavery in even the freest Greek states, but also assumes that enslaved people accept their lot and have no yearning for freedom. No wonder pro-slavery Southern politicians from the pre-Civil War era raced to quote Aristotle when defending slavery inside the U.S. Capitol and their various statehouses.
Other parts of the Politics are more applicable to the modern world; and indeed, there is something in Aristotle’s Politics for everyone. Members of the conservative Trump administration, with its “America First” mantra, might have agreed with Aristotle’s declaration that “a state’s trading must be in its own interest and not in others’” (p. 407). On the other hand, liberal Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would no doubt concur with Aristotle's statement that “there should be laws laid down about education, and…education itself must be made a public concern” (p. 453). Whatever your own politics may be, I know that you care about your society, and about the future shape that your society will take; and every person who fits that description should read Aristotle’s Politics.
Regular readers of Aristotle’s work will detect echoes of other Aristotelian texts while reading the Politics. For instance, I hear echoes of De Anima, with its declaration that human beings are the only animals with souls, in the way Aristotle in the Politics follows up on his statement about humankind as a political species by declaring that “obviously man is a political animal in a sense in which a bee is not, or any other gregarious animal. Nature…has endowed man alone among the animals with the power of speech” (p. 60) – a classically Aristotelian declaration.
Contemporary researchers who study communication among the more intelligent of our fellow animals – apes, dolphins, whales – might take issue with Aristotle’s claim. But then Aristotle, like any good scientist, reasons from the verifiable and replicable evidence available to him, and then sets forth his conclusions – knowing that someday, future scientists will challenge his findings, the way a young Aristotle challenged his old teacher Plato.
For Aristotle, it follows that, as humankind is a political species, human beings will inevitably organize themselves into societies that will organize themselves according to some sort of set of rules. For the remainder of the Politics, Aristotle reviews the relations among different groups of human beings, looks at the constitutions of various Greek states of his time, and considers the different options available to those who are trying to set up a state: democracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, tyranny. And the stakes are high: as Aristotle points out, “a state’s purpose is not merely to provide a living, but to make a life that is good” (p. 196). Think about it: if you had two options, and only two, would you rather be a citizen of Sweden, or of North Korea?
As he is considering the position of the citizen in a wide variety of states – Athens, Carthage, Crete, Sparta, Syracuse – it is good that Aristotle provides a definition of the citizen: “[O]ne who has a share in ruling and in being ruled….So far as the best constitution is concerned, he is a man who is able and who chooses to rule and to be ruled with a view to a life that is in accordance with virtue” (p. 213). Aside from its restrictiveness in terms of gender – Aristotle’s attitude toward women is always one of the weaknesses of his philosophical system – it is a definition of citizenship that is still applicable today.
The first-time reader of the Politics may be surprised to discover that Aristotle, like his mentor Plato, is not at all enthusiastic about democracy. Today, people around the world use the terms “democracy” and “democratic” to describe what is assumed to be the most desirable state for a society: one in which each citizen has equal rights, and no citizen has more rights than others. International organizations like Freedom House issue regular reports that indicate which countries of the world are most or least free, meaning most or least democratic.
Aristotle, by contrast, did not think about democracy that way. Readers of Aristotle know that he always follows “the principle of the middle way” (p. 330); and for him, the form of government that is most to be desired is what he calls the "polity," meaning “a mix of oligarchy and democracy” (p. 259). The polity gives the wealthy and well-born a stake in maintaining the features of society that have protected their high social position, and at the same time gives the more numerous members of the general public a sense that they too have a fair chance of ascending into the highest levels of wealth and status.
In the Constitution of the United States of America, one sees Aristotle’s influence, particularly in Article I that sets forth the responsibilities of the Congress. The numerically more numerous House of Representatives – 435 strong, as of this writing – has always been voted on by all eligible citizens (though the definition of “citizen” has repeatedly had to be expanded at various points in American history). By contrast, members of the Senate – a numerically smaller body whose members serve longer terms of office and have more power – were originally selected by state legislatures, not by the people generally, and were expected to represent the interests of the wealthy.
That Aristotelian desire to create an American polity, a moderate form of government that would avoid the excesses of mob rule and tyranny, also seems to have nourished the creation of the Electoral College – a body through which, twice in the last two decades, a candidate has been elected President of the United States while losing the popular vote: once by half a million votes, the second time by three million. You can decide for yourself how you feel about that.
The English-speaking reader of the Politics should not be surprised to find him- or herself comparing constitutions across the Anglosphere the way Aristotle compared constitutions across the Greek-speaking world. I found myself comparing the United States Constitution, in its particular features, with the constitutions of Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. The U.S. constitution came off the better in some of these comparisons – not so well in others.
Sometimes, the Politics must be read in historical context. It is disheartening in the extreme, for example, to see how Aristotle not only takes for granted the existence of slavery in even the freest Greek states, but also assumes that enslaved people accept their lot and have no yearning for freedom. No wonder pro-slavery Southern politicians from the pre-Civil War era raced to quote Aristotle when defending slavery inside the U.S. Capitol and their various statehouses.
Other parts of the Politics are more applicable to the modern world; and indeed, there is something in Aristotle’s Politics for everyone. Members of the conservative Trump administration, with its “America First” mantra, might have agreed with Aristotle’s declaration that “a state’s trading must be in its own interest and not in others’” (p. 407). On the other hand, liberal Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would no doubt concur with Aristotle's statement that “there should be laws laid down about education, and…education itself must be made a public concern” (p. 453). Whatever your own politics may be, I know that you care about your society, and about the future shape that your society will take; and every person who fits that description should read Aristotle’s Politics.
July 28, 2011
I personally find it tough to do any sort of a review on the classics, as just about everything that can be said about a 2400 year old treatise has probably been said. However, like scripture, everyone has their own interpretation of these kinds of documents from antiquity. The interpretations, like any reading, have to do with the culture and time in which one was raised, the society and government around them, as well as one’s age and any previous influential readings and/or life experience. These previous influences allow a “horizontal” approach to interpretation, where one incorporates many different impressions into the present document.
“The Politics of Aristotle” is a link in the evolutionary process of social and political development. Like Plato’s “Republic”, Aristotle considers the concept of justice in this treatise. First, we must define justice, and then we must figure out the best way to enact justice. It is important to remember when dealing with the classics that we are looking at an attempt to tie down a “universal” (itself a tricky word) into a specific place and time. Everyone generally agrees that “justice” is what is “right”. However, conditioning of various types will influence HOW justice looks when pen is put to paper.
The area in which I believe Aristotle to have the greatest wisdom is in his descriptions of human nature (and how to approach justice WITH this human nature in mind). “Men who don’t have control of their own passions will fail to serve their own interests.” “We always prefer what we come across first.” “Men are always wanting something more and are never content until they get to infinity.” “Ambition and avarice are exactly the motives which lead men to commit nearly all intentional crimes.”
Through my recent dialogue with those residing in the East, it is apparent to me that much of Western philosophy is late in its realization of some universal truths. The conflict of opposites is a universal concept. Moderation as a necessity for “goodness” is a universal concept. This would coincide with the idea of “Non-dualism” that has been around for thousands of years in the Far East. Aristotle attempts to broach these topics through more of an exterior view. For example, he uses the analogy of the “perfection of the nose”. A nose that is “extremely” straight, or “extremely” symmetrical in all areas would eventually become so “extreme” as to not even appear to be a nose. It would morph into something else, if you will. That is an example of dualistic thinking. Extremes in anything produce the opposite of what one is trying to achieve. Moderation, looking at all sides of an issue, eradicating dogmatic thinking, are all ways to avoid these extremes.
Modern Capitalistic thought has grasped onto Aristotle’s ideas of distributive justice, aristocracy, and his negation or downplaying of apparent class conflicts to justify certain actions. What Aristotle has not and could not consider is all the complexities of modern times. Race, a global economy, and our current belief in the equality of ALL men do not mix with Aristotelian thought. Plato had a much better grasp on class conflict with the idea of the state being TWO states…that of the rich and that of the poor. Although Aristotle DID acknowledge that: “Poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy.” He adds: “That is why measures should be taken to ensure a permanent level of prosperity.”
The eloquence of describing the life of the interior is perhaps the part of “The Politics” which struck me the greatest. "Thought is an activity as much as action itself, and it may even be more of an activity than action is. The self-contained individual...may be busily active: the activity of God and the universe is that of a self-contained life." This statement coincided well with one that Aristotle had mentioned in “Rhetoric”, where he states that: “The more I am by myself and alone, the fonder I have become of myths.” This seems to indicate that Aristotle may have had an idea, even if he couldn’t name it, of the inherent need for a “god-image” in the nature of man.
Philosophy as defined by the ancient Greeks IS wisdom. Therefore it is in itself a universal as wisdom is all-encompassing. Man’s attempt to make sense of universals containing many expressions is one of the great challenges of living. For me, it has also brought about the realization that we are all looking for the same thing in the end. Approaching others WITH that knowledge is more conducive to dialogue and to greater understanding…which creates a better life for all of us.
“The Politics of Aristotle” is a link in the evolutionary process of social and political development. Like Plato’s “Republic”, Aristotle considers the concept of justice in this treatise. First, we must define justice, and then we must figure out the best way to enact justice. It is important to remember when dealing with the classics that we are looking at an attempt to tie down a “universal” (itself a tricky word) into a specific place and time. Everyone generally agrees that “justice” is what is “right”. However, conditioning of various types will influence HOW justice looks when pen is put to paper.
The area in which I believe Aristotle to have the greatest wisdom is in his descriptions of human nature (and how to approach justice WITH this human nature in mind). “Men who don’t have control of their own passions will fail to serve their own interests.” “We always prefer what we come across first.” “Men are always wanting something more and are never content until they get to infinity.” “Ambition and avarice are exactly the motives which lead men to commit nearly all intentional crimes.”
Through my recent dialogue with those residing in the East, it is apparent to me that much of Western philosophy is late in its realization of some universal truths. The conflict of opposites is a universal concept. Moderation as a necessity for “goodness” is a universal concept. This would coincide with the idea of “Non-dualism” that has been around for thousands of years in the Far East. Aristotle attempts to broach these topics through more of an exterior view. For example, he uses the analogy of the “perfection of the nose”. A nose that is “extremely” straight, or “extremely” symmetrical in all areas would eventually become so “extreme” as to not even appear to be a nose. It would morph into something else, if you will. That is an example of dualistic thinking. Extremes in anything produce the opposite of what one is trying to achieve. Moderation, looking at all sides of an issue, eradicating dogmatic thinking, are all ways to avoid these extremes.
Modern Capitalistic thought has grasped onto Aristotle’s ideas of distributive justice, aristocracy, and his negation or downplaying of apparent class conflicts to justify certain actions. What Aristotle has not and could not consider is all the complexities of modern times. Race, a global economy, and our current belief in the equality of ALL men do not mix with Aristotelian thought. Plato had a much better grasp on class conflict with the idea of the state being TWO states…that of the rich and that of the poor. Although Aristotle DID acknowledge that: “Poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy.” He adds: “That is why measures should be taken to ensure a permanent level of prosperity.”
The eloquence of describing the life of the interior is perhaps the part of “The Politics” which struck me the greatest. "Thought is an activity as much as action itself, and it may even be more of an activity than action is. The self-contained individual...may be busily active: the activity of God and the universe is that of a self-contained life." This statement coincided well with one that Aristotle had mentioned in “Rhetoric”, where he states that: “The more I am by myself and alone, the fonder I have become of myths.” This seems to indicate that Aristotle may have had an idea, even if he couldn’t name it, of the inherent need for a “god-image” in the nature of man.
Philosophy as defined by the ancient Greeks IS wisdom. Therefore it is in itself a universal as wisdom is all-encompassing. Man’s attempt to make sense of universals containing many expressions is one of the great challenges of living. For me, it has also brought about the realization that we are all looking for the same thing in the end. Approaching others WITH that knowledge is more conducive to dialogue and to greater understanding…which creates a better life for all of us.
September 24, 2018
Despite the warnings and protests that I have received from goodreads friends about reading Aristotle's politics into our current political situations and vice versa, I will attempt to do just that in this review - unapologetically. Obviously, I am well aware that Aristotle lived over 2300 years ago; indeed, I would have to be pretty ignorant to be reading him to this degree and not be aware of that fact (I have now completed almost his whole corpus - minus his zoological writings and his Eudemian Ethics). Also, I am fully aware that societal conditions do change, in both subtle and not so subtle ways. I am always amazed though at a particular tendency of some people to consider anything more than a few decades old to be passé and obsolete. I am sure my goodreads friends are not guilty of this degree of naivety. I remember debating someone on the American founding fathers and whether their ideas were still relevant to our current political situations...! Yes, someone was actually taking the position that the founding father's views on the republic they formed were not relevant today. This is obviously an extreme example of how clueless people can be when it comes to ideas and their relationship to progress. My feeling is that if you are arguing that past thinkers held demonstrably different ideas when they spoke about freedom, equality, rights, laws, ethics - etc etc et al – then you are simply playing a game of equivocation and using time as an accomplice in your charade. I know my goodreads friends are not this extreme (at least I hope). Why read philosophy if one considers its ideas to have a shelf life? There are certainly more practical uses of one's time if this were the case. I am cognizant of the warnings my friends provided and those warnings are not without merit, but with the preceding introduction, hopefully, I have provided a defense for the following review. The review itself should also make clear where Aristotle's ideas are still relevant. I am certainly willing to debate the merits of Benjamin Jowett's translation because I am taking it as correct. The burden of proof though is on the person who questions Jowett's translation; it is on them to present the Greek words and the English terms that they consider more correct than his rendering. I won't take seriously textual criticisms that don't offer evidence and source material for substantiation. Saying someone claimed something about Aristotle that can't be substantiated is not an argument as far as I am concerned. If one provides sources and evidence, I will certainly take it seriously.
I want to first off address one issue that was brought forth in a comment. Aristotle and Plato did not have any experience of the exact kind of democracy we know of today. Aristotle believed in equality, but it was an equality of similars, i.e. only men of a certain status were accepted as citizens. Sharing in that similar condition qualified them as equals. It wasn't equality based on humanity alone. Slaves, women, and children were not included in citizenship in the Greek city-states; and Aristotle did indeed follow this precedent. That is certainly one way that democracy has changed. Of course, these changes were made relatively recently. Basing equality on being human alone is an element that was added to democratic ideals subsequently (one should probably note that Christian ethics was largely the influence behind this innovation). There were, however, reasons for including status (e.g. owning wealth/property, military service, etc) into questions of citizenship in Aristotle's day. That is something I am going to get into below when I talk about the dangers of democracy that have always existed. That is not to say that I support the ancient Greek perspective on this question. Clearly, it doesn't matter what the political system is when one falls into the category of the disenfranchised listed above; all systems would be tyrannical in that case. Any system that does not take into account inherent human value into questions of equality is a system that is not at all just - except in an equivocal sense.
One should note that there is absolutely no question that all political systems in the West (including here in America) are rooted in a Greco-Roman precedent. This is as undeniable as that our ethics and morals (not to mention religious ideals) are rooted in a Judeo-Christian precedent. I am certainly of the opinion that those who first wrote on these topics still have something to teach us; and those ideas are often still applicable. I read the Bible because I believe it's morals and ethics are entirely relevant for us. As we move further away from the preceding, the worse society will be. In like manner, the earliest writers on the political systems that inspired ours are still entirely relevant. People often do not have much of a grasp of what occurred in the Greek city-states. The Greeks experimented with different forms of government. These weren't just topics that they debated in writing, they were lived out! I cannot stress this enough. The political systems that are referred to in Plato and Aristotle (removing the speculative elements they added) were tested. Humanity hasn't changed that much in 2300 years. For an example (as I mentioned in my review to Cicero's On Moral Duties), Socialism/Communism is not a new idea. Aristotle was aware that one potential abuse of democracy was when some demagogue promised the disenfranchised that he would take the money and/or property from the wealthy and give it to them if they supported him (I will provide quotes below). Obviously, even if one didn't have property, it didn't necessarily mean that in an ancient democracy that one had no recourse to gaining political power. Aristotle was very wary of the kind of political abuses that were possible within a democracy. He believed (as did Cicero) that every person should be respected in their property. Not respecting the property rights of people was a sure way to bring about revolution.
Is this no longer a problem in our American republic? If you think that, guess again. If a party is harboring socialists that do not respect the above fundamental human right of property, you know the same situation that Aristotle and Cicero wrote about is possible even today. Aristotle mentions in more than one place that democracies often descend into very specific abuses. Often it came in the form of some politician scapegoating the well-to-do. This is exemplified in the following quote:
“From democracy tyrants have borrowed the art of making war upon the notables and destroying them secretly or openly, or of exiling them because they are rivals and stand in the way of their power; and also because plots against them are contrived by men of this class, who either want to rule or escape subjection.”
This applies also to those who are wealthy as Aristotle also makes clear:
“Revolutions in democracies are generally caused by the intemperance of demagogues, who either in their private capacity lay information against rich men until they compel them to combine.. or coming forward in public they stir up the people against them.”
Of course, the above has been a notable element of communist and socialist countries in the modern world. This is a risk of democracy. He noted numerous examples where democracy would shift into oligarchy and back again – all eventually descending into tyranny. Aristotle was incredibly critical of a pure democracy. This is where the majority have absolute control over the minority. Aristotle calls this the worst form of tyranny. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people have absolute control over 49% of the people. Interestingly enough, the percentages just provided are pretty close to what we have here between Liberals and Conservatives respectively (not taking into account moderates like myself) in America. Unsurprisingly, many of those connected to the American political party that takes it's name from democracy, often do support pure democratic ideals, where even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be open to popular vote. The mitigating control to this pure democracy is what Aristotle calls the constitutional government. He includes the constitutional government under the heading of democracy, but he undoubtedly considered them distinct. The constitutional government is more what we would term today a constitutional republic (technically, democracy and republic are the same in ancient Greek sources, but in modern parlance they are distinct). This is what we have here in the United States. Indeed, Aristotle saw this as the best form of government. This is exemplified by the following quote:
“For two principles are characteristic of democracy, the government of the majority and freedom. Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom and equality mean the doing what a man likes. In such democracies every one lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, 'according to his fancy.' But this is all wrong; men should not think it slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution; for it is their salvation.”
Aristotle saw that a balance needed to be struck between law (i.e. constitution) and freedom (i.e. democracy). Losing this balance can be catastrophic as this following quote make clear:
“Oligarchy or democracy, although a departure from the most perfect form, may yet be a good enough government, but if any one attempts to push the principles of either to an extreme, he will begin by spoiling the government and end by having none at all… for when by laws carried to excess one or other element in the state is ruined, the constitution is ruined.”
Aristotle knew full well that pure democracies gave way to anarchy and then to oligarchy. He was suspicious of democracies for this reason. In democracies, everyone wants to be equal, but in the words of George Orwell, some want to be more equal than others. Part of the problem for Aristotle and other political thinkers of his day was to develop a system that would minimize, if not eliminate, inequities in a populace, and allow them a role in government, without sacrificing more competent voices for less competent voices. This may appear shocking, but one should keep in mind that in Aristotle's point of view, not everyone was equally competent to share in government, even if he were to grant that everyone is equal as far as the category of species goes. Obviously, the ancient Greek attempt to minimize incompetent say in government is not correct, but one has to at the same time acknowledge that a vast percentage of the population that exists in any society (and in any period of time) are not competent enough to have any political power. Very few people in a given population are knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on government. Aristotle, with other Greeks, probably assumed if one had gained a certain position or status, it indicated more competence; men were seen as more competent mentally than women; slaves lacked the status and education to be citizens; children were not yet competent prior to proper education. Education was seen as being fundamental to Aristotle's view of governmental longevity. I provide this quote of Aristotle as an example of his position:
“But of all the things which I have mentioned, that which most contributes to the permanence of constitutions is the adaptation of education to the form of government, and yet in our day this principle is universally neglected.”
We need to appreciate that Greeks like Aristotle were concerned about the rule of an ignorant populace. We must acknowledge this while also condemning their attempts at controlling this through such an unjust method. Aristotle seems to acknowledge above that even those who were citizens were often ignorant. A tyranny of the majority happens when a populace is too ignorant and too self-seeking to make sound political decisions. The American founding fathers set up a very particular system to curb the tyranny of the majority. Ignorant factions of a country can easily become tribalist and disinterested in the health of society as a whole. This is a precursor to social unrest and civil war, i.e. what Aristotle terms revolution. What happens, for instance, when a disenfranchised group gains citizenship and every societal benefit that comes with citizenship? For some of these, this development will be seen as an adequate if not an optimal outcome. For others, it will simply not be good enough. They may then insist that they need special rights that other citizens don't enjoy for them to feel equal and to make up for any feelings of past societal marginalization. Aristotle says this:
“The universal and chief cause of this revolutionary feeling has been mentioned already; viz. The desire of equality, when men think that they are equal to others that have more than themselves; or, again, the desire of inequality and superiority, when conceiving themselves to be superior they think that they have not more but the same or less than their inferiors; pretensions which may or may not be just. Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior.”
Aristotle attributed the revolutionary feeling to these factors that do not need to be based in reality; they only need to be perceived as true. What is at play here? The same ignorant human tendency Cicero also took note of: the tendency of people to be self-seeking and more concerned with superiority and not equality, even when claiming that they are only seeking equality. Once equality is attained, the wise and good will consider this adequate, but those who are neither wise nor good will not consider this adequate. This is not an archaic and inapplicable human tendency, it is still very much present in democracies. Pure democracy is mob rule. Can a democracy be a healthy breeding ground for political parties that harbor socialists, communists and anarchists? Indeed, it can. Having a constitution is a safeguard against these kinds of corrupting influences.
Aristotle was also concerned about the wearing away of a constitution. Removing tenets little by little over time. Aristotle says:
“Again, the revolution may be accomplished by small degrees; I mean that a great change may sometimes slip into the constitution through neglect of a small matter...”
And again says in relation to Aristocratic constitutional government (I doubt he would consider the effects to be any different than in a democratic constitutional government):
“The citizens begin by giving up some part of the constitution, and so with greater ease the government change something else which is a little more important, until they have undermined the whole fabric of the state.”
One can certainly find an example of this sort of thing in this country recently. Not too long ago, a president instituted something called the Patriot Act that was a serious breach of the constitution. This allowed data collection and other things that compromised the rights of citizens. Aristotle was aware that in his day, tyrants utilized informants to infiltrate almost every aspect of societal life. These informants were the data collectors of Aristotle's day. Aristotle knew rightly that these are the tactics of tyrants and they are not desirable for a free society. Interestingly enough, he also noted that tyrants often attempted to keep the populace focused on things not pertinent to their role in government; these could take the form of fighting foreign wars and/or infighting between groups within a society. I leave it to the reader to decide if this still happens and if this sort of thing is still relevant in today's democracies.
The preceding are the thoughts I had while reading this. Every review is simply a collection of my thoughts on anything I read. I am very far from believing that what Aristotle wrote about is irrelevant today. Indeed, I feel quite the opposite. Like the Nicomachean Ethics, which was the preceding volume to the Politics, Aristotle believed in moderation. He believed in a political balance between freedom and law, democracy and constitutional government. He was suspicious of extremes. I think that was an astute appraisal of politics. We would do well to take the same position in regards to politics today. It may be too much to hope when considering that I am a moderate Libertarian that the reader will see this as an adequate defense of political moderation, but hopefully the fact that this isn't a new idea and was the position of thinkers in the past may give it some merit.
I am giving the book a 4 star review. The book caused me to reflect quite a bit. I reject Aristotle's caste system where certain people are denied citizenship and rights. I also find his defense of infanticide incredibly abhorrent, but it is hardly surprising when one considers his position on the value of children.
I want to first off address one issue that was brought forth in a comment. Aristotle and Plato did not have any experience of the exact kind of democracy we know of today. Aristotle believed in equality, but it was an equality of similars, i.e. only men of a certain status were accepted as citizens. Sharing in that similar condition qualified them as equals. It wasn't equality based on humanity alone. Slaves, women, and children were not included in citizenship in the Greek city-states; and Aristotle did indeed follow this precedent. That is certainly one way that democracy has changed. Of course, these changes were made relatively recently. Basing equality on being human alone is an element that was added to democratic ideals subsequently (one should probably note that Christian ethics was largely the influence behind this innovation). There were, however, reasons for including status (e.g. owning wealth/property, military service, etc) into questions of citizenship in Aristotle's day. That is something I am going to get into below when I talk about the dangers of democracy that have always existed. That is not to say that I support the ancient Greek perspective on this question. Clearly, it doesn't matter what the political system is when one falls into the category of the disenfranchised listed above; all systems would be tyrannical in that case. Any system that does not take into account inherent human value into questions of equality is a system that is not at all just - except in an equivocal sense.
One should note that there is absolutely no question that all political systems in the West (including here in America) are rooted in a Greco-Roman precedent. This is as undeniable as that our ethics and morals (not to mention religious ideals) are rooted in a Judeo-Christian precedent. I am certainly of the opinion that those who first wrote on these topics still have something to teach us; and those ideas are often still applicable. I read the Bible because I believe it's morals and ethics are entirely relevant for us. As we move further away from the preceding, the worse society will be. In like manner, the earliest writers on the political systems that inspired ours are still entirely relevant. People often do not have much of a grasp of what occurred in the Greek city-states. The Greeks experimented with different forms of government. These weren't just topics that they debated in writing, they were lived out! I cannot stress this enough. The political systems that are referred to in Plato and Aristotle (removing the speculative elements they added) were tested. Humanity hasn't changed that much in 2300 years. For an example (as I mentioned in my review to Cicero's On Moral Duties), Socialism/Communism is not a new idea. Aristotle was aware that one potential abuse of democracy was when some demagogue promised the disenfranchised that he would take the money and/or property from the wealthy and give it to them if they supported him (I will provide quotes below). Obviously, even if one didn't have property, it didn't necessarily mean that in an ancient democracy that one had no recourse to gaining political power. Aristotle was very wary of the kind of political abuses that were possible within a democracy. He believed (as did Cicero) that every person should be respected in their property. Not respecting the property rights of people was a sure way to bring about revolution.
Is this no longer a problem in our American republic? If you think that, guess again. If a party is harboring socialists that do not respect the above fundamental human right of property, you know the same situation that Aristotle and Cicero wrote about is possible even today. Aristotle mentions in more than one place that democracies often descend into very specific abuses. Often it came in the form of some politician scapegoating the well-to-do. This is exemplified in the following quote:
“From democracy tyrants have borrowed the art of making war upon the notables and destroying them secretly or openly, or of exiling them because they are rivals and stand in the way of their power; and also because plots against them are contrived by men of this class, who either want to rule or escape subjection.”
This applies also to those who are wealthy as Aristotle also makes clear:
“Revolutions in democracies are generally caused by the intemperance of demagogues, who either in their private capacity lay information against rich men until they compel them to combine.. or coming forward in public they stir up the people against them.”
Of course, the above has been a notable element of communist and socialist countries in the modern world. This is a risk of democracy. He noted numerous examples where democracy would shift into oligarchy and back again – all eventually descending into tyranny. Aristotle was incredibly critical of a pure democracy. This is where the majority have absolute control over the minority. Aristotle calls this the worst form of tyranny. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people have absolute control over 49% of the people. Interestingly enough, the percentages just provided are pretty close to what we have here between Liberals and Conservatives respectively (not taking into account moderates like myself) in America. Unsurprisingly, many of those connected to the American political party that takes it's name from democracy, often do support pure democratic ideals, where even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be open to popular vote. The mitigating control to this pure democracy is what Aristotle calls the constitutional government. He includes the constitutional government under the heading of democracy, but he undoubtedly considered them distinct. The constitutional government is more what we would term today a constitutional republic (technically, democracy and republic are the same in ancient Greek sources, but in modern parlance they are distinct). This is what we have here in the United States. Indeed, Aristotle saw this as the best form of government. This is exemplified by the following quote:
“For two principles are characteristic of democracy, the government of the majority and freedom. Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom and equality mean the doing what a man likes. In such democracies every one lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, 'according to his fancy.' But this is all wrong; men should not think it slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution; for it is their salvation.”
Aristotle saw that a balance needed to be struck between law (i.e. constitution) and freedom (i.e. democracy). Losing this balance can be catastrophic as this following quote make clear:
“Oligarchy or democracy, although a departure from the most perfect form, may yet be a good enough government, but if any one attempts to push the principles of either to an extreme, he will begin by spoiling the government and end by having none at all… for when by laws carried to excess one or other element in the state is ruined, the constitution is ruined.”
Aristotle knew full well that pure democracies gave way to anarchy and then to oligarchy. He was suspicious of democracies for this reason. In democracies, everyone wants to be equal, but in the words of George Orwell, some want to be more equal than others. Part of the problem for Aristotle and other political thinkers of his day was to develop a system that would minimize, if not eliminate, inequities in a populace, and allow them a role in government, without sacrificing more competent voices for less competent voices. This may appear shocking, but one should keep in mind that in Aristotle's point of view, not everyone was equally competent to share in government, even if he were to grant that everyone is equal as far as the category of species goes. Obviously, the ancient Greek attempt to minimize incompetent say in government is not correct, but one has to at the same time acknowledge that a vast percentage of the population that exists in any society (and in any period of time) are not competent enough to have any political power. Very few people in a given population are knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on government. Aristotle, with other Greeks, probably assumed if one had gained a certain position or status, it indicated more competence; men were seen as more competent mentally than women; slaves lacked the status and education to be citizens; children were not yet competent prior to proper education. Education was seen as being fundamental to Aristotle's view of governmental longevity. I provide this quote of Aristotle as an example of his position:
“But of all the things which I have mentioned, that which most contributes to the permanence of constitutions is the adaptation of education to the form of government, and yet in our day this principle is universally neglected.”
We need to appreciate that Greeks like Aristotle were concerned about the rule of an ignorant populace. We must acknowledge this while also condemning their attempts at controlling this through such an unjust method. Aristotle seems to acknowledge above that even those who were citizens were often ignorant. A tyranny of the majority happens when a populace is too ignorant and too self-seeking to make sound political decisions. The American founding fathers set up a very particular system to curb the tyranny of the majority. Ignorant factions of a country can easily become tribalist and disinterested in the health of society as a whole. This is a precursor to social unrest and civil war, i.e. what Aristotle terms revolution. What happens, for instance, when a disenfranchised group gains citizenship and every societal benefit that comes with citizenship? For some of these, this development will be seen as an adequate if not an optimal outcome. For others, it will simply not be good enough. They may then insist that they need special rights that other citizens don't enjoy for them to feel equal and to make up for any feelings of past societal marginalization. Aristotle says this:
“The universal and chief cause of this revolutionary feeling has been mentioned already; viz. The desire of equality, when men think that they are equal to others that have more than themselves; or, again, the desire of inequality and superiority, when conceiving themselves to be superior they think that they have not more but the same or less than their inferiors; pretensions which may or may not be just. Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior.”
Aristotle attributed the revolutionary feeling to these factors that do not need to be based in reality; they only need to be perceived as true. What is at play here? The same ignorant human tendency Cicero also took note of: the tendency of people to be self-seeking and more concerned with superiority and not equality, even when claiming that they are only seeking equality. Once equality is attained, the wise and good will consider this adequate, but those who are neither wise nor good will not consider this adequate. This is not an archaic and inapplicable human tendency, it is still very much present in democracies. Pure democracy is mob rule. Can a democracy be a healthy breeding ground for political parties that harbor socialists, communists and anarchists? Indeed, it can. Having a constitution is a safeguard against these kinds of corrupting influences.
Aristotle was also concerned about the wearing away of a constitution. Removing tenets little by little over time. Aristotle says:
“Again, the revolution may be accomplished by small degrees; I mean that a great change may sometimes slip into the constitution through neglect of a small matter...”
And again says in relation to Aristocratic constitutional government (I doubt he would consider the effects to be any different than in a democratic constitutional government):
“The citizens begin by giving up some part of the constitution, and so with greater ease the government change something else which is a little more important, until they have undermined the whole fabric of the state.”
One can certainly find an example of this sort of thing in this country recently. Not too long ago, a president instituted something called the Patriot Act that was a serious breach of the constitution. This allowed data collection and other things that compromised the rights of citizens. Aristotle was aware that in his day, tyrants utilized informants to infiltrate almost every aspect of societal life. These informants were the data collectors of Aristotle's day. Aristotle knew rightly that these are the tactics of tyrants and they are not desirable for a free society. Interestingly enough, he also noted that tyrants often attempted to keep the populace focused on things not pertinent to their role in government; these could take the form of fighting foreign wars and/or infighting between groups within a society. I leave it to the reader to decide if this still happens and if this sort of thing is still relevant in today's democracies.
The preceding are the thoughts I had while reading this. Every review is simply a collection of my thoughts on anything I read. I am very far from believing that what Aristotle wrote about is irrelevant today. Indeed, I feel quite the opposite. Like the Nicomachean Ethics, which was the preceding volume to the Politics, Aristotle believed in moderation. He believed in a political balance between freedom and law, democracy and constitutional government. He was suspicious of extremes. I think that was an astute appraisal of politics. We would do well to take the same position in regards to politics today. It may be too much to hope when considering that I am a moderate Libertarian that the reader will see this as an adequate defense of political moderation, but hopefully the fact that this isn't a new idea and was the position of thinkers in the past may give it some merit.
I am giving the book a 4 star review. The book caused me to reflect quite a bit. I reject Aristotle's caste system where certain people are denied citizenship and rights. I also find his defense of infanticide incredibly abhorrent, but it is hardly surprising when one considers his position on the value of children.
July 19, 2014
This is quite a turn away from the optimistic "we can figure it all out" tone of the Nicomachean Ethics. In trying to confront both what a state is and how it functions, he creates this weird/insidious master/slave hierarchy, expanding it to encompass children, women, basically anyone who isn't a member of the Athenian aristocracy. While this in and of itself isn't really shocking considering how the typical greek polis maintained and grew it's own power (i.e. going to war, stealing women, land and gold etc.) his inability to fully justify this kind of hierarchy without resorting to some knee-jerk idea of a natural order is a huge problem. Slavery and gender inequality are ultimately mandated and reinforced because, well, basically because he says so. Which is a real cop-out compared to the tight, forward reasoning in a lot of his other works. At the same time, he's one of the first thinkers to recognize that for how fucked up and oppressive a state can be towards its members, it gets even more so when issues of money and finance take over and dominate to the point where the only questions that are taken seriously are those pertaining to making more dough. It's a deeply flawed book about a deeply flawed, though inescapable topic.
November 14, 2025
I don’t want to pin this review to a particular moment in global politics that will, years from now, make these thoughts seem dated, but it is hard to pass up the chance to remark that what Aristotle observed about the political regimes of city states around 350 BCE still significantly overlaps with what we see today. There are passages, for example, from Book 5 on regime change, about the preservation of oligarchy and tyranny that could very well have been taken from daily news headlines: consolidating interests, utilizing law for the preservation of wealth and interest, subduing and discrediting enemies, putting down those with “high thoughts” (174), making the ruled “poor, so that they cannot sustain their own defense” (174) and positioning figureheads as kingly, to be awed and feared, instead of acknowledged as nakedly tyrannical.
At the same time, it is important to note another kind of overlap with, in US politics at least, the constitutional government envisioned by the framers, which clearly aspires to what Aristotle saw as the ideal political regime, one that is oriented to the “common advantage,” where each citizen participates equally and according to their abilities and inclinations. Unlike the democracy that Aristotle described, a deviant form of political regime that overbalanced the interests of the common multitude over the wealthy elite, the US (in principle) is a deliberate, structural mixture of oligarchy/aristocracy and democracy with institutional infrastructure constructed to preserve for the multitude (again, … in principle) a life worth living.
What I mean to say is that Aristotle offers an outline of ethical governance that reminds me of ideals that still belong in conversations about political leadership and education. I mean this while being fully aware of the troubled translatability of Aristotle’s thoughts about women, children and his assumptions about the household as being the nucleus of a city state. Also, his thoughts about laborers, slaves, and others who fall into the category of “non-citizen” whose happiness is outside the concern of rulers and citizens don’t age well either. But out of these comments arise questions that still very much matter. What are the virtues of citizenship? Is reciprocal equality still a virtuous end? How do we define and work toward the common advantage? What are the aims of common education? How important is the middle class?
This last question might seem a modern anachronism, the middle class being a relatively recent concept, but it isn’t. Although I don’t recall Aristotle using the term “middle class” he does talk about a “middling element” (164) to reference a group of people who are neither rich nor poor, nor excessive in any virtue but who rather incline toward the mean. These are the people who are positioned to understand the needs and interests of all citizens because of their proximity to their concerns. This position, about finding virtue in the mean perspective comes out of Aristotle’s work on The Ethics which is a precursor volume to this work. In fact, The Politics is referenced at the end of The Ethics and was clearly meant to be read following that volume.
The value of the middle perspective is not just that it mediates between two extremes; although that is certainly part of its appeal. Rather, the appeal to the mean is core to Aristotle’s thoughts about virtue ethics more generally, tending to find virtue in the balance between extremes like between excess and deprivation (temperance), between recklessness and meekness (courage), between intolerance and obsequiousness (magnanimity), between excess and scarcity (fairness). The mean is naturally harmonious and is the path to a fulfilling life. Appropriately, Aristotle’s model of political regimes likewise values the mean both in the style of governance (e.g., polity, the ideal regime is the mean between rule by the few and rule by the many), disposition of its rulers, and in the very mission of achieving the common advantage, which must, of necessity, strike the middle ground for the multitude that makes up a city — harmony for individuals must be realized in the harmony of the whole.
I also quite liked Aristotle’s thoughts on education and the cultivation of the right frame of mind for citizens. In addition to a common educational regime for all citizens in writing, physical education, music, and drawing he stresses the importance of citizens cultivating “the capacity both to be ruled and to rule,” this very thing being “the virtue of a citizen” (92). I find this perspective compelling for its fairness and implications for empathy, humility, and responsibility for stepping up and taking ownership of the needs of others. Perhaps this perspective, more than others, has been lost in our modern concept of citizenship. To be fair, what it means to be a citizen has acquired a bit of tarnish over the millennia, with citizens left to eke out subsistence lifestyles with little to no opportunity or time for viable participation in governance, but it would do us all well to grapple with the implications of this requirement and what it might mean if put to serious practice today. Kudos to those who take that charge literally.
At the same time, it is important to note another kind of overlap with, in US politics at least, the constitutional government envisioned by the framers, which clearly aspires to what Aristotle saw as the ideal political regime, one that is oriented to the “common advantage,” where each citizen participates equally and according to their abilities and inclinations. Unlike the democracy that Aristotle described, a deviant form of political regime that overbalanced the interests of the common multitude over the wealthy elite, the US (in principle) is a deliberate, structural mixture of oligarchy/aristocracy and democracy with institutional infrastructure constructed to preserve for the multitude (again, … in principle) a life worth living.
What I mean to say is that Aristotle offers an outline of ethical governance that reminds me of ideals that still belong in conversations about political leadership and education. I mean this while being fully aware of the troubled translatability of Aristotle’s thoughts about women, children and his assumptions about the household as being the nucleus of a city state. Also, his thoughts about laborers, slaves, and others who fall into the category of “non-citizen” whose happiness is outside the concern of rulers and citizens don’t age well either. But out of these comments arise questions that still very much matter. What are the virtues of citizenship? Is reciprocal equality still a virtuous end? How do we define and work toward the common advantage? What are the aims of common education? How important is the middle class?
This last question might seem a modern anachronism, the middle class being a relatively recent concept, but it isn’t. Although I don’t recall Aristotle using the term “middle class” he does talk about a “middling element” (164) to reference a group of people who are neither rich nor poor, nor excessive in any virtue but who rather incline toward the mean. These are the people who are positioned to understand the needs and interests of all citizens because of their proximity to their concerns. This position, about finding virtue in the mean perspective comes out of Aristotle’s work on The Ethics which is a precursor volume to this work. In fact, The Politics is referenced at the end of The Ethics and was clearly meant to be read following that volume.
The value of the middle perspective is not just that it mediates between two extremes; although that is certainly part of its appeal. Rather, the appeal to the mean is core to Aristotle’s thoughts about virtue ethics more generally, tending to find virtue in the balance between extremes like between excess and deprivation (temperance), between recklessness and meekness (courage), between intolerance and obsequiousness (magnanimity), between excess and scarcity (fairness). The mean is naturally harmonious and is the path to a fulfilling life. Appropriately, Aristotle’s model of political regimes likewise values the mean both in the style of governance (e.g., polity, the ideal regime is the mean between rule by the few and rule by the many), disposition of its rulers, and in the very mission of achieving the common advantage, which must, of necessity, strike the middle ground for the multitude that makes up a city — harmony for individuals must be realized in the harmony of the whole.
I also quite liked Aristotle’s thoughts on education and the cultivation of the right frame of mind for citizens. In addition to a common educational regime for all citizens in writing, physical education, music, and drawing he stresses the importance of citizens cultivating “the capacity both to be ruled and to rule,” this very thing being “the virtue of a citizen” (92). I find this perspective compelling for its fairness and implications for empathy, humility, and responsibility for stepping up and taking ownership of the needs of others. Perhaps this perspective, more than others, has been lost in our modern concept of citizenship. To be fair, what it means to be a citizen has acquired a bit of tarnish over the millennia, with citizens left to eke out subsistence lifestyles with little to no opportunity or time for viable participation in governance, but it would do us all well to grapple with the implications of this requirement and what it might mean if put to serious practice today. Kudos to those who take that charge literally.
March 2, 2021
Political philosophy is a fundamental part of the legacy of the ancient Greeks. The questions of distribution of power, public justice and order, rights and duties, citizenship, the efficient use of resources and national security, lay at the heart of this tradition. In a civilization of unparallel political constitutional creativity and diversity, legendary lawgivers and great political theorists, Aristotle is pushing the discussion further to reach matters we still debate today.
What seems most essential to Aristotle’s political thought, before any talk of the perfect constitution, is the fact that a real state is the one where citizens take turns in holding power. Aristotle dismisses states where power is held by one man and the rest have a slave like status. He associates this situation with non Greeks, who lack spirit and are slavish, especially the Asians. If taking turn in ruling among the citizens is the backbone of any state, the requirements of citizenship are a much complicated matter. The occupation, wealth, virtue and education of citizens are all parameters one should take in consideration in order to address the question of the ideal constitution.
Faithful to his analytical and teleological spirit, Aristotle discusses the aims of a constitution in the first place. Of course to be happy is what any human being seeks, this goes for an association of humans too. Now happiness does not depend solely on accidents of Fortune, such as great beauty for individuals or natural resources for states. Happiness does not depend on chance and is not waited for passively. It is the active exercise of virtue and wisdom, practical wisdom in particular. A good constitution is the one adapted to what chance throws at you randomly. It is also not a fixed set of laws, which can be used by all states. Instead, he pulls us back to ancient Greece where every state makes its own constitution, adapt it to its social, geographical and ideological peculiarities. It is also changeable, adaptable with reforms to keep going with new configurations, of course in the limits of a certain degree of stability.
Again, with Aristotle’s Ethics in the background, the way for an ideal constitution is the middle one. So he favors what he calls a mixed constitution. He discusses at great length the advantages and limitations of the systems invented by his time : democracies, oligarchies, tyrannies, monarchies… he lists reasons for their stability and instability, their adaptability to different levels of prosperity and the nature of their populations, to come up with remedies for each of their problems. So an oligarchy must be combined with elements of democracy to make it more stable and so on… According to Aristotle, political upheaval is the result of some groups of people demanding equality because they think they are inferior, or others who are not satisfied when being equaled to others because they think they are superior. Equality is not justice, for the simple reason that people are not equal in all aspects. Justice in Democracy is arithmetic, what is just is what the majority believe it is so, while in oligarchy more power is given to property owning individuals to decide what is just.
These inequalities seem to be taking for granted by Aristotle, which can be very confusing to a modern reader. If class struggle in the Marxist sense is the least of Aristotle’s problems, he does admit that in democracies the rule of the majority can lead to them harassing the rich and confiscating their properties, while in oligarchies, men in power tend to use it to augment their influence and thus form power groups. Aristotle does not talk about democracy in the way we moderns think of it, as the most perfect system there is to bring some kind of almost divine justice and equality to all. He does not seem to raise it above oligarchies or tyrannies or even monarchies, and puts much emphasis on its deviations. These systems, although deemed by moderns as inherently unjust, are viable if implemented in the right circumstances.
What seems most essential to Aristotle’s political thought, before any talk of the perfect constitution, is the fact that a real state is the one where citizens take turns in holding power. Aristotle dismisses states where power is held by one man and the rest have a slave like status. He associates this situation with non Greeks, who lack spirit and are slavish, especially the Asians. If taking turn in ruling among the citizens is the backbone of any state, the requirements of citizenship are a much complicated matter. The occupation, wealth, virtue and education of citizens are all parameters one should take in consideration in order to address the question of the ideal constitution.
Faithful to his analytical and teleological spirit, Aristotle discusses the aims of a constitution in the first place. Of course to be happy is what any human being seeks, this goes for an association of humans too. Now happiness does not depend solely on accidents of Fortune, such as great beauty for individuals or natural resources for states. Happiness does not depend on chance and is not waited for passively. It is the active exercise of virtue and wisdom, practical wisdom in particular. A good constitution is the one adapted to what chance throws at you randomly. It is also not a fixed set of laws, which can be used by all states. Instead, he pulls us back to ancient Greece where every state makes its own constitution, adapt it to its social, geographical and ideological peculiarities. It is also changeable, adaptable with reforms to keep going with new configurations, of course in the limits of a certain degree of stability.
Again, with Aristotle’s Ethics in the background, the way for an ideal constitution is the middle one. So he favors what he calls a mixed constitution. He discusses at great length the advantages and limitations of the systems invented by his time : democracies, oligarchies, tyrannies, monarchies… he lists reasons for their stability and instability, their adaptability to different levels of prosperity and the nature of their populations, to come up with remedies for each of their problems. So an oligarchy must be combined with elements of democracy to make it more stable and so on… According to Aristotle, political upheaval is the result of some groups of people demanding equality because they think they are inferior, or others who are not satisfied when being equaled to others because they think they are superior. Equality is not justice, for the simple reason that people are not equal in all aspects. Justice in Democracy is arithmetic, what is just is what the majority believe it is so, while in oligarchy more power is given to property owning individuals to decide what is just.
These inequalities seem to be taking for granted by Aristotle, which can be very confusing to a modern reader. If class struggle in the Marxist sense is the least of Aristotle’s problems, he does admit that in democracies the rule of the majority can lead to them harassing the rich and confiscating their properties, while in oligarchies, men in power tend to use it to augment their influence and thus form power groups. Aristotle does not talk about democracy in the way we moderns think of it, as the most perfect system there is to bring some kind of almost divine justice and equality to all. He does not seem to raise it above oligarchies or tyrannies or even monarchies, and puts much emphasis on its deviations. These systems, although deemed by moderns as inherently unjust, are viable if implemented in the right circumstances.
December 30, 2024
“Man is by nature a political animal.”
― Aristotle, Politics
Probably a good time to read a classic about tyranny, demagoguery, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc. Enjoyed the whole book as a read. I've studied large parts of this 30+ years ago, so going back and reading this like a modern nonfiction comes with both cost and benefit. I can say of the eight books of Politics, Book VIII was my least favorite. It basically goes into Education and Music and while Education would have been good on its own, the chapter itself was a bit watered down and the music section seemed a flat way to end the study. A quibble, but still relevant and probably the reason I docked this book a star.
I also probably gave this a 4-star review because the H. Rackham translation (from 1932) was a bit clunky. I've read (without knowledge of classical Greek) other Aristotle translations that felt smoother, but that is a bias with a shallow foundation.
― Aristotle, Politics
Probably a good time to read a classic about tyranny, demagoguery, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc. Enjoyed the whole book as a read. I've studied large parts of this 30+ years ago, so going back and reading this like a modern nonfiction comes with both cost and benefit. I can say of the eight books of Politics, Book VIII was my least favorite. It basically goes into Education and Music and while Education would have been good on its own, the chapter itself was a bit watered down and the music section seemed a flat way to end the study. A quibble, but still relevant and probably the reason I docked this book a star.
I also probably gave this a 4-star review because the H. Rackham translation (from 1932) was a bit clunky. I've read (without knowledge of classical Greek) other Aristotle translations that felt smoother, but that is a bias with a shallow foundation.
October 27, 2015
Come on Aristotle! You really wrote a lame book man. I'm gonna have to go read Plato's Republic to shake the funk out. I mean hey, I know you're supposed to be one of the world's greatest thinkers and you were the founder of formal logic and all. But dude, your ethics suck. What the jazz are you talking about in this book about how everyone needs to be ruled, and those who lack the rationality to rule themselves need to be ruled by others?
I mean, I guess that ends up happening to people who lack rationality as they blindly follow groups like the Republican/Tea Party and the propaganda of the corporate-controlled media. But NOT COOL.
Slavery = bad. ...Sadly, it appears that your words were prophetic as most of us have become wage slaves.
And I'm not sure about the city being more important than family which in turn is more important than the individual.
Tottle talks about politics being more like an organism instead of a machine and that it's a collection of parts where none can exist without the others.
Aristotle said the city (polis) is not just about laws and economic stability, but it's about pursuing the good and noble life. He stated the goal was to perform noble acts: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together."
This is different from Thomas Hobbes, for example, who said there was a social contract where individuals leave the state of nature because of "fear of violent death."
Aristotle, I think you've inspired me to go read something more fun.
I mean, I guess that ends up happening to people who lack rationality as they blindly follow groups like the Republican/Tea Party and the propaganda of the corporate-controlled media. But NOT COOL.
Slavery = bad. ...Sadly, it appears that your words were prophetic as most of us have become wage slaves.
And I'm not sure about the city being more important than family which in turn is more important than the individual.
Tottle talks about politics being more like an organism instead of a machine and that it's a collection of parts where none can exist without the others.
Aristotle said the city (polis) is not just about laws and economic stability, but it's about pursuing the good and noble life. He stated the goal was to perform noble acts: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together."
This is different from Thomas Hobbes, for example, who said there was a social contract where individuals leave the state of nature because of "fear of violent death."
Aristotle, I think you've inspired me to go read something more fun.
January 18, 2012
In Politics, Aristotle theorized that in a perfect world, a monarchy would be a benevolent dictatorship, an aristocracy would be rule by the virtuous and democracy would be rule by the people. But because of human frailty, monarchy actually becomes tyranny, aristocracy actually becomes oligarchy and pure democracy actually becomes mob rule. The practical solution is a form of government that mixes elements of a single ruler, rule by the few and majority rule.
This idea survived and evolved, and eventually the English developed a system of government with a monarch, a House of Lords and a House of Commons. Later, a system of government was created in the United States with a separation of powers among a President, a Senate and a House of Representatives.
How amazing that Aristotle wrote a book so long ago that has had such influence on world history right up to the present day!
This idea survived and evolved, and eventually the English developed a system of government with a monarch, a House of Lords and a House of Commons. Later, a system of government was created in the United States with a separation of powers among a President, a Senate and a House of Representatives.
How amazing that Aristotle wrote a book so long ago that has had such influence on world history right up to the present day!
June 21, 2023
سیاست، یکی از مهمترین و اثرگذارترین کتابهای ارسطو، به این دلیل اهمیت دارد که روح فلسفه پیشروی زمان ارسطو را منعکس میکند و دیگر آنکه سرچشمه اندیشههایی است که تا پایان قرونوسطی، فلسفه سیاسی غرب از آن بهره میگرفت.
ارسطو معتقد است هر پدیده سیاسی در جوامع انسانی، آفریده تغییرات اجتماعی است؛ بنابراین رخدادهای سیاسی در شهرهای یونان، بیش از آنکه خوب یا بد، پسندیده یا ناپسند باشند، ناشی از تعارض منافع و کشمکش توانگران و تهیدستان هستند.
ارسطو در کتاب سیاست به موضوعات مهم و گوناگونی همچون نقد نظرات برخی از صاحبنظران حوزه سیاست مانند افلاطون، بررسی برخی از نمونههای حکومت مطلوب، ویژگیهای شهروندان نمونه، آموزشوپرورش، طبقهبندی حکومتها و تعریف دموکراسی، انقلابها و انگیزههای وقوع آن پرداخته است.
ارسطو معتقد است هر پدیده سیاسی در جوامع انسانی، آفریده تغییرات اجتماعی است؛ بنابراین رخدادهای سیاسی در شهرهای یونان، بیش از آنکه خوب یا بد، پسندیده یا ناپسند باشند، ناشی از تعارض منافع و کشمکش توانگران و تهیدستان هستند.
ارسطو در کتاب سیاست به موضوعات مهم و گوناگونی همچون نقد نظرات برخی از صاحبنظران حوزه سیاست مانند افلاطون، بررسی برخی از نمونههای حکومت مطلوب، ویژگیهای شهروندان نمونه، آموزشوپرورش، طبقهبندی حکومتها و تعریف دموکراسی، انقلابها و انگیزههای وقوع آن پرداخته است.
November 30, 2017
An interesting treatise, but I can see why only those interested in political theory return to it.
July 31, 2024
Superb!!
September 26, 2021
Голямо удовлетворение бе четенето на „Политиката“ и конкретно на изданието на Oxford world's classics, което е изпълнено с пояснителни бележки. Оказва се, че с Аристотел имаме много допирни точки. Е, не можем за всичко мислим еднакво поради разликата в епохите и опита на цивилизацията. Например за робовладелството или за жените. Но този човек съвсем заслужено си е спечелил безсмрътната слава на голям мислител. Жалко, че общественото устройство все още не се е отървало от дефицитите, срещу които той ни е предупреждавал активно още през 4 в. пр. н. е., при това не само предупреждавал, но и обяснявал как можем да ги избегнем и защо това е жизнено необходимо. Но при лошата морална система от ценности, която преобладава, колективното падение е неминуемо, разбира се.
Най-важното за мен обаче е, че Аристотел е много „некоректен“ и настоява върху ексклузивността и разликите между хората и техните способности, заслуги, но така също и задължения. За него образованието е в основата на щастието - и на личното, и на общественото. А законите трябва да се създават от най-достойните хора, за да могат да позволят на всички останали да дадатнай-доброто от себе си, защото само в най-доброто си превъплъщение те биха могли да достигнат до истинското щастие. Звучи просто страхотно.
Наскоро си закупих „Метафизика“, но задължително ще взема и „Етиката“.
Най-важното за мен обаче е, че Аристотел е много „некоректен“ и настоява върху ексклузивността и разликите между хората и техните способности, заслуги, но така също и задължения. За него образованието е в основата на щастието - и на личното, и на общественото. А законите трябва да се създават от най-достойните хора, за да могат да позволят на всички останали да дадатнай-доброто от себе си, защото само в най-доброто си превъплъщение те биха могли да достигнат до истинското щастие. Звучи просто страхотно.
Наскоро си закупих „Метафизика“, но задължително ще взема и „Етиката“.
May 26, 2017
I especially enjoy Aristotle's works, as he is easy to read and his philosophy is beautifully stractured. In this book, some of the foundamental ideas of politics are presented, again with an ease so everyone could understand them and see how he reached his conclusion by a logical order.
January 12, 2025
สำหรับอริสโตเติล ความหมายของสิ่งที่เรียกว่า polis ซึ่งแปลว่านคร/นครรัฐ/สังคมการเมืองนั้นไม่มีทางปรากฏอย่างชัดเจนหากปราศจากคู่ตรงข้ามที่ตัวเขานำเสนอตั้งแต่แรกนั่นคือ household หรือครอบครัว การดำรงอยู่ของเมือง/การเมืองจึงเป็นการดำรงอยู่บนความสัมพันธ์แบบแยกขาดกับบ้าน/การบ้าน ที่ความแตกต่างกับบ้าน/การบ้านคือเงื่อนไขประกอบสร้างความหมายให้กับเมือง/การเมือง กล่าวคือในขณะที่บ้านเป็นการรวมตัวภายใต้เป้าหมายของการสร้างเงื่อนไขจำเป็นเพื่อให้ชีวิตสามารถดำรงอยู่ต่อไปได้ เมือง/การเมืองกลับเป็นการดำรงอยู่ที่แม้เงื่อนไขตั้งต้นอาจมาจากการรวมตัวของกลุ่มบ้านหลายๆกลุ่ม แต่ก็กลับมีเป้าหมายเพื่อการบรรลุชีวิตที่ดีที่สมาชิกสามารถถกเถียงภายใต้เหตุผลได้อย่างเท่าเทียม หาใช่การสร้างเงื่อนไขจำเป็นสำหรับการมีชีวิตอยู่แต่อย่างใด ถ้าบ้าน/การบ้านเป็นเรื่องของการบริหารจัดการทรัพยากรเพื่อความจำเป็นของการเอาชีวิตรอด บ้าน/การบ้านก็คือการปกครองซึ่งเป็นสิ่งที่อยู่ภายใต้ไวยากรณ์ของเศรษฐกิจที่ทรัพย์สินธ์ทั้งหมดคือทรัพย์ส่วนตัวของผู้ปกครองหรือสมาชิกในบ้าน ขณะที่เมือง/การเมืองจะเป็นกิจกรรมที่เกิดขึ้นนอกบ้านซึ่งอยู่นอกพื้นที่ส่วนบุคคลและดังนั้นจึงเป็นกิจกรรมที่วางอยู่บนความเท่าเทียมของการถกเถียงในประเด็นสาธารณะที่สมาชิกทุกคนล้วนไม่สามารถผูกขาดความเป็นเจ้าของได้ เมือง/การเมืองสำหรับอริสโตเติลจึงมิได้เกิดขึ้นจากการแลกเปลี่ยนทางเศรษฐกิจที่แต่ละคน/แต่ละครอบครัวนำผลผลิตส่วนเกินจากการผลิตของตนมาแลกเปลี่ยนภายใต้เป้าหมายของการอยู่รอดดังที่เพลโตบรรยายใน The Republic เพราะนั่นคือการอธิบายการเมืองภายใต้ตรรกะทางเศรษฐกิจของบ้านหรือครอบครัว ตรงกันข้าม เมือง/การเมืองจะเป็นไปได้ก็ต่อเมื่อสมาชิกซึ่งล้วนแต่เป็นคนแปลกหน้าต่อกัน(เพราะมาจากคนละบ้านหรือคนละครอบครัวกัน) ได้ทำกิจกรรมต่างๆในสถานที่นอกบ้านร่วมกันจนเปลี่ยนความหมายของสถานที่เหล่านั้นให้กลายเป็นพื้นที่ common ซึ่งนอกจากจะวางอยู่บนหลักของความเสมอภาคเท่าเทียมที่ไม่มีใครผูกขาดเป็นเจ้านาย/เจ้าของแล้ว ยังก่อร่างสร้างชีวิตที่สองให้กับสมาชิกในฐานะของชีวิตสาธารณะหรือ common life อันเป็นชีวิตที่วางอยู่บนมิตรภาพระหว่างชาวเมืองที่ได้ใช้เวลาทำกิจกรรมต่างๆร่วมกันจนก่อเกิดความรู้สึกผูกพันธ์เป็นพวกพ้องที่ช่วยเติมเต็มซึ่งกันและกัน
ในแง่นี้ ไวยากรณ์ของเมือง/การเมืองสำหรับอริสโตเติล (ซึ่งแตกต่างจากไวยากรณ์ทางเศรษฐกิจของบ้าน/การบ้าน) จึงเป็นไวยากรณ์ที่สัมพันธ์กับการสร้างและพิทักษ์ไว้ซึ่ง common life เมืองและการอยู่ร่วมกันทางการเมืองจึงเป็นไปไม่ได้เลยปราศจากมิตรภาพในฐานะคุณธรรมที่สร้างความรู้สึกร่วมเป็นน้ำหนึ่งใจเดียวให้กับชาวเมือง เมืองจึงไม่อาจแยกขาดจากมิตร มิตรภาพระหว่างคนสองคนอาจไม่จำเป็นที่จะต้องนำไปสู่การดำรงอยู่ของสังคมการเมือง แต่การดำรงอยู่ของสังคมการเมืองคงเป็นไปไม่ได้หากชาวเมืองขาดความเป็นมิตรต่อกัน ดังนั้น ถ้าเป้าหมายของการเมืองคือการมีชีวิตที่ดี ชีวิต��ังกล่าวก็จำเป็นที่จะต้องมีมิตร และถ้าความยุติธรรมคือคุณค่าสำคัญในการสถาปนาสังคมการเมือง ความยุติธรรมเองก็คงมิอาจดำรงอยู่ได้หากปราศจากมิตรภาพที่ทำให้ common life เป็นไปได้
ด้วยเหตุนี้ จึงไม่ใช่เรื่องแปลกที่เกณฑ์ในการจำแนกระบอบการเมืองที่ดีและระบอบการเมืองที่เลวสำหรับอริสโตเติล จะเป็นเกณฑ์ที่ตั้งอยู่บนการรับใช้ the common life หรือชีวิตสาธารณะ ไม่สำคัญว่าระบอบการเมืองดังกล่าวจะเป็นระบอบที่ปกครองโดยคนเพียงคนเดียว คนส่วนน้อย หรือคนส่วนมาก เพราะตราบเท่าที่ระบอบดังกล่าวมีไว้เพื่อส่งเสริม the common life หรือประโยชน์สาธารณะ ระบอบดังกล่าวก็ย่อมจะเป็นระบอบการเมืองที่ดี ในทางกลับกัน หากระบอบการเมืองที่ผู้ปกครอง--ไม่ว่าจะคนคนเดียว คนส่วนน้อยหรือคนส่วนมาก--ให้ความสำคัญแต่กับผลประโยชน์ของตน ระบอบดังกล่าวก็คือระบอบการเมืองที่เลวเพราะนั่นคือระบอบที่ทำลาย the common life และชีวิตสาธารณะซึ่งทำให้การเมืองกลายเป็นการปกครองภายใต้ผลประโยชน์ส่วนบุคคล หรือก็คือระบอบที่เปลี่ยนกิจการทางการเมืองให้กลายเป็นกิจการเอกชนของครอบครัว ที่ทั้งทำลายไวยากรณ์ทางการเมืองและชีวิตที่สองซึ่งเป็นชีวิตที่มุ่งไปสู่ชีวิตที่ดีของมนุษย์ ระบอบการเมืองที่เลวร้ายทั้งทรราชย์ที่ปกครองโดยพระราชาที่ทำทุกอย่างสนองเฉพาะประโยชน์ของตน คณาธิปัตย์ซึ่งปกครองเพื่อคนรวย และประชาธิปไตยที่ปกครองเพื่อคนจนโดยหลงลืมคนกลุ่มอื่นๆ(จนสุ่มเสี่ยงกลายเป็นอนาธิปัตย์ที่ไร้การปกครองใดๆ) จึงเป็นระบอบการเมืองที่ไร้การเมือง เป็น regimes of anti-politics และเปลี่ยนให้ชาวเมืองกลายเป็นเพียงลูกบ้านที่ชีวิตไร้ความหมายและมีชีวิตเพียงเพื่อแค่ให้ตนเองไม่ต้องตายไม่ต่างจากสัตว์หรือสิ่งมีชีวิต อื่นๆ
ในแง่นี้ ไวยากรณ์ของเมือง/การเมืองสำหรับอริสโตเติล (ซึ่งแตกต่างจากไวยากรณ์ทางเศรษฐกิจของบ้าน/การบ้าน) จึงเป็นไวยากรณ์ที่สัมพันธ์กับการสร้างและพิทักษ์ไว้ซึ่ง common life เมืองและการอยู่ร่วมกันทางการเมืองจึงเป็นไปไม่ได้เลยปราศจากมิตรภาพในฐานะคุณธรรมที่สร้างความรู้สึกร่วมเป็นน้ำหนึ่งใจเดียวให้กับชาวเมือง เมืองจึงไม่อาจแยกขาดจากมิตร มิตรภาพระหว่างคนสองคนอาจไม่จำเป็นที่จะต้องนำไปสู่การดำรงอยู่ของสังคมการเมือง แต่การดำรงอยู่ของสังคมการเมืองคงเป็นไปไม่ได้หากชาวเมืองขาดความเป็นมิตรต่อกัน ดังนั้น ถ้าเป้าหมายของการเมืองคือการมีชีวิตที่ดี ชีวิต��ังกล่าวก็จำเป็นที่จะต้องมีมิตร และถ้าความยุติธรรมคือคุณค่าสำคัญในการสถาปนาสังคมการเมือง ความยุติธรรมเองก็คงมิอาจดำรงอยู่ได้หากปราศจากมิตรภาพที่ทำให้ common life เป็นไปได้
ด้วยเหตุนี้ จึงไม่ใช่เรื่องแปลกที่เกณฑ์ในการจำแนกระบอบการเมืองที่ดีและระบอบการเมืองที่เลวสำหรับอริสโตเติล จะเป็นเกณฑ์ที่ตั้งอยู่บนการรับใช้ the common life หรือชีวิตสาธารณะ ไม่สำคัญว่าระบอบการเมืองดังกล่าวจะเป็นระบอบที่ปกครองโดยคนเพียงคนเดียว คนส่วนน้อย หรือคนส่วนมาก เพราะตราบเท่าที่ระบอบดังกล่าวมีไว้เพื่อส่งเสริม the common life หรือประโยชน์สาธารณะ ระบอบดังกล่าวก็ย่อมจะเป็นระบอบการเมืองที่ดี ในทางกลับกัน หากระบอบการเมืองที่ผู้ปกครอง--ไม่ว่าจะคนคนเดียว คนส่วนน้อยหรือคนส่วนมาก--ให้ความสำคัญแต่กับผลประโยชน์ของตน ระบอบดังกล่าวก็คือระบอบการเมืองที่เลวเพราะนั่นคือระบอบที่ทำลาย the common life และชีวิตสาธารณะซึ่งทำให้การเมืองกลายเป็นการปกครองภายใต้ผลประโยชน์ส่วนบุคคล หรือก็คือระบอบที่เปลี่ยนกิจการทางการเมืองให้กลายเป็นกิจการเอกชนของครอบครัว ที่ทั้งทำลายไวยากรณ์ทางการเมืองและชีวิตที่สองซึ่งเป็นชีวิตที่มุ่งไปสู่ชีวิตที่ดีของมนุษย์ ระบอบการเมืองที่เลวร้ายทั้งทรราชย์ที่ปกครองโดยพระราชาที่ทำทุกอย่างสนองเฉพาะประโยชน์ของตน คณาธิปัตย์ซึ่งปกครองเพื่อคนรวย และประชาธิปไตยที่ปกครองเพื่อคนจนโดยหลงลืมคนกลุ่มอื่นๆ(จนสุ่มเสี่ยงกลายเป็นอนาธิปัตย์ที่ไร้การปกครองใดๆ) จึงเป็นระบอบการเมืองที่ไร้การเมือง เป็น regimes of anti-politics และเปลี่ยนให้ชาวเมืองกลายเป็นเพียงลูกบ้านที่ชีวิตไร้ความหมายและมีชีวิตเพียงเพื่อแค่ให้ตนเองไม่ต้องตายไม่ต่างจากสัตว์หรือสิ่งมีชีวิต อื่นๆ
February 5, 2017
Os especialistas e entendidos no assunto dizem que Aristóteles é uma das figuras intelectuais mais importantes de todos os tempos — que ele é, juntamente com Platão, um dos fundadores da razão ocidental.
Dizem os especialistas também que a “Política”, do mesmo Aristóteles, é um dos livros mais importantes já escritos, um dos textos seminais da reflexão política.
Mas, olhando ao nosso redor, nós, homens do século XXI, vemos que nossa realidade, nosso mundo, é muito diferente daquele dum grego que viveu no século IV a.C.. Temos estados-nações, megalópoles, viagens intercontinentais, bombas atômicas, conflitos multiétnicos, comunicação em tempo real, voto eletrônico, fábricas e indústrias, bolsa de mercadorias e futuros, em suma, nosso mundo é muito mais complexo e intrincado do que o das pequeninas cidades-estado do tempo de Aristóteles.
De que modo, então, a sua “Política” pode nos dizer algo de valor ainda hoje? De que modo a sua leitura não será apenas um fetiche de antiquários?
Pois bem, a leitura direta do texto, sem atravessadores e intermediários, joga no chão, sem dó nem piedade, todas as nossas expectativas, todas as nossas tolas ilusões.
Sim, é verdade, Aristóteles viveu muito tempo atrás e não conheceu o facebook, nem o whatsapp; mas ele conheceu algo mais importante, mais fundamental — ele conheceu a natureza humana e, a partir dela, a natureza das associações formadas pelos homens.
É realmente de fazer cair o queixo se dar conta de que as descrições de Aristóteles à respeito do comportamento dos homens, seus sentimentos, seus instintos, seus preconceitos, vícios e virtudes, se aplicam, com pequenos ajustes, aos homens do nosso tempo.
Mais do que isso: as descrições dos vários tipos de regimes políticos, da natureza da cidadania, das causas e origens das revoltas e crises sociais, dos motivos que contribuem para a preservação das comunidades políticas são absolutamente matadoras, servindo, sem maiores dificuldades, para descrever também fenômenos políticos e sociais que estão ocorrendo agora, neste exato momento, em pleno século XXI.
O que Aristóteles fez, do ponto de vista intelectual, é simplesmente monstruoso — nada mais do que criar, a partir de observações e análises duma precisão a toda prova, um ferramental que permite o diagnóstico de praticamente qualquer ajuntamento de homens neste mundão de Deus.
Mas, cuidado! Não pense que Aristóteles é como os nossos “professores de filosofia” ou “cientistas sociais” de hoje em dia. Nada mais errado do que ter essa imagem na cabeça. Aristóteles é um filósofo em sentido pleno — e dos de mais grosso calibre. Isso significa que ele simplesmente não está preocupado com os teus sentimentos, com as tuas idéias preconcebidas, com as tuas opiniões, com a tua idéia de “um mundo melhor é possível”. Ele está pouco se lixando para essas babaquices pós-modernas. O que interessa ao Filósofo — e na Idade Média Aristóteles era o “filósofo” por antonomásia — é o conhecimento da realidade das coisas, e, no caso específico da “Política”, o conhecimento da realidade da vida em sociedade.
Portanto, não espere utopias, planos mirabolantes de reforma social, diatribes contra os ricos e coisas desse tipo que são produzidas, todos dias, de maneira incessante, pelas nossas madraças intelectuais às quais damos o nome pomposo de “universidades”.
Aristóteles delineia — é verdade — uma cidade ideal, uma organização política ideal. Mas isso no mesmo espírito em que Platão a fez — não como um plano a ser implementado na prática, mas como uma régua de medida, um critério que permitisse a comparação com as sociedades atualmente existentes.
Aristóteles é, no sentido estrito da expressão, um cientista, um pesquisador, um intelectual. Isso significa que para ele o importante — diferentemente do que para Marx, por exemplo — é compreender o mundo, entender a realidade, e não transformá-la.
O realismo do homem é tão brutal, tão sem meias palavras, que ele reconhece — e não tem vergonha nenhuma de dizer — que a vida neste mundo sublunar, nesta verdadeira caverna platônica, é — para usar a expressão de Eric Voegelin — “miserable enough”. Diante disso, o máximo que se pode almejar, de maneira realista, é que as sociedades, mal ajambradas e claudicantes todas elas, sejam minimamente estáveis, não sofrendo com revoluções e crises intestinas o tempo todo.
Não que Aristóteles seja um brutamontes intelectual, de jeito nenhum. Apenas ele não tem interesse a não ser na realidade efetiva das coisas, naquilo que se passa, de fato, na vida dos homens e das sociedades. E se, para desencavar a verdade e trazê-la à luz do dia, ele tiver de demolir as idéias e opiniões alheias, pode ter certeza, irmão — ele o fará. Nem as opiniões de Platão foram poupadas do exame severo desse erudito de integridade intelectual inabalável.
Mas volto a dizer — essa severidade não implica insensibilidade, muito pelo contrário. Aristóteles é duma sensibilidade nas suas observações, dum bom-senso nas suas análises e opiniões, que é quase impossível — falo por experiência própria — não se ver a todo o tempo concordando com as ponderações desse grande mestre de vida que ele é.
Sim, diferentemente do que muitos pensam, especialmente na academia, o Filósofo ainda tem muito — muito mesmo! — a nos dizer. Suas obras não são peças de museu, mas sim o testemunho vivo, marcante, duma inteligência poderosa, duma capacidade de observação e análise ímpares, duma honestidade intelectual inquebrantável, que continuará a iluminar e a ensinar todos aqueles que se dispuserem a fazer parte do seleto grupo de seus discípulos e ouvintes.
Dizem os especialistas também que a “Política”, do mesmo Aristóteles, é um dos livros mais importantes já escritos, um dos textos seminais da reflexão política.
Mas, olhando ao nosso redor, nós, homens do século XXI, vemos que nossa realidade, nosso mundo, é muito diferente daquele dum grego que viveu no século IV a.C.. Temos estados-nações, megalópoles, viagens intercontinentais, bombas atômicas, conflitos multiétnicos, comunicação em tempo real, voto eletrônico, fábricas e indústrias, bolsa de mercadorias e futuros, em suma, nosso mundo é muito mais complexo e intrincado do que o das pequeninas cidades-estado do tempo de Aristóteles.
De que modo, então, a sua “Política” pode nos dizer algo de valor ainda hoje? De que modo a sua leitura não será apenas um fetiche de antiquários?
Pois bem, a leitura direta do texto, sem atravessadores e intermediários, joga no chão, sem dó nem piedade, todas as nossas expectativas, todas as nossas tolas ilusões.
Sim, é verdade, Aristóteles viveu muito tempo atrás e não conheceu o facebook, nem o whatsapp; mas ele conheceu algo mais importante, mais fundamental — ele conheceu a natureza humana e, a partir dela, a natureza das associações formadas pelos homens.
É realmente de fazer cair o queixo se dar conta de que as descrições de Aristóteles à respeito do comportamento dos homens, seus sentimentos, seus instintos, seus preconceitos, vícios e virtudes, se aplicam, com pequenos ajustes, aos homens do nosso tempo.
Mais do que isso: as descrições dos vários tipos de regimes políticos, da natureza da cidadania, das causas e origens das revoltas e crises sociais, dos motivos que contribuem para a preservação das comunidades políticas são absolutamente matadoras, servindo, sem maiores dificuldades, para descrever também fenômenos políticos e sociais que estão ocorrendo agora, neste exato momento, em pleno século XXI.
O que Aristóteles fez, do ponto de vista intelectual, é simplesmente monstruoso — nada mais do que criar, a partir de observações e análises duma precisão a toda prova, um ferramental que permite o diagnóstico de praticamente qualquer ajuntamento de homens neste mundão de Deus.
Mas, cuidado! Não pense que Aristóteles é como os nossos “professores de filosofia” ou “cientistas sociais” de hoje em dia. Nada mais errado do que ter essa imagem na cabeça. Aristóteles é um filósofo em sentido pleno — e dos de mais grosso calibre. Isso significa que ele simplesmente não está preocupado com os teus sentimentos, com as tuas idéias preconcebidas, com as tuas opiniões, com a tua idéia de “um mundo melhor é possível”. Ele está pouco se lixando para essas babaquices pós-modernas. O que interessa ao Filósofo — e na Idade Média Aristóteles era o “filósofo” por antonomásia — é o conhecimento da realidade das coisas, e, no caso específico da “Política”, o conhecimento da realidade da vida em sociedade.
Portanto, não espere utopias, planos mirabolantes de reforma social, diatribes contra os ricos e coisas desse tipo que são produzidas, todos dias, de maneira incessante, pelas nossas madraças intelectuais às quais damos o nome pomposo de “universidades”.
Aristóteles delineia — é verdade — uma cidade ideal, uma organização política ideal. Mas isso no mesmo espírito em que Platão a fez — não como um plano a ser implementado na prática, mas como uma régua de medida, um critério que permitisse a comparação com as sociedades atualmente existentes.
Aristóteles é, no sentido estrito da expressão, um cientista, um pesquisador, um intelectual. Isso significa que para ele o importante — diferentemente do que para Marx, por exemplo — é compreender o mundo, entender a realidade, e não transformá-la.
O realismo do homem é tão brutal, tão sem meias palavras, que ele reconhece — e não tem vergonha nenhuma de dizer — que a vida neste mundo sublunar, nesta verdadeira caverna platônica, é — para usar a expressão de Eric Voegelin — “miserable enough”. Diante disso, o máximo que se pode almejar, de maneira realista, é que as sociedades, mal ajambradas e claudicantes todas elas, sejam minimamente estáveis, não sofrendo com revoluções e crises intestinas o tempo todo.
Não que Aristóteles seja um brutamontes intelectual, de jeito nenhum. Apenas ele não tem interesse a não ser na realidade efetiva das coisas, naquilo que se passa, de fato, na vida dos homens e das sociedades. E se, para desencavar a verdade e trazê-la à luz do dia, ele tiver de demolir as idéias e opiniões alheias, pode ter certeza, irmão — ele o fará. Nem as opiniões de Platão foram poupadas do exame severo desse erudito de integridade intelectual inabalável.
Mas volto a dizer — essa severidade não implica insensibilidade, muito pelo contrário. Aristóteles é duma sensibilidade nas suas observações, dum bom-senso nas suas análises e opiniões, que é quase impossível — falo por experiência própria — não se ver a todo o tempo concordando com as ponderações desse grande mestre de vida que ele é.
Sim, diferentemente do que muitos pensam, especialmente na academia, o Filósofo ainda tem muito — muito mesmo! — a nos dizer. Suas obras não são peças de museu, mas sim o testemunho vivo, marcante, duma inteligência poderosa, duma capacidade de observação e análise ímpares, duma honestidade intelectual inquebrantável, que continuará a iluminar e a ensinar todos aqueles que se dispuserem a fazer parte do seleto grupo de seus discípulos e ouvintes.
December 31, 2019
Quite possibly one of the worst books I've read in recent memory. It was actually painful trying to finish reading this book. Aristotle's words are obtuse, his arguments vague and it all just makes me want to fall asleep (I have actually fallen asleep numerous times while reading this book due to sheer boredom and uninterest). I'm sure there is troves of important information among these pages of gobbledygook, but I think Aristotle was just too galaxy brained for it to be comprehensible to the modern reader. I think I learned more about Politics from Cliffnotes and Sparknotes than Aristotle's own words.
My fellow tutorial classmates warned me that they hated this book going into it, having read it in previous classes. Sadly, I now agree with them. My heart goes out to any future political science/philosophy students that will have to endure this madness.
My fellow tutorial classmates warned me that they hated this book going into it, having read it in previous classes. Sadly, I now agree with them. My heart goes out to any future political science/philosophy students that will have to endure this madness.
November 13, 2021
من به ارسطو ب شدت احترام می ذارم
در این کتاب ب موضوع خانواده کار انواع حکومت ها نقد نظریات افلاطون و عیوب حکومت ها تعریف شهروند بنده جمعیت انقلاب ها نحوه حفظ حکومت ها قانون اساسی هدف قانون اساسی آموزش و پرورش، به چگونگی تربیت کودکان و به موسیقی ورزش انواع سازمان ها ب نحوه قرار گرفتن شهر به وظایف فرماندار و فرمانبردار در زمان خودش می پردازه
و چگونگی حکومت مطلوب و بهترین شهر و جایگاه آن را هم بیان می کنه
و مثالهای تاریخی و عملی هم می زند
برای من به شدت جذاب بود که برای موقعیت جغرافیایی شهر چه المانهاییو با چه دلایلی آگاهانه و ظریفی در نظر می گرفت
پولیتی ترکیبی از الیگارشی و اریستوکراسی و دموکراسی را بهترین حکومت می داند
که هرکدام بخشی از جامعه را در امر کشورداری شریک می کند
واژه دموکراسی از دموس می آید که دموس به معنی تجمع روستاییان می باشد
بحث درخورتوجه در زمان ما که آقای حمید عنایت مترجم هم در مقدمه به ان اشاره میکنه دلایل انقلاب و نحوه تغییر حکومتها و نحوه حفظ حکومت هاست
در این کتاب ب موضوع خانواده کار انواع حکومت ها نقد نظریات افلاطون و عیوب حکومت ها تعریف شهروند بنده جمعیت انقلاب ها نحوه حفظ حکومت ها قانون اساسی هدف قانون اساسی آموزش و پرورش، به چگونگی تربیت کودکان و به موسیقی ورزش انواع سازمان ها ب نحوه قرار گرفتن شهر به وظایف فرماندار و فرمانبردار در زمان خودش می پردازه
و چگونگی حکومت مطلوب و بهترین شهر و جایگاه آن را هم بیان می کنه
و مثالهای تاریخی و عملی هم می زند
برای من به شدت جذاب بود که برای موقعیت جغرافیایی شهر چه المانهاییو با چه دلایلی آگاهانه و ظریفی در نظر می گرفت
پولیتی ترکیبی از الیگارشی و اریستوکراسی و دموکراسی را بهترین حکومت می داند
که هرکدام بخشی از جامعه را در امر کشورداری شریک می کند
واژه دموکراسی از دموس می آید که دموس به معنی تجمع روستاییان می باشد
بحث درخورتوجه در زمان ما که آقای حمید عنایت مترجم هم در مقدمه به ان اشاره میکنه دلایل انقلاب و نحوه تغییر حکومتها و نحوه حفظ حکومت هاست
September 12, 2020
Such a pity that today's modern civilizations are built upon such one-dimensional, racist, sexist, ableist and hierarchic ideas of state, humanity, and nature. If politicians would read something else instead of this book, maybe things would have been very different than now. No wonder, that 'war' has been usually the determinate factor of the natural and normal discourses and traditions up until now.
Why is Aristotle so obsessed with determining the 'natural state' of 'everything'? As if, as soon as they reach the natural state of everything (the natural that Aristotle wants) things will be in balance and equality! and humans will live happily ever after (with slaves of course). No wonder he was the teacher of Alexander III of Macedon (a.k.a great) the greatest murderer in human history.
Why is Aristotle so obsessed with determining the 'natural state' of 'everything'? As if, as soon as they reach the natural state of everything (the natural that Aristotle wants) things will be in balance and equality! and humans will live happily ever after (with slaves of course). No wonder he was the teacher of Alexander III of Macedon (a.k.a great) the greatest murderer in human history.
July 24, 2024
همراه با خوانش این کتاب، میتوانید از شرحهای زیر استفاده کنید:
۱. شش جلسه از درسگفتار یونان حامد ناجی اصفهانی که دربارهی سیاست ارسطو است:
https://t.me/nutqiyyat/6134
۲. چهار جلسه از این کورس (از جلسهی ۳۲ تا ۳۵) راجع به کتاب سیاست است، که البته چندان هم دست آدم را نمیگیرد؛ اما نکاتی برای اتصال به کتاب اخلاق ارسطو میگوید که شاید شنیدنش خالی از لطف نباشد:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...
۳. در کورس فلسفهی سیاسی مسعود آذرفام، این تک-جلسه مربوط است به کتاب سیاست ارسطو:
https://t.me/nutqiyyat/4865
۴. همچنین کتاب «شهر و انسان» از لئو اشتراوس در فصل اول از مجموع سه فصل خود به کتاب سیاست ارسطو میپردازد:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
۱. شش جلسه از درسگفتار یونان حامد ناجی اصفهانی که دربارهی سیاست ارسطو است:
https://t.me/nutqiyyat/6134
۲. چهار جلسه از این کورس (از جلسهی ۳۲ تا ۳۵) راجع به کتاب سیاست است، که البته چندان هم دست آدم را نمیگیرد؛ اما نکاتی برای اتصال به کتاب اخلاق ارسطو میگوید که شاید شنیدنش خالی از لطف نباشد:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...
۳. در کورس فلسفهی سیاسی مسعود آذرفام، این تک-جلسه مربوط است به کتاب سیاست ارسطو:
https://t.me/nutqiyyat/4865
۴. همچنین کتاب «شهر و انسان» از لئو اشتراوس در فصل اول از مجموع سه فصل خود به کتاب سیاست ارسطو میپردازد:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
August 18, 2011
talks about state of nature and how to set "state" ,how to set laws and types of government and which type is the best ? also talks about human nature and how to make it good by education, proper upbringing and music .
may be it is long book , contains many names and many details which need specialist in political sciences or philosophy but u can get also usefulness from it by knowing types of governments, how to make human nature better also the main target is " that book will make u think in every detail in your life".
may be it is long book , contains many names and many details which need specialist in political sciences or philosophy but u can get also usefulness from it by knowing types of governments, how to make human nature better also the main target is " that book will make u think in every detail in your life".
August 29, 2020
Me gustó mucho la explicación de como se forman los estados, cómo debe ser la educación de los ciudadanos, las diferencias entre oligarquías, monarquías y democracias. Lo más interesante para mí fue cómo se crean las tiranías, se desvirtuan las constituciones y se generan las revoluciones. Nunca me hubiera imaginado un análisis tan profundo y aún vigente de un libro escrito hace miles de años. Le doy 4 estrellas por la forma en la que ve a las mujeres y los capítulos en los que defiende a la esclavitud, lo cual ya debe de quedar completamente en el pasado.
January 20, 2019
Evaluating my experience with the book, without daring to say that Aristotle was anything less than a five star intellect.
October 19, 2020
Fuck Aristotle. More like Aritotle Douche.
Bitch ass mother fucker can't comprehend multiple existences.
Bitch ass mother fucker can't comprehend multiple existences.
February 4, 2022
“now it is evident that the form of government is best in which every man, whoever he is, can act best and live happily.”
January 29, 2024
like, i get that the times were different but goddamn. Aristotle was the epitome of patriarchy and male-dominated societies.
September 2, 2019
Meant to serve as Part 2 in a lecture course, Politica is Aristotle's treatment of the State. As with everything he wrote and taught, the fundamental notion is his hylemorphism - the doctrine that everything consists of matter and form, and combined they serve some purpose or goal.
The state consists of its citizens, as well as slaves and non-citizens (women, foreigners, etc.), and its form is the particular regime that orders society - i.e. its structure, institutions, laws and basically its power distribution. A citizen is someone who is able to rule and to be ruled, requiring a liberal education and hence leisure time to cultivate this virtuous disposition.
As with everything Aristotle wrote, Politica is occupied with endless distinctions and differentiations. For example, Aristotle distinguishes six types of regime, based on the rule of one, some and many and the corruption or benefit of the political order. The good regimes are monarchy, aristocracy and polity; the bad ones are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.
While acknowledging that the best regime is a monarchy with an englightened despot (a 'pan basilea'), Aristotle also acknowledges that this type of regime is practically unrealistic - even if its instituted it is inherently stable due to factions waiting for a power grab.
According to Aristotle, the most common types of regime are oligarchy and democracy - the rule of the rich and the rule of the power. The former leads to domination by those who own property, concluding that since some inequality exists, everything should be unequal. The latter leads to domination by those who are poor and destitute, who pander to demagogues, and conclude that since some equality exists, everything should be equal. As with the ideal state (i.e. the rule of an enlightened despot) factions are inevitable - different groups are on the hunt for offices that contain power and honour. In both types of regime the people and the elites are grabbing for power.
Which leads Aristotle to claim that the best possible type of regime is one that combines oligarchy and democracy. The statesman should formulate laws that balance the power between the different factions, while the rulers should educate themselves in practical wisdom (phronesis), i.e. learning to distinguish, judge and act in the best interest of the community as a whole.
This last remark is important. Aristotle sees the polity as an entity in itself, with its own purpose: the happiness (eudaimonia) of its citizens. This means that individual freedom is only secondary - the statesman should always keep the common good in his view.
As a matter of fact, the whole Politica is sort of a handbook for the statesman. It oultines how he should govern and ensure that peace and stability are kept. Aristotle studies historical and contemporary societies to find the different types of constitutions, their peculiar strengths and weaknesses, and the particular dangers that threaten each type of regime. This is all done so that the statesman always knows how to respond appropriately to a situation. In the event of internal or external chaos, his goal is the speedy normalization of society, and here he is allowed to set traditions and laws aside. Aristotle recognizes the dangers of this: it breaks instituted habits and leads the people to openness to other ways of living. Yet context matters and sometimes the statesman needs room to manoeuvre in order to deal with threats. This makes Aristotle a relativistic conventionalist, in the sense that he both recognizes the multiplicity of possibilities for states to exist as well as the need to adhere to instituted traditions.
(This, by the way, goes deeply against doctrines of later thinkers, like Hobbes, Weber, Machiavelli and Schmidt, who depart from extreme situations, like civil war, in order to build their theories of statesmanship. Aristotle departs from the stable normal situation, views conflicts as departures from convention, and sees the normalization as final goal.)
The Politica is an interesting book, yet it is not well-structured and one feels very lost when diving into it. There is not a good strategy to read it - the book consists of endless referrals to earlier or later portions and the sequence of topics feels random at times. The most interesting parts (for me) were Aristotle's analyses of contemporary societies, in which he outlines all kinds of events and their underlying patterns. So this makes this book both a guide to obtain practical wisdom (as a statesman) as a historical source of ancient societies and customs. (Leaving aside how reliable Aristotle's sources and how non-partisan his descriptions were).
It is an interesting book, especially after reading Ethica Nicomachea - there is some overlap between both works and some extension of prior topics - but I doubt if the Politica would spark some interest in the average modern reader.
The state consists of its citizens, as well as slaves and non-citizens (women, foreigners, etc.), and its form is the particular regime that orders society - i.e. its structure, institutions, laws and basically its power distribution. A citizen is someone who is able to rule and to be ruled, requiring a liberal education and hence leisure time to cultivate this virtuous disposition.
As with everything Aristotle wrote, Politica is occupied with endless distinctions and differentiations. For example, Aristotle distinguishes six types of regime, based on the rule of one, some and many and the corruption or benefit of the political order. The good regimes are monarchy, aristocracy and polity; the bad ones are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.
While acknowledging that the best regime is a monarchy with an englightened despot (a 'pan basilea'), Aristotle also acknowledges that this type of regime is practically unrealistic - even if its instituted it is inherently stable due to factions waiting for a power grab.
According to Aristotle, the most common types of regime are oligarchy and democracy - the rule of the rich and the rule of the power. The former leads to domination by those who own property, concluding that since some inequality exists, everything should be unequal. The latter leads to domination by those who are poor and destitute, who pander to demagogues, and conclude that since some equality exists, everything should be equal. As with the ideal state (i.e. the rule of an enlightened despot) factions are inevitable - different groups are on the hunt for offices that contain power and honour. In both types of regime the people and the elites are grabbing for power.
Which leads Aristotle to claim that the best possible type of regime is one that combines oligarchy and democracy. The statesman should formulate laws that balance the power between the different factions, while the rulers should educate themselves in practical wisdom (phronesis), i.e. learning to distinguish, judge and act in the best interest of the community as a whole.
This last remark is important. Aristotle sees the polity as an entity in itself, with its own purpose: the happiness (eudaimonia) of its citizens. This means that individual freedom is only secondary - the statesman should always keep the common good in his view.
As a matter of fact, the whole Politica is sort of a handbook for the statesman. It oultines how he should govern and ensure that peace and stability are kept. Aristotle studies historical and contemporary societies to find the different types of constitutions, their peculiar strengths and weaknesses, and the particular dangers that threaten each type of regime. This is all done so that the statesman always knows how to respond appropriately to a situation. In the event of internal or external chaos, his goal is the speedy normalization of society, and here he is allowed to set traditions and laws aside. Aristotle recognizes the dangers of this: it breaks instituted habits and leads the people to openness to other ways of living. Yet context matters and sometimes the statesman needs room to manoeuvre in order to deal with threats. This makes Aristotle a relativistic conventionalist, in the sense that he both recognizes the multiplicity of possibilities for states to exist as well as the need to adhere to instituted traditions.
(This, by the way, goes deeply against doctrines of later thinkers, like Hobbes, Weber, Machiavelli and Schmidt, who depart from extreme situations, like civil war, in order to build their theories of statesmanship. Aristotle departs from the stable normal situation, views conflicts as departures from convention, and sees the normalization as final goal.)
The Politica is an interesting book, yet it is not well-structured and one feels very lost when diving into it. There is not a good strategy to read it - the book consists of endless referrals to earlier or later portions and the sequence of topics feels random at times. The most interesting parts (for me) were Aristotle's analyses of contemporary societies, in which he outlines all kinds of events and their underlying patterns. So this makes this book both a guide to obtain practical wisdom (as a statesman) as a historical source of ancient societies and customs. (Leaving aside how reliable Aristotle's sources and how non-partisan his descriptions were).
It is an interesting book, especially after reading Ethica Nicomachea - there is some overlap between both works and some extension of prior topics - but I doubt if the Politica would spark some interest in the average modern reader.
November 13, 2025
Fuck you Aristotle
June 15, 2020
This marvelous book of which many things can be said was 1) the beginning of analytical political science and 2) a critical summation and refinement of the normative political theory of the Greeks (especially Plato). Its achievements are staggering. There is an astronomical amount of fascinating and deliriously analytical content here, from the small to the very big, that has kept generations of scholars very happy (and sometimes very despondent). Aristotle's great strength as a political philosopher is his incredible capacity to distill debates and concepts down to their constituent elements and to expose the weaknesses and internal tensions in commonly accepted arguments.
Unfortunately, Politics advocates for consistently harsh views on slavery, the role of women in society, and the hierarchical class structure of the "virtuous" society. I do not think it is fair to judge Aristotle's moral views by the standards of our own time; but even by the standards of his own time, Aristotle's view is not especially enlightened. This is especially true in relation to certain disadvantaged groups, including slaves, women, children, workers, the poor... In short, the overwhelming majority of the population (!), whom he considers unfit to rule, unfit for virtue, and unfit for happiness. As much as I admire the entire enterprise of the book, the reactionary elephant in the living room is no small blemish but an extremely insidious flaw in the whole normative system. To his credit, though, the clarity of his arguments allows for easy counterarguments. Detractors who have taken issue with his conclusions do not have to guess about where he went wrong, since Aristotle is crystal clear about his premises, arguments, and conclusions.
Aristotle's ethical and political views are very complicated. He makes mincemeat of some of the advocates of tyranny and unlimited mob rule. He showcases the importance of written laws and constitutional principles. He dramatically improves upon the Platonic daydreaming of The Republic and The Laws. Some of Aristotle's political views are moderate or even progressive by the standards of his times. He hints towards a more progressive interpretation of his principles which has been a boon to later scholars who have taken his views on virtue to a different direction. However, there is no going around the fact that his views on class and gender reflect a very conservative, even reactionary, views on human nature. Aristotle not only reflexively believed in, but theoretically emphasized, the importance of social and political hierarchies based on natural inequalities where certain classes of people were excluded on principle. That said, it would be foolish to get hung up on what is old fashioned in a book written a long time ago when there is so much there that is absolutely fantastic, titillating, mind bending, clarifying, illuminating, and revolutionary. Not many books from 2,300 years ago can be said to feel so forward looking in their methodology (if not in their substantive conclusions). Aristotle demanded a rigorously scientific approach to governance and ethics. We should uphold the same tradition by emulating the Aristotelian discipline.
The hypnotically compelling analytical precision of his argument impresses technically even when it cuts against our notions of equality and justice. This is not a book; this is the Bible of political science.
Unfortunately, Politics advocates for consistently harsh views on slavery, the role of women in society, and the hierarchical class structure of the "virtuous" society. I do not think it is fair to judge Aristotle's moral views by the standards of our own time; but even by the standards of his own time, Aristotle's view is not especially enlightened. This is especially true in relation to certain disadvantaged groups, including slaves, women, children, workers, the poor... In short, the overwhelming majority of the population (!), whom he considers unfit to rule, unfit for virtue, and unfit for happiness. As much as I admire the entire enterprise of the book, the reactionary elephant in the living room is no small blemish but an extremely insidious flaw in the whole normative system. To his credit, though, the clarity of his arguments allows for easy counterarguments. Detractors who have taken issue with his conclusions do not have to guess about where he went wrong, since Aristotle is crystal clear about his premises, arguments, and conclusions.
Aristotle's ethical and political views are very complicated. He makes mincemeat of some of the advocates of tyranny and unlimited mob rule. He showcases the importance of written laws and constitutional principles. He dramatically improves upon the Platonic daydreaming of The Republic and The Laws. Some of Aristotle's political views are moderate or even progressive by the standards of his times. He hints towards a more progressive interpretation of his principles which has been a boon to later scholars who have taken his views on virtue to a different direction. However, there is no going around the fact that his views on class and gender reflect a very conservative, even reactionary, views on human nature. Aristotle not only reflexively believed in, but theoretically emphasized, the importance of social and political hierarchies based on natural inequalities where certain classes of people were excluded on principle. That said, it would be foolish to get hung up on what is old fashioned in a book written a long time ago when there is so much there that is absolutely fantastic, titillating, mind bending, clarifying, illuminating, and revolutionary. Not many books from 2,300 years ago can be said to feel so forward looking in their methodology (if not in their substantive conclusions). Aristotle demanded a rigorously scientific approach to governance and ethics. We should uphold the same tradition by emulating the Aristotelian discipline.
The hypnotically compelling analytical precision of his argument impresses technically even when it cuts against our notions of equality and justice. This is not a book; this is the Bible of political science.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 991 reviews