Winston C.

Quilaton
Emmanuel Servants of the Holy Trinity (ESHT)
3rd Year AB Philosophy
Political & Social Philosophy
Dr. James Piscos

Aristotle's Social and Political Philo

INTRODUCTION TO PLATO’S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Aristotle had been born in 384 BCE and died about 322 BCE, thus he lived in the early 60's. He
was born around 15 years after Socrates' public execution. He was around 45 years younger than
Plato. Eventually he was sent to study in Athens at the Academy. Aristotle lasted for 20 years at
the Academy and became a teacher. For eight years Aristotle tutored Alexander, then came back
to Athens around 335BCE. His own school was established there, the Lyceum. The Lyceum
existed from 334 BCE to 86 BCE, when the Romans destroyed Athens. Aristotle died in 322 BCE,
one year after Alexander his student died, causing Aristotle to leave the state for the last time,
arousing anti-Macedonian feelings in Athens.
Aristotle has left behind a tremendous number of writings, just a tiny part of which we have now.
However, it is not insubstantial that we have. One thing to remember is that many of them are
incomplete working texts or even lecture notes when reading his works. This category appears to
include politics. It's incomplete, at least. That can defy our own attempts to interpret from its own
pages an overall, obviously cohesive thesis. Finally, Aristotle's technique builds on Socratic
dialectics and modifies it critically. From dialectic, he examines conflicting ideas on both sides,
reflecting on their effects and not just endorsing one to the other. However, he does not create
conversations to dialectically investigate topics. Instead, it achieves this through "monologues"
orientated philosophically. His objective is to utilize dialectics to work through views and beliefs
so that we finally get solid knowledge. So Socratic questioning doesn't stop, but he attempts to
push it farther. This is not to imply that Socrates also had no factual claims to make; rather his
technique was more visibly troubling opinions, whereas Aristotle's method tends to take
precedence over the comparison of opinions in order to reach and communicate unambiguous
knowledge. We have, of course, learnt about the risks of claiming to 'know' from Socrates, and so
we need to be cautious that we are not just Aristotelian ideologues who repeat knowledge claims
without first gaining them dialectically (Sean Hannan, 2014).

1. Read Aristotle's Politics, and make a summary of its contents. Why for Aristotle, politics is
important in our nature and purpose in life? Relate this to his virtue theory? (30)
The book is made up of lectures and structured in a perplexing manner — a quarry of valuable,
but hard to understand ideas and terminology. Books II, III, and VII– VIII, perhaps the first, are
concerned with the ideal state while Books IV–VII study real states and politics. This book is
maybe the last one written in the world.
BOOK I:
• Definition and structure of the State
“Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to
some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all
communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and
which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest
good.” (I.1)
The first book of The Politics introduces the reader to Aristotle's philosophical approach as well
as his ideas on human nature. Aristotle bases his philosophical investigations on the assumptions
that the cosmos is a logical and organized whole, with each element serving an unique role and
importance. Aristotle began politics by discussing about the many types of organizations of the
community that shape human life. Such communities occur at all levels of social life: families,
homes, religious institutions, etc. But the polis (city or city-state) is Aristotle's main type of society.
He does this because the city is the highest type of community. The "good' is happiness, but here
we may only say that the good of the city is aimed at including and transcending the lesser goods
that make up families and households.
We might therefore summarize this authority order:
1. Community with Highest Authority = City
2. Good with Highest Authority = Happiness
3. Knowledge with Highest Authority = Political Science (the Statesman’s knowledge)

The state is the highest community and the goal is to achieve the highest good. It will seem how
different it is from other communities if we analyze the components of it. Aristotle refers to some
natural connections between human types as part of this political naturalism. The first two are
males and females (naturally connected through procreation) and rulers and ruled.
“In the first place, (1) there must be a union of those who cannot exist without the other; for
example, of male and female, that the race may continue; and this is a union which is formed,
not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind
have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves. ‘And (2) there must be a
union of natural ruler and subject, that bath may be preserved. For he who can foresee with his
mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and he who can work with his body is a
subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest.” (I.2)
It is composed of household villages. The household has two relationships between the master and
the slave, male and female; it exists in order to meet the everyday requirements of men. The village,
a larger community, meets a wider range of requirements. The state seeks to meet all men's
requirements. Men establish states that ensure a bare livelihood; yet excellent living is the ultimate
aim of the state. The naturalness of the condition is demonstrated by man's ability to speak. The
state underlies the family and the individual according to the order of nature. It is based on an urge
towards political affiliation.
• Household economy. The Slave. Property. Children and Wives.
Let us start with the household, because the state is made up of them. First, consider slavery. The
slave is an active piece of property that is used for action rather than production. Slavery is natural;
the relationship of ruler and slave may be found in every area of the natural world. There are those
who comprehend it despite the fact that they lack reason. These people are born slaves. However,
there are people in slavery who are not natural slaves. As a result, some people reject slavery as a
whole; nonetheless, they are mistaken. Subjection to a master helps the natural slave. The skill of
governing slaves differs from that of ruling free men, but no extensive description is required;
anybody who is a natural ruler can learn it for himself. In terms of property and the methods of
gaining it. This topic is important to us since property is an essential substratum for the home. But
we don't need a type of finance that seeks to acquire money for the purpose of accumulating wealth.
This is an unethical kind of finance. The creation of coined money has made it feasible. It acquires
wealth via the trade of goods and services. Natural and unnatural finance are sometimes handled
as if they were the same, although they differ in their goals and subject matter. For example, natural
finance is exclusively concerned with the products of the land and animals. Natural finance is
essential for the homeowner, thus, he or she must be knowledgeable about cattle, agriculture, and
potentially the trade of earth's goods, such as wood and minerals, for money. There are particular
treatises on finance, and statesmen should study the topic thoroughly. Finally, we must analyze
and differentiate between husband-wife and father-child relationships.
“Of household management we have seen: that there are three parts--one is the rule of a master
over slaves, which has been discussed already another of a father, and the third of a husband. A
husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule
over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule.” (I.11)
Persons want more care than objects in household administration, and free people demand more
than slaves. Slaves are only capable of a lower level of goodness. Socrates was incorrect in arguing
that there are many types of virtue. Even so, the slave must be educated in morality. Following
that, the learning of the free man will be explored.

BOOK II:

• Ideal Commonwealths: Plato, Phaleas, Rippodamus

“Our purpose is to consider what form of political We must therefore examine not only this but
other constitutions, both such as government actually exist in well-governed states, and any
theoretical forms which are held in esteem; that what is good and useful may be brought to light.
And let no one suppose that in seeking for something beyond them &we at all want to
philosophize at the expense of truth; and we only undertake this enquiry because all the
constitutions with which we are acquainted are faulty.” (II.1)

To determine the character of the ideal state, we need look at both the finest states in history and
the best ones that theorists have envisioned. Otherwise, we risk spending our time on issues that
others have already addressed. Plato's Republic, among thinkers, poses the most fundamental
problems. He wishes to eliminate private property as well as the family. However, the conclusion
is incorrect. He desires to make all of his citizens equal, yet function difference is a natural rule.
A state's cohesiveness may be overpowering. And the methods he proposes to create unity are
incorrect. Property abolition will create, not eliminate, discord. Wife and kid communism will
eliminate natural attachment. Other arguments can be made, but this is the crucial one. To go into
specifics, the benefits of property communism would be better safeguarded if private property was
utilized liberally to alleviate the needs of others. Men are happier when they have private property,
because it allows them to nurture qualities like charity. The Republic assumes that unity is the
consequence of citizen homogeneity, but that is not the case. Plato's notion has always been
rejected by common sense, and testing would demonstrate that it is impractical. Plato drew another
ideal state in the Laws that he intended to be more practical than the other. He abandoned
communism in the legislation, but generally supported the key concepts of the previous book, with
the exception of making the new state larger and too huge. He forgot to consider international ties,
set a limit on private property, control population growth, and distinguish between ruler and
subject. The suggested political system proved unsuitable. The fundamental aspect of Phaleas of
Chalcedon's program was equal property distribution. That would be hard to do and would not
fulfill Phaleas's standards. Dissensions are caused by deeper reasons than wealth inequality. His
state versus alien enemies would be weak. The affluent would be angry with his measures and
would not please the poor. Hippodamus was not a symmetry-oriented practical politician. Three
classes, three forms of landed property, three kinds of laws were to exist in his state. He also
recommended that: (1) a court of appeal should be established, (2) jurors should qualify their
judgements and (3) individuals who made public useful discoveries should be rewarded. His
classes were ill conceived and his property system. It is impossible to get qualified verdicts since
jurors cannot deliberate. The discovery legislation would encourage people to manipulate the
Constitution. Laws should now be modified when outmoded and ridiculous, but unnecessary
modifications will reduce compliance with the law.

• The best existent states: Sparta, Crete, and Carthage-Greek lawgivers

“There is an obvious fallacy in the term ‘all’: like some other words, ‘both,’ ‘odd,’ ‘even,’ it is
ambiguous, and in argument becomes a source of logical puzzles. That all persons call the same
thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if
the words are taken in the other sense [Le. the sense which distinguishes (all’ from ‘each’], such
a unity in no way conduces to harmony.” (II.3)
The Spartans cannot regulate the population of their servants. They are too prominent and affluent
for their wives. In a few groups, their property system focused all the riches. Therefore, the body
of the citizen declined. In the Ephorate, the Senate, the Kingship, the common meals, and the
Admiralty there are issues to criticize. The spartan is only fit for battle with his State, b ut the lack
of a finance structure hampers Sparta even in the battle. In their constitutions, the Cretan cities
look like Sparta but are more primordial. They eat better, yet the Cosmi are worse than the Ephors.
The Cretan constitution is a limited and obstinate oligarchy; only by its inaccessibility are cities
preserved from destruction. The Carthaginian authorities are highly acclaimed, not unreasonably.
It can be compared to the Spartans; it is an oligarchy of certain democratic characteristics. It
stresses riches; all positions are purchased and distributed in Carthage. There may also be one
person holding numerous workplaces together. These characteristics are negative. However,
emigration plans alleviate people's unrest. Solon was the finest lawyer, the conservative and a
moderate democrat when it was feasible. There is little to say about Philolaus, Charondas, Phaleas,
Draco, Pittacus, Androdamas.
The key point that Aristotle plans to address in Book II of politics can often be difficult to resolve
because it is only an on-going commentary on the good and the bad aspects of various theoretical
and actual regimes. However, Aristotle's comments on the different regimes reveal some of
Aristotle's ideas for the best regime and point out certain areas which he will discuss later in the
book. When analyzing any government, Aristoteles' technique is to examine the fundamental
principles of the rule and evaluate if the institutions of the system support those ideals or undermine
them.
Book III:
• Citizen, civic virtue, and the civic body
He who would enquire into the nature and various kinds of government must first of all
determine ‘What is a state?’ (III.1)

Book III is perhaps the primary book of politics, conceptually speaking. Aristotle presents nearly
all of his key views on the purpose of politics, the value of the public, the different regimes and
the nature of the judicial system in this book. How should a citizen be defined? He's not only a
Denizen, he doesn't become a citizen of private rights. He is usually a politician, and he is a juror
and a Member of the National assembly. However, a definition of all so-called citizens is difficult
to obtain. It is useless to call him the son of citizens. Some others think his civil rights have to be
gained fairly. But a citizen is a citizen who, nonetheless, has achieved political authority. Similarly,
the state is determined by the allocation of political power, and a new state is created when the
manner of distribution has been modified. The good citizen may not be a decent guy; the good
person serves his State well, and in essence this state may be terrible. The virtuous citizen is able
to rule and bow to obey in a constitutional state. The decent man's suited for governance. But in a
constitutional state, the citizen learns to govern via obedience. Citizenship is therefore a moral
training in such a polity. Mechanics won't be best-state citizens. This norm is neglected by extreme
democracies and oligarchies. However, circumstances force them to do so. It's no option.
 • The Classification of Constitutions: Democracy and Oligarchy (Kingship)
“The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is
the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of many. The true
forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with
a view to the common interest j but governments which rule with a view to the private interest,
whether of the one, or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.” (III.6)
There are two goals for the State: fulfill the social urge of the human being and adapt it to good
living. Political authority differs from that of slaves, largely for the welfare of the governed.
Constitutions are terrible or excellent, as their purpose is or is not their common benefit. There are
three good constitutions: monarchy, aristocracy and polity. Three are bad: tyranny, oligarchy,
extreme democracy. there are three. The evil are good perversions. The numerical proportion of
rulers to the ruled is not made up of democracy and oligarchies. The rule of the poor is democracy;
that of the affluent is oligarchy. Democrats take equal treatment for their slogan; oligarchs consider
political privileges unfair and proportional with richness. But the fundamental aim of the state,
virtue, is missing from both sides. The most powerful are those who do the most to promote the
virtue. According to the same idea, justice is not the desire of the bulk or the rich, but the course
of action that the State's moral objective calls for. However, are the rulers of many or the few the
better? Giving the Many the highest posts would be ridiculous. But they have a critical faculty that
suits them for judicial and deliberative power. The excellent critic doesn't have to be an expert;
occasionally specialists are terrible judges. In addition, many play a larger role in the city than the
Few. But whether Few or Many, the governing body must be monitored by the law. What premise
is the distribution of political power on? According to him, equal portions are deserved; who are
equal? Obviously, those who can serve the State equally. Therefore, the rich, the free born, the
aristocratic, the highly brilliant advance something in the claims. But none should be permitted to
govern the others of those classes. A state would consist of men equal or almost equal in income,
birth, moral and intellectual perfection.

• The Forms of Monarchy

“Let us see whether in order to be well governed a state or country should be under the rule of a
king or under some other form of government; and whether monarchy, although good for some,
may not be bad for others.” (III.4)
There are five forms of Monarchy, (1) the Spartan one, (2) the Barbarian one, (3) the elected one,
(4) the Heroic one, and (5) the Absolute Kingship. Certain people might see the latter of these
types as the finest politics; that is, if the monarch functions as the law. For in the spirit of the law
will be dispensed from the law. But if reserved for several tiles, this power would be less misused.
Monarchy has arisen in order to satisfy primordial society's demands; it is now outdated and
undesirable for numerous reasons. It is generally legacy; it is subject to the control of an equal.
The individual monarch might be deceived by his passions, and none of the people can fulfill all
government functions. One case alone can be thought of as Absolute Kingdom. Now we agree not
to term Absolute Kingship the finest, let us analyze the foundation and character of the greatest
government.
BOOK IV:

• Variations of the main types of Constitutions

“He ought, moreover, to know the form of government which is best suited to states in general;
for political writers, although they have excellent ideas, are often unpractical. We should
consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily
attainable by all. There are some who would have none but the most perfect; for this many
natural advantages are required. Others, again, speak of a more attainable form, and, although
they reject the constitution under which they are living, they extol someone in particular…”
(IV.1)
Book IV begins with what essentially justifies political philosophy. Political science should
investigate (1) the ideal state, (2) states that may be the best achievable under particular conditions,
and even (3) states that are fundamentally terrible. Because a statesman must sometimes make the
most of a poor constitution. Kingship and aristocracy have been regarded as two of our six major
forms of government (cf. Bk. III, c. 14 fol.). Let us start with the other four and their divisions,
asking when and why they could be desired. First, let's talk about democracy versus oligarchy. The
conventional idea of democracy and oligarchy as the primary kind of Constitution is contrary to
our own opinion and inaccurate. Thus, under the Democracy the many are likewise the poor, but
in the Oligarchy the few are the affluent, since in the Oligarchy the few are the rich. Each state has
the most fundamental class differences: the distinction between affluent and poor. Oligarchy and
democracy are still relevant; and their distinctions emerge from the character disparities between
the wealthy and the poor under their control. Four kinds of democracies exist. Of worst, extreme
democracy: every office is available to anyone, and every law is overriding by the will of the
people. There are also four types of Oligarchies; what is worst is offices in which the legally
uncontrolled posts are hereditary and rulers. These changes occur under conditions which may be
stated concisely. There is only one kind of Aristocracy in the literal sense, in which the best men
are the citizens alone. Polity is a compromise of democracy and oligarchy, but it is inclined towards
democracy. Many so-called Aristocracies are Polities in fact. The compromise that forms a Polity
has many means of achieving it. A successful compromise is shown in the Laconian Constitution.
Tyrolean rule of law on voluntary subjects is previously explored in the three sorts: (1) barbaric
tyranny, and (2) the elective dictatorship. The law on both subjects is rule. However, in (3) the
severe dictatorship of one man over reluctant subjects is the unlawful rule.

• Of the Best State both in general and under special circumstances

“Thus, it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class,
and that those keep it from extremes states are likely to be well-administered, in which the
middle class is large, and larger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either
 singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes
from being dominant.” (III.11)
The ideal constitution for the average city-state will be a compromise between wealthy and poor
control; the middleclass will reign supreme. No state can be well-managed unless the middle class
has sway. The middle class is more powerful in large states than in small states. As a result, it has
seldom achieved power in Greece, especially because democracy and oligarchy were helped by
the influence of the major states. No constitution can exist without the backing of the state's most
powerful class. As a result, in some governments, democracy and oligarchy are the only
constitutional options. However, in these instances, the lawmaker should try to appease the middle
class. Whatever kind of constitution is chosen, there are some precautions to take that may aid in
its preservation.

• How to proceed in framing a Constitution

“But there are various ways in which all may share in the government; they may de liberate, not
all in one body, but by turns, as in the constitution of Telecles the Milesian. There are other
states in which the boards of magistrates meet and deliberate, but come into office by turns, and
are elected out of the tribes and the very smallest divisions of the state, until everyone has
obtained office in his turn. The citizens, on the other hand, are assembled only for the purposes
of legislation, and to consult about the constitution, and to hear the edicts of the magistrates.”
(IV.16)
In specifically, the legislator must address three issues: (a) the Assembly of Deliberations that in
each constitution is distinct. (b) The Executive which of them may be advantageously united in
the person of one magistrate; also if in every state the same positions should be superior; also
which of the twelve or more procedures of nomination in each case must be used. (c) The Courts
of Law which their space of operation and procedures of proceedings must be taken into account.

BOOK V:

• Of Revolutions, and their causes in general

“The design which we proposed to ourselves is now nearly completed. Next in order follow the
causes of revolution in states, how many, and of what nature they are; what elements work ruin
in particular states, and out of what, and into what they mostly change; also, what are the
elements of preservation in states generally, or in a particular state, and by what means each
state may be best preserved: these questions remain to be considered.” (V.1)
Ordinary states are based on wrong conceptions of justice, leading to dissatisfaction and revolt.
Some revolutions are designed to create a new Constitution, some to alter the present constitution,
others to put in new hands the functioning of the Constitution. Democracy and Oligarchy have
both underlying faults leading to revolution, although democracy of the two kinds is the more
stable. We can distinguish between the mental framework that promotes revolution, its objectives,
and its stimulating reasons. This latter should be taken into further detail. Tricks may provide the
opportunity, but they never represent the actual reason of a revolt.

• Revolutions in particular States, and how revolutions may be avoided

“And now, taking each constitution separately, we must see what follows from the principles
already laid down.” (V.5)
In (a) Democracy revolutions might be caused by the persecution of the affluent or by becoming
a general demagogue and politicians competing in favor of the mass. (b) The populace can rebel
against oppression in the Oligarchies, ambitious oligarchs may conspire, appeal or establish a
tyrant. Except for their own members' feuds, the oligarchies are seldom destroyed, unless they
recruit a mercenary commander who may become a dictator. (c) The unfairness of the ruling class
can lead to revolution in aristocracies and politics, but not so frequently in politicians. A non-
privileged class or an ambitious talented guy can likewise ruin aristocracies. Aristocracy tends to
turn into an oligarchy. Furthermore, they are dependable to a slow disintegration. The greatest
safeguards against sedition are the following: to prevent illegal immigrants and frauds against the
unprivileged, to preserve good feelings among the rulers and rulers; to look after damaging
agencies; from time to time to change their property qualifications. We should demand loyalty,
capacity and fairness in all magistrates; we should not put the constitutional concept to the
extremes, and educate citizens in the spirit of a Constitution. (d) The motives and tactics that
destroy a monarchy must be taken into consideration individually. First, we us identify Tyranny
from Kingdom. Tyranny mixes democratic and oligarchical vices. Kingship is subject to
Aristocracy's similar flaws. But the insolence of their representatives and the dread or disdain
which they cause in the other are particularly threatened by both such monarchy. Kingship is
powerful against invasion, weakly against revolution. Tyranny is weak against both external and
domestic enemies. Moderation is Kingship's finest conservator. It is also able to mimic the
kingdom, by modest spending and kindness and temperance in social interactions, by the
employment of ministers, by keeping the balance even among rich and poor, by relying on
conventional expediency in degrading and dividing his followers. However, prior tyrannies were
not long-lasting. The study of Revolutions by Plato is insufficient in the Republic – for example
does not explain and cannot explain the outcomes of a Revolution against Tyranny; nor is the
reason of revolution in the Oligarchy right; nor is there any distinct distinction between different
types of oligarchy and Democracy. The idea of revolution by Aristotle is essentially different from
that of modernity. In its purely political, objective and value-neutral meaning, it is how the ancient
philosopher views revolution. However, modern political theorists associate revolution inevitably
with a notion of development that assumes a basic philosophy of history.

BOOK VI:

• Concerning the proper organization of Democracies and Oligarchies

“We have now considered the varieties of the deliberative or supreme power in states, and the
various arrangements of law-courts and state offices, and which of them are adapted to different
forms of government. We have also spoken of the destruction and preservation of states, how and
from what causes they arise.” (VI. 1)
His perspective of the link between freedom and virtue, as covered in the Book I analysis, indicates
that democracy is a departure from the right political system. (a) Democracy differs amongst
themselves (1) by its citizenship nature and (2) by way of a combination of democratic
characteristics. Freedom is democracy's basic premise. The effects of freedom are that every
person lives as he chooses, and that the numerical majority is superior. We may readily deduce the
other elements of democracy from these qualities. It is not the numerical majority in the
oligarchies, but the richest men who are superior. These two ideas are wrong to the ultimate and
above law the highest power. Numbers and riches should be influenced both. However, it is
difficult, and harder to have people act on them, to discover genuine principles of political fairness.
There are four species of democracy. The finest is a (1) agricultural democracy, in which judges
are elected and accountable to the body of the citizens, whilst everybody has an appropriate
property qualification. These democracies should enforce policies that support agriculture. (2)
Pastoral democracy is the finest thing to do. The Commercial Democracy will follow (3). The
worst thing is (4) the manhood suffrage for the extremist democracy. It is more difficult to maintain
than to establish a democracy. In order to maintain that, we have to avoid looting the affluent; not
exhausting public income by paying public services; we have to avoid the rise of a poor class. (a)
The founding modes of Oligarchies require little explanations. The greatest approach to preserve
these governments is via careful organizing. Much relies on military arrangements; oligarchs must
not over-power their subjects in the military. Acceptance in simple conditions of the governing
authority should be granted. Bureau, not a source of profit, should be become a burden. The correct
organization of offices is crucial both in oligarchies and democracies. In all states, certain kinds of
office are needed; others are exclusive to particular sorts of state.

BOOK VII:

• The Summum Bonum for individuals and states

“He who would duly enquire about the best form of a state ought first to determine which is the
most eligible life; while this remains uncertain the best form of the state must also be uncertain;
for, in the natural order of things, those may be expected to lead the best life who are governed
in the best manner of which their circumstances admit. We ought therefore to ascertain, first of
all, which is the most generally eligible life, and then whether the same life is or is not best for
the state and for individuals.” (VII.1)
It would be logical for Aristotle to begin an investigation of the best life during his discussion of
the greatest city, as the city's purpose of course is to live well. We need to determine what life is
most desirable for governments and individuals before building the ideal state. True pleasure is
the possession of knowledge and morality and not of outward possessions. But a life of virtue
should be equipped as tools with external things. Both states and people are subject to this
legislation. But is contemplation or action the ultimate virtue? The countries of the past existed in
the form of war and conquest for action. But for a State war cannot be considered a justifiable goal.
A good existence involves activity, but both speculative and practical action. Those who consider
a practical politician's life as humiliating are incorrect. But again, they're mistaken, who consider
the highest good political power.

• A picture of the Ideal State

“First among the materials required by the statesman is population: he will consider what
should be the number and character of the citizens, and then what should be the size and
character of the country.” (VII.4)
We must start by taking the population and the territory into account. The first should be as small
as possible without sacrificing independence and the ability to live in morality. The smaller the
population, the better it is. The territory has to be sufficiently large to provide citizens with freedom
and leisure to live in a temperate manner. The town should be centrally located. For economic and
military reasons, communication with the sea is desired; but the moral effects of maritime trade
are bad. The city of the port should be some distance from the city if the state has a marine. The
character of citizens should be a medium between Asians and the northern races; knowledge and
the lofty spirit, as in some Greek races, should harmoniously be combined. The members of the
state must be distinguished from those needed, but not a part of them. There must be males who
can feed, practice the arts, carry on armaments, exchange work, monitor the state religion, perform
politics and judiciary. Of these groups, however, mechanics, (2) dealers, (3) husbandmen should
be excluded from the city body. Civility remains acceptable for warriors, rulers, priests. These
three occupations, but over various lifetime, should be practiced by the same people. They should
be restricted to ownership of land. Such a distinction between a ruling and an object class is nothing
new on the basis of a difference of employment. It remains in Egypt, which is demonstrated by the
habit of regular meals in Crete and Italy. In the course of history, most of the valuable policies
have been revealed. We must differentiate between public demesnes and private estates when
dealing with the territory of the State. The slaves or the barbarians with a servile nature should till
both types of soil. In terms of (1) public health, (2) political convenience, (3) strategic necessities,
the City's site should be selected. The city's ground layout needs to be fair enough and not too
regular that it is impossible to fight defensive fighting. Practical need are walls. It is good to think
carefully about the placement of buildings in the town.
• The Educational System of the Ideal State, its aim, and early stages
“The happiness and well-being which all men manifestly desire, some have the power of
attaining, but to others, from some accident or defect of nature, the attainment of them is not
granted; for a good life requires a supply of external goods, in a less degree when men are in a
good state, in a greater degree when they are in a lower state. Others again, who possess the
condition of happiness, go utterly wrong from the first in the pursuit of it. But since our object is
to discover the best form of government, that, namely, under which a city will be best governed,
and since the city is best governed which has the greatest opportunity of obtaining happiness, it
is evident that we must clearly ascertain the nature of happiness.” (VII.13)
The nature and character of the citizens must be determined with reference to the kind of happiness
which we desire them to pursue. Happiness was defined in the Ethics as the perfect exercise of
virtue, the latter term being understood not in the conditional, but in absolute sense. Now a man
acquires virtue of this kind by the help of nature, habit, and reason. Habit and reason are the fruits
of education, which must therefore be discussed. The citizens should be educated to obey when
young and to rule when they are older. Rule is their ultimate and highest function. As the good
ruler is the same as the good man, our training must be such structured that the good man produces.
It should develop and equip all human strength for all life's activities; but the supreme care of
education must be the supreme power and the greatest activity. This concept is neglected by an
education that is entirely military, like the Laconian. For nations and people, the qualities of peace
(intellectual knowledge, temperance, justice) are the most important; war is nothing but a tool for
peace-keeping. The legislature must establish the marital age, the physical condition of the parents,
the exposure of the children and the duration of marriage to generate a good physical condition.
The physical training for babies and youngsters must also be prescribed. The very young should
be engaged in supervision for moral instruction; they should choose the stories they are told, their
acquaintances, the photos, the plays and the images they see. The preparatory phase for intellectual
training should be between five and seven years of age.

BOOK VIII:

• The Ideal Education continued its Music and Gymnastic

“The customary branches of education are in number four; they are-( I) reading and writing, (2)
gymnastic exercises, (3) music, to which is sometimes added (4) drawing. Of these, reading and
writing and drawing are regarded as useful for the purposes of life in a variety of ways, and
gymnastic exercises are thought to infuse courage. Concerning music, a doubt may be raised-in
our own day most men cultivate it for the sake of pleasure, but originally it was included in
education, because nature herself, as has been often said, requires that we should be able, not
only to work well, but to use leisure well; for, as I must repeat once and again a, the first
principle of all action is leisure.” (VIII.3)
Education should be controlled by the state and all the citizens should be the same. It should
include those ultimate studies anyone should master, but none that degrades the mind or body. The
reading, writing, and drawing of their usefulness have always been taught as gymnastic value.
Music is taught as a leisure, yet it serves a more purposeful function. The ultimate goal for a person
is the honorable use of leisure and for this purpose, the music is useful. The same applies to
drawing, and the same sort of value applies to other disciplines of schooling. Gymnastics is the
first step of training. But at the expense of the intellect, we must not, as in the case of Sparta,
enhance the value and physicality of our children. Body exercise should be mild till puberty and
three years afterwards. Music should not be taught to youngsters if it were a simple entertainment;
it would be preferable to listen to specialists. However, music is a moral discipline and rational
pleasure. Children are better criticized by studying music and are given the right job. When they
are older, they should give up music. They should not have professional skills and complex
instruments should not be taught. For diverse reasons, the varied musical harmonies should be
employed. Some inspire virtue, some courage, some excitement. The ethical harmonies should be
learned by youngsters. The rest may be left to experts. For instruction, the Dorian harmony is the
finest. The Phrygian is harmful, whereas the Lydian is good for youngsters.
Aristotle's strong view that education is important is seen in his previous remark that education is
the best way to preserve a regime and that education must be considered the lawgiver's main
priority more clearly in his unqualified declaration. The significance Aristotle places on education
is founded, like all the main concepts in politics, in his focus on the city's aim of life as well. Given
that the reason for the city is to enable residents to live their decent lives, it is of prime significance
to teach citizens to be virtuous. In addition, having highly educated and moral people will also
contribute to improving the city as a whole.

Politics is important in our nature and purpose in life

“And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them,
and the [completed] nature is the end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its
nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family.” (I.1.8)
In Aristotle's Politics (Book I), Aristotle provides the groundwork for his political philosophy,
claiming that urban and politics is important in our nature and purpose in life because they are
simply characterized as "natural." The argument begins with a schematic, quasi-historical
explanation of the city-evolution states from simpler settlements. First, people merge in pairs, since
they cannot exist alone. In order to reproduce, men and women joined together, and the master and
slave came together to preserve themselves. The natural master used his understanding as his
authority, while the natural slave utilized his body to work. Secondly, these primitive groups
spontaneously formed the home to satisfy daily requirements. Thirdly, a village also formed
according to nature when numerous homes were joined for additional requirements. Finally, the
entire community, made up of several villages, is a city-state which at once reaches the boundary
of autonomy, in broad terms. "It comes to be for the sake of life, and exists for the sake of the good
life.” (I.2.1252b27–30) (Miller, 2017).
Aristotle outlines, in his nicomachean ethics, the happy life intended by nature for man to be lived
according to virtue and in his Politics, he describes his role in bringing virtuous living into the
citizens, politics and the political community. The Politics also analyzes the sort of political
community that existed in his day and illustrates how and where these towns are below the ideal
community of virtuous people. While we obviously have in some ways gone beyond aristotelian
thinking (e.g., his belief in the inferiority of women and in at least certain circumstances, his
support of slavery), there remain a great deal of useful Aristotlean philosophy today. His opinions
on the relationship between well-being of the political community and the citizens who make up
this community were, in particular, a source of inspiration for many modern theorists, his
conviction that citizens should be active in the world of politics if they are to be happy and virtuous
particularly those who are not happy with the liberal theory of philosophers like John Locke or
John Stuart Mill (Edward Clayton, 2021).
Thus, according to Aristotle, the objective of politics is to examine what is good governance and
poor government on the basis of the constitutions collected and to find favorable and unfavorable
criteria for the maintenance of a Constitution. Aristotle says all societies are looking for a good
thing. The state, via the state of Athens, is the greatest form of community, which aims to achieve
the highest goods. The state (polis) Men and women households, owners and slaves are the most
basic societies. Families form a village and many villages join to become the first autonomous
community. This is demonstrated by the fact that human people have the ability of speech to
present the convenient and the inconvenient, and hence the just and the unjust. The state is no less
natural than the family. The state was founded the greatest of benefits, because human beings may
achieve their potential only inside a state (Kenny and Amadio, 2021).

2. Explain Aristotle's typology of regimes comprehensively, including the differences of those

types, how they work, and their systems? (30)
“The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is
the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of many. The true
forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with
a view to the common interest j but governments which rule with a view to the private interest,
whether of the one, or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.” (III.6)
The government must be in the manner of one, of several, or of many, Aristotle argues; and
governments might rule for the welfare of all or for the good of the rulers. Government of a single
person is termed "monarchy" for the common welfare; "tyranny" for individual profit. A minority
government is 'aristocracy' if it strives to the best interests of the state and 'oligarchy' if only the
governing minority benefits. In common interest Aristotle calls the popular government "polity;"
it reserves to anarchic mob control the name 'democracy.' If a society has a person or a family of
exceptional brilliance, monarchy is the greatest constitution, argues Aristotle. However, this
scenario is exceedingly unusual and the chance of miscarriage is high, because monarchy turns
into tyranny, which is everyone's worst nightmare. In theory, aristocracy is the next best
constitution after monarchy (because the ruling minority is the best qualified to rule) but in
practical practice, Aristotle has preferred a kind of constitutional democracy, for what he called
the political state is the state in which, with the agreement of everyone, the wealthy and poor
respect the rights of each other and those who are most qualified to rule.
The table below represents the Aristotle’s typology of Governments:
Not only did Aristotle classify nations or governments, but he also sought to study their evolution
and cycle of change. In all forms of administration, he claimed, the transition took place as a natural
occurrence, because state forms spin like cycle wheels. According to him, "the first governments
were kingships; possibly because of this, persons of remarkable qualities were scarce in ancient
times when cities were tiny. You have become kings because you have been made benefactors and
so only virtuous folks may give you advantages. However, when many equal in merit emerged,
they created a Commonwealth and established a constitution against the preeminence of the same.
The governing elite soon degraded and grew wealthy off the treasury. Riches was the way to honor
and oligarchies were therefore raised. They became tyrannies and tyrannies became democracies.
In the governing classes, the love of gain was always reduced and so the crowds strengthened. The
masses finally set themselves against their rulers and created democracies." From this remark from
Aristotle, it is obvious that the first monarchy war in society and the superior individual of society
were chosen as king. Tyranny had been created after a certain time when the monarchs started
exploiting the populace for their egoistic purposes. This form of government has long been
unacceptable to people, and some thinkers have granted sovereign powers. Aristocracy has
therefore been founded. The passage of time deteriorated and the nature of Aristocracy became
established. However, for a long time, people could not accept a government that had the advantage
of the ruling elite alone. When there was the occasion, the people, as a whole, revolted successfully
against such a power and formed a Polity that gave supreme power to a major part of the people.
They were utilized for the general good, " Polity was twisted, democracy was replaced. Democracy
degenerates and people rebel in rebellion against it. The people again pick an administration and
a monarchy for a warrior-state. The cycle of political change of Aristotle thus circles (Political
Science Editors, n.d.).

3. Present the similarities and differences of Eastern and Western social and political
philosophy? (20)
It is nothing but the moral phenomenon of man's behavior within society, the political idea of the
State, its nature, organization and purpose. Philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates made
significant and helpful contributions to their day. Greek begins with political thinking. Man is a
smart and understanding animal and his institutions have demonstrated a propensity. Origin of
political thinking, the ancient Greek is thought to some academics, this concept is one of the oldest
ideas maintained and handed on in the form of a treatise to the next generations. Greek was the
first to present the political ideas and concepts in systematic form and their ideas
greatly molded the reopen thought and form the basis of modern Political thinking.
On the other hand, Asia is also rich in political philosophy. The West just didn't know it. A meeting
with this political thinking enables the evolution and meanings of such key Western ideas as
democracy, freedom and equality to be comparatively examined. This shows that Asian political
thinking originated from a historical setting different from that in the West. This was one of three
waves of ancient Asian galactic politics in the chronological framework of their terrible subjection
to western colonization, and their modern quest for true and autonomous political expression.
Those western-derived ideals of democracy, freedom and equality, swept over these three Asian
contextual waves, undergoing a re-naming and re-enhancing for East and West alike.
Indeed, Asia is as deep as it is in the west with political ideals. Indeed, as such concepts are built
on its Western colonial heritage in Asia, the West has a lot to learn about its material and
intellectual scope on these far boundaries. This view of Asia and its political thinking as a response
to the classical, colonial and modern contextual problems raises the topic of Asian distinction in
relation to modern Asian concepts of democracy and its associated concepts of freedom and
equality. Although many Asian States, including India and Japan, have their own constitutions,
the basis of these concepts comes from a variety of cultures and historical events - Asian cultures
and experiences. Basically, while in Asian experience and culture there is nothing to prevent
democracy itself, the basic difference between Asia and the West and the balance between the
individual and the family may need a different meaning in Asia. The freedom to characterize
individual destiny is before the family, and its link with the state and its allegiance, are present in
all Asian nations. In the West, however, people are encouraged to lose their familial connections
and freely plan their individual lives without disparities in the status of both the family and the
community in general (at least in theory). This new equilibrium needs a different understanding of
freedom and equality with democracy. None has more emphasized this distinction than Lee Kwan
Yew, Singapore's former Premier, who argued that democracy still had to be subject to family
discipline in Asia, and who has therefore made no excuses on the streets of his city for the worship
of Western teenagers. We must thus put different terms and notions into play in order to discuss
democracy in Asia. In fact, in Asia, the debate on statehood and political power should focus on
democracy. These concerns in Asia centered on the creation and preservation of order and social
hierarchy, while all of Asian policies had recognized that reciprocity and legitimization of their
acts in a manner which gained public acceptance and support were best served by statehood and
political power. In Asia, however, there is a contextual basis, although not on the same egalitarian
basis as in the West. For instance, in his historic setting, Lucian Pye talks of democracy in Asia,
under what he terms "paternal authority" and "dependency policy."
Similarly, Asia must re-cast its Western core of freedom. In Asia, freedom is defined differently
in at least three different ways than all of the human rights given by the constitutional Charter of
Rights and the like to individuals in the West. Firstly, freedom in Asia is more of an idea of a
community than of a person. Indians were able to seek swaraj (self-rule), although its greatest
defender, Mahatma Gandhi, was more common to independent communities (ashasrams), not to
individual human rights. Second, freedom for individuals is relatively autonomous to these all-
encompassing social institutions, from their multi-layered duties. Daoist Knights-errant and Hindu
Kshatriya soldiers, although only in the limits of their greater responsibilities to the Heavenly
Mandate and the cosmic dharma of themselves, enjoyed the liberty of battlefield and tactics. High-
caste widows in ancient India were allowed to avoid widowhood degradations or humiliation by
suttee (self-immolation on a funeral pyre). Third, religious freedom is the fullest manifestation in
Asia. Buddhism in China gave the world and politics a release or nirvana. In the exterior
obligations and rituals of Confucianism, Daoism developed the independence of the spirit. In India,
after fulfilling his numerous social and political responsibilities and moksha, the householder (in
western terms the responsible citizen) might depart honorably from the woods, seeking freedom
from knowledge. Until Western politics and ideas were inserted, freedom did not lie in politics in
Asia. Finally, there has been a major effect on all Asian civilizations by the overarching western
concept of equality. In fact, the notion was the cornerstone to undermine the western empire itself.
But Asian civilizations retain a deeper root in hierarchy with this wave of Western Egalitarianism.
Western concepts of equality and equal dignity have become the fabric of all Asian cultures.
However, the "Hierarchical correctness persists. Gandhi named Untouchables, Harijans, or, for
example, "Sons of God, but the moral excellence of Caste itself was upheld. Echos from the ancient
Confucian hierarchy remain strong in China, as well as in Japan's distinctive business culture in
terms of samurai rituals and hierarchies.
Equality is thus better translated into equal treatment in Asia with this hierarchical persistence, a
phrase that allows greater room in a wording of fairness and justice for social strata. The only
purpose of this quick conclusion to these three main principles is that, hitherto, political thinking
has grown around Western political experience almost entirely. When studied comparably via their
development in different cultures, such as Asia, the cultural contexts of such apparently universal
concepts such as democracy, freedom and equality reach greater significance and depth (Timothy
Lomperis, n.d.).

Primary sources:
Aristotle (Trans. by Jowett, Benjamin). Aristotle’s Politics. The Modern Library New York.
Retrieved from https://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/Aristotle-Politics.pdf on August 28,
2021
Aristotle (Trans. by Jowett, Benjamin). THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE with introduction,
marginal analysis essays, notes and indices. Clarendon Press. Retrieved from https://oll-
resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/579/0033-01_Bk_SM.pdf on August 28,
2021

Secondary sources:
Clayton, Edward (2021). Aristotle: Politics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/ on August 28, 2021
Political Science Editors (n.d.). Classification of Government Sccording to Aristotle. Political
Science. Retrieved from https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/classification-
government-sccording-aristotle/308 on August 29, 2021
Hannan, Sean (2014). Discussion Notes for Aristotle’s Politics. Autumn 2014. Retrieved from
https://hcommons.org/app/uploads/sites/1000608/2017/06/Notes_for_a_Discussion_of_Aristotle
s_Pol.pdf on August 29, 2021
Grade Saver Editors (n.d.). Aristotle's Politics by Aristotle. Grade Saver. Retrieved from
https://www.gradesaver.com/aristotles-politics/study-guide/summary on August 29, 2021
Miller, Fred (2017). "Aristotle's Political Theory". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/aristotle-politics. on August
29, 2021
Kenny, A. J.P. and Amadio, . Anselm H. (2021, March 2). Aristotle. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle on August 29, 2021