Aristotle: Metaphysics

When Aristotle articulated the central question of the group of writings we know as
his Metaphysics, he said it was a question that would never cease to raise itself. He was
right. He also regarded his own contributions to the handling of that question as
belonging to the final phase of responding to it. I think he was right about that too.
The Metaphysics is one of the most helpful books there is for contending with a
question the asking of which is one of the things that makes us human. In our time
that question is for the most part hidden behind a wall of sophistry, and the book that
could lead us to rediscover it is even more thoroughly hidden behind a maze of
misunderstandings.
Paul Shorey, a scholar whose not-too-bad translation of the Republic is the Hamilton
edition of the Collected Works of Plato, has called the Metaphysics "a hopeless
muddle" not to be made sense of by any "ingenuity of conjecture." I think it is safe to
say that more people have learned important things from Aristotle than from Professor
Shorey, but what conclusion other than his can one come to about a work that has two
books numbered one, that descends from the sublime description of the life of the
divine intellect in its twelfth book to end with two books full of endless quarreling over
minor details of the Platonic doctrine of forms, a doctrine Aristotle had already
decisively refuted in early parts of the book, those parts, that is, in which he is not
defending it? The book was certainly not written as one whole; it was compiled, and
once one has granted that, must not one admit that it was compiled badly, crystallizing
as it does an incoherent ambivalence toward the teachings of Plato? After three
centuries in which no one has much interest in it at all, the Metaphysics becomes
interesting to nineteenth century scholars just as a historical puzzle: how could such a
mess have been put together?

I have learned the most from reading the Metaphysics on those occasions when I have
adopted the working hypothesis that it was compiled by someone who understood
Aristotle better than I or the scholars do, and that that someone (why not call him
Aristotle?) thought that the parts made an intelligible whole, best understood when
read in that order. My main business here will be to give you some sense of how
the Metaphysics looks in its wholeness, but the picture I will sketch depends on several
hypotheses independent of the main one. One cannot begin to read
the Metaphysics without two pieces of equipment: one is a set of decisions about how
to translate Aristotle's central words. No translator of Aristotle known to me is of any
help here; they will all befuddle you, more so in the Metaphysics even than in
Aristotle's other works. The other piece of equipment, and equally indispensable I
think, is some perspective on the relation of the Metaphysics to the Platonic dialogues.
In this matter the scholars, even the best of them, have shown no imagination at all.
In the dialogues, in their view, Plato sets forth a "theory" by putting it into the mouth
of Socrates. There is some room for interpretation, but on the whole we are all
supposed to know that theory. Aristotle must accept that theory or reject it. If he
appears to do both it is because passages written by some Platonist have been inserted
into his text, or because things he wrote when he was young and a Platonist were
lumped together with other things on similar subjects which he wrote when he was
older and his thoughts were different and his own.
 Forms of Government
Important Terms

Polis - Though the word "city" is often used as a translation of polis in this Spark Note's summaries
and commentaries, there is no exact English equivalent for the Greek city-state. The polis was a
relatively small, self-sufficient, and independent region governed by its citizens, the elite class. The
workforce consisted of slaves, manual laborers, and women. Aristotle's world was made up of city-
states, and his political theories work from the assumption that the polis is the most sensible form of
government.

Koinonia - Roughly translatable as "association," koinonia is defined literally as "a sharing in

common." This concept is very important to Aristotle's political philosophy and is integral to the
nature of the polis: the polis is an association not only in the sense of people living in the same place,
but also in the sense of a shared venture in which all citizens take part. Aristotle thus perceives no
conflict between individual and state.

Politeia - Aristotle uses this complex word in two different ways: first, it translates quite directly as

"constitution;" second, it describes an entity translated here as "constitutional government" (other

translations may render it as "polity"). Aristotle considers constitutional government, in which the

masses are granted citizenship and govern with everyone's interest in mind, one of the best forms of

government. It combines elements of oligarchy and democracy, finding a compromise between the

demands of both the rich and the poor.

Kingship - An idealized form of monarchic government in which the king is an exceptional individual

who governs with everyone's best interests in mind. Aristotle acknowledges that finding such an

outstanding leader is difficult, but prizes the possibility nonetheless.

Oligarchy - Aristotle uses oligarchy, literally "the rule of the few," to refer to a government controlled

by a minority consisting of the wealthy. Unlike aristocracy, Aristotle believes, oligarchy is a bad form

of government, as the ruling faction governs solely in its own interests, disregarding those of the poor.

Democracy - Aristotle disparages democracy, literally "the rule of the people," as a type of government

in which the poor masses have control and use it to serve their own ends. This involves the heavy

taxation and exploitation of the rich, among other things. Among forms of majority rule such as

democracy, Aristotle prefers politeia, or constitutional government.

Aristocracy - Aristotle highly esteems aristocracy, literally "the rule of the best," and considers it

superior to oligarchy because it values everyone's interests. He contrasts aristocracy with oligarchy,

democracy, and politeia by pointing out that these forms of government concern themselves only with

questions of wealth. Aristocracy, on the other hand, confers benefits on the basis of merit, with the

result that those who most deserve to govern do in fact govern.

Tyranny - The rule of an individual interested solely in his own benefit. A perverse form of kingship,

tyranny is unpopular and usually overthrown. In Aristotle's opinion, it is the worst type of

government.

Demagoguery - The worst type of democracy, in Aristotle's opinion, is mob rule is carried to an

extreme. In demagoguery, everyone's voice is equal, and the rule of the majority has greater authority

than the law. As a result, the will of the people supersedes law. Invariably, a charismatic leader, or

demagogue, takes control and becomes a tyrant. Because he speaks with the voice of the people, and

because the voice of the people is sovereign the demagogue is free to do what he wants.,
 Aristotle concepts of Happiness

For Aristotle, it is by understanding the distinctive function of a thing that one can
understand its essence. Thus, one cannot understand what it is to be a gardener
unless one can understand that the distinctive function of a gardener is to tend to a
garden with a certain degree of skill. Whereas human beings need nourishment like
plants and have sentience like animals, their distinctive function, says Aristotle, is
their unique capacity to reason. Thus, our supreme good, or happiness, is to lead a
life that enables us to use and develop our reason, and that is in accordance with
reason. Unlike amusement or pleasure, which can also be enjoyed by animals,
happiness is not a state but an activity. And like virtue or goodness, it is profound
and enduring.

Aristotle acknowledges that our good or bad fortune can play a part in determining
our happiness; for example, he acknowledges that happiness can be affected by
such factors as our material circumstances, our place in society, and even our looks.
Yet he maintains that by living our life to the full according to our essential nature as
rational beings, we are bound to become happy regardless. For this reason,
happiness is more a question of behaviour and of habitof virtuethan of luck; a
person who cultivates such behaviours and habits is able to bear his misfortunes
with balance and perspective, and thus can never be said to be truly unhappy.