Jump to content

Daily Leeks


Cathy
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Before Aristotle starts the arguments for his political anthropology, he remarks in the first chapter that he will apply an analytic method. The polis is a composite whole and the best way to examine it is to resolve it into its simplest, and smallest, elements25. These elements are not primarily the individuals, but the three relations of husband and wife, master and slave, and father and children (Pol., I, 1, 1252a17–23, cf. Pol., I, 3, 1253b4–8). The first set of Aristotle’s arguments proceeds from the two original communities of man and woman, and master and slave, to the household (oikia), and from there to the village (kômê), and finally to the polis. He introduces this argument with the remark that the investigation will be most successful, if it examines how its subject, the polis, develops from the beginning (ex archês) (Pol., I, 2, 1252a24).

0Many interpreters have understood this remark to mean that the first set of Aristotle’s arguments is only or mainly a genetic and historical account of the origin, and development, of the polis26. Such an account can already be found in Plato’s Republic and the Laws27. In the Republic, Plato sees the origin of the polis in the human needs that can only be satisfied through cooperation and division of labor as the individual is not self-sufficient (autarkês) (Rep., II, 369b–e). He presents an idealized history of the development of the polis in three stages, starting with the “basic” and “healthy” polis, in which everyone does what he can do best. Over time, the multiplication and refinement of needs leads to luxury and to an unhealthy way of life. This way of life is characteristic of the “feverish” polis (Rep., II, 372d-e). The excessive needs and greed (pleonexia) lead to war and an estate of warriors. In the course of their education the “feverish” polis gets purified, which leads to a “cathartic” polis (Rep., III, 399e).

1At the beginning of book III of the Laws, Plato declares that city-states must have existed for an “enormously long time” and that “during that period, thousands upon thousands of states have come into being, while at least as many, in equally vast numbers, have been destroyed” (Laws, III, 676b-c)28. The main reasons for this were floods and plagues. After the great flood most people died and only a few survived on the mountain tops. People lived “scattered in separate households and individual families in the confusion that followed the cataclysms” (Laws, III, 680d)29. The eldest member of the family ruled as a justified king. In the later development, “several families amalgamate and form larger communities”, and this is the kind of progress that leads to the origin of the polis (Laws, III, 680e ff.)30.

2Aristotle picks up some important elements of Plato’s reflections on the coming into being of the polis. Contrary to Aristotle, Plato’s idealized history of the development of the city in the Republic mentions neither the household or family (oikos) nor the village as elements of the polis. However, for both Plato and Aristotle, men who do not live in a polis cannot satisfy all material and intellectual needs and thus are not self-sufficient. For Aristotle, the polis is even defined through its self-sufficiency (autarkeia) (Pol., I, 2, 1252b29– 1253a1). In book II of the Politics he declares: “A household (oikia) is more self-sufficient than the individual, and a polis more than a household, and a polis is fully realized only when the community is large enough to be self-sufficient” (Pol., II, 2, 1261b11 – 13). In Pol., I, 2, Aristotle doesn’t elaborate the economic aspect of the self-sufficiency of the polis, which implies cooperation and division of labor. However, by mentioning master and slave as one of the smallest elements of the polis, he makes clear that slave labor contributes in a substantial way to attaining self-sufficiency31. Without the polis, as an individual, man cannot lead a fully self-sufficient life. Because the individual is a part in relation to a whole, it needs the polis (Pol., I, 2, 1253a25–27). This is, as will be shown below, not only an economic reason why man is by its nature a political animal.

3For Aristotle’s account of the origin and development of the polis, Plato’s Laws are even more important than the Republic. Like Plato in the Laws, he refers to Homer’s description of the Cyclopes and declares that “they lived dispersedly, which was the way in which people used to live in ancient times” (Pol., I, 2, 1252b23–24). “This is clearly”, as W. Kullmann rightly comments, “an allusion to an historical original state of man”32. Obviously, the first set of Aristotle’s arguments in chapter two includes at least some assumptions about the historical development of the polis. For Aristotle, like Plato in the Laws, in ancient times people lived not as isolated individuals, but “scattered in separate households and individual families”. For Aristotle, the household is the oldest natural community (koinonia kata phusin) (Pol., I, 2, 1252b13). He even quotes Hesiod, who lived around 700 BC, as a historical source to confirm: “First house, and wife, and an ox for the plough” (Pol., I, 2, 1252b11–12). In this quote Hesiod talks about a household of a poor family of peasants that is composed mainly of husband and wife, not of master and slave. Poor farmers, who play an important role in Hesiod’s poetry, couldn’t afford slaves. The ox had to substitute for the slave. Like Plato in the Laws, for Aristotle, the development proceeds from several households to the village. The children and grandchildren of one family found their own households. This is the most natural (kata phusin) form of how the village comes into being. Like in the house, in the village the eldest member of one family rules as a king. Therefore, kingship is the primordial political constitution or form of ruling (Pol., I, 2, 1252b15–22).

4The genetic and historical remarks on the origin, and development, of the polis only play a subordinate role in the first part of chapter two33. They only supplement the arguments Aristotle presents in order to substantiate his two theses that the polis exists by nature and that man is by nature a political animal. The underlying premise of the whole chapter, as will be shown below, is Aristotle’s teleological understanding of nature (Pol., I, 2, 1252b31 – 1253a1; cf. Pol., I, 2, 1253a9). According to this understanding, nature is a hierarchical order of ends, in which every living being, every natural community of living beings, and every part of a living being has a given end (telos) and a specific function (ergon).

5The first set of Aristotle’s arguments is based on his analytic method. However, instead of applying this method and presenting the different analytical steps in taking apart the polis into its smallest elements, he presupposes the analysis as already finished and takes its results for granted. He starts off from the two original communities of man and woman, and master and slave, which are the basic elements of the household. From the family, Aristotle proceeds to the village, which consists of several households. From the village he progresses to the polis, which is composed of several villages. What Aristotle presents in the first part of chapter two is not the analysis of the polis, but its synthesis out of its different elements. Th. Hobbes has called the latter method the synthetic or compositive method which is a counterpart of the analytic or resolutive method. In order to understand how a clock works, it is necessary to first take it apart, and then construct it again out of its parts34. Aristotle combines the composition of the polis out of its elements with the presentation of aspects of its historical development.

6At the beginning of chapter two, Aristotle’s declares that the investigation has to examine how the subject, the polis, develops from the beginning (ex archês) (Pol., I, 2, 1252a24). This remark does not need to be understood only in a genetic and historical sense. It can also have the analytic-synthetic meaning that the research examines how the polis begins, or originates, from the smallest elements out of which it is composed35. The first two elements Aristotle mentions are the female and the male, and master and slave. With regard to these two original communities he declares that there “must be a union of those who cannot exist without one another” (Pol., I, 2, 1252a26–27). Men cannot exist without each other; this is why they unite in the first forms of natural communities. This statement can be understood as Aristotle’s first thesis that makes it plausible that man is by nature a political animal.

17Aristotle substantiates his first thesis with the existence of two original communities that are both defined through their natural ends and both arise from necessity (anagkê) (Pol., I, 2, 1252a26). The natural end (telos) of the union of man and woman is the reproduction of the species. This original community exists by nature (phusei) in a biological sense, because it doesn’t come into being by choice, but from man’s “natural desire to leave behind an image of himself”, which man has in common with other animals and plants (Pol., I, 2, 1252a28–30, cf. 1253a30–31). The natural end (telos) of the union of master and slave is their preservation or survival (sôtêria) as individuals, which can be interpreted as a natural instinct36. As there are natural (phusei) rulers and natural subjects, they have to unite into a community which is beneficial (sumpheron) for both of them. Aristotle’s criterion for natural rulers is the capacity to “foresee by the exercise of mind”, and for natural subjects to carry out these things with their body (Pol., I, 2, 1252a30– 34). With these brief remarks, Aristotle anticipates his doctrine of slaves by nature, which is the main topic of book I37. The slaves by nature have the function (ergon) of doing the necessary work in the city. After introducing these two forms of natural communities, Aristotle argues that they are two distinct communities. The female and the slave are by nature (phusei) distinct (Pol., I, 2, 1252a34– 1253b1). This is already a first illustration of Aristotle’s doctrine that there are different forms of ruling, which he had already mentioned in chap. 1 (Pol., I, 1, 1252a7 – 16)38.

18In the first paragraphs of chapter two, the third basic element of the household or family, the relation of father and children, is only mentioned through man’s “natural desire to leave behind an image of himself”. The household or family is the “union according to nature (koinonia kata phusin) for the satisfaction of daily needs” (Pol., I, 2, 1252b12– 14). The basic household is composed out of the relations of husband and wife and of master and slave. The human slave can only be afforded by families that are economically well off. In poor families, the ox had to substitute for the slave as a slavish element is a natural and necessary part of a family. For Aristotle, there is certainly no genetic step from the relation of husband and wife to the household, because husband and wife are simply the essential parts of the house.

 
20Aristotle claims that the polis is a perfect community. He substantiates this thesis with the arguments that only the polis is self-sufficient and enables a good and perfect life40. The self-sufficiency of the polis means that it can satisfy all human needs and provide virtually all human goods41. Aristotle’s concept of self-sufficiency should not be understood merely in an economic sense. One end (telos) of the polis is certainly the survival or subsistence of its citizens, which Aristotle refers to as “mere life (zên)” (cf. Plato, Rep., II, 369 d). However, this is not the specific end of the polis in itself, but of all the households out of which it is composed. The natural end of the polis is the good life (eu zên) or human flourishing (eudaimonia) of its citizens. Because the polis is able to realize this end and to satisfy all material and intellectual needs, it is the perfect community.

1In the paragraph quoted above, Aristotle gives the two main arguments for his thesis that the polis exists by nature, and not by convention. After he demonstrated, step by step, that all forms of community out of which the polis is composed exist by nature, he concludes that the polis has to exist by nature. The polis exists by nature because all of its elements, especially the original communities of man and woman, and master and slave, exist by nature (phusei)42. The empirical fact that man cannot exist alone, and unites in natural communities, partly supports Aristotle’s thesis that man is by nature a political animal, which again substantiates his thesis that the polis exists by nature. In line with his argument, in the Physics Aristotle chooses living organisms, like animals and plants, as main examples to illustrate the term “by nature (phusei)” (Physics, II, 1, 192b8– 10). Contrary to artifacts, living organisms have the beginning (archê) of their changes and their existing state (stasis) in themselves and not in a craftsman’s mind. They have an internal drive (hormê) to move in space, to grow or to fade away, and to change their qualities (Physics, II, 1, 192b13– 18). Living organisms like humans, and natural bodies like the polis, persist and change from inner beginnings and internal causes43. These inner beginnings and internal causes are exactly what Aristotle understands as nature (phusis). Thus in the Physics he defines nature as “a principle or cause of being moved and of being at rest” (Physics, II, 1, 192b21 – 22, cf. Physics, II, 9, 200b12– 13).

2Aristotle’s first argument for the natural existence of the polis sheds some light on the controversial question of whether Aristotle perceives “a higher natural being in the polis” or attributes to it “any kind of substantial character”44. Though Aristotle implies that the polis has a nature (phusis) of its own (Pol., I, 2, 1252b31–32), and though he conceives of the individual as a part in relation to a whole, he seems to presuppose that essentially the polis is not something else, or more, than its citizens. In line with this, in book III, Aristotle mentions a controversy on what the polis is, and declares that the polis consists of a certain number of citizens that is enough for a self-sufficient life (Pol., III, 1, 1274b38– 41, 1275b20–21). In book II, he emphasizes against Plato’s ideal of the greatest possible unity of the polis that the polis is in its nature (tên phusis) a multitude (Pol., II, 2, 1261a18; cf. Rep., V, 462a–b). In accordance with the nomos (law, custom) of his time, he only attributes citizenship to males, which also explains why the three communities which make up the family, or household, are all centered on the man.

3Aristotle claims that the realized polis is the end (telos) of the original forms of natural communities. This thesis is the core of his teleological argument for the natural existence of the polis, which presupposes his teleological understanding of nature. Aristotle’s thesis assumes that the polis already inheres in the more basic communities, as an end. Indeed, he declares that by nature (phusei) “there is an impulse or instinct (hormê) in all men” towards a polis (Pol., I, 2, 1253a29–30). In the terminology of his philosophy of nature, the polis inheres as a natural end in all men as a potentiality (dunamis). Just as a seed has the inner impulse to grow and become a tree, through individual men the polis as a whole attains an impulse towards its realization (energeia). Though the inner beginnings and internal causes of the development of the polis lie in individual men, human beings are fundamentally unequal for Aristotle45. Neither is the impulse or instinct (hormê) to found a polis equally strong in all men, nor do they all have the ability for legislation. Aristotle praises the first lawgiver and founder of a new polis as the cause of the greatest goods (Pol., I, 2, 1253a30–31)46. Through his natural instinct and through his political ability the polis comes to be by nature47. Just as a seed needs time to turn into a tree, Aristotle understands the realization of the polis, like Plato in the Nomoi, as a historical development from the family to the village to the polis. Aristotle’s genetic, and historical, account of the development of the polis supports, and illustrates, his teleological argument for the natural existence of the polis. According to its underlying teleological concept, Aristotle understands nature primarily as the form (eidos, morphê) of a thing (Physics, II, 1, 193b6–7). The form has the source or beginning of its motion in itself and thus is both an efficient cause and a final cause. As an inner disposition and end of human beings the polis has an inner drive towards its complete realization. The polis doesn’t have this drive as a separate form or essence (ousia), but through individual men. The perfect development of man is inextricably linked to the existence of the polis. Therefore, it is the human essence or form, the logos, which drives the development of the polis and moves it to its perfection48. When a thing has realized its final end or when it is fully developed, it has fully realized its potentiality or its nature. It has arrived at its natural state, which is not only its final but its best state. The polis is natural because through its self-sufficiency it satisfies all human needs and allows man to fully realize his natural potentiality, especially his logos, in a perfect life49. Therefore, the polis and its self-sufficiency is the natural end of the original communities, which realizes itself in a historical process.

 

Plato had a cave. I guess Aristotle had a wall.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Deulos said:

@Alex
and at the tiniest hint my posts are spam they are deleted immediately and I get a freaking warning point. But look at this post...

dis not spam (which iz tasty).

Dis iz artfulous commentry of gam poltics an also recnt so-clad "leaks":
2. The Orbis Central subforum is for Out-of-Game Discussions of Game Politics.

free_vacation_coupon.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Deulos said:

@Alex
and at the tiniest hint my posts are spam they are deleted immediately and I get a freaking warning point. But look at this post...

Perhaps consider making posts in the future which are less bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.