Skip to main content

Aristotle- The Politics Book 1

The Politics is a book dedicated to concepts of state, political communities. Aristotle starts his writing by defining state as a community of communities. All communities  aim for a good. The state is the largest community and embraces the rest. Because of this relationship, it aims at a deeper and larger good. Aristotle debunks the qualifications and conceptions people have for rulers of a certain community (king, statesman, householder, master). The mistake he identifies is people differentiating between rulers by the number of their subjects. Aristotle suggests politics should not be viewed this way but rather as a compound composed of elements. This statement sets the tone for book 1. His mission now is to reveal these elements. 

According to Aristotle, looking at the origin will reveal "the clearest view" of the essence of a state. Family is first elements identified. Family is the union of people, starting with that of man and woman, who need each other and cannot exists separately. Since family is the first element of society, it gives rise to villages, which give rise to communities. Within these communities Aristotle makes the distinction between master and slaves. The difference between master and slave has to do with the exercise of the mind and the exercise of the body: "For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave hence master and slave have a same interest".  This evolution of communities seems natural to Aristotle. It is by nature's design that people organize themselves this way. Hence, Aristotle concludes that by nature, people are political animals. This reveals an important characteristic of the field of Politics.

Nature is therefore the designer of state. Aristotle considers the one that by nature has no state is considered an evil person or not human. He says “And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity, he is like the tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war.” In my opinion Aristotle reveals the standards to which a state should always be measured. The lack of a state that is not built by our nature’s design can be called not a state and even a lover of war. This made me reflect on the way we currently build our states. Are we driven by nature’s design? Going back to the roots of a society per Aristotle, families. Nowadays, we are witnessing families being formed in distorted ways, skewed from what nature demands. Many women for example opt to stay as single mothers. Can this have repercussions on the way our society will function?
The take home for me is that philosophy invites us to think deeper for the way that our societies are developed and that the roots or basis are important. It is interesting to see the tie that families have to the state. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The way of the Truth

Parmenides differs from the rest of the pre-socratics previously studied (the Milesians, Xenophanes, Heraclitus and Pythagoras) in that his thought transcend the material into the abstract, asking questions about our existence and reality, essentially a start to the arena of metaphysics. Parmenides  is an example of the way we should elevate our minds into the abstract. It is an invitation to live in a more contemplative way, contemplating using logic and reasoning. Through his poem and the imagery of roads and paths, he describes our reality as having two ways the way of the Truth and the way of Opinion. The way of the Truth is the road less traveled by regular people, they go for the way of Opinion. The way of Opinion is based on the experiences that we live day to day, what we see right in front of our eyes. The way of the Truth is the one you want to be in to live well. To live in this way you have to understand the concepts of the "what is" and "what is not".

What we value, truth or knowledge?

Last time I ended class with this thought: Xenophanes changed the Homeric views on god. It helps us question if religions define god for what it truly is. With the progression of their theories, I see the Milesians and Xenophanes and think that maybe the mind needs to be constantly evolving to get closer to the truth. Reading Pythagoras made me think about the relationship between truth and knowledge. Curd shows us a fragment were Plato makes a parallel between Homer and Pythagoras. They look alike in the fact that they both had people that followed them. The major distinction is Pythagoras striving for knowledge, his followers the mathematikoi and akousmatikoi both looking to gain knowledge in what they each venerated, while Homer convinced his followers by   his stories that reflected some of the truth about their society.   Curd mentions this fragment “Much learning does not teach insight. Otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and moreover Xenphanes and Hec

My last blog post... as a non philosopher

Like the image above, I have started thinking, questioning, wondering, desiring to dig deeper, desiring to not just understand, but comprehend. This is the reason for my writing today. I have decided to take my first philosophy course in college. Where will this road less traveled take me?  What I know is that I can already feel that my life will start to have meaning. Not that I don't find meaning in my current life. So far, my faith has tremendously helped me define who I am, something that has led me to live with joy.  The journey to discover myself as a spiritual being has invited me to find my first vocation, the vocation to life. We take for granted that we are alive, that we exist. When was the last time you felt awed by the realization you are alive? Admiration has been replaced by the monotonous rhythm of our daily life, greatly corrupted by the shining screens all over our faces everywhere we go.  I see philosophy as an invitat