political theory - Aristotle politics
What does Aristotle appear to mean when he says that "a human being is a political animal"?
"Man is by nature a political animal," because he alone among the animals has the ability to communicate his ideas about justice and the good.
What is the slave by nature? Consider carefully what his definition is, and just who would meet it. How does Aristotle position himself among those who either denounce or defend slavery?
A slave is "a possession of the animate sort," meaning that he is an instrument of action and belongs completely to the master. A slave by nature is one who does not belong to himself by nature.
How do you understand Aristotle's teaching about the relationship between men and women in these chapters?
Aristotle believes that women are fully human, that is, they are not natural slaves and have the full use of reason. The husband's rule over the woman in a marriage is akin to political rule, which is rule over free and equal persons, in which both the ruler and the ruled are free and equal.
How does a city come into being?
Aristotle theorizes that the city naturally comes into being as a result of physical necessity, as the natural completion of the smaller partnerships, the household and the village. The most basic human partnership is that between a male and female for the sake of reproduction. The female is distinct from the slave. The household arose from the male-female partnership and the master-slave partnership, and it is arranged to fill the needs of daily life. A partnership of several households is a village, and the union of several villages is a city.
What does it mean to say that the family is relative to the regime? Think of examples to illustrate.
Education of women and children with a view to the regime is necessary because women make up half of the free persons in the city and children are future citizens.
How does Aristotle think about the acquisition of goods? What sort is contrary to nature? What happens as a consequence of the invention of money?
Expertise in business compared to household management: Household management is a type of expertise for the acquisition of life's necessities. Expertise in commerce is distinct from expertise in business because the former involves exchange. Commerce arose from creation of money as a result of necessary exchange. Business expertise is the same type as household expertise. The difference is that in business there is no limit, because the amount of wealth continually increases.
Hippodamus (chap. 8): Who was Hippodamus? What was he like personally? Do you see any connections between these unusual biographical remarks and the regime that he recommends? What are Aristotle's criticisms of the regime? What does Hippodamus fail to understand about laws?
Hippodamus attempted to lay out a plan for a regime, although he had no involvement in politics himself. Hippodamus wanted to divide the city into three parts, dividing up citizens, territory and laws into 3 groups. He also proposed a single supreme court and a law rewarding innovation. This regime is flawed in many aspects. Dividing the citizens will cause great faction and strife. The law rewarding innovation will promote discord or revolution. Innovation is not necessarily bad, but it should not be publicly honored. It's good to change the laws if necessary, especially since laws by nature have to be general and universal while situations deal with particulars.
What does his account suggest as to how he would assess the justice or injustice of an existing political community with slaves?
It is also important to note that Aristotle does not support slavery in the conventional sense, but only in the case where the slaves are actually slaves by nature. Aristotle's assertion that such natural slaves do exist is not a conclusion that follows from his logical argument but simply an empirical assumption. Aristotle had no conception of inherent human dignity, and therefore had no reason to assume that all human beings are free and equal.
What sort of regime does Phaleas recommend, and what does he think is the easiest way of bringing it into being? What are Aristotle's leading criticisms of it? What, in particular, does Phaleas fail to understand about the relationship between justice and economic inequality? How would those criticisms apply to arguments made in American politics today?
Phaleas asserted that all should have equal possessions, because he thought that property was the cause of factional conflict. Yet making property simply equal will not really solve the problem, because the legislator needs to take into account the different needs and circumstances of different citizens. Phaleas is also incorrect in supposing that property disputes are the only cause of conflict; in fact, much conflict is about honor. Furthermore, people may commit crimes not simply out of poverty, but also out of desire for luxuries. To remedy these difficulties, each have a sufficient amount of property and work, and live according to moderation. Those who want to be self-sufficient should pursue philosophy, for that is the only type of enjoyment which requires no external things or people. Phaleas also forgets that people may engage in factional conflict precisely because property is equal. Some will think that they merit a greater amount than others and consider equality unjust. Human desires are by nature limitless and insatiable, and the majority of people live trying to satisfy their desires. Preventing conflict requires that the respectable and virtuous people not wish for their own aggrandizement, while the common people simply lack the means for such aggrandizement.
Bk II Ch. 6
Plato's Laws gives similarly unrealistic and impractical prescriptions. In enacting laws, the legislator needs to take into account the territory and its inhabitants, and to look at the neighboring regions. In regard to possessions, it is good for the citizens to live "with moderation and liberally." The Laws also omits a discussion of how the rulers are different from the ruled.
What is the city? (chapters 1-2) What sort of definition of the city do we get from the beginning of Book I?
The city is a political partnership aimed at the most authoritative good.
How is it that the city is "prior to each of us"? Try to think of some examples to illustrate what Aristotle means here.
The city is prior to the individual in importance because the individual apart from the city is not self-sufficient. One who does not need the city and is self-sufficient is either a beast or a god. Man has potential for great good, but without law and virtue can be the worst of all the animals. Justice belongs to the city.
For what purpose does a city come into being, and for what does it continue to exist?
The city originates for the sake of basic survival, but "it exists for the sake of living well." The city therefore exists by nature, because it is the natural end of human partnerships.
Why does Aristotle turn from the whole city to discussing the household in the rest of Book I? What are the parts of the household?
The household involves three types of rule: mastery (master-slave rule), marital, and parental.
Crete (chap. 10): How are the Cretan and Spartan regimes related? Who was Minos, and why should we care? How might one interpret that fact that Crete has not (yet) suffered the problems that one sees in Sparta? How does Aristotle evaluate the Cretan regime overall?
They both have common messes and a slave class which does all the farming. They also have a similar arrangement with overseers and senators. The Cretans handle the matter of common messes better than the Spartans, because the money is taken from the common treasury so that all can take part. The office of orderer, similar to the Spartan office of overseer, has many of the same problems as in Sparta. It would be better to do things in accordance with written law than with human wish, because human desires are not a safe standard.
