Aristotle

Carnes Lord’s entry in Strauss and Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy, deals with Aristotle, who along with Socrates and Plato, is the most famous and influential philosopher of the ancient world, and the man whose writings, when combined with Christianity, help formulate the foundation for much of Medieval philosophy, a foundation which is still highly influential on much of the contemporary Roman Catholic philosophy. Regardless of this, Aristotle is still to be highly regarded in his own right as he serves as an important expansion and counter to Plato’s writings on political philosophy as well as contributing highly important ideas of his own.

One of the most important concepts to understand with Aristotle is his distinction between the “practical” and “theoretical” sciences. This distinction is still used today, but Aristotle used it differently than contemporary scientists and philosophers of science do. In its modern meaning, “theoretical” science deals with the more obtuse ideas behind the functioning of science while “practical” science deals with more of its application to actually existing life. For Aristotle though, the distinction between these two concepts is that while theoretical science is concerned with the things that do not change or the things in which the principle of change is found in the object itself, practical science is concerned with man. From this distinction, we can have a better grasp on what sort of audience Aristotle is addressing when he talks about politics. He is not addressing philosophers of even students of philosophy, but rather political men. Furthermore, Aristotle also divides political/ practical science into three branches: ethics, economics, and the science of governing. Of these three, the science of governing most closely aligns with what is commonly thought of as “political science” today.

One of the major elements of Aristotle’s thought is his idea of happiness. But while many in the modern era see happiness as subjective, for Aristotle, happiness was objective and connected to the proper use of an object in accordance to reason. As a result of this, there is a strong connection between virtue and happiness in Aristotle’s thought. Virtue though for Aristotle is neither a part of nor contrary to human nature, but rather formed by habit. For Aristotle, the way to become a virtuous person is to act in a virtuous manner. Just as virtue was connected to the proper use of an object and thus objective, so was justice. Justice in the most general sense is seen as the disposition to perform acts of virtue in accordance with the laws of the city, while in the particular sense; justice is seen as disposition to take a fair share of the good things. Justice can also be seen as the correction of wrongs. With this conception of justice in mind, we can now make note of two divisions in political justice Aristotle creates: 1) justice as being what is right by nature and 2) justice as what is right by law.

Friendship is also an important part of Aristotle’s thought. While “friendship” for Aristotle does have its modern meaning, it also means the love between family members and some sense of civic pride/ patriotism. Thus, friendship becomes an important part of governing. Another significant part of proper governing is prudence, which Aristotle sees as the virtue proper to the rational part of the soul and without it, the proper practice of politics is impossible. This leads to Aristotle’s understanding of the polis. For Aristotle, the polis is a community, as things are held in common, once again illustrating that that the state/ society distinction that makes up so much of modern political theory would be unknown to Aristotle. With that being said, it should be noted that Aristotle does not take this idea as far as Plato does as he does recognize other kinds of rule rather than just the political and uses that recognition to argue against Platonic communism. Still, for Aristotle, man is a political animal and the city is seen as natural.

While Aristotle does not recognize a distinction between the polis and society, he does recognize a distinction between the polis and the regime. He uses the idea of citizenship to further understand this distinction for while the good man acts virtuous, the good citizen tries to preserve the political partnership. This distinction, between regime and polis allows Aristotle to see six different types of regimes that can be grouped into two different categorical sets. One set deals with how many rulers, while the other set deals with whether the regime is virtuous or not. The first set can be divided into three more categories, the rule of one, the rule of few, and the rule of many. Thus, for each type of rule based on how many rule, there is a virtuous and non-virtuous version of it. The virtuous version of the rule of one is known as kingship while the non-virtuous rule of one is known as tyranny. Likewise, the virtuous rule of few is aristocracy while the non-virtuous rule of few is oligarchy. Finally, the virtuous rule of many is known as polity while the non-virtuous rule of many is known as democracy. The many different types of regimes are a reflection upon the fact that there are many different parts of the city. One thing that should be noted is that the types of regimes Aristotle notes should not be thought of as mutually exclusive, as there can be mixed regimes.

One of the more interesting aspects of Aristotle’s views on the best way to govern the polis is that he does give an early example of the importance of the middle class on the stability of the regime. For Aristotle, regimes need a “middling agent” between the rich and the poor to help eliminate the tension between them and help bring about stability. Still, even ignoring his lack of state/ society distinction, Aristotle is not a simple precursor to modern political theorists noting the importance of the middle class on a society’s stability as he does consider aristocracy to be the best regime as it allows the most virtuous men to rise up and rule. Furthermore, Aristotle is more critical of market-based societies than many modern political theorists are as he thinks it is better for the rule of the aristocracy to be based on land rather than trade, and as such the city should not be a port itself, as such cities become overly reliant on trade. Aristotle does note though, that the city should be near water.

On a final note, Aristotle also has an interesting theory regarding the proper place of security in the polis, for while he does see it as important; he does not see it as paramount. Thus, he rejects the idea that the best city will be large because large cities can more easily provide a large military. In response to this claim, Aristotle notes that while large cities may be able to provide a large military easier than smaller cities can, it is also more difficult to govern large cities. For Aristotle, the best way of life is one of virtue, not a focus on security and as such, the best city should value politics over war.             

Xenophon

While Plato is by far the most famous contemporary of Socrates that wrote on him, there is one other philosopher whose works on him survive intact to the present day: Xenophon, whom Christopher Bruell writes about for his contribution to Strauss and Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy. Much like Strauss’s own essay on Plato, Bruell divides his work into three parts, each one dealing with a different book by Xenophon, which are as follows: Cyropaedia, Memorabilia, and Anabasis.  In his introduction on Xenophon, Bruell makes major two points, one as has already been mentioned, along with Plato, Xenophon’s works are the only contemporary account of Socrates we have left. The other point he makes is that Xenophon’s writings have a monarchial bent, with him spending a lot of him examining the lives of kings and the aristocracy.   

The first part of Bruell’s essay deals with Cyropaedia, Xenophon’s thought on the Persian King Cyrus. In this essay, Xenophon shows Cyrus to be a product of his birth, nature, and education with none of those factors dominating the others. He also is shown to be a man that tried to emphasize continuity though change for while Persia went through rapid changes, Cyrus tried to stress its continuity to the part. One of the ways Cyrus did this was by trying to save the old Persian system from what he say as corrupting influences, primarily the influence of the Median royalty and its emphasis on luxury and the expense of what Cyrus saw as the more austere Persian way of life. With this in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that Cyrus’s power was more rooted in the Persian military than the Persian government as the Persian military was more suited for what Cyrus was as the better life. At the tile of Cyrus’s reign, the divisions of the Persian military reflected that of the Persian society at large, with a division between “peer” and “commoners.” Peers had undergone a Persian education and were well equipped for hand to hand combat while the commoners had not. Cyrus tried to move beyond this by giving the commoners opportunities to become peers and stressed the commonalty of the Persian people. While it is certainly true that there was some political motivation, as this greatly helped to expand his military, and while Cyrus was certainly no egalitarian as hierarchy still existed, it was more of a hierarchy rooted in personal achievement than birth. Thus, Cyrus produced what may be called an early example of a meritocracy. And while meritocracy is often seen as an ideal situation for many living in modern liberal democracies, for Cyrus’s contemporaries, including Xenophon, this was highly problematic as meritocracy was seen as increasing corruption. And indeed, as according to Xenophon, decay began to set in during Cyrus’s reign, this is proof for Xenophon that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible for people to rule over other people. Ultimately, Xenophon sides against Cyrus and in favor of the aristocratic Persian system, but what is interesting is that initially Xenophon does portray Cyrus sympathetically, which may be a ploy by Xenophon to purge his audience of any sympathy they may have of Cyrus’s reforms.

The next section of Bruell’s essay deals with Memorabilia, which mostly deals with Xenophon’s relationship with Socrates. This is important on one obvious level, as this gives us a picture of Socrates beyond the Platonic cannon, but this is also important on another level as the fact that most people consider Socrates innocent of the charges against him, rather than simply breaking an unjust law, is due to Xenophon’s influence. While Xenophon does defend Socrates on all the charges made against him, it is important to note that he does, at least in some ways hold less of a negative view of causing children to loose respect for their fathers, as Socrates was charged with that did many of his contemporary fellow Greeks would have. Beyond the trial though, Xenophon does emphasize two elements of Socrates’ thought that should be noted here. First off, Xenophon places greater importance on Socrates’ ideas on how limits are necessary. He also makes note of the great difficulty Socrates faced when dealing with divine punishment and divine reward.  Thus, it is from Xenophon’s writings that we can gain a picture of Socrates that Plato may have ignored, either intentionally or unintentionally, thus giving us more of a complete view of one of the most important philosophers to ever live.

The third and last section of Bruell’s essay deals with Anabasis, which while still giving some mention to Socrates, mostly focuses on the relationship between the Cyrus of Cyropaedia and his son, also named Cyrus. To differentiate between the two, they will henceforth be known elder Cyrus and younger Cyrus. Bruell’s section starts off with an interesting fact about Xenophon’s life. While Xenophon did believe Socrates was happier than younger Cyrus, Xenophon still left Socrates to join him on an expedition, against Socrates’ wishes. Regardless, in Anabasis, Xenophon greatly emphasizes the similarities between the Cyruses, but does still see the elder Cyrus to be an idealized version of the younger one. Xenophon was certainly critical of the elder Cyrus’s reign, but he sees the younger Cyrus as being far worse as he was overly eager to correct wrongdoings. As with the elder Cyrus’s semi meritocracy, many in the modern liberal world may not see this as a particularly egregious flaw, but for Xenophon, this was a major problem as in his zeal to correct wrongdoings, the younger Cyrus had to forsake prudence, a trait Xenophon saw as absolutely essential for the practice of politics. Through this, we can gain a strong understanding of what Xenophon sees as a requirement for good leaders, the ability to understand political necessity. Thus, through Xenophon we are left with a form of political philosophy that is distrustful of rapid change, schemes to try and better society, and also attempts to view politics in the possible and practical.                   

Plato

Leo Strauss’s first personal entry (out of several) in History of Political Philosophy deals with one of the, if not the single most important figure in the development of political philosophy in the West. A.N. Whitehead famously remarked that “all of Western philosophy is but a footnote on Plato,” and Strauss’s essay demonstrates that sentiment, as it is far longer than any other chapter in the book. The essay begins with Strauss making a simple, but important point, namely that strictly speaking there is no “Platonic teaching”, but rather the teachings of his characters. This is important as it raises several questions as to if the conversations in question happened at all, to what extent Plato faithfully recorded them, as well as what exactly was Plato’s position on the issues being debated, though the majority of scholars have tended to view Plato’s personal views as being most closely aligned with Socrates. Strauss then divided the essay up into three parts, each part discussing one of the three major works on political philosophy: The Republic, Statesman, and The Laws.

In the part on The Republic, Strauss deals with what is the central them of the book, what justice is. For Strauss, this is important for several reasons, but one of the major ones is that it sets up a universal discussion within the settings of a particular, which sets the foundation of political philosophy to discuss such issues as the best type of government within the settings of a particular area the people discussing this question live in, or even the particular time period they live in. One of the ways Socrates, who is among the chief players in Plato’s book, goes about doing this is to first show what justice is not, and one of those things justice is not is property. While Strauss does admit that this does set up the foundations for some type of early communism, he quickly reminds us, contra Karl Popper, that it is incorrect to see Socrates or Plato as communists in the Marxist sense (which would have been the type of communism people in the early 1950’s would have been the most familiar with) or as a fascist. Justice is however connected with friendship as Socrates makes it clear that the guardians of the city should be on good relations with the rest of the population in the city. Socrates also does not see justice as being equated to legality as he feels this position is unable to properly deal with what happens when leaders are in error. In the introduction, Strauss and Cropsey state that while modern political philosophy sets up a strong distinction between society and the state as well as the individual and the community, ancient political philosophy did not do this. Strauss and Cropsey’s observation becomes very clear in The Republic as Socrates sets up a parallel between the individual and the city, which places the individual far more in tune of the city than modern liberal political philosophy does.

In The Republic, there are three stages to the foundation of a good city. They are as follows: 1) the healthy city/ the city of pigs, 2) the purified city/ the city of the armed camp, and 3) the city of beauty/ the city ruled by philosophers. In the healthy city, biological needs dominate and there are no class distinctions, violence, or a disconnect between what is good for the individual and what is good for the community. The healthy city cannot last though as people cannot maintain their innocence, which leads to its eventual decay. After the healthy city has finally decayed, the purified city can emerge. Unlike its predecessor, the purified city is characterized by hierarchy and violence and needs a special warrior class in order to protect itself or go to war with others. It is also in the purified city that we see the worker and ruler classes emerge.

One of the more interesting aspects of Socrates’ theory is that while communism is seen as the ideal state, it is really only for the ruling class as the guardians of the city practice communism while the lower classed are decidedly non-communistic. The upper classes even share women and children as this supposedly will make them more united, in which the city can become more like the human body. One thing that is important to remember here though is that the just communistic city is to be only seen as an ideal, not something that could ever be brought into reality, much like while it is possible for a perfect human body to exist in the world of art, such a being could never exist in actuality. To further complicate matters of bringing the just city into reality, Socrates notes that while the people have been tricked by false philosophy, they still recognize that only a radical change of both philosopher and the city can bring them into harmony. Furthermore, Socrates sees the philosophers as not desiring to rule, and therefore must be convinced to rule by the non-philosophers, but because the non-philosophers do not trust the philosophers to rule, it is unlikely the just city, ruled by philosophers can ever come into being.

Socrates then describes the five basic types of government which he believes are as follows: 1) aristocracy (rule by the best), 2) timocracy (rule by the lovers of honor), 3) oligarchy (rule by the most highly esteemed), 4) democracy (rule by the freemen), and 5) tyranny (rule by the unjust). Even a cursory look will reveal that Socrates used these terms differently than we use them today with the exception of “tyranny” and to a lesser extent “democracy.” What’s really important though, is that for Socrates, the major failing of democracy is its lack of restraint. What’s even more interesting is that for Socrates, tyranny and democracy are both seen as giving into desires. Such a statement comes across as odd for those in 1^st world counties, where tyranny and democracy are seen as opposites, but for Socrates, the two concepts are closely connected. One thing that does remain true for Socrates is that no matter what the regime is, the light of philosophy is needed in order for justice to take root.

While the section on The Republic takes up the majority of Strauss’s essay, two other major works from Plato Statesman and The Laws are also discussed. In the section on The Statesman, Strauss points out that it is more scientific than The Republic as it more closely relates to what Plato understands to be the highest form of knowledge- the dialectic. This is an important point as the dialectic is found in conversation, and as conversation is an art, Plato ends up providing us with a deep connection between art, knowledge, and science. In addition, one of the themes of The Republic is made explicit, namely that the perfect regime described in that book cannot be brought into reality, and it is seen as a grave error to try and bring such a city into actuality.

Statesman also expands upon a theme first explored in The Republic concerning the types of regimes. In Statesman, three types of regimes are discussed, the rule by the one, the rule by the few, and the rule by the many. Each of these types of regimes has two parts, one just and one unjust. Depending upon if a regime is just or unjust determines what regime is the best to live under as the just rule of the many is inferior to the just rule of the one or rule by the many, but the unjust rule by the many is superior to the unjust rule of the one or rule of the few. The theme of the just regime being a parallel to the human body is also noted as a good king is described as being able to weave together the various parts of human nature into a harmonious and just whole.

The last section of Strauss’s essay deals with The Laws. The task of The Laws is to put forward the best possible order and in a way is the only political work by Plato as it is the most concerned with practical ways in which to govern. In this work, moderation in the sense of shame or reverence is the central theme while the end of the political life is seen as the service of education and virtue. Furthermore, Plato’s description of a static universe is seen here as change is seen as a result of imperfection, an idea which has had a profound impact on the development of political philosophy in the West. The Laws deals explicitly with how best to govern as in it, just rules are instructed to strike a balance between wisdom and freedom, while laws and governance are designed to avoid the excesses of tyranny and democracy. Furthermore, communism is completely rejected as an unattainable ideal. The Laws also displays a heavy dose of Burkean conservatism as the book suggests a constant order, and as such laws should only be changed with extreme caution.             

Thucydides

David Bolotin contributed the first chapter for Strauss and Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy with his essay on Thucydides. Admittedly, this is one of the more controversial inclusions in the book as Bolotin readily admits in his introduction, Thucydides is more often seen as a historian than a political philosopher as his only book, History of the Peloponnesian War dealt only with the history of the 5^th century Greek conflict between Athens and its allies and Sparta and its allies without making any specific references to how to govern properly or what kind of order is a just order. Seeing the book as mere history though, according to Bolotin is overly simplistic as Thucydides did not simply talk about a particular historical era, but also attempted to inform people for “all times.” For Thucydides, the universal questions that the Greek philosophers asked must be fixed as improper universal questioning leads to poor particular judgment.   

  

One of the major ways in which Thucydides turns his work into political philosophy is through his careful analysis on the origins of the war, which allows questions of justice concerning the war to arise. While space prevents a detailed analysis of the war itself, what really matters for the purpose of this essay is how Thucydides interpreted the events. Here Thucydides goes against the popular opinion on who was to blame for the war as most of the public held that Athens was the guilty party because they broke their treaties with Sparta. But for Thucydides, this reasoning is overly simplistic as he sees no other real option for the Athenians. He also refuses to see a plague that Athens suffered or its horrible defeat at Sicily as punishment for unjust acts by the Athenians, although he does allow the reader to draw that particular conclusion.

Instead of seeing Athens’ defeat as a part of divine retribution, Thucydides views the defeat as one of great sadness. Furthermore, when discussing the atrocities Athens committed, Thucydides shows himself to have a very grim view of human nature as he points out, the atrocities Athens committed were similar to events that had happened before the war and will be similar to events that take place after the war ended. For Thucydides, as long as human beings exist, atrocities will also exist. This is not to suggest that Thucydides simply casts blame on every party and declares he can take no part in the conflict due to immoral acts made by all, for while he may see human depravity as universal, he does not see it as equal.

Much of Bolotin’s essay focuses on how Thucydides saw the actions of the Athenian leadership. Of particular importance was the argument made that Athens would have to forgo its traditional virtue to win the war. For Thucydides, this was important as it showed that the idea of “the good” in Athens had been shifted away from the universals to what was good for Athens. For the Athenian leadership, the war was a chance to great a “benevolent empire” by which the ideas of truth, beauty, and the just man could be spread. And while Thucydides does not see every action committed by the Athenians as being guided by justice, he still remains sympathetic to the leadership’s claims as he does see justice as the ultimate goal of the Athenians. What’s more, Thucydides also points out that several times during the war, the Athenians had a chance to commit atrocities, but chose not to do so. This is a further example of Thucydides willingness to buck what made up the common knowledge of his day as most people still thought that Athens had committed unprecedented and unspeakable atrocities. A further example of this can be seen in his treatment of the Athenian tyrants. While many saw the defeat Athens suffered as punishment for having tyrannical government, Thucydides rejects this view, noting that the Athenian tyrants still practiced “virtue and intelligence.” Though Thucydides writings, a more balanced view of the war can emerge.

This is not to say that Thucydides is producing mere pro-Athens propaganda, such a reading of him would be grossly unfair as he is willing to criticize the Athenian regime when he feels the facts warrant it. For example, Pericles encouraged the Athenians to try and take Sicily, believing that by doing so the Athenians would create the greatest of Greek empires. He also believed that decline was inevitable, regardless of whether or not the Athenians created an empire, so it was best for the Athenians to go ahead and create such an empire and enjoy a more glorious present as their future decline was already set. The line of thinking displayed here eventually lead to the disastrous campaign in Sicily, an event in which all the Athenians who were sent to Sicily died. Thucydides sees the disaster as a result of unrestrained private ambitions, a situation that had developed as a result of Pericles’ death, which took away the checks on their own ambition many Athenian politicians had.

Another important element in Thucydides thought is that he believes that despite the disadvantages the Athenians suffered, they still had a chance to win the war. While at first glance this may come across as biased thinking on the part of someone who tended to side with Athens, in reality Thucydides made a very important breakthrough in thought as if it is the case than Athens had a chance to win the war, it means that defeat was not due to the inevitable laws of nature or the acts of the gods. Essentially, by refusing to see Athenian defeat as unavoidable, Thucydides manages to avoid falling into fatalism, which had been extremely popular during his day.

In the last part of his essay, Bolotin discusses Thucydides attitudes towards Diodotus, an Athenian politician best known for his opposition to Cleon’s plan to massacre the Mytilenean men and enslave their women and children after they revolted against Athenian rule. Diodotus proposed governing by what he called a “moderated city” in which self-interest and justice were both considered. Diodotus is important as while most of the speakers in Thucydides’ work spoke of the common/ collective good, he stands out by putting great importance on the good of the individual. Eventually though Diodotus was lead to a crisis as without a belief in the greatest things, he is compelled to lie to prevent the massacre. Ultimately though, Diodotus has the same bleak view of humanity Thucydides does, but is also heavily individualistic, particularly for his time period as he places more emphasis on the good of the individual than on the good of the city.

Regardless of how Thucydides is commonly thought of, he ultimately becomes, perhaps without being aware of it, a political philosopher. The major difference between Thucydides and many of the other thinkers outlined in this book is that while they came to political philosophy directly, Thucydides comes to political philosophy by thinking about political life.