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.