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

Xenophanes a Reformer?

As we progress on our studies of the Presocratics, I am starting to see a deviation from the traditional thinking of the greeks. Homer presents us with gods who are human like and to some extent mundane, that do the same things as humans. I have a feeling that the Milesians' quest for an arche  based on matter, physical things that are unique and "pure" like the water, air, and infinity, reflects the search for an origin different than the Homeric gods. An origin that is different from the human nature, savage and mundane. According to A Presocratic Reader , Xenophanes rejected the Homeric Olympian gods. Although the book suggests that it is unclear if he agreed on one god or a god superior to all gods, he is the first philosopher to suggest a non-anthropomorfic god. A god that is unique for itself. Was he inspired by Anaximander's principle of the apeiron, that which is the boundless and mystical? I feel the he was indeed, because Anaximander's principle is the...

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 Xenphane...