A Critique of Plato s Republic by Aristotle

In book two of Aristotle’s Politics, Aristotle defines his ideal state by criticizing the
values put forward in Plato’s The Republic. In doing so, Aristotle censures Plato’s
idea of state unification through sharing as much as possible, including wives,
children, and property. Aristotle counters that Plato’s concept is detrimental to the
state’s unity because it prevents the individual citizen from achieving his or her
maximum role in society and being as happy as possible. In critiquing Plato’s
constitution, Aristotle provides solutions of his own that promote the diversity of
function within the state and allow for each citizen to achieve his maximum role in
society.
Throughout book two of Politics, Aristotle’s discrepancies with Plato’s ideal state
revolve around the idea of communal sharing. Aristotle first attacks Plato’s suggestion
that men must share the women of the city and that their children be taken from their
mothers at birth and raised in state nurseries. Aristotle argues that Plato’s reasoning
behind his claim (to unify the state) is illogical because, in time, all citizens will
become the same, which is detrimental. Instead, Aristotle contends that diversity in
terms of experience and specialty is essential. He believes that as a state moves
toward total unification, it loses its identity as a nation, making the analogy of the
unified state as a household rather than a nation.
Second, Aristotle argues that the practicality of Plato’s concept would inevitably lead
to a weakened sense of attachment by the citizen. This diluted sense of attachment
would without doubt prohibit the citizen from feeling any responsibility toward his
fellow citizen or the state and would lead to harmful results. Aristotle is of the opinion
that since man is naturally selfish, it would be unlikely for man to innately respect his
fellow citizen, as it is not directly beneficial to him. Furthermore, Aristotle combats
Plato’s concept by affirming the fact that the greater number of owners, the less likely
one is to respect the common property. This idea relates back to man’s natural
selfishness, as Aristotle says, “[people] exercise care over common property only in
so far as they are personally affected.” (p. 108)
Finally, Aristotle refutes Plato’s idea of communal property, as he believes that this
principle not only leads lack of responsibility with regard to property, but also
abandons the virtues of generosity and mutual respect.
Although Aristotle finds many flaws in the policies of Plato’s Republic, he is able to
propose logical solutions that are built around the principle of allowing the each
within the nation’s population to achieve his maximum function as a citizen. Aristotle
first addresses the issue of the overwhelming similarity between citizens, stating that a
nation must consist of different types of citizens in order to function and be unified.
He validates this by stating that different citizens’ duties compliment the other
citizens of the state. By saying, “It is reciprocal equivalence that keeps a state in
being,” Aristotle is showing that for each and every citizen’s duty, there is an opposite
and complimentary duty. The succeeding solution applied to the placement of the
communal wives and children, but does not offer an outright solution. Instead,
Aristotle claims that a community of wives and children should be in place for the
agricultural class rather than the Guardian class. This, he argues, would be supremely
more beneficial to the state because this concept undoubtedly leads to a lack of
attachment within the society. Aristotle states that “A lack of strong affection among
the ruled is necessary in the interests of obedience and absence of revolt.” (p. 110)
Finally, Aristotle immediately responds to Plato’s communist-like theory on property
by insisting that property should be owned privately but its yield shared amongst the
community. Aristotle adds to this concept by proposing a different work theory in
which land is worked on by others, and since the produce of the work is divided
equally, it prevents animosity. Aristotle justifies privatizing property by claiming that
it promotes individual work efficiency by creating individual responsibility.
Moreover, Aristotle relates back to man’s natural selfishness and asserts that owning
private property offers immense pleasure and oftentimes leads to benevolence.
Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato’s ideal state lay waste to the proposed constitution of
the Republic by effectively pointing out impossibilities that are a result of natural
human behavior. Plato’s Republic outlines a Utopian society that is the result of the
government’s suppression of functional growth. The society does not allow any
fragment of freedom, as people are assigned jobs based on their specialty.
Furthermore, all ambition is restricted by the noble lie, in which citizens are organized
by their presumed potential, which is determined in early youth. In addition, property
and family is communal, which essentially transforms the state into one single entity
that prevents citizens from associating with one another. On the other hand, Aristotle
takes a more modern approach that allows for individual happiness while promoting
that of the state simultaneously. Aristotle’s solutions accommodate human behavior
by promoting the citizen’s ability and encouraging him to achieve his utmost function
in society.
Plato’s Republic would seem to be the most logical form of government, as it
proposes an incorruptible ruling class and an obedient labor class, but it fails when
taking into account ambition, the desire for happiness, and greed. The overall flaw in
The Republic is that Plato assumes that if the state is happy, its citizens must be
happy, and this is certainly not true. Aristotle reverses this structure and focuses on
satisfying the citizens in order to create a happy and unified state. Politics’ solutions
to the overall flaws in The Republic allow for a healthy, satisfied government while
concurrently advocating the happiness of the citizen