A Comparison of Plato and Aristotle on the Meaning and Significance of Political Life - Essay Example

A comparison of Plato and Aristotle on the meaning and significance of political life Introduction Politics and the are part of the society since it begun. It is a common understanding by everybody that it is unbearable to live in a world where there is no order. Every individual hence appreciates the necessity of state and government in the ruling of the country. Aristotle and Plato were two great philosophers that devoted most of their research to the problem of the state. Aristotle was a Greek truth seeker, a logician while Plato was a scientist and a teacher. The philosophical research they did was associated with the topic of the conception of the state and political freedom. Even though both the philosophers campaigned for harmonious living in the society, their views differed in a way that Plato focused on philosophical reality, while Aristotle’s views touched on the citizens and political institutions. Plato was regarded as the first political philosophy writer, while Aristotle was recognized as the first political scientist. These two men were great thinkers. They each had ideas of how to go about improving the existing societies during their individual lifetimes. Aristotle was a widely known and prominent philosopher in many areas of philosophy and political hypothesis. His life inclined his political notion in different conducts; his biological interest had an impact in his political life. Moreover, his experience in various political systems resulted in his political interest and compassion for the democratic system like dominion. However, he condemned severely while still borrowing widely from Plato, who was his teacher. He borrowed from Plato’s democracy, statesman and laws. In addition, his political affairs are proposed to assist leaders and statesmen, identifying the political systems that he moved. Plato wrote a Socratic discussion known as ‘The Republic’, where he identified what justice is, the category, and behavior of the present man. In his work, he proved one of the intellectually and factually noticeable works of philosophy and partisan hypothesis. In his work, majority of Athenians and foreigners talked in reference to the meaning of justice and checking whether the present man is happier than the underserved man, by suggesting a city governed by philosopher kings (Carnes, 37). The main attention of Plato is a perfect society. In ‘The Republic’, he crafts a hypothetical life for an ideal society out of his tautness for political life. His intention for this was an outline of a society in which the complications he thought to be present in his society would be eased. Plato aimed to cure the sickness of both human society and personality Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not concerned with perfection of the society. His intention was to improve on the existing one. He recommended in his work, “the politics,” that the society itself should have an aim for it to attain the best possible system. Utopia is a solution abstract that has no concrete problem. Moreover, there is no concrete evidence that all societies require such drastic reformation as Plato suggested. Aristotle identified that the best possible has already been obtained, thus what can be done is improving on the existing one (Gorgias, 29). Aristotle’s view of politics focuses on comparing politicians to an artisans. This similarity is inaccurate, since politics is a structure of sensible work, while on the other case, an art is a structure of creative knowledge. His comparison is however suitable to the degree that the politicians create, control and keep lawful schemes. In support of this, Aristotle tells about creation of mass-produced articles in conditions of four reasons; formal, the material, efficient, and final reasons. Plato’s utopia consists of three class systems. The guardians consist of the ruling and non-ruling guardians. The higher level of civil servants are the non-rulers, while the rulers are the policy makers. On the other hand, soldiers and minor civil servants are the auxiliaries. Finally, there are the workers, who mostly are unskilled laborers. The guardians are expected to be wise and good rulers. To Plato, it is important that the rulers who emerge from the class of craftsmen that are formerly public-spirited and experts in the arts of administrative areas. They therefore place the guardians in the position of absolute rulers. Thus, regarding them as the select few and that they know what the society requires (Carnes, 43). Aristotle on the other hand disagrees with this idea where one class holds powers; this impinges on being good and just human beings. This failure to allow circulation of power does not give an opportunity ambitious and wise men, though not from the right class of society to hold any type of political power. Aristotle thus views upon this ruling class system as an ill-conceived political structure. In his statement, he even asserts that, his guardians are deprived of happiness, adding that happiness of the whole state should be object of legislation. In this case, guardians sacrifice their happiness for power and control. Guardians leading such a strict life consequently end up subjected to the same strict lifestyle on the society it governs. Aristotle places a high value on moderation. Many people favor moderation, since it is partly liberal and partly conservative. Aristotle’s believes that Plato underrates the qualitative change in the character and personality of humans, which have to take place for utopia to be achieved. Thus Plato, from his republic chooses to tell the reader how men would tend to act, and their attitude in a perfect society. In Plato’s book, Socrates and Euthyphro are engaged in issues of legal nature and they debate on how the judgment which resulted in death should be carried out. In this case, Euthyphro brings out the concern where he is supposed to stand against his own father and put charges on him. He is the plaintiff in an impending trial of murder, the accused being his father. This surprises Socrates that he can go to the extent of bringing charge to his own father (Gorgias, 20). On the other hand, Socrates faces impiety accusation charges in court. In this case, the accused, bound the suspect and throw him into a ditch. In the meantime, messengers are sent to Athens to find out from the interpreters of religion asking what should be done to him. By the time they do return, the criminal had already died. Here, the major concern is if they had to throw him in the hole. This displays injustice to the victim who is just a suspect and therefore is not supposed to be subjected to such torture when even his case had not been determined in order to ascertain whether he actually committed the crime. Aristotle attempts to use real men in the real world experimentally in order to view the ways in which they can improve. Both Plato and Aristotle do concur that justice exists in an objective sense. It attributes to the belief that good life should be given to every individual no matter how high or low their social status are. In regard to democracies, justice is considered to mean equality. Thus, Plato views justice and law as what sets societal behavior guidelines. Moreover, Aristotle emphasizes on the institution of the polis. This institution refers to a unit of two and not the state or society. The polis was set in order to allow political participation by citizens who are of average status. This differs with Plato’s view whereby, one ruling class controls the political power and makes all decisions that affect the whole society. To Aristotle, majority people should be sovereign rather than the few best. Plato would therefore not allow the full participation of the public in the government, as Aristotle would want (Carnes, 90). According to Plato, the judgments of the public, either approval or disapproval is based on belief and not knowledge. This affects an individual’s justice, where a person is unfairly judged. This mostly can be in the case in which the individual may have no political influence. Aristotle views the cause of revolutions originating from either the rich or the poor. Plato contemplates that in an ideal community, a dissatisfied group of Guardians will come out and break from the rules. In an oligarchy, Plato thinks that two things can occur to bring about revolution; the first being that, the ruler may grow to be weak and also too sympathetic, the second being that, the number of the poor tend to grow larger and suffer exploitation at the hands of those in power over them. This therefore impinges the good life and being just human beings. To Aristotle, to identify the causes which abolish constitutions makes it possible the knowledge that causes emphasis on their preservation. (Carnes, 10) Conclusion The similarity of Aristotle and Plato on the views about political life is that they both had ideas that aimed at improving the existing society. Plato being a political philosopher was therefore in pursuit of philosophical truth. On the other hand, Aristotle’s focus was on the citizen and the design regarding political institutions. However, both had ideas that were thought of well, and had plans on the way of building better societies they lived in and for future societies. In this sense, they both had a great impact on political scientists of today, due to the democratic ideas developed. Work Cited Carnes. Aristotles Politics. Chicago: Chicago Press, 2004. Gorgias. Plato. New York: Hackett Publishing, 2006. Read More