Theories of International Politics: Aristotle and Plato - Book Report/Review Example

Introduction This paper is written for the (this is the part where you write down what the purpose is of this paper, for which it meant to beand why you have chose this topic). In this paper, I attempt to compare the thoughts of two ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Plato on human nature and political and social relations. It is widely accepted that the classical ancient Greek thought is important for the study of International Relations as some political philosophers addressed issues that remain relevant in contemporary politics. Needless to say, these ancient Greek philosophers have developed their philosophical thoughts in different time periods. Although one might argue that some elements of these theoretical concepts are obsolete, I attempt to compare some of the elements of the notions of Aristotle and Plato. The literature about Aristotle and Plato is extensively so for this reason, my purpose is to give the reader an brief understanding of the position of Aristotle and Plato on human nature and political and social relations. This paper starts with the crucial thoughts of Aristotle that one can identify on the issue of human nature and compare it with the thoughts of Plato. I continue with a brief explanation of the thought of Aristotle on social and political relations and as well compare it with the thoughts of Plato. Then I end this paper with a conclusion Human nature Human nature plays a central role in ancient Greek thought and many Greek philosophers shed light on the human nature element to analyze social and political relations. In the following sections, I will discuss the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle about human nature. Aristotle In his work The Politics, Aristotle elucidates his thoughts about the state. One element of his approach is his attempt to relate human nature to the nature and creation of the state. Aristotle argues that one should perceive man as a political animal and that man is the only animal who has the gift of speech. Aristotle continues to argue that the power of speech describes the expedient and inexpedient and thus the just and the unjust. He considers the state is a creation of nature and puts the individual in relation to the whole with the argument that an individual is not self-sufficient. However, Aristotle distinct two individuals, namely the beast or the God, when one draws a link between an individual who is self-sufficient and the state. Aristotle argues that when an individual is self-sufficient, the individual is not a part of the state as in man by nature has a social instinct that is imperative to become a part of a state. A perfected man is the condition of man at best and thus should be perceived as the best of animals. However, Aristotle argues that when separated from law and confronted with injustice, man is in the worst condition and this condition is even worsened when a man is equipped with arms. Aristotle argues that the state is made up of households and for this reason he argues that one should first shed light on the management of a household. He argues that within a household, one can identify slaves and freemen and Aristotle uses the example of the master and the slave that supports this notion. He asked himself whether one is intended by nature to be a slave and in such a condition is expedient and right or is not all slavery a victim of nature. Aristotle attempted to answer this question in the context of reasons and facts with the example of rulers and subjects. He gives a simple example of a living creature. Aristotle explains that a creature consists of a soul and body and that one is by nature the ruler and the other the subject. Aristotle argues that one should look to the intentions of nature instead of the things that are corrupted as the body will often rule the soul when it is corrupted. Aristotle sees this as the true relation of the body and the soul. From this, Aristotle concludes that only the man who is in the most perfect condition, that is in a perfect state both of body and soul, is the most crucial element to explain human nature. He then continues that based on the basic principle of human nature, which he calls the principle of necessity; the male is by nature superior and the female inferior while the former rules and the latter is being ruled. According to Aristotle, this extends to all mankind. It is clear that Aristotle attempt to elucidate human nature on a general notion of the ruler and subject and that one can identify the ruler and subject in any mankind and thus, Aristotle attempt to link this with society. Important to note is that his views depend heavily on the distinction between Greeks and non-Greeks (Brown, Nardin & Rengget 1996: 24) and this might clarify why Aristotle emphasis the notion of the ruler and the subject. Plato Plato can be considered as one of the major ancient Greek philosopher. In contemporary politics, the theoretical foundation that Plato wrote is often called as a Platonic tradition. However, the Platonic tradition is more difficult to discuss compared with other traditions as its origin is difficult to determine as his explicit views cannot be directly related to Plato as he virtually never appears in these dialogues (Brown, Nardin & Rengger 1996: 30). Important to note is that although it is difficult to trace back Plato's view, most scholars accept the seventh letter as genuine. It is this seventh letter that serves as the basic for my analysis below. Plato's view on human nature is best depicted in his masterpiece The Republic. The work of Plato is for contemporary science imperative as Plato illustrates a way a good city can be established and analyzed the development and shortcomings. Plato depicts the ideal city as a utopia where a human being should only uses their own comparative advantage. It is obvious that in Plato's view, one should put human being in the center of philosophy. Plato viewed states as badly governed and therefore, argued that one should ask the question what the nature is of justice both in the context of the state as well as in the context of an individual. Plato argued that only he who is sincere is able to put any wisdom into political power. However, from Plato's writings, one can derive Plato's cynical view on the sincerity and thus he argues that rulers should learn true philosophy if he would want to put wisdom into political power. Conclusion Obviously, both Aristotle as well as Plato put human nature in the centre of their philosophical analysis. One important similarity between Aristotle and Plato that I identified is that they both address the notion of justice and attempt to discuss justice from the point of the nature of an individual. However, it is Aristotle that provides an in-depth analysis of his view on human nature and attempt to support his argument with, during his time, relevant example of the master and the slave. His basic principle of the ruler and the subject however, remains relevant in contemporary science. Aristotle extensively explains how human nature is imperative for political and social order. Plato's view on the other hand, is not extensively although Plato defends his arguments in a very plain way as he simply argues that without any social order, a city cannot be governed correctly and without a government, its citizens are not provided the advice they needed which is not in the advantage of the city. Political and Social Relations Aristotle As I mentioned before, Aristotle's thoughts on the state is focused on the household and the structure of it. His views on human nature can clearly be found back in his thoughts about social and political relations. In his work, Aristotle addresses the question whether there is only one form of government or many. He argues that the constitution is the government and that the government is sovereign in the state. To supports his notion, Aristotle identified the purpose of the state based on the notion that man is by nature a political animal. Aristotle assumes that for this reason, men have also come together based on their common interest and argues that this also applies for both individuals and for states where mankind maintain the political community for the sake of one's own life. The state, according to Aristotle, should be only governed by a few and therefore, the best form of government is those who are in the hands of those with a common interest. However, the purpose of the state is not to have a common place or a society or to prevent crime and for the sake of exchange. Aristotle argues that a political society exist on noble actions rather than the need of men to live together. From the above, it is clear that Aristotle attempt to define a political community in which a common interest is a crucial element of it. However, Aristotle argues that men relates justice to equality and raises the question of equality or inequality to what Aristotle assumes that in politics, one does not argue to office on every sort of inequality and that freedom and wealth are the necessary elements of the state in which politics is a pivot element of. Aristotle concludes that wealth and freedom are necessary elements of without a state cannot exist and without justice and courage will not do well. Plato I mentioned before that Plato saw human beings as the pivotal element of analyzing philosophy and that Plato argues that politics is determined based on the nature of a human being. Plato directly draws a link between the nature of human being and political relations. He argues that if the constitution of the city is properly ordered and directed, its citizens would be advice accordingly and in the city's advantage. Plato openly questions the purpose of giving advice if one does not follows advice that has been given to him and it is Plato's principle not to advice one if he does not follows the advice. It is this principle that Plato puts in a political social context and comes to the conclusion that political and social relations are intertwined with each other as without social order, a state, or in Plato's context a city, cannot be governed correctly. Conclusion From the above one can conclude that Aristotle and Plato use human nature to explain political and social relations. Aristotle uses his philosophical theoretical concept based on the notion of that all human beings are political animals and that it is the noble actions of an individual that is imperative for a state to govern. Plato, on the other hand, approaches the issue from a different point of view. He argues that only when one is willing to follow advice, order can be attained and thus, governing a city is for the sake of its citizens only achieved when its constitution is correct. References Adams, J. (ed.) 1902. The Republic of Plato, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostenfeld, E.N. 1998. Essays on Plato's Republic, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus. Brown, Nardin & Rengger. (eds.) 2002. International Relations in Political Thought, Ancient Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barns, J. 2000. Aristotle: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford Paperback, Oxford. Kraut, R. (ed.) 1992, The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge University Press. Reeve, C.D.C 1988. Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato's Republic. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Read More