Aristotle's Politics, Book 3: Study Questions

What is a citizen, according to Aristotle? Are there different accounts that Aristotle gives as to how one become (or qualifies as) a citizen? Why does this issue matter?

According to Aristotle, a citizen is anyone who participates in deliberation, decision, and indefinite office in the city they belong to. There are different cases in defining citizens in different regimes (i.e. oligarchies may have a different definition than democracies). This matters because Aristotle is seeking an all-encompassing definition for studying citizens, and consequently, the regimes within these cities that citizens organize themselves in.

What is Aristotle's 6-part typology of regimes? What seems to be their ranking? How would you categorize and rank the United States?

Aristotle outlines six kinds of regimes, three just and three unjust. The just regimes include kingship (one leader), aristocracy (a small group of leaders), and a constitutional government (led by the masses). The unjust regimes are each a flawed example of the just regimes: kingships can be flawed and become tyrannies (focused only on the king), aristocracies can be flawed and become oligarchies (focused on the wealthy. high class), and constitutional governments can become democracies, specifically those focused solely on the poor.

Why, according to Aristotle, does a society not qualify as a city if it exists only for security and commerce? What do you think of his argument that a genuine city is concerned with the virtue of its citizens, and exists for the sake of noble actions?

Aristotle says that cities are only those societies based on virtue and common good because if the sole purpose of the society is is commerce or security, there is no greater depth to the society than common laws. I believe this argument is eloquent and idealistic, and while it is something I agree with, I don't believe it is necessarily true for all of our contemporary cities.

In Ch. 13, the "man of outstanding virtue" makes a surprising entrance into the discussion. Why would he seem to have a great claim to rule? For which regimes is his possibility a problem? What does Aristotle say is the appropriate thing for the city to do with him? Why? Does this seem just to you?

Aristotle suggests that the most capable and endowed man should be made king because of his superiority. This idea would not work in democracy, or even an oligarchy, in that the power is not endowed to one single person in either of those regimes. This does not seem just in that the focus of such a regime would likely switch towards the focus on the king and not the people (tyranny!).

What does Aristotle mean by "regime"?

By "regime", Aristotle means the subsections of people organized within a city. He describes the city as composite and encompassing, while the regimes are the certain arrangements of those who inhabit the cities.

What is that for the sake of which cities are established? What is it that distinguishes correct from deviant regimes?

Cities are established due to man's political nature in order to alleviate burdens on individuals and live in a common good. Correct regimes, in this sense, are those which work towards the common advantage of the city, while those who work only toward the good of the leaders are deviant and errant.

Aristotle seems to make something of a new beginning in Ch. 12. What now is the relevant claim to rule?

He asserts that justice is the endgame of politics and begins to discuss the nature of justice versus injustice in different regimes.

What is the big problem that Aristotle wrestles with in Ch. 10? How do you think the problem might explain why the subsequent discussion seems much more restrained than the previous one had been in insisting upon virtue?

In Ch. 10, Aristotle wrestles with the question of which type of regime is the best and for what reasons. The following discussion is more reserved in discussing virtue and vice, and this is likely so that Aristotle wouldn't have been accused of slandering or raising revolutionary ideas about the democracy in which he lived by criticizing their virtue.

For what kind of political arrangement does Aristotle make a case in Ch. 11? How convincing do you find the case to be?

In Ch. 11, Aristotle makes the case for the democratic rule of the "many'. This argument is not convincing due to the fact that he spends time earlier heavily criticizing the possible flaws in this system.

Why is it difficult to say that the virtue of a good man is the same as that of a good citizen? Are they ever the same? What problem do you suppose is raised, to the extent that they are not the same?

It is difficult to say that good men and good citizens have the same virtue, because the degree to which one follows their constitution determines their standard of citizenship, but constitutions vary and may not necessarily be in line with true virtue. They can be the same, especially when leaders possess wisdom and act practically. The problem raised is that good citizens can also be not-so-good people if their city's constitution is flawed.

When would one find such an individual actually in existence?

One would not actually find such an individual in existence.

When, in the history of a city, would an outstanding individual be able to come to power as king?

Outstanding individuals can become king at the founding or in times of weakness/crisis of the city.

What are the democrats' and the oligarchs' claims to deserve rule?

The democratic regimes claim to deserve rule because they are the many and the majority, while the oligarchs claim to deserve rule because they are the most powerful in terms of financial and class status.

What's at stake in the question of whether the city performs an action or only a portion of it does? What is Aristotle's answer to the question?

When asking the question of did the entire city or just a portion commit some action, the definition of a city as well as the nature of the regime both come into question. Aristotle says that some regimes are more towards the common good, and therefore, are more unified in actions than others (i.e. democracies vs. tyrannies), and the definition must be consistent, no matter the size or state of the city. His answer is that changes in a city's constitution is evident of a change in the city.