Aristotle's Politics

[QuikSand]

As I previously mentioned in the Life Syllabus thread, I am taking a seminar at St. John’s college, covering a number of great books and dealing with Freedom, Virtue, and Society. After two sessions (covering Huckleberry Finn and Plato's Meno) I now have a decent sense of what to expect… and I’m now trying to get the most out of my third reading – Aristotle’s The Politics. Specifically, our discussion this month will focus on Book Three, discussing the nature of citizenship and the virtues of citizens and leaders.

(I'll repeat my intro from the last discussion as well...)

I confess, I missed out on most of my liberal arts in college, as I was busy taking a more science-oriented curriculum, and only gravitated to the softer sciences later on. I took a couple classes in philosophy, a few more in political science, but I missed out on a lot of classics in these areas. I have read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics before, and am generally familiar with The Politics but this is my first academically rigorous reading of it (much like the Meno).


My discussion session is this Wednesday -- my apologies for the late posting of this thread, but if there’s anyone who might be interested in a discussion of The Politics, I’m game to be part of it both before and after my class session. I now have some optimism that I’ll come out of the class session with a bit more to say and share than I will have going in, so perhaps this timing is just fine.


A few resource links, for those who might be interested:

The Politics

Direct Link to book Three



A useful summary and analysis of The Politics

The Life and Work of Aristotle

Essays on Aristotle



For background reference (or if you just missed it), here’s a link to the previous thread, discussing Plato’s Meno

[st.cronin]

I find Aristotle incredibly intimidating, but I'll be following this thread.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I find Aristotle incredibly intimidating, but I'll be following this thread.

It was probably the steroids

[QuikSand]

Well, here's what I take as the central issues appropriate for our discussion:

-Aristotle speaks, at some lenght here, about the nature of being a citizen. Some of this is pretty banal (getting into semingly bureaucratic definitional hair-splitting) that I don't find interesting, but he wants to be clear whout who, exactly is a citizen. Because it is your role as citizen that he wants to explore here in Book Three.

-The notion of virtue (underlying theme of this class) lies here again, as Aristotle discusses: what are the virtues of the citizen? He then wants to compare (or, rather to contrast) what it means to be a virtuous citizen, versus being a virtuous person. This, it me, raises a number of broader concerns (weighing the good of the many versus teh good of the few) but this text doesn't fully explore them -- it's a more practical discussion of the construction of the city/polis.

-In the end, Aristotle largely concludes that the virtues necessary to be a good citizen are essentially the same as those necessary to be a good person. The path there is circuitous (and frustrating to me) but I think he end up fairly firmly in this spot. There's nothing too elusive about being a proper member of a functioning political entity, just be a good person and do your part, the rest will follow.

-He also has some extended discussion here about what is the best form of government, and discusses at some length the notions of kingship (monarchy) as opposed to other potential structures. While he remains open to the occasional benevolent and wise king, he seems to suggest that a more participatory and open form of government is best in general. Again, falls short (for my tastes) of fully exploring this, but that seems to be his main point in the end.


Probably worth about a B-minus on a college sophomore's essay test.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

-In the end, Aristotle largely concludes that the virtues necessary to be a good citizen are essentially the same as those necessary to be a good person. The path there is circuitous (and frustrating to me) but I think he end up fairly firmly in this spot. There's nothing too elusive about being a proper member of a functioning political entity, just be a good person and do your part, the rest will follow.

It's been 10 years since I read the Politics in my freshman year of college, however, I vaguely remember a significant portion of our class discussion focusing on this concept, and the somewhat related notion of where Aristotle draws the line between the public and the private.

I'll follow the thread as well, and it will likely inspire me to pull out my copy of the Politics when I get home tonight.

[QuikSand]

An uncomfortable element in all this is the larger setting -- even while disussing matter of human excellence, virtue, and civic responsibility... there are deeply-rooted inequities that underly Aristotle'e frame of reference. The gender bias in discusing roles of men and women would be, in modern contexts, pretty appalling... and the presence of slaves in the society certainly begs the discussion of freedom meriting participation (which Aristotle argues as a core tenet of a democracy).

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

-The notion of virtue (underlying theme of this class) lies here again, as Aristotle discusses: what are the virtues of the citizen? He then wants to compare (or, rather to contrast) what it means to be a virtuous citizen, versus being a virtuous person. This, it me, raises a number of broader concerns (weighing the good of the many versus teh good of the few) but this text doesn't fully explore them -- it's a more practical discussion of the construction of the city/polis.

-In the end, Aristotle largely concludes that the virtues necessary to be a good citizen are essentially the same as those necessary to be a good person. The path there is circuitous (and frustrating to me) but I think he end up fairly firmly in this spot. There's nothing too elusive about being a proper member of a functioning political entity, just be a good person and do your part, the rest will follow.

To build on your points, I think one would include the concept of the ideal state. Particularly, for Aristotle, the good citizen and the good man may only coincide in the ideal state. It adds another layer to the circuitous nature of the argument. You can't be a good man without being a good citizen and in order to be a good citizen you need relationships with other virtuous and good citizens in the ideal state.

[st.cronin]

I'm curious where Aristotle differs from Plato. I'm very familiar with The Republic, but much less so with Aristotle.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by digamma

To build on your points, I think one would include the concept of the ideal state. Particularly, for Aristotle, the good citizen and the good man may only coincide in the ideal state. It adds another layer to the circuitous nature of the argument. You can't be a good man without being a good citizen and in order to be a good citizen you need relationships with other virtuous and good citizens in the ideal state.

An interesting point... one that I probably wasn't comfortable enough to make plainly.

So far, I have essentially discarded this idea as one that I think/hope will be basically set aside from tonight's discussion, on grounds that it just isn't very productive for modern, relevant thinking about virtue and society.

Much like in the Meno (and in the discussion here) I focued quite a lot about Plato's final conclusion and answer to Meno's question, where Socrates determines that virtue is essentially a "gift of the gods." I found that thoroughly unsatisfying, and dwelt a long time on whether I coudl accept such a conclusion. In doing so, I was (somewhat) missing the elements of the dialogue that were far more important -- matters of "what is virtue, anyway" and the extended discussion on teaching methods forming knowledge, rather than just creating new memories.

Here, while I agree there's some paradoxical (or at least chicken-and-egg) thinking in Aristotle's discussion, I'm inclined to try to avoid getting too hung up on it. I'm instead trying to focus on what i think to be the more essential element of this book (at least for my purposes in this class), the matters of:

What does it take to be a good citizen...and does that differ from what it takes to be a good person?




Your observation is very fair... I'm trying to duck it, in part, because I have no answer or rebuttal.

[QuikSand]

From Part XI:

The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse.

There is an obvious and resounding echo of The Wisdom of Crowds here to me... which might end up being my singular contribution to the discussion this evening.

[QuikSand]

Well, my after-class report is again a little late... and this time a good deal less compelling.


I came in fairly sure that I'd have little to say about The Politics, rather expecting to see the discussion perform a similar exposition to me as did the previous discussion. Not really.

Turns out, we spent most of our time talking pretty generally about politics, the role of government and authority, and the like. All topics about which I am pretty well informed and very much comfortable speaking. So, this time, at least, the use of the "great book" was pretty ancillary to the eventual discussion itself.


Interestingly (to me, at least), I found myself essentially being a voice of dissent in the group, as the lone person continuing to speak up on behalf of a (loosely defined) democracy. As many of the other vocal class members were lamenting the current state of American politics (borne of frustrations with the current regime, the campaign process, and "special interests" -- not necessarily in that order), I ended up being the one who was basically arguing that we get the government we deserve... and that the system we have actually works fairly well. I probably staed this more formly than I actually believe it... but that's the point of a classroom debate, in my view. If I didn't bark this crap, we'd have collectively subverted democracy and substituted some sort of patched-elbow meritocracy by the end of the evening, I fear. Not under my watch.

[QuikSand]

Next class will cover Chapters 1-11 of the book of Genesis. Ought to be interesting...