Platos and Aristotles Political Ideologies - Essay Example

Comparing and Contrasting Plato’s and Aristotle’s Political Ideologies Plato and Aristotle are the world’s oldest philosophers. Plato was a student of Socrates, another great thinker while Aristotle was a student of Plato. Plato is considered the first writer of philosophical politics, and Aristotle is regarded as the first political scientist. These two men had different ideas on how to improve the societies in their lives. It is surprisingly evident that the similar debates that lead to Plato and Aristotle’s works exist in our society today. These debates seek to answer the following questions: What is the best kind of human life? What is the best kind of political rule or regime? Moreover, the decision or question of who should rule is a longstanding dispute area among many political ideologists, thinkers, practitioners, theorists, and the ordinary citizens. This essay focuses on comparing and contrasting Plato’s and Aristotle’s political philosophy works. First, Plato primarily aimed at explaining the nature of things in a theoretical manner through metaphysics and in contrast to the actual terms. Therefore, he defines the existing knowledge function by the look of ‘higher forms,’ and understandings in the ‘absolute knowledge’ search. In his book, The Republic, Plato creates a blueprint for an ideal/utopian society, out of his political life tension disdain. He sought to heal the afflictions existing between both the human personality and the human society. In short, Plato aimed at achieving a perfect society. On the other hand, Plato’s student, Aristotle, was more enticed in nature’s actual physical features, for the larger part the Natural Sciences. Aristotle is not concerned with perfecting the society. However, he rather focuses on enhancing the current one. Instead of producing a blueprint for the ideal society, he suggests in his book, The Politics, that the society should attain the best possible governing system that is attainable. Aristotle focuses on the ideals that are expressible in the form of laws, public opinion, and customs of the citizens of the actual states. These ideals are the materials by which politics must work with, seek to improve, and respect. In short, all that is needed is to improve the existing system. There are several divisions evident in contrast to the opinions of this two great thinkers. They primarily concern forms, eternal ideas, and causes and how they relate to change, and the role of observations and explanations using the senses. In their different ideologies regarding man’s nature, both Aristotle and Plato explained the relationship between the individual and the society, and furthermore the government’s requirement to maintain stability and order. Plato’s utopian state, which he refers in his book, The Republic, as the ‘Kallipolis’, and Aristotle’s ideal relationship concept between the government and the social order in an actual city-state contrast regardless of the end and purpose that they sought to attain, the telos Instead of the proposed manner by which they planned to reach the ‘telos.’ To be able to understand better the idea behind Plato’s Kallipolis, we ought to first understand the initial foundations of his theoretical ideologies. Plato’s ‘Kallipolis’ is based on wisdom, courage, justice and moderation virtues. According to Plato, wisdom makes the ideal city-state wise, moderation brings understanding that every citizen knows their role.Courage makes the city brave, and justice refers to the harmony resulting from everyone’s engagement in their roles fulfillment without meddling with that of others (Plato 68). Plato’s understanding of the ideal city-state is that it evolves because it satisfies certain functional needs such as the provision of shelter, food, and clothing (Plato 32). A city can provide for these needs only if every citizen living in it has particular roles that they play. Plato explains that it is the association with each other that has the very purpose of establishing this city (Plato 34). The Kallipolis would bring together the different role players including shepherds, farmers, the weak and the strong. This city-state acts like an organism that has every organ playing its daily routine to the perfection. According to Plato, the best thing in a humans life is his excellence. Plato’s view that every person is an individual with a unique, yet pertinent role in this ideal city-state influenced his understanding of the perfect ruler. His first two books in The Republic focus on the understanding of virtue and justice, and their relationship to who is capable of ruling. Since most men are often concerned with end results and consequences, and they are commonly unjust, then only a few are virtuous and intelligent enough to rule the city. However, virtue and justice alone are not sufficient. Those who rule (guardians) should be strong, lovers of wisdom, seekers of knowledge, and impervious to external experience (Plato 44-49). These guardians live by a set of different rules. They own private properties and live in different shelters protecting the city from intruders. He argues that this living is the best way humans can be living and satisfying. Plato further elucidates the differences between private and public. He argues that the guardians have common children and common wives, so as to develop community among the rulers of the city. The women share the duties with the male guardians including fighting in wars and hunting for food. Apart from bringing different roles and talents together, the Kallipolis plays a significant role in uniting the community and maintaining order, a crucial aspect of Plato’s ideologies. Aristotle’s view of the city disagrees with that of Plato. He does not agree that the uniqueness of skills is the determinant of the ideal city-state. Aristotle defines a good city as a city made up not only of human beings but individuals who are different in their making (Aristotle 26). While Plato argues that through nature, some individuals are fitter than others in certain roles, Aristotle tends to disagree. In his ideology, Aristotle argues that any person is capable of ruling, as long as they are properly educated and that they follow the rule of the city. He explains that any human being can lead a life of excellence as a role in accordance with practice. Moreover, though the city dwellers could be different from each other, every one of them plays a role in helping define the community (Aristotle 81-83). Particularly, the central purpose of being a citizen in a community is the ability to rule or be ruled. According to Aristotle, the ideal political regimes are those that their citizens have the desire and ability to make choices of their own. This concept is accomplished by allowing the majority the ability to rule. On the view of women and children, Aristotle believed that they would undermine the city’s stability. The perception of common possessions breaks the city’s unity. This notion, what he calls communism, disintegrates the private and public realms. He argues that the divide is essential (Aristotle 31). In his support for this idea, he asks, ‘what would happen if a many-voiced harmony was reduced to unison or a rhythm into a single beat?’ (Aristotle 32). Plato and Aristotle’s differences over the ideal nature of the city and individuals influenced their views on politics and what is the best kind of political rule or regime. According to Plato, the guardians are the only qualified citizens capable of ruling due to their unique knowledge and skill they possess. The guardians are eligible to rule because of their courage, wisdom, justice and moderation. He further compared these guardians to physicians. He explains that when one falls sick, they will knock on the door of the person capable of healing them. Similarly, when one needs to be governed, they allow those that can govern to play their governing role. Plato differentiates between the four forms of government that are timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and dictatorship. He views timarchy as a war and army dominated regime whose only prized thing is a victory. In an oligarchy, money and the acquisition of wealth drive the ruler. In a democracy, there is no control, and all desires are taken to be equal. Lastly, dictatorships have rulers with all the power to convince the population that it is of their best interest that they have him rule them (Plato 189-190). One of the most notable aspects of The Republic is Plato’s disdain for democracy. Plato jokes that the democracy is as a result of the poor having victory. He explains that a democratic regime is one that people can do as they please (Plato 204). Furthermore, Plato views the government as a conservative elitist, and only a few individuals are capable of ruling. Concerning this notion, he argues that the guardians possess the natural aptitude for knowledge that others lack. Plato’s Kallipolis is best defined as an aristocracy whose idea that the elite few with absolute knowledge are to be the rulers of governments. On the other hand, Aristotle cannot be mistaken to be a liberal, yet he nevertheless questions some of The Republic’s ideologies. Instead, we can say the Aristotle’s Politics is more of pluralist description of the government. He seeks to develop a perfect relationship between social order and the government, looking at balance when determining where the government’s power would lie, either in the hands of a mass or a few individuals. He argues that citizens possessing the proper education and law obedience are capable of ruling themselves and others. He continues by explaining that these citizens could come together in a multitude to rule. This argument epitomizes the mob rule, something that scares Plato. Aristotle suggests that many and not one should govern because anyone could rule as well as others when properly educated by the laws, and many people ruling together are better than ruling alone (Aristotle 108). Aristotle opposes Plato concerning virtues. While Plato argues that the virtuous are few and that their virtue is natural, Aristotle believes that justice and virtue can be taught to the citizens. Regarding the ideal city, Aristotle’s version of the city is more inclusive than Plato’s utopian Kallipolis. Lastly, Aristotle’s ideology on change differs with that of Plato. Aristotle argues that sometimes the laws must be amended. He argues that the laws must be written in a universal form. Also, when writing these laws, a ruler must consider the particulars of a given situation (Aristotle 48). Finally, although Plato and Aristotle agree on the ideal city-state concept, they disagree on the inner issues as we can see Aristotle distancing himself from Plato. For Plato, a strong state was necessary to maintain order and protect the citizens and wealth were disregarded and perceived as the root of most problems. For Aristotle, it is not just regarding the notion of the ‘elite few ruling the masses, but how this power is obtained. Plato also had a resistance to change and assigned the guardians the responsibilities of protecting the laws and arts. He believed that noble lies, religion, and national myths were important only if they provided order (Plato, 88). Aristotle, a student and counterpart of Plato disagreed on these issues. He shows the will to give every citizen the ability to rule. He also does not resist change and has and ultimate thinking that, with proper education and laws, the masses would have the capacity to rule themselves. Since the world changes constantly, Aristotle concluded that achievement of absolute knowledge is impossible, a significant contrast to Plato’s ideologies.  In conclusion, though Aristotle and Plato are two of our oldest writers, their disagreements and disputes are prevalent in modern political dialogues. Would they have been alive today, they might get surprised that the issues they argued about long ago are still present. Personally, I would conclude that Aristotle’s view of nature and things are more effective since it is more realistic and firm. He does not think in a hypothetical manner like Plato, but rather he observes the real nature and comes to conclusions. Works Cited Aristotle, and Carnes Lord. The Politics. Chicago: N.p., 2013. Print. Plato, Richard W Sterling, and William C Scott. The Republic. New York: Norton, 1996. Print. Read More