There are so many consequential ideas in this book that it's amazing it's not required reading in Western classrooms anymore. The Benjamin Jowett translation is easily accessible in many formats. Perhaps just as it was "lost" to the Middle Ages until "rediscovered" and translated into Latin in the 12th century it is lost to today.Prerequisites for reading this book are Plato's Republic and The Laws, of which I read the former. The Republic is the more important as Aristotle spends much time critiquing Socrates' ideal state and the deficiencies of its description and order. There are parallel themes but the many variations of the basic forms of government are explained more clearly by Aristotle, who is not designing so much the "ideal state" as Socrates was. I will read Augustine's City of God later this year, as both works were influential in affecting future thinking about governments by Aquinas and others which, in turn, affected Thomas Jefferson and the Founders. I was surprised how much economics was in this book, circa 350 B.C.. At points, it reads quite a bit like Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It is hard to believe such a gap in years exists between the two works, actually. I'm also surprised by how little of Aristotle's work is mentioned in traditional books on the history of economic thought. Take, for example, Book II's exploration of the importance of property rights. Part V:"should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in common or not?...Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business. And yet by reason of goodness, and in respect of use, 'Friends,' as the proverb says, 'will have all things common.'.. It is clearly better that property should beprivate, but the use of it common; and the special business of the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition."Aristotle responds to those who would argue for common ownership directed by the State:"there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state...Such legislation may have a specious appearance of benevolence; men readily listen to it, and are easily induced to believe that in some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody's friend, especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now existing in states, suits about contracts, convictions for perjury, flatteries of rich men and the like, which are said to arise out of the possession of private property. These evils, however, are due to a very different cause- the wickedness of human nature. Indeed, we see that there is much more quarrelling among those who have all things in common, though there are not many of them when compared with the vast numbers who have private property."Aristotle understood that greed and avarice were inherent in human nature. People were more likely to act in mutual benefit when property is held privately-- Adam Smith's butcher seems to pick up on this theme. Another benefit, according to Aristotle, was greater "temperance toward women" than when they were held in common as prescribed by Socrates in The Republic.Conservatives everywhere find agreement with Aristotle in arguing from the wisdom of historical precedent when confronted with ideas that challenge the existing order:"Let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of ages; in the multitude of years these things, if they were good, would certainly not have been unknown; for almost everything has been found out, although sometimes they are not put together; in other cases men do not use the knowledge which they have." In the above I hear echoes of Solomon's "there is nothing new under the sun," and the modern axiom that those who don't remember their history are condemned to repeat it.One major critique of Socrates' The Republic is that Socrates established law for the Guardians but does not say what he would do for the lower classes. Aristotle argues that if same laws apply, the people would not have any desire to submit to the government. If all property were held in common there would be no motivation to work the fields. This recognition of property rights creating incentives is an important cornerstone of microeconomics and is too often forgotten by modern policymakers.Socrates' Guardians were destined to rule for life, but Aristotle states this is dangerous. He also points out that if the government is going to fix the amount of property, it should also fix the number of children, and then you start getting into a critique of central planning that borders on Hayekian. He also asks what should be done with slaves and cites the Cretans as having a "wise" policy of allowing them to have the same institutions as freemen but forbidding physical training or armaments among them. There is a wealth of information about the make-up of institutions in various Greek city-states.Book III, Part XI:Socrates examines autocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and describes both theoretical and historical variations on all types. In examining arguments for the various forms, I noted that Aristotle often cites the wisdom of crowds that sounds very Hayekian or at least from the 20th century: "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. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry; for some understand one part, and some another, and among them they understand the whole."There are also explanations for how governments evolve from one form to another. I found these similar to Socrates' explanations of the same. For example, Book V Part IV:"Governments also change into oligarchy or into democracy or into a constitutional government because the magistrates, or some other section of the state, increase in power or renown. Thus at Athens the reputation gained by the court of the Areopagus, in the Persian War, seemed to tighten the reins of government. On the other hand, the victory of Salamis, which was gained by the common people who served in the fleet, and won for the Athenians the empire due to command of the sea, strengthened the democracy."Aristotle writes that laws should not be changed frequently as it takes time for citizens to develop the habits intended under the law. Frequent changes undermine both the basic institute of law and the constitution. This is a good reminder for modern Progressives who chafe against the laborious efforts required to change the law. Why were the powers and rules of the U.S. Senate, for example, so bent toward impeding legal changes? Because the founders knew their Aristotle and, like their European forebears, found wisdom in it. (A reminder that Senators in most states were not even elected by the population until the early 20th century.)Aristotle examines various nation-states' constitutions and weighs their pros and cons. There is a great question in each government of who should rule and how they should be chosen. Popular election is problematic because the majority of the population is poor and likely to take bribes. It's much better to elect people according to some system or measure of "merit," or "virtue." For details, see Book IV Part XV. I am reminded much of Acemoğlu and Robinson's exhaustive work in Why Nations Fail (in a nutshell, their thesis is that nations fail to develop because certain people gain economic power and erect exclusive political institutions to defend their holds. Extractive economic institutions + exclusive political arrangements = lack of property rights and incentives for the majority population, and hence poverty and unrest).Aristotle mainly describes and accepts political institutions as the present reality, be it tyranny or democracy. All can have positive elements. But he seems to favor certain forms of democracy as the best, which seems to have been the common Greek belief of his day. But anarchic, populist democracies are the least-preferred of all:Book V Part IV:"For two principles are characteristic of democracy, the government of the majority and freedom. Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom means the doing what a man likes. In such democracies every one lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, 'according to his fancy.' But this is all wrong; men should not think it slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution; for it is their salvation."Likewise, Book VI Part II:"The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy. One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality, and therefore in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality. "..."there is no difficulty in forming a democracy where the mass of the people live by agriculture or tending of cattle. Being poor, they have no leisure, and therefore do not often attend the assembly, and not having the necessaries of life they are always at work, and do not covet the property of others. Indeed, they find their employment pleasanter than the cares of government or office where no great gains can be made out of them, for the many are more desirous of gain than of honor."Aristotle describes four different kinds of democracy, and apparently favors the first:"One type of democracy is when farmers and those possessing a moderate amount of property have authority. They govern themselves in accordance with law because their work leaves them little leisure time. They therefore meet in the assembly only as absolutely necessary [to make decisions on matters not covered by the code of law]. A share [in the system of government] is open to anyone as soon as they meet the financial assessment set by law. They cannot be at leisure [for public service in governing] unless there is public revenue [to subsidize their participation]."He has an apt description of tyrants in Book V Part XI:"Tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; 'nail knocks out nail,' as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but any one who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power. Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him."Like Hayek in Road to Serfdom, Aristotle argues for a basic social safety net even in a constitutional democracy with limited government:Book VI Part V:"the poor are always receiving and always wanting more and more, for such help is like water poured into a leaky cask. Yet the true friend of the people should see that they be not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy; measures therefore should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity; and as this is equally the interest of all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a little farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade or husbandry"rich should also pay the fees for the assemblies and the religious institutions." Likewise, he argues, the wealthy should also pay for the fees for the assemblies and the religious institutions. The role of the state, overall, is to maximize the happiness-- read: utility-- of the population. This seems very 18th century. Aristotle then examines what constitutes this happiness. One aspect reminds me of the epistles of the apostles James and Paul. Book VII Part 1 deals with the relationship of material goods and virtue (emphasis mine):"Some think that a very moderate amount of virtue is enough, but set no limit to their desires of wealth, property, power, reputation, and the like. To whom we reply by an appeal to facts, which easily prove that mankind do not acquire or preserve virtue by the help of external goods, but external goods by the help of virtue, and that happiness, whether consisting in pleasure or virtue, or both, is more often found with those who are most highly cultivated in their mind and in their character, and have only a moderate share of external goods, than among those who possess external goods to a useless extent but are deficient in higher qualities; and this is not only matter of experience, but, if reflected upon, will easily appear to be in accordance with reason."... God is a witness to us of this truth, for he is happy and blessed, not by reason of any external good, but in himself and by reason of his own nature. And herein of necessity lies the difference between good fortune and happiness; for external goods come of themselves, and chance is the author of them, but no one is just or temperate by or through chance. In like manner, and by a similar train of argument, the happy state may be shown to be that which is best and which acts rightly; and rightly it cannot act without doing right actions, and neither individual nor state can do right actions without virtue and wisdom. Thus the courage, justice, and wisdom of a state have the same form and nature as the qualities which give the individual who possesses them the name of just, wise, or temperate."In this I hear Paul's exhortation of contentment in 1 Timothy 6:5-12:"constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, andc we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness."It's worth noting that the Church eventually essentially canonized the work of Aristotle, which had problematic results in the area of science just as much as philosophy (just ask Galileo). But could Paul be agreeing with Aristotle here? Another passage that is reminiscent of Paul comes in Book I, when Aristotle is talking about the natural order, including the relationship between men and women, parents and children, masters and slaves:"Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. And this holds of all other virtues, as will be more clearly seen if we look at them in detail...All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet says of women:'Silence is a woman's glory,'but this is not equally the glory of man. " Another translation I found renders this: "silence is a woman's ornament"- and Sophocles identified as the poet. This immediately reminded me of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35: "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."likewise, 1 Corinthians 11:13-15"Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?"Long hair (or head covering) in conjunction with silent submission seem to be for her "glory" and Paul affirms this to be true both in the Hebrew Law and "nature," the latter of which is referred to in Politics Book I. Fascinating. Aristotle concludes with a look at what the state should do in regards to children and education in order to maximize the future happiness of the citizenry. Book VIII Part I:"The citizen should be molded to suit the form of government under which he lives. For each government has a peculiar character which originally formed and which continues to preserve it. The character of democracy creates democracy, and the character of oligarchy creates oligarchy; and always the better the character, the better the government...Neither must we suppose that any one of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the state, and are each of them a part of the state, and the care of each part is inseparable from the care of the whole. In this particular as in some others the Lacedaemonians are to be praised, for they take the greatest pains about their children, and make education the business of the state. The customary branches of education are in number four; they are- (1) reading and writing, (2) gymnastic exercises, (3) music, to which is sometimes added (4) drawing." Aristotle calls for public education provided by the state in contrast to the common policy among Greeks to hire private tutors to teach whatever the client wished. Aristotle channels Socrates a bit in discussing an ideal state where people would be forbidden from marrying and procreating too young, or in having children at too old an age in order to prevent "weak" children incapable of defending the state. Children should be allowed to develop a sort of "meanness" in their early years and parents should properly expose them to the cold in
One of the gifts I received for Christmas, which seems like such a long time ago now, was a £25 voucher to use on amazon. As soon as I saw the three-thousand digit code on the back of the card, I realised that there was only one thing I’d spend all that money on, books. That thought brought on a very rare occasion that I can’t take for granted: I made a rash decision and didn’t regret it. I bought The Collected Works of Plato, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, How to be both, Crime and Punishment, We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves, I am Malala, and Aristotle’s Politics. I’ve only just finished reading Politics, and I supposed that there would be no better place to review and reflect on the book than on the blog that I’m using to talk about everything related to PPE.There were many interesting things about this book, both in its ideas and in its references to the ancient world. The most noteworthy point about this entire book though is that it’s clearly a criticism of everything that Plato had earlier written in his dialogues, and therefore Politics set off criticism that must have gone against the grain of popular opinion in the ancient world. To properly enjoy this book, I think it’s worth knowing a little about the history of Aristotle, and his role as a Philosopher. Aristotle was a genius that was heavily influenced by the ideas of Plato; so much so that he joined an institution called the Plato Academy. The Plato Academy was run by Plato himself, and filled with people who were inspired by the early analytical philosophy put forward by Plato, and who were entirely in his debt when it came to their studies. When Plato died and the Academy needed a new head – Aristotle was hopeful, but didn’t manage to get it. This is where I think Aristotle really began to turn away from following Plato, and became more creative and independent in his thought. Thus spoke Politics.If we take it for granted that The Republic was, in Ancient Greece, the most dominant and influential book on the proper order of a state, books I & II should have hit the reader with a sharp shock. In these two books, Aristotle is putting his ideas forward from a theoretical point of view, arguing the necessity of slaves, the position of commodities, children, and the fundamental forms of government. Aristotle agrees with Plato insofar as they are both able to identify Oligarchies, Democracies, Tyrannies, and Aristocracies as forms of government, but Aristotle also expands on this idea. Aristotle doesn’t include a Timocracy as a form of government as Plato did, as it has never truly materialised in any part of the world, but he does add Monarchies to the list, and improves on the definitions of the forms of government completely. The first two books are essentially the first harsh grip on the reader, arguing that there is wisdom in what Plato has taught us about the state, but that he sometimes oversteps his boundaries, and in doing so has ended up creating a state which is essentially against human nature. In the later books, Aristotle becomes more focused on reality; rather than using abstract thought and reasoning to bring the reader to his conclusions, he gives examples from history. When talking about how different states function, Aristotle doesn’t look at how they should function, but rather how they actually have. He references the Spartan state, the Celts, the Lacedemonias as evidence for his arguments, noting how they use their democratic, aristocratic or oligarchic forms on the populates that they raise, and in the final book (book VIII), the focus turns to the education of the youth, and focuses itself on the topics that students should learn in schools. In this manner, it can be argued that Aristotle was one of the first scientists, as he seemingly uses the history of states to provide evidence or disprove earlier hypotheses.I haven’t read any notes on this book, and haven’t had any guidance in my reading, so I may be missing out on some of the major points in thisAris quick overview, but that is how I would describe the contents of Politics to myself before having read this book, and what I’d say to myself as I write this blog post, just to refresh my mind. What is more important at this point is what I took away from the book, and whether I found it a worthwhile read, or whether I should have simply read some notes online and gotten a condensed version of his ideas.What’s really important to consider when reading classics on political science is how similar the ideas of the book are to the society you’re living in today, and from Aristotle’s description of a good and bad state, the function of magistrates and of the division between rich and poor, it’s clear that he has made a huge impact on the way that we view the function of a state from both the ruler’s point of view and from the subject’s point of view. One idea that caught my attention early on in the book was that there are many forms of the different states. A democracy, for example, will have similar features no matter where it is implemented, but won’t be the same from state to state. This is similar to Plato’s theory of forms, only more practical. There are definitions that make a democracy definably different from an oligarchy, but there is no way for a democracy to be implemented in the exact same way across the world, for there are many historical and cultural factors behind mask of these regimes. This may seem like an over exaggeration of common sense, but it was definitely an insight of genius for a high ranking philosopher of Ancient Greece to argue that he can’t explain every action that a state takes.Another surprising idea of Aristotle’s was that there are two extremes on a political spectrum, democracy and oligarchy, and that all other state systems fall somewhere in between these two. This is significant, as it may have been the foundation of what we now call the Right vs Left spectrum. Previously, in The Republic, it was argued that there were five forms of a state, and that countries would switch between them until they were satisfied, and then would switch again, based on the balance of justice. Aristotle added flux to this very static idea, arguing that there are two extremes, and that all civilisations fall somewhere between them: an idea that is still very, very modern.
What do You think about Politics (2000)?
Politics by Aristotle and translated into English by Benjamin Jowett is an ancient book about political science. Aristotle truly believed that politics was a science which could be understood in the same way as anatomy or physics. Because of that he wrote this book to help people create a better more stable state. He starts by explaining the way in which a household is like a miniature state and explaining the rules which must be put into place regarding women, children and slaves all of which he seen as less than fully functional beings. After dealing with this he begins his description of the different types of states which he divides into six main primary forms. The first three which he would describe as proper states are monarchy, aristocracy and constitutional government. After that he describes the three corrupted forms as tyranny, oligarchy , and democracy. Monarchy is when one person who is the best in the state rules under the law for the sake of his citizens. This government though is often corrupted into tyranny where one person through strength holds his equals or betters below himself for his own benefit. Aristocracy is when the people who are above average join together to wisely run the state so that it might prosper. Often though it degrades into oligarchy where the power is all in the hands of a few who use the power to try maintain their position. Constitutional government is when people willingly submit to wise laws which are put together to help the state. Democracy is its corrupted form where the poor and the lesser people hold all the power and the better people are ostracized. After explaining these different states he goes on to show how each form of government can be transformed through revolution into another and how a wise leadership group will encourage stability in their state so their government is not overthrown. The final section of the book details his description of a perfect state and how the children should be educated. Overall a good book which is formative in its field of study.
—Brian Schiebout
I initially read Sir Ernest Barker's translation of Aristotle's Politics in 1965. The present edition by Carnes Lord includes an excellent translation and introduction with helpful endnotes regarding the meaning of important Greek terms, relevant ancient history, alternative translations, and variations in the manuscript sources. As for Aristotle's work itself, one finds many objectionable things (slavery, the inferior role of women typical of ancient Athenian society, the also typical incorporation of the religious priesthood into the government of the polis, the limitations of citizenship, and so forth) as well as some important insights. Ever the empiricist, Aristotle discusses at great length the many varieties of government that the Greeks and others had created during and before his era. All in all, it is quite a puzzling picture for us denizens of the twenty-first century. At some point, I may do a more exhaustive critique of the Politics, but other scholarly projects preoccupy me at the moment. The five-star rating is for the editorial and translation work of the subject edition. It is impossible to rate Aristotle himself, but the fact that his work has survived for more than two millennia is itself an indication that we can still learn from him, even while disagreeing with some of his apparent teachings. In this connection, no less a democrat than Thomas Jefferson wrote, with regard to the Declaration of Independence (which he substantially authored), that "[a]ll its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c." Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825, in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, ed. Merrill D. Peterson (New York: Library of America, 1984), 1501. Many historians and political scientists also attribute certain aspects of the U.S. Constitution (especially the mixed nature of the republican framework) to Aristotle's Politics. Aristotle is not the last word, but his contribution to political philosophy should not be ignored.
—Alan Johnson
What is remarkable is how little has changed in the conservative and liberal positions since Aristotle. Some of it reads like it came from a recent blog.My interest in finishing reading this classic is to provide some context for my discussion of the polis and the oikos in the second and, hopefully soon, first published edition of my book "Popular Capitalism". The treatment of the oikos was superficial and none of analysis applied to the polis was used in a deeper analysis of the oikos. Federation and empire were also treated superficially as the polis writ large. The political analysis, or what passes for it today, of the liberal and conservative adopt the same superficiality resulting in their error of making no distinctions between the levels of government, nor between individuals, families, households and corporations as "private" entities.On the other hand, Aristotle's analysis of education as a preparation for one's role in the polis is accurate and, though limited to the single role of citizenship and omitting the crucial mechanism of the examination, is an excellent basis for an analysis encompassing the merit examinations for civil service advocated by Carl Schurz, academia and vocational training.Most of the book is devoted to the study of constitutions and directed toward goals from his book on Ethics with the emphasis of the Socratic school on seeking the morally "good" or "best" of everything. Though I find no merit in morality, I can see where this study could afford an excellent introduction to comparative political science, including the effect of philosophical bias on those studies.
—C.
