Aristotle's Politics
Aristotle's Politics is both interesting and important; - it is interesting because it shows the political situation at that time. The homosexual prejudice of educated Greeks was important because it became the source of many principles that remained influential until the end of the Middle Ages. I don't think much of it is of any practical use to politicians today, but there is a lot that can help make sense of partisan conflicts in various parts of the Hellenistic world. Aristotle paid little attention to the methods of government in non-Hellenistic countries. He does mention Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and Carthage, but with the exception of Carthage, the others are only mentioned in general terms. He did not mention Alexander, and he was not even aware of the radical changes he had wrought on the world. All the discussion was about the city-state, and he had no idea that the city-state was about to become a thing of the past. Greece became a political laboratory because it was divided into many independent city-states. But the things to which these experiments were applicable had not existed since the time of Aristotle, down to the rise of the cities of medieval Italy. The experience that Aristotle draws from is in many ways more applicable to the more recent world than to any world that has existed in the fifteen hundred years since his book was written.
He said many very interesting things in passing, some of which we can say before talking about political theory. He tells us that Euripides was reproached with bad breath by a man named Dicanicus in the court of King Archelaus of Macedonia. In order to appease his anger, the king allowed him to flog Dicanicus. So he did. Dicanicus waited many years before he joined in a successful plot to kill the king; but by then Euripides was dead. He also tells us that we should conceive in the winter when the north wind is blowing; and that we must be careful not to say obscene words, because "shameful words lead people to do shameful things." He also said that obscenity cannot be tolerated anywhere except in the temple, and in the temple the law even allows obscenity. People should not marry too early, because if they marry too early, they will be born with fragile girls, the wife will become lascivious, and the husband will be stunted. The legal age for marriage is thirty-seven for men and eighteen for women.
We know from this that Thales was once laughed at for his poverty, so he bought all the oil presses with divided payments, so that he could control the monopoly price of the oil presses. He did this to show that philosophers can make money. If philosophers remain poor, it is because they have far more important things to think about than wealth. But all this is mentioned in passing; now we come to more serious matters. This book clearly points out the importance of the country at the beginning; the country is the highest collective and aims at the highest good. According to the order of time, the family comes first; the family is built on the two major relationships of husband and wife and master and slave, both of which are natural. A number of families unite to form a township; a number of townships unite to form a country, as long as the union is large enough to be almost self-sufficient. Although the state is later than the family in time, it is prior to the family in nature, and also prior to the individual; because "when everything develops fully, we call this its nature", and human society is fully When it develops, it is the state, and the whole takes precedence over the parts. The concept involved here is that of organism: he tells us that when the body is destroyed, a hand ceases to be a hand. The implication is that a hand is defined by its purpose—to take—and that it can fulfill its purpose only when it is united to a living body. Likewise, a man cannot fulfill his purpose unless he is a part of the state. Aristotle said that the person who founded the state is the greatest benefactor; because without law, man is the worst animal, and the existence of law depends on the state. The state is not just a society for exchange and prevention of evil: "The purpose of the state is a good life. ...The state is the union of family and village into a perfect and self-sufficient life. The so-called perfect self-sufficient life is Speak of a life of happiness and honor” (1280b). “Political society exists for noble conduct, not simply for the sake of living together” (1281a).
A country is composed of several families, and each family includes a family, so discussing politics should start with the family. A major part of this discussion is about slavery - because in ancient times slaves were always considered part of the family. Slavery is beneficial and legitimate, and slaves should naturally be lower than their masters. Some people are born to obey, others are born to rule. A person who is born not to belong to himself but to someone else is born a slave; slaves should not be Greeks, but other inferior races with inferior spirits (1255a and 1330a). Tamed animals are much better off when ruled by men, and the same is true when those who are naturally inferior are ruled over by superiors. Some people may want to ask whether it is reasonable to use prisoners of war as slaves. Power, such as the power that enables people to win in war, seems to imply superior virtue, but the situation is not This is often not the case. But in any case, it is always just to wage war against those who refuse to submit although they are born to be ruled (1256b); and this implies in this case the transformation of the conquered into Slaves are just right. This would seem to have been a sufficient justification for any conqueror throughout history; and as no nation will admit that it is by nature destined to be governed, the only evidence of natural intention must be inferred from the results of war. Therefore, the winner in every war is right and the conquered is wrong. This is pretty self-explanatory.
The second is the discussion about trade, which profoundly affected the scholastics’ theory of good and evil. Everything has two uses, one is legitimate and the other is improper; for example, a pair of shoes can be worn, which is its legitimate purpose, or it can be exchanged, which is its improper use. Proper purpose. Therefore, the status of a shoemaker who had to make a living by selling shoes was somewhat despicable. Aristotle tells us that retailing is not a natural part of the art of making a fortune (1257a). The natural way to get rich is to manage real estate and real estate wisely. There is a limit to the wealth that can be gained in this way, but there is no limit to what can be gained from trade. Trade has to do with money, but wealth does not consist in acquiring money. Wealth gained by trade is justly hated because it is unnatural. "The most hateful kind, and the one with the most reason to be hated, is usury; usury profits from the money itself rather than from the natural object of money. Because money is originally used for exchange, and It is not to be multiplied by interest. … Of all the ways of making wealth, usury is the most unnatural” (1258). To see what results this kind of admonishment has produced, you might as well read Tao Nai's book "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism". But while his history is believable, his narrative has a bias in favor of pre-capitalism.
"Usury" refers to all loans with interest, not just loans at exorbitant interest rates as it is now. From the time of the ancient Greeks to the present day, humanity—or at least the more economically advanced part of humanity—has been divided between creditors and debtors; debtors have always disapproved of interest, while creditors have always favored it. In most cases landowners were debtors and businessmen were creditors. With few exceptions, the opinions of philosophers are consistent with the pecuniary interests of their own class. Greek philosophers all belonged to the land-owning class or were employed by this class, so they did not approve of interest. The medieval philosophers were all priests, and the church's main property was land, so they saw no reason to revise Aristotle's opinion. Their opposition to usury was reinforced by anti-Semitism, since most of the liquidity belonged to Jews. The monks and nobles had disputes, sometimes very sharply, but they could unite against the evil Jews, who had helped them through bad years with loans and thought they deserved Some reward for one's own frugality.
With the Reformation, the situation changed. Many zealous Protestants run businesses. For them, making money from loans is the most important thing. Thus first Calvin, and later other Protestant clergy, recognized interest. Eventually the Catholic Church had to follow suit, because the ancient prohibitions were no longer suitable for the modern world.
Philosophers, whose income now comes from the funds of the universities, have always been in favor of interest since they ceased to be clergy and therefore no longer connected with land holdings. At each stage, there have been rich theoretical arguments supporting opinions that are economically beneficial to them.
Plato’s Utopia was criticized by Aristotle on various grounds. The first is a very interesting explanation, saying that it gives too much unity to the country and turns the country into an individual. The next is that argument against the abolition of the family proposed by Plato, which every reader will naturally think of. Plato believed that by giving the title "son" to all persons of the same age who might constitute a parent-child relationship, a man would acquire for the whole people the kind of affection that people now have for their own true sons. The same goes for the title "Father." On the contrary, Aristotle said that whatever is common to the greatest number of people is of least concern to others. If "sons" are the same to many "fathers", then they will be ignored in the same way; it is much better to be a practical cousin than a "son" in the Platonic sense; Plato's plan will make love turn into water. Then there is the bizarre argument that since abstinence from passion is a virtue, it would be a pity to require a social system that would eliminate this virtue and its related vices (1263b). So he asked, if women are male and female, then who will manage the house? I once wrote an article entitled "Architecture and Social Institutions" in which I pointed out that anyone who wants to combine communism with the abolition of the family must also advocate a large number of people. , commune families with communal kitchens, restaurants and nurseries. This system can be described as a kind of monasticism, except that celibacy is not required. This is fundamental to the realization of Plato's plan, and is by no means less impossible than many of the other things Plato recommends.
Plato’s communism troubled Aristotle. That, he said, would make people resentful of the lazy, and lead to the kind of disputes that often arise between fellow travelers. It would be much better if everyone mind their own business. Property should be private; but benevolence should be so taught to the people that the use of it may be largely public. Charity and generosity are virtues, but they are impossible without private property. Finally, he tells us that if Plato's plan was a good one, someone else would have thought of it long ago. ①I do not agree with Plato, but if anything makes me agree with Plato, it is Aristotle's argument against Plato.
When talking about slavery, we have seen that Aristotle was not a person who believed in equality. Even if the subordinate status of slaves and women is recognized, it is still a question whether all citizens should be equal politically. He said that some people thought this was desirable on the grounds that the key to all revolutions lay in the regulation of property. He objected to this argument by saying that the greatest crime was caused by excess rather than by want; no man became a tyrant because he wanted to avoid cold and despair.
When a government aims at the benefit of the entire collective, it is a good government; when it only cares about itself, it is a bad government. There are three kinds of government that are good: monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional government (or political government); there are three kinds of government that are bad: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. There are also many mixed intermediate forms. It must also be pointed out that good government and bad government are determined by the moral character of those in power, not by the form of the constitution. However, this is only partially true. Aristocracy is the rule of virtuous people, oligarchy is the rule of the rich, and Aristotle does not believe that virtue and wealth are strictly synonymous.
According to the doctrine of the golden mean, Aristotle advocated that moderate assets can best be combined with virtue: "Human beings do not obtain or maintain virtue with the help of external goods, but external goods." Wealth depends on virtue; and happiness, whether it consists in pleasure, in virtue, or in both, is always found in those who have the highest cultivation of mind and character, but only moderate physical fitness. It is to be found in those who possess extravagant wealth, and not in those who have an abundance of useless extravagant goods but lack any noble qualities” (1323a and b). There is therefore a difference between rule by the best (aristocratic) and rule by the richest (oligarchy), since the best often have only modest wealth. There is also a difference between democracy and harmony - in addition to the ethical differences in government - because what Aristotle calls "harmony" retains a certain Elements of oligarchy are included (1293b). But the only difference between monarchy and tyranny is ethical.
He emphasized the need to distinguish between oligarchy and democracy based on the economic status of the ruling party: When the rich rule without considering the poor, it is an oligarchy; when power is in the hands of the poor And when they don't take into account the interests of the rich, that's democracy.
Monarchy is better than aristocracy, and aristocracy is better than aristocracy. But the best becomes the worst when it becomes corrupt; therefore tyranny is worse than oligarchy, and oligarchy is worse than democracy. Aristotle achieved a limited defense of democracy in this way; because most actual governments are bad, democracy may be the best among actual governments. .
The Greek concept of democracy was in many ways more extreme than ours; for example, Aristotle said that the method of electing magistrates was oligarchic, while the method of appointing magistrates by lot was Be democratic. In an extreme democracy the citizens' assembly is above the law and decides every issue independently. The courts of Athens were composed of a large number of citizens chosen by lot, without the help of any jurists; these persons were of course liable to be swayed by either eloquence or party sentiment. So when he criticizes democracy, we must understand that this is what he means.
Aristotle had a long discussion about the causes of revolution. Revolutions were as frequent in Greece as they had been in Latin America, so Aristotle had a wealth of experience to draw from. The main cause of the revolution was the conflict between the oligarchs and the democrats. Aristotle said that democracy arises from the belief that people who are equally free should be equal in all respects; while oligarchy arises from the fact that those who are superior in some aspects demand too much. . There is a kind of justice in both, but neither is the best kind. “Therefore whenever the position of the two parties in the government does not correspond to the ideas they have envisaged, they will make a revolution” (1301a). Democratic governments are less prone to revolution than oligarchies because oligarchs can quarrel with each other. Oligarchs seem to be high-energy guys. He told us that in some city-states the oligarchs swore: "I will be an enemy of the people, and I will do my best to do them all harm." Today's reactionaries are not so candid.
Three things necessary to prevent revolution are: government propaganda, respect for the law (even in the smallest matters), and legal and administrative justice, that is to say "proportionate" Equality and enabling everyone to enjoy what he has” (1307a, 1307b, 1310a). Aristotle never seemed to appreciate the difficulty of "proportional equality." If this is true justice, then the proportion must be that of virtue. But virtue is difficult to measure, and it is a matter of party debate. So in political practice, virtue always tends to be measured by income; the distinction Aristotle tried to make between aristocracy and oligarchy can only be made where there is an entrenched hereditary aristocracy. is possible. Even so, once there is a huge wealthy class that is not an aristocratic class, they must be allowed to enjoy political power to prevent them from causing a revolution. But except where land is almost the only source of wealth, hereditary aristocracies can never long maintain their power. All social inequalities, in the long run, are income inequalities.
Part of the argument for democracy is that any attempt to base "proportional justice" on any merit other than wealth is bound to fail. Defenders of oligarchy claimed that income was proportional to virtue; the prophet said that he had never seen an upright man begging; and Aristotle believed that a good man received exactly his own income, neither too much nor too little. More and not too little. But these views are absurd. Unless it is absolute equality, any kind of "justice" in practice rewards some quality that is completely different from virtue, and therefore should be condemned.
There is a very interesting section on tyranny. A tyrant longs for wealth, a prince longs for honor. The guards of a tyrant are mercenaries, but the guards of a monarch are citizens. Tyrants were for the most part demagogues who gained power by promising to protect the people against the nobility. In a cynical, Machiavellian tone, Aristotle explains what a tyrant must do if he wants to retain power. A tyrant must prevent any one person with special talents from standing out, resorting to death or assassination if necessary. He must ban public dinners, parties, and any education that could create hostile feelings. No literary gatherings or discussions are allowed. He must prevent the people from understanding each other well and must force them to live a fair life before his gates. He should hire spies like the Syracusean detectives. He must sow dissension and impoverish his subjects. He should keep the people engaged in great projects, such as the kings of Egypt built the pyramids. He should also empower women and slaves to become informants. He should make war so that his subjects would always have something to do and always need a leader (1313a and b).
This is the only passage in the book that is most applicable to today, and it makes people feel sad when thinking about it. Aristotle concluded that no sin was too great for a tyrant. However, he said there was another way to preserve tyranny, and that was through moderation and a pretense of religion. But he did not decide which method might prove more effective.
There is a long argument used to prove that foreign conquest is not the purpose of the country, thus revealing that many people adopt an imperialist perspective. There is indeed one exception: it is right and justifiable to conquer "born slaves." From Aristotle's point of view, this would justify war against the barbarians, but not against the Greeks; for no Greek was born a slave. Generally speaking, war is only a means and not an end; therefore a city-state can be happy in an isolated situation where conquest is impossible. Countries living in isolation do not have to be passive. God and the entire universe are active, even though they cannot conquer the outside world. Therefore, the happiness a country should pursue should not be war, but peaceful activities, although war can sometimes be a necessary means to achieve happiness.
This begs the question: How big should a country be? He told us that large city-states can never be governed well because there cannot be order if there are too many people. A country should be large enough to be self-sufficient, but not too large to be able to implement constitutional government. A country should be small enough to enable its citizens to know each other's character, otherwise elections and proceedings cannot be fair. The territory should be small enough to have an unobstructed view of it from the top of a hill. Since he tells us that the country should be self-sufficient (1326b), but also says that the country should have import and export trade (1327a), this seems to be unjustifiable.
People who work for a living should not be allowed citizenship. "A citizen should not live the life of a craftsman or a merchant, because such a life is dishonorable and contrary to morality." Nor should citizens be farmers, for they must have leisure. Citizens were supposed to own property, but peasants were supposed to be slaves from other races (1330a). He tells us that the northern race is energetic, while the southern race is intelligent and wise. Therefore, slaves should be of southern race, because if they are energetic, they will not have trouble. The Greeks alone were both energetic and intelligent; they governed much better than the barbarians, and if they united they could rule the world (1327b).
One might have expected that Alexander would have been mentioned at this point, but not a word was mentioned.
As to the size of the state, Aristotle made, to varying degrees, the same mistakes that many modern liberals have made. A nation must be able to defend itself in war, and even must be able to defend itself without great difficulty if any free culture is to survive, and this requires that a nation have How big it is depends on the technology and industry of war. In Aristotle's time, the city-state was obsolete because it could no longer defend itself against Macedonia. In our day all Greece, including Macedonia, is in this sense obsolete, as has recently been proven. It is as futile today to argue for the complete independence of Greece or any other small country as it is to argue for the complete independence of a city whose territory can be seen from a high vantage point. There can be no real independence unless a country or alliance becomes strong enough, through its own efforts, to repel all attempts at external conquest. To meet this requirement, it must be no smaller than the United States and the British Empire combined; and even this may be too small a unit.
The book "Politics" seems to be unfinished in the form it has been handed down to us today. It finally ends with a discussion of education. Education was, of course, only for those children who would become citizens; slaves could also be taught useful skills, such as cooking, but this was not part of education. The citizen should be adapted to the form of government under which he lives, and therefore should differ according to whether the city is an oligarchy or a democracy. In this discussion, however, Aristotle assumes that citizens all have political power. Children should learn things that are useful to them, but not vulgar; for example, they should not be taught any techniques that distort body image, or techniques that allow them to make money. They should engage in physical exercise in moderation, but not to the point of acquiring professional skills; the health of children trained for the Olympics is compromised, and those who were victors in childhood rarely become adults. The fact that he can become the winner illustrates this point. Children should learn to draw pictures in order to appreciate the beauty of the human body; they should also be taught to appreciate paintings and sculptures that express moral ideas. They could learn to sing and play instruments so that they could enjoy music critically, but not enough to become skilled performers; for free men could not play or sing except when drunk. Of course they must learn to read and write, although these are also useful skills. But the purpose of education is "virtue", not usefulness. What Aristotle means by "virtue" he has already told us in his Ethics, and he quotes it repeatedly in this book.
The basic assumptions of Aristotle in his Politics are very different from those of any modern writer. According to him, the purpose of the state is to create educated gentlemen - people who combine aristocratic spirit with a love of learning and art. This union existed in its highest perfection in Athens in the time of Pericles, not among the whole people but only among those who were well off. By the last years of Priicles it began to disintegrate. The uneducated masses attacked the friends of Pericles, who were forced to defend the privileges of the rich by conspiracy, assassination, illegal despotism, and other less-than-gentlemanly methods. After Socrates' death, the tenacity of Athenian democracy weakened; Athens remained the center of ancient culture, but political power moved elsewhere. Throughout late antiquity, power and culture were often kept separate: power in the hands of rough military men, culture in the hands of feeble Greeks, often slaves. This was only partly true in the days of Rome's greatness, but it was especially true before Cicero and after Marcus Aurelius. After the barbarian invasion, the "gentlemen" were the barbarians from the north, while the civilized people were the refined priests from the south. This situation more or less continued until the Renaissance. During the Renaissance, laity began to take control of culture again. Since the Renaissance, the Greek political concept of being governed by educated gentlemen gradually became more and more popular, reaching its peak in the eighteenth century.
But various forces finally put an end to this situation. The first is the democracy embodied in the French Revolution and its aftermath. Since the time of Pricles, literate gentlemen have had to defend their privileges against the masses; and in the process, they have ceased to be gentlemen and have ceased to be literate. The second reason is that the rise of industrial civilization has brought about a science and technology that is very different from traditional culture. The third reason is that mass education gives people the ability to read and write, but not culture; this enables new types of agitators to carry out new types of propaganda, as we see in authoritarian countries As arrived.
So, for better or worse, the days of the educated gentleman are gone forever.