Basic biography

Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.E.) Aristotle is a towering figure in Ancient Greek

philosophy. Born in Macedonia. He was a student of Plato for twenty years but
is famous for rejecting. Plato’s theory of forms. Aristotle was the founder of
the Lyceum, a school based in Athens. Aristotle’s works, exerted tremendous
influence on ancient and medieval thought and continue to inspire
philosophers to this day.
Aristotle’s views on Human Nature
Human beings can only thrive in a political community: the human is a
“political animal” and thus the political community exists by nature. He holds
in his “ergon argument” that the human being has a proper ergon—work or
function. The human function must be an activity of the psyche not without
reason.
Eudaimonia (Happiness) is a state of utmost perfection and completion for a
human being.
Aristotle distinguishes three parts of the psyche: passions, powers, and habits.
Passions include attitudes such as feeling fear, hatred, or pity for others, while
powers are those parts of our form that allow us to have such passions and to
gain knowledge of the world. However, while all human beings share passions
and powers, they differ with regard to how they are trained or habituated and
thus with respect to their dispositions or states of character.
No one tries to live well for the sake of some further goal; rather, being
eudaimonia is the highest end.
The soul is analysed into a connected series of capacities: the nutritive soul is
responsible for growth and reproduction, the locomotive soul for motion, the
perceptive soul for perception, and so on.
Human beings are the only species that has not only these lower capacities but
a rational soul as well. Living well consists in activities caused by the rational
soul in accordance with virtue or excellence.
The good of a human being must have something to do with being human; and
what sets humanity off from other species, giving us the potential to live a
better life, is our capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we use reason
well, we live well as human beings; or, to be more precise, using reason well
over the course of a full life is what happiness consists in.
Aristotle on Constitutions
Aristotle states that “the politician and lawgiver is wholly occupied with the
city-state, and the constitution is a certain way of organizing those who inhabit
the city-state”. Aristotle defines the constitution (politeia) as a way of
organizing the offices of the city-state, particularly the sovereign office.
The constitution thus defines the governing body, which takes different forms:
for example, in a democracy, it is the people, and in an oligarchy, it is a select
few (the wealthy or well born).
Fundamental claim of Aristotle's constitutional theory: “constitutions which
aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification,
whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and
unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a
community of free persons”.
Six possible constitutional forms (Government)
Government by a single person for the general good is called “monarchy”; for
private benefit, “tyranny.” Government by a minority is “aristocracy” if it aims
at the state’s best interest and “oligarchy” if it benefits only the ruling
minority. Popular government in the common interest Aristotle calls “polity”;
he reserves the word “democracy” for anarchic mob rule.
If a community contains an individual or family of outstanding excellence,
then, Aristotle says, monarchy is the best constitution. But such a case is very
rare, and the risk of miscarriage is great, for monarchy corrupts into tyranny,
which is the worst constitution of all.
Aristocracy, in theory, is the next-best constitution after monarchy (because
the ruling minority will be the best-qualified to rule), but in practice Aristotle
preferred a kind of constitutional democracy, for what he called “polity” is a
state in which rich and poor respect each other’s rights and the best-qualified
citizens rule with the consent of all.
Kingship or Monarchy, the first "right" constitution identified by Aristotle, is
rule by a single man who becomes a ruler through heredity or election.
Aristotle thought kings have the advantage of acting quickly and decisively in
emergencies. Aristotle argued, kings should not possess absolute power. They
should be limited by the law.
What happens when a king uses his power to benefit only himself and not the
common interest? In this case a king becomes a tyrant. Tyranny, the corrupt
form of kingship, is the first example of a "wrong" constitution.
Aristotle classified aristocracy as one of his "right" constitutions. Aristocracies
are societies governed by a small group of men chosen because they are the
"best." But when an aristocracy rules for the benefit of the rich, it becomes an
oligarchy, another one of Aristotle's "wrong" constitutions.
Aristotle was never a fan of democracy and he included it as one of his
"wrong" constitutions. Aristotle believed democracy meant that every free-
born man had the right and duty to help rule the city."Each of them by himself
may not be of a good quality; but when they all come together it is possible
that they may surpass...the quality of the few best."
Aristotle’s Ethics
 Something is good if it performs its proper function.
 The good of human beings cannot be answered with the exactitude of a
mathematical problem since mathematics starts with general principles
and argues to conclusions.
 Moral virtue is not the end of life for it can go with inactivity, misery, and
unhappiness.
 Happiness, the end of life, that to which all aims, is activity in accordance
with reason. People have a natural capacity for good character, and it is
developed through practice.
 The sequence of human behaviour raises the question of which is
preeminent--acts or dispositions.
 Virtue, arete(MORAL VIRTUE), or excellence is defined as a mean
between two extremes of excess and defect in regard to a feeling or
action as the practically wise person would determine it. Eg courage:
courage is the balance between cowardice and harsh.
 Pleasure is the natural accompaniment of unimpeded activity.
 Pleasure cannot be directly sought--it is the side-product of activity. It is
only an element of happiness.
  Friendship: a person's relationship to a friend is the same as the relation
to oneself. The friend can be thought of as a second self.
 Reason is the highest faculty of human beings. We can engage in it
longer than other activities.
Aristotle on Justice
What is in accordance with the law of a state is thought to be conducive to the
common good and/or to that of its rulers.
The problem is that civil law can itself be unjust in the sense of being unfair to
some, so that we need to consider special justice as a function of fairness
(justice, equity and good conscience.)
Distributive justice involves dividing benefits and burdens fairly among
members of a community (eg ration card), while corrective justice requires us,
in some circumstances, to try to restore a fair balance in interpersonal
relations where it has been lost.
Like all moral virtues, for Aristotle, justice is a rational mean between bad
extremes. Proportional equality or equity involves the “intermediate” position
between someone’s unfairly getting “less” than is deserved and unfairly getting
“more” at another’s expense.
The “mean” of justice lies between the vices of getting too much and getting
too little, relative to what one deserves, these being two opposite types of
injustice, one of “disproportionate excess,” the other of disproportionate
“deficiency”.
Political justice, of both the lawful and the fair sort, is held to apply only to
those who are citizens of a political community.
Aristotle is prepared to distinguish between what is naturally just and unjust,
on the one hand, such as whom one may legitimately kill, and what is merely
conventionally just or unjust, on the other, such as a particular system of
taxation for some particular society.
Decency can correct the limitations of the law and represents a higher form of
justice . Political justice must be viewed as a function of the common good of a
community.
Political justice requires “proportional” rather than numerical equality. Equality
according to merit. Anyone who is inferior intellectually and morally is properly
socio-politically inferior in a well-ordered polis. Aristotle holds that some are
marked as superior and fit to rule from birth, while others are inferior and
marked from birth to be ruled by others.
Males are “naturally superior” and females “naturally inferior”.
ARISTOTLE ON IDEAL STATE:

The state, according to him, is an organism. The following example

explains the concept of state as an organism. Hand is a part of the
human body, and if the body is destroyed, there is nothing called a hand.
A hand, so to say, is recognized by its functions or end or purpose, that
is, to grasp things.

This function can be performed only if it is a part of the human body.

Similarly, individuals in the state are like hands of the body. The purpose
of these individuals is to lead a good life and this is not possible unless
they are a part of the state. To make the state healthy, individuals must
also be healthy.

He once stated that, he who is unable to live in a society, or who has no

need because he is self-sufficient must be either a beast or God.

Aristotle also believed that a man when perfected is the best of animals,
but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all. Thus, a
man in a state without law and justice, according to Aristotle, is the
worst of all animals.

The state according to Aristotle is not a mere society of exchange of

goods and prevention of crime, but the one that ensures a happy and
honorable life to individuals in the state.
1. There is supremacy of law in his ideal state. He favours impersonal rule of
law which represents the wisdom of community since the ages.

2. It is an ethical institution to develop the moral qualities of the citizens to

promote good and happy life of everyone.

3. Private ownership but common use of property.

4. Aristotle’s ideal state is marked by division of labour where slaves are

engaged in agriculture residents in commerce and citizens in political activities.

5. Aristotle’s ideal state is the city state of the moderate size. Population should
be manageable.

6. It should be self-sufficient, without any aggressive design against foreign

countries.

7. There should be six classes, viz., agriculture, artisans, and a war like class,
leisured class, priests and administrators. Only the later four are entitled for
citizenship.

8. There is a predominance of middle class that provide stability because it

possesses twin qualities of obedience and command.

Aristotle on Natural Law

Greek Philosophy emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis) and
man-made "law," "custom," or "convention" (nomos). What was commanded
by law and custom varied from place to place, but what was dictated "by
nature" was universally the same.
Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of
“natural justice” or “natural right” consisting of those expectations which,
when human nature was taken into consideration, seemed reasonable for
human beings co-existing in a society.
Aristotle is often referred to as “the father of natural law.”
This appellation is debatable.
Aristotle emphasized the virtues, which he considered to be universal and a
higher way of life.
Aristotle's association with natural law is due largely to the interpretation
given to his works by Thomas Aquinas.
It was based on Aquinas' conflation of natural law and the “natural right”
posited by Aristotle in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics (= Book IV of the
Eudemian Ethics).
Aristotle held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what
was “just by law.”
There was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not
existing by people’s thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it
from positive law.
However, he drew his examples of natural law primarily from his observation
of the Greeks in their city-states, who subordinated women to men, slaves to
citizens, and “barbarians” to Hellenes.
Aristotle noted that natural justice is a species of political justice.
Such as the scheme of distributive and corrective justice that would be
established under the best political community.
Were this scheme to take the form of law, it could be called a natural law.
Though Aristotle did not discuss this and suggests in Politics that the best
regime may not rule by law at all.
The best evidence that Aristotle thought a natural law existed comes from
Rhetoric.
Where Aristotle notes that, aside from the “particular” laws that each people
has set up for itself, there is a “common” law that operates according to
nature.
The context of this remark, however, suggests only that Aristotle advised that
there might be occasions where it could be rhetorically advantageous to
appeal to such a law.
Especially when the “particular” law of one’s own city was averse to the case
being made, he did not assert that there actually was such a law. Critics
however point out that Aristotle never actually spoke about Natural Law
directly.
Therefore, it can be contested whether Aristotle was indeed the Father of
Natural law.

Four Causes
In the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle places the following crucial condition on
proper knowledge:
We think we have knowledge of a thing only when we have grasped its cause.
That proper knowledge is knowledge of the cause is repeated in the Physics:
we think we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why,
that is to say, its cause.
Since Aristotle obviously conceives of a causal investigation as the search for
an answer to the question “why?”, and a why-question is a request for an
explanation, it can be useful to think of a cause as a certain type of
explanation.
In Physics II 3 and Metaphysics V 2, Aristotle offers his general account of the
four causes.
This account is general in the sense that it applies to everything that requires
an explanation, including artistic production and human action.
Here Aristotle recognizes four kinds of things that can be given in answer to a
why-question.
The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape
of a statue.
The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the
artisan, the art of bronze casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the
father of the child.
The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g.,
health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.
All the four (kinds of) causes may enter in the explanation of something.
Consider the production of an artifact like a bronze statue.
The bronze enters in the explanation of the production of the statue as the
material cause. Note that the bronze is not only the material out of which the
statue is made; it is also the subject of change, that is, the thing that undergoes
the change and results in a statue.
The bronze is melted and poured in order to acquire a new shape, the shape of
the statue. This shape enters in the explanation of the production of the statue
as the formal cause.
However, an adequate explanation of the production of a statue requires also
a reference to the efficient cause or the principle that produces the statue. For
Aristotle, this principle is the art of bronze-casting the statue.
Clearly, the statue enters in the explanation of each step of the artistic
production as the final cause or that for the sake of which everything in the
production process is done.
For example, the cause or explanation of a table, in terms of the four aitias, is
that it is solid and grained because it is made of wood (material), it does not
collapse because its design with four legs of equal length (formal), it occurs as
such because a carpenter made it from wood (agency), and it has these
dimensions because of is intended to support objects (purpose).
Aristotle’s Theory of Revolution
To Aristotle, if any change occurs in the existing system or constitution of the
state, it means revolution.
For example, if in the state the constitution has changed from monarchy to
democracy, it is a revolution. Aristotle was of the view that if the constitution
remains the same, but the ruling party has been transferred from one man to
another, it is also a revolution.
General Causes of Revolution
The main feature of revolution is to be the craving of men for equality. Equality
has two characters-absolute and proportional. The rich-poor divide plays a role
in revolution as the poor try to get absolute equality and the rich try to get
proportionally more power. Strong desire for justice becomes another feature
of revolution.
Particular Causes of Revolution
Desire for gain and profit. Universal desire for honor and prestige. The
possession of sovereign power by an individual or group so as to create fear
and apprehension in the minds of the subject.
Undue priority and prominence of individuals caused great stir in the heart of
the subdued people. Disproportionate increase of power and wealth in any
part of the state. Elections intrigues and moral degradation kept up in the
selection of some people
Carelessness shown in granting public offices to disloyal citizens and undue
favoritism shown to the individuals. Too much power concentrated in one man
or class of men for political gains.
Dissimilarity of different elements in the state. The rivalries of people of
different races in the state. Dynastic quarrels and conflicts. Free immigration of
outside races with different notions of justice and law.
ARISTOTLE THEORY OF REVOLUTION:

https://www.scholarshipsads.com/aristotles-theory-of-revolution/

Aristotle – Golden Mean (Refer to Aristotle’s ethics slides)

The Golden Mean is a sliding scale for determining what is virtuous. Aristotle
believed that being morally good meant striking a balance between two vices.
You could have a vice of excess or one of deficiency. So, true courage would be
a balance between too much courage, recklessness, and too little courage,
cowardice.

According to him, in every state there are three classes, viz., the very rich, the
very poor and the middle class (the mean). Those who are rich excel in strength,
beauty; birth or wealth and they grow arrogant, violent and criminal.

The poor, on the other hand, are ugly, weak and often become victims of
jealousies, intriguing, rogues and petty rascals. While the former do not obey
laws, the latter tend to break the laws. The government, therefore, by the former
would be despotic and that formed by the latter would be despicable. In either
situation, the state remains divided by conflicts, bitterness, jealousies and
frictions.

The state can never be one as there is an eternal war with each other. So,
Aristotle suggested that the best way is to follow the law of the golden mean. In
other words, governments must be run by middle class citizens who favour
neither class. They neither covet not plot but only command acceptance for their
power is transformed into authority.

Therefore, Aristotle suggested that the legislators must always ensure the
association of the middle class with the government. If it is numerically stronger
than the other two classes, then it is definitely a source of stability. Aristotle
opined that the continuous rule by either the rich or the poor is worst calamity,
that can ever happen to a state and for this reason; he supported the rule of
middle class, as the best rule—it is the golden mean.

Aristotle believed that middle class rule ensures not only stability but also
liberty and equality. Liberty is not necessarily doing what one likes to do, but it
is also to live by the rule of the constitution. Liberty also refers to the ability to
rule as well as be ruled. This is justice. Thus, liberty, according to Aristotle, is
based on justice, which is distributive, and rests on the basis of proportionate
equality.

ARISTOTLE ON GOLDEN MEAN:

https://mereliberty.com/philosophy/golden-mean-philosophy/
Aristotle on Equality
It is unjust to treat equals unequally, but it is equally unjust to treat an unequal
equally. First statement is universally acceptable as a principle of justice. It
would be unjust if we try to treat persons with equal merits, differently.
Also makes the point that it is also unjust if we give equal rewards to 2
persons who are unequal in terms of their merit.
Way can link this theory of justice with his theory of slavery. It is injustice if we
treat master and slave equally.
Those who have reason and courage what to do ought to be the masters and
those who lack these qualities ought to be the slave.

Aristotle on good life: ( also add eudemonia)

Aristotle aims to identify the highest good of human beings
Many people think its materials, honour, and bodily pleasures but Aristotle
thinks material wealth, honour and bodily pleasure is always not acquired for
eudemonia. ( non-fit for human beings)
He says that what identifies as the highest good for human beings is what leads
to the maximisation of our faculties as human beings. What separates human
beings from animals is reason. A good life for human beings must include
contemplation and learning and acquiring the intellectual virtues.
Aristotle associates the intellectual virtues with scientific knowledge. There are
2 kinds: knowledge that comes from the fundamental truths of nature and
knowledge that comes from inference and demonstration, application.
But spending life in contemplation alone is not enough. He claims that a
person who lives a good life also acts rightly and develops a good character
from which right actions occur. Intellectual virtue comes from learning and the
character virtues like courage, temperance and generosity comes from
habituation and life experience. They occupy the middle ground of excess and
deficiency. Eg courage is middle ground between cowardly and rash,
Therefore intellectual virtues and virtues of character makes you live a good
life.