Socio-Political TheoryIS 11 XB

The Life and Works of Plato and Aristotle

Group 1:

Belon Babes VillegasFarah Mae ArafolKrisalee SalomonMazuin QuiachonRidwan LandasanPink Hyacinth Ronsable

Submitted to: Ms. Melanie Ortiz Rosete

Date: July 1, 2010

Introduction

The term "political theory" is used in both narrow and broad senses, but the two are not easily

separated. In the narrow sense, it refers to the branch of academic discipline of “political science” that

discusses with the theoretical analysis of political institutions and practices. In a narrow understanding,

"political theory" ends up over an enormous amount of territory, running the full range from the

philosophical works of several theorists, including Plato and Aristotle.

Ancient Greek philosophy is dominated by three very famous men: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Socrates was first, and Plato was his student, around 400 BC. When Socrates was killed in 399 BC, and

Plato began his work by writing what he learnt from Socrates, continued by writing his own ideas and

opening an academy. A young man called Aristotle came to Plato’s school to study, and ended up

starting his own school as well (Carr, 2010).

Plato and Aristotle are two of the famous Greek theorists. Plato was born in an aristocratic and

influential family. He was originally named Aristocles by his grandfather but his wrestling coach

named him “Platon” in account of his robust figure. Plato founded one of the earliest known organized

schools in Western Civilization. When Plato was sixty years old, the seventeen-year-old Aristotle

presented himself, joining the Teacher's group of "Friends," as the members of the Academy called

themselves. Aristotle then became the student of Plato (Boeree, 2009).

Both philosophers have theories. In a discussion of politics, the standpoint of each philosopher

becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic, his most famous

book, that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city-

state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example,

the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Because he is so involved in

metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual (Ross, 2004). Aristotle,

contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics,

Aristotle’s renowned book, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual

state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to

creating a stable government (Kilcullen, 1996). His less metaphysical approach to politics makes

Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.

To better understand the works of these two great philosophers, we include what the critics have to say

about their theories. Criticisms involve the disadvantages and advantages of some theories used in

Plato’s The Republic and Aristotle’s Politics such as the Importance of the state versus the individual,

function of rulers, the effect of the abolition of the family to the society, the concept that philosophers

must be kings, concepts of unity among the individual, and the concept of good and evil when it comes

to political matters.

I—Historical Background

Plato was one of the most famous, respected, and influential philosophers of all time. A type of love

(Platonic) is named for him. We know the Greek philosopher Socrates mostly through Plato's

dialogues. Atlantis enthusiasts know Plato for his parable about it.

Plato was born around on May 21 in 428 or 427 B.C., a year or two after Pericles died and during the

Peloponnesian War. He was related to Solon and could trace his ancestry to the last legendary king of

Athens, Codrus. Plato was a student and follower of Socrates until 399, when the condemned Socrates

died after drinking the prescribed cup of hemlock. It is through Plato that we are most familiar with

Socrates' philosophy because Plato wrote dialogues, in which his teacher took part, usually asking

leading questions -- the Socratic method (Gill, 2010).

Gill (2010) further mentioned that Pato's Apology is Plato's version of the death of Socrates. When his

master died, he traveled to Egypt and Italy, studied with students of Pythagoras, and spent several years

advising the ruling family of Syracuse. Eventually, he returned to Athens and established his own

school of philosophy at the Academy. For students enrolled there, Plato tried both to pass on the

heritage of a Socratic style of thinking and to guide their progress through mathematical learning to the

achievement of abstract philosophical truth. The written dialogues on which his enduring reputation

rests also serve both of these aims.

In his earliest literary efforts, Plato tried to convey the spirit of Socrates's teaching by presenting

accurate reports of the master's conversational interactions, for which these dialogues are our primary

source of information. Early dialogues are typically devoted to investigation of a single issue, about

which a conclusive result is rarely achieved. Thus, the Euqufrwn (Euthyphro) raises a significant doubt

about whether morally right action can be defined in terms of divine approval by pointing out a

significant dilemma about any appeal to authority in defense of moral judgments.

The Apologhma (Apology) offers a description of the philosophical life as Socrates presented it in his

own defense before the Athenian jury. The Kritwn (Crito) uses the circumstances of Socrates's

imprisonment to ask whether an individual citizen is ever justified the state.

Although they continue to use the talkative Socrates as a fictional character, the middle dialogues of

Plato develop, express, and defend his own, more firmly established, conclusions about central

philosophical issues. Beginning with the Menwn (Meno), for example, Plato not only reports the

Socratic notion that no one knowingly does wrong, but also introduces the doctrine of recollection in an

attempt to discover whether or not virtue can be taught. The Faidwn (Phaedo) continues development

of Platonic notions by presenting the doctrine of the Forms in support of a series of arguments that

claim to demonstrate the immortality of the human soul (Kemerling, 2006).

The masterpiece among the middle dialogues is Plato's Politeia (Republic), which will be further

elaborated and explained in the next section. It begins with a Socratic conversation about the nature of

justice but proceeds directly to an extended discussion of the virtues of justice, wisdom, courage,

and moderation as they appear both in individual human beings and in society as a whole. This plan for

the ideal society or person requires detailed accounts of human knowledge and of the kind

of educational program by which it may be achieved by men and women alike, captured in a powerful

image of the possibilities for human life in the allegory of the cave. The dialogue concludes with a

review of various forms of government, an explicit description of the ideal state, in which only

philosophers are fit to rule, and an attempt to show that justice is better than injustice. Among the other

dialogues of this period are Plato's treatments of human emotion in general and of love in particular in

the FaidroV (Phaedrus) and Sumposion (Symposium).

In the Middle Ages, Plato was known mostly through Latin translations of Arabic translations and

commentaries. In the Renaissance, when Greek became more familiar, far more scholars studied Plato.

Since then, he has had an impact on math and science, morals, and political theory. Instead of following

a political path, Plato thought it more important to educate would-be statesmen. For this reason, he set

up a school for future

leaders. Plato's school was called the Academy, named for the park in which it was located. In his book,

the Republic, he included treatise on education.

When Plato died, in 347 B.C., after Philip II of Macedonia had begun his conquest of Greece,

leadership of the Academy passed not to Aristotle, who had been a student and then teacher there for 20

years, and who expected to follow, but to Plato's nephew Speusippus. The Academy continued for

several more centuries.

The association between Aristotle and Plato dates probably from 368-67 B.C. when Aristotle, at the age

of eighteen, came to join Plato's Academy in Athens. He was a native of Stagira in northern Greece. His

father had been employed as a doctor at the Macedonian court, and but for his premature death it seems

likely that Aristotle would have followed him in that profession. But in fact he remained in the

Academy for twenty years, leaving it only when Plato passed away (Warner, 2005).But although

Aristotle was Plato's most promising student, Aristotle did not succeed Plato as head of the Academy

because of their opposing views on several fundamental philosophical issues, specifically regarding

Plato's theory of ideas. Aristotle was more concerned than Plato with the actual material world, and did

not believe that the only thing that mattered is the realm of ideas and perfect forms.

After leaving the Academy, Aristotle was invited to go live in the court of his friend Hermeas, ruler of

Atarneus and Assos in Mysia. Aristotle remained there for three years, during which time he married

Pythias, the niece and adopted daughter of the king. Later in life Aristotle married Herpyllis, with

whom had a son, named Nicomachus after his father. When Hermeas' kingdom was taken over by

Persians, Aristotle moved to Mytilene. King Amyntas invited Aristotle to tutor his thirteen-year old son,

Alexander. Aristotle tutored Alexander for five years until King Amyntas died, and Alexander came to

power. In gratitude for Aristotle's services, Alexander provided Aristotle generously with means for the

acquisition of books and for the pursuit of scientific inquiry. While the extent to which Aristotle's

tutoring influenced Alexander's successes in conquering an empire is disputable, Alexander did try to

organize much of his empire along the model of the Greek city-state.

In 335 BC Aristotle went back to Athens, where he found the Academy flourishing under Xenocrates.

Aristotle founded his own school, the Lyceum, and ran it for twelve years. The school is often called

the Peripatetic School, because Aristotle used to like walking around and discusses his ideas with his

colleagues. Peripatetics are "people who walk around." Aristotle would have detailed discussions with

a small group of advanced students in the mornings, and larger lectures in the evenings. During his

time at the Lyceum, Aristotle wrote extensively on a wide range of subjects: politics, metaphysics,

ethics, logic and science.

Aristotle agreed with Plato that the cosmos is rationally designed and that philosophy can come to

know absolute truths by studying universal forms. Their ideas diverged, however, in that Aristotle

thought that the one finds the universal in particular things, while Plato believed the universal exists

apart from particular things, and that material things are only a shadow of true reality, which exists in

the realm of ideas and forms. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers is that Plato

thought only pure mathematical reasoning was necessary, and therefore focused on metaphysics and

mathematics. Aristotle, on the other hand, thought that in addition to this "first philosophy," it is also

necessary to undertake detailed empirical investigations of nature, and thus to study what he called

"second philosophy," which includes such subjects as physics, mechanics and biology. Aristotle's

philosophy therefore involved both inductive and deductive reasoning, observing the workings of the

world around him and then reasoning from the particular to a knowledge of essences and universal

laws. In a sense, Aristotle was the first major proponent of the modern scientific method. The Lyceum

was an unprecedented school of organized scientific inquiry. There was no comparable scientific

enterprise for over 2,000 years after the founding of the Lyceum.

In 323 BC Alexander the Great died unexpectedly and the government of Athens was overthrown by

anti-Macedonian forces. Having had close connections with the Macedonian royal family, Aristotle was

associated with the Macedonians and was unpopular with the new ruling powers. The new government

brought charges of impiety against Aristotle, but he fled to his country house in Chalcis in Euboea to

escape prosecution. Aristotle commented that he fled so that "the Athenians might not have another

opportunity of sinning against philosophy as they had already done in the person of Socrates." About a

year later, Aristotle died after complaints of a stomach illness.

His student Theophrastus, his successor as leader of the Peripatetic School, preserved Aristotle’s

writings. Theophrastus' pupil Neleus and his heirs concealed the books in a vault to protect them from

theft, but dampness, moths and worms damaged them. The books were found around 100 BC by

Apellicon, who brought them to Rome. In Rome, scholars took interest in the works and prepared new

editions of them. The writings of Aristotle that we have today are based on this collection. Overall,

Aristotle wrote three types of works: dialogues or other works of a popular character, collections of

scientific data and observations, and systematic treatises. His philosophy can be divided into four main

areas: 1) Logic; 2) Theoretical Philosophy, including Metaphysics, Physics and Mathematics; 3)

Practical Philosophy, such as Ethics and Politics; and 4) Poetical Philosophy, covering the study of

poetry and the fine arts.

II—Books/Theories

Regarded as Plato's most important work, the Republic has long been studied as a seminal text of the

Western literary and philosophical canon. In this group of philosophical dialogues, Plato uses a

conversational prose format to explore the nature of society, seeking to define the characteristics of an

ideal society, or republic. Inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Socrates, in the Republic Plato

theorizes that the answer to society's ills lies not in reforming political systems but in adopting

philosophic principles as guidelines. To implement and oversee these principles in society, Plato

proposes the creation of what he calls ruler philosophers—individuals who will lead society into an

ethical existence based on predetermined principles that are expounded in the Republic. In addition to

the Republic, Plato, who founded and ran an academy in Athens for many years, wrote a number of

other dialogues as well as numerous letters. Because of the influence of the ideas expressed in various

dialogues, including the Republic, Plato has come to occupy a key position in the history of western

philosophy and is often called the father of philosophic idealism. Additionally, he is lauded as a

preeminent prose stylist and the Republic is regarded as one of the most exemplary texts in this genre,

praised for its craftsmanship and poetic qualities.

Composed as a dramatic dialogue among various characters, the principal among them Socrates, the

Republic is divided into ten main books. This division, as scholars have repeatedly pointed out, is

somewhat artificial and was dictated more by the limitations of book production in ancient times—in

this case, the amount of material that would fit onto a papyrus roll—rather than any internal break in

the sequence of the argument. The text begins with a prelude, where the main characters and setting are

introduced and the subject of the dialogue—justice, or right conduct—explained briefly. In addition to

Socrates, who is the main narrator of the dialogue, other characters include Glaucon and Adeimantus,

elder brothers of Plato, and Polemarchus, a resident of Athens at whose house the conversation takes

place. Also present are Thrasymachus, a Sophist and orator as well as the main respondent in Book I;

Lysias and Euthydemus, Polemarchus's brothers; and Niceratus, Charmantides, and Cleitophon.

Ostensibly a discussion about the nature of justice, expounded on first by Thrasymachus, who states the

Sophist position that justice and its related conventions are rules that were imposed on society by those

in power, the rest of the dialogue is mainly a response from Socrates to this statement. In essence, the

argument to prove the inherent good of justice leads Plato, via Socrates, to lay out his vision of the

ideal state, covering a wide range of topics, including the social, educational, psychological, moral, and

philosophical aspects of the republic.

The main intention of the Republic is to define the principles that govern an ideal society. In doing so,

Plato touches upon many important ideas about education, ethics, politics, and morality in this text.

Scholars have pointed out that the main argument of the Republic is partly a response to the political

unrest and instability Plato witnessed in contemporary Athenian society. Following the end of the

Peloponnesian War, Athens became a democracy of sorts, led mostly by laymen, who, in Plato's view,

tended to implement policies based more on popular demand rather than necessity or principle. Thus,

Plato developed a perspective that viewed all contemporary forms of government as corrupt, theorizing

that the only hope for finding true justice both for society and the individual lies in philosophy, and that

“mankind will have no respite from trouble until either real philosophers gain political power, or

politicians become by some miracle true philosophers.” This is the central theme of the Republic. In the

context of this premise, Plato touches upon several major issues, focusing the most significant

discussions on the nature and definition of ethics, education, and the organization of society and

politics, as well as religion and philosophy. In contrast to the Sophists, who advocated the primacy of

rhetoric over moral training, Plato proposes the creation of an educational system that focuses on the

molding of character, with the ultimate goal of the educator being not just imparting knowledge, but

also the ability “to turn the mind's eye to the light so that it can see for itself.” According to Plato, one

of the main problems of his society was the inability to distinguish true reality from reflections or

images of reality. Plato employs his famous allegory of the cave to illustrate how mankind learns and

can be mislead by the manner in which he learns. Plato's preferred educational system strictly controls

the upbringing of the ruling class in order to help them differentiate between appearance and reality and

form correct views. He advocates the study of mathematics and abstract ideas rather than art, music, or

literature because the latter deal with representation of ideas, not ideas themselves; he even goes so far

as to advocate censorship of art, when necessary, in the service of proper education. Another powerful

focus in the Republic is the discussion of justice. Responding primarily to the Sophists' position, that

morality is important only because of the social and personal consequences that follow, Plato contends

that morality and justice are key components of an ideal society and that they must underlie all areas of

human interaction.

Just like his teacher, Aristotle also had his masterpiece, called Politics. In this book, he addressed the

city. Aristotle's conception of the city is organic, and he is considered one of the first to conceive of the

city in this manner. Aristotle considered the city to be a natural community. Moreover, he considered

the city to be prior to the family which in turn is prior to the individual, i.e., last in the order of

becoming, but first in the order of being. He is also famous for his statement that "man is by nature a

political animal." Aristotle conceived of politics as being like an organism rather than like a machine,

and as a collection of parts none of which could exist without the others.

It should be noted that the modern understanding of a political community is that of the state. However,

the state was foreign to Aristotle. He referred to political communities as cities. Aristotle understood a

city as a political "partnership". Subsequently, a city is created not to avoid injustice or for economic

stability, but rather to live a good life: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being

for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together." This can be distinguished from the

social contract theory which individuals leave the state of nature because of "fear of violent death" or

its "inconveniences.”

Aristotle frequently compares the politician to a craftsman. The analogy is imprecise because politics,

in the strict sense of legislative science, is a form of practical knowledge, while a craft like architecture

or medicine is a form of productive knowledge. However, the comparison is valid to the extent that the

politician produces, operates, and maintains a legal system according to universal principles.

One can also explain the existence of the city-state in terms of the four causes. It is a kind of

community, that is, a collection of parts having some functions and interests in common. Hence, it is

made up of parts, which Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts: as households, or

economic classes (the rich and the poor), or demes (local political units). But, ultimately, the city-state

is composed of individual citizens, who, along with natural resources, are the "material" or

"equipment" out of which the city-state is fashioned.

The existence of the city-state also requires an efficient cause, namely, its ruler. On Aristotle's view, a

community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or authority. This ruling

principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the

sovereign office. However, on a deeper level, there must be an efficient cause to explain why a city-

state acquires its constitution in the first place. Aristotle states, "The person who first established [the

city-state] is the cause of very great benefits". This person was evidently the lawgiver, someone like

Solon of Athens or Lycurgus of Sparta, who founded the constitution. Aristotle compares the lawgiver,

or the politician more generally, to a craftsman like a weaver or shipbuilder, who fashions material into

a finished product.

In a nutshell, the city-state, according to Aristotle, is a hylomorphic (matter-form) compound of a

particular population (i citizen-body) in a given territory (material cause) and a constitution (formal

cause). The constitution itself is fashioned by the lawgiver and is governed by politicians, who are like

craftsmen (efficient cause), and the constitution defines the aim of the city-state.

III—Issues

No matter how intellectual the person is and no matter how great his masterpieces are, still he and his

works cannot escape from the eyes of critics. Critics are those people who question the essence, logic

and validity of a certain work of a certain person, in this case, the two renowned philosophers and their

theories. Below are the theories of both Plato and Aristotle from their books entitled The Republic and

Politics, respectively, with their corresponding advantages and disadvantages according to critics.

A. Plato

Theory: Importance of the state versus the individual

A state comes into existence because no individual is self-sufficing; we all have many needs. Plato

argues that the individual exists for the state and not the state for the individual.

Criticism:

Robert Mayhew's Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Republic focuses on Aristotle's main objections to

Plato's political philosophy: the degree of unity envisioned by Plato is impossible/undesirable; too

much unity undermines self-sufficiency; community of women and children and community of

property have numerous adverse effects on society. Mayhew claims that the objections have been

largely ignored on the ground that they are facile or unfair. But the purpose of the book is not to show

that Aristotle's thought has been unjustifiably vilified, though Mayhew says "we shall see in passing

that in most cases Aristotle's criticisms of the Republic are well-founded."

Advantages:

Everybody has met their needs for they are living interdependently by which all of their demands in

order to survive are being satisfied.

Disadvantages:

If ever the state is weak and faces a malfunctional phenomenon, every individual living in the state is

weak too. Hence, lower economic living trend, poor literacy and miserable societal aspects will arise.

Theory: Function of Rulers

They must take the greatest care not to overlook the least infraction of the rule against any innovation

upon the established system of education either of the body or of the mind.

Criticism:

Plato argues that, only in the perfect state can man find perfection. All this is based on his idea of the

forms. By which he seeks to justify this state tyranny of an educated oligarchy. In fact his Guardians, in

spite of long training, are not educated at all, for education makes people better. We could hardly call it

education if it corrupted them. No educated person wants absolute power over others. Educated folk

know their own faults and failings and would shun this exercise of despotism.

They might agree with Mill that, “if all the world but one were of one opinion, the world would no

more have the right to force him to change his view, that he, had he the power, would have the right to

force the world.” Plato does try to justify it by saying that the Guardians take office, not for love of

power but because they cannot bear their state to fall into the hands of lesser men who were incapable

of wise guidance.

Advantages:

With the enough knowledge or education you have, there are big chances that you are capable of doing

decisions about the sensitive issues and concerns for the better of your state or country.

Disadvantages:

Too much knowledge may deviate a person from doing his commitment. Instead, there is a big

possibility that the guardian or ruler will abuse his/her power for he knows fully the techniques and

tactics on how control and dominates his people.

Theory: The abolition of the family

No man and one woman are to set up house together privately: wives are to be held in common by all;

so too are the children and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child is his parent.

Plato wants his Guardians to be protected from all forms of distraction such as love of one’s spouse or

one’s children. Children are never to know their biological parents but to respect all adults of a certain

generation as mothers and fathers. Equally the parents are not to know who their children are but to

treat all as theirs, which in effect means, the states. Instead of marriage there are to be special times for

mating organized as a lottery, by the guardians. It appears as a lottery but in reality this is fixed. Again

the analogy of dog breeding is used so that Plato seems to think that the Guardians will know which

are the best of the men and women and see to it that they only breed together.

Criticism:

“In spite of all the Darwinist, Hitlerian and Platonic comparisons with the breeding of domestic animals

it has to be understood that humans are not animals. We are far more complex and, inspite of

behaviourist claims, we have the rare gift of language and the capacity to deal with abstracts that

animals do not. Breeding experiments are bound to turn out a calamity, most of all for the subjects of

those experiments. The very basis of these ideas is false, perverted and grotesque. Who, for instance, is

to decide and to dictate who or what is “the best”? Who is it that decides whether Nigel or Napoleon is

to be the pattern? Is George Eliot to be reckoned as “better” than Mrs. Pankhurst? For that matter how

many parents have children, which are exact clones of themselves? Even identical twins have

remarkable differences and who can say how and to what degree nurture plays a part in moulding the

potentialities in our genes?”

(Penny, 2007)

“To show how closely modern totalitarianism has followed the Platonic pattern we may consider the

following quotation from Mein; Kampf. Discussing racial purity Hitler wrote. “The Weltanschauung

which bases the State on the racial idea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which

men will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs and horses and cats,

but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human race itself.” In the next chapter he returns to the

theme and again could be paraphrasing Plato. “A Weltanschauung which repudiates the democratic

principle of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people, that is, to the highest

quality of mankind, must also apply that same aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the folk

community. It must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence are given to the best

men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the majority, but on that of personality.” (Mein Kampf, trans

Murphy 1939. pp.228, 248)

Advantages:

A certain country or state will have a full protection from the guardians for they are not being

influenced by internal and external factors such as love and home. They will have an intense

concentration to do their duties and responsibilities. Hence a certain country or a state will achieve a

holistic security.

Disadvantages:

There is a possibility that a certain state or country will face a miserable society for the children who

are born of out of wedlock and have no home will be the main agent of deviance and darkness to a

certain state. Hence, conflict will arise easily, the political stability will not be achieved and peace will

be difficult to retain.

Theory: Philosophers must be kings

Plato, like Marx, suggests that there was a “golden age” and that human society has degenerated since

then. What is needed, he suggests, is that kings should be philosophers and philosophers kings. These,

he insists must have a vision of the good. However this is only explained by a series of analogies. The

Cave, the Divided Line, and The Sun. There is no such thing as an “essential table,” though there may

be absolute goodness and truth, though not in the world of men, nor ever can be while humans are in

control.

Criticism:

Although Plato, like Socrates, had always defined philosophers as those who know they are ignorant,

he always talks about the philosopher Guardians as though they will actually be wise. But if a

philosopher is not wise, then he may not make any better a ruler than someone who is virtuous because

of correct belief (as described at the end of the Meno). Plato's theory, therefore, really depends on

philosophy actually be able to produce wise people. In two thousand years, that has clearly not

happened. It is fairly obvious that philosophy professors are, on the whole, no wiser as persons than

anyone else; and in academic philosophy departments most professors are not even trying to pursue

wisdom in any ordinary meaning of the word.

Advantages:

If a king or a ruler is a philosopher, then he has the full wisdom of knowing the truth. Hence, the reality

that is going on the society will be more focused especially the different concerns and problems of the

masses.

Disadvantages:

It is true that a philosopher has lots of wisdom but on the other hand, if he is not wise, then his wisdom

will just be wisdom and will not be applied in order to help the masses in the society. Hence, if a

philosopher will be a king, he must have not only wisdom but also the knowledge and the tactics on

how to deal with the concerns of the society.

Theory:

Plato holds that the unity of the city should be the unity of the individual human being. By contrast,

Aristotle insists "not only is a city made up of a number of human beings, but also of a number of

human beings differing in kind (eidei). For a city does not come to be out of similar people"

Criticism:

Such unity cannot be the unity of a substance. Individuals do not belong to a society like parts belong

to a whole. In a living organism, each part is continuous to the others, and its dynamics is oriented

toward the whole. Striving to accomplish a substantial unity of the polis would lead to its destruction. It

is its "constitution" that makes a city one, and "unlike a substance and its form, the parts of a city can

rid themselves of one constitution and create another. Yet, the cause of a city's remaining one is not the

constitution as such (or completely), but (at least in part) the choice of each of the citizens" (p. 28).

Political unity entails irreducible multiplicity. Yet since Plato recognizes that diversity is needed for the

city to be serf-sufficient, what is the nature of Aristotle's criticism?

Just as an animal or plant can survive and flourish only if its soul rules over its body (Pol. I.5.1254a34-

6, DA I.5.410b10-15; compare Plato Phaedo 79e-80a), a human community can possess the necessary

order only if it has a ruling element which is in a position of authority, just as an army can possess

order only if it has a commander in control. Although Aristotle followed Plato on this principle, he

rejected Plato's further claim that one form of rule is appropriate for all. For Aristotle different forms of

rule are necessary for different systems: e.g., political rule for citizens and despotic rule for slaves. The

imposition of an inappropriate type of rule results in disorder and injustice.

“If the end of a constitution is to achieve unity, Plato's communism is the wrong means, not only

because what is common is given the least care, but because with such a system friendship would be

fragmented and ultimately destroyed. "There are two things that most of all make human beings care

and feel affection (philein): that which is one's own and that which is dear. Neither of these can belong

to those having such a constitution" (Politics 1262622-4).

Advantage:

If the sense of unity will be present in the society, then common goal for its development and stability

will be achieved.

Disadvantage:

If a problem will arise in a united society, each sector will be affected because of its nature of

interrelatedness and interdependency. Once leadership of the king failed, people under his rule will

suffer the consequences.

B. Aristotle

Theory:

Aristotle's perfectionism was opposed to the subjective relativism of Protagoras, according to which

good and evil is defined by whatever human beings happened to desire. Like Plato, Aristotle

maintained that the good was objective and independent of human wishes. However, he rejected Plato's

own theory that the good was defined in terms of a transcendent form of the good, holding instead that

good and evil are in a way relative to the organism, that is, to its natural end.

Criticism:

The aforementioned principles account for much of the distinctive flavor of Aristotle's political

philosophy, and they also indicate where many modern theorists have turned away from him. Modern

philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes have challenged the principles of teleology and perfectionism,

arguing against the former that human beings are mechanistic rather than teleological systems, and

against the latter that good and bad depend upon subjective preferences of valuing agents rather than on

objective states of affairs. Liberal theorists have criticized the principle of community on the grounds

that it cedes too much authority to the state. Even the principle of rulership which Aristotle, Plato, and

many other theorists thought self-evident has come under fire by modern theorists like Adam Smith and

F. A. Hayek who argued that social and economic order may arise spontaneously as if by an "invisible

hand." Modern neo-Aristotelian political theorists are committed to defending one or more of these

doctrines against such criticisms.

Advantage:

If the concept of good and evil are believed to be objective and are natural, hence, every individual will

realize and appreciate his being as naturally good being a son or daughter of God.

Disadvantage:

If the concept of good and evil are believe to be subjective, hence every individual will be aware and

make his own decision depending on his will for in the first place, he did not base his deeds upon God's

Words but instead he base it upon his will as a human being.

Conclusion

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in

general. In a discussion of politics, the viewpoint of each philosopher becomes an important factor. It is

not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of

the good should be the governors in a city-state. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on

politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual ( Ross, 2001).

Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The

Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a

main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable

government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern

world, yet he is far from modern (Kilcullen, 1996).

Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory

of forms. The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in

the world. Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing, which is the form. According

to Plato, only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve

understanding of the forms. In The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since

they are the only ones who hold the form of the good. The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you

will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule. Plato further argues that

philosopher rulers are needed to create an ideal state that guarantees justice (Banach, 2006).

Moreover, Plato argues that it is a separation of power amongst three classes--Rulers, Auxiliaries,

Commoners--that makes the most of each person's natural abilities and strives for the good of the

community. The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various

individuals. It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the

Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because

they do not understand the concept of the forms (Landry, 2004).

Whereas Plato's The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice and in doing so uses the polis,

Aristotle's The Politics's sole function is to define itself--define politics. He argues that the state is the

culmination of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman ("pair"), which have a

family and form a "household"; households unite and form villages; villages unite and form the state.

This natural order of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals.

Aristotle, like Plato, believes that a person is not self-reliant. This lack of sufficiency is the catalyst in

the escalating order of unions among people. In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on

breaking down society. His argument says that there are different classes in society, but they are

naturally defined. Aristotle is also very sexist and explicitly states so. His view is that women are

inferior to men in all senses. Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citizen, whose role is

purely political. Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that some people are not capable of practicing

an active role in political life. Plato's reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the

intricacies of higher knowledge on the good. Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more political

issue that those that fully participate in their government should be considered citizens of the state

(Clayton, 2005).

The Aristotelian polis, as opposed to Plato's, is a city with a large middle class that promotes stability

and balances the conflicting claims of the poor and the rich. Aristotle combines elements of democracy

with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims. Because he is aware that human interest

is an inextricable entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods is in proportion to contribution to

the good of the polis. This system provides for the self-interested who believe that those who work

harder should receive more. Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the

mixed social system allows. This is permissible because of the strong involvement of the citizens in

government; it is what one would call a "true democracy." Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails

(Clayton, 2005).

The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet today it is

difficult to find specific instances where either philosophy is applied. This may be a result of the fact

that today's political philosophy differs from both philosophers’. While Aristotle and Plato uphold the

good of the community or state above individual good, today's constitution includes a bill of rights that

guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation. Having these individual rights is a necessity for

today's citizens. According to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it does not

improve the good of the community.

Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and today's society involves the topic of

slavery. Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered

grotesque for quite some time. In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female

population by Aristotle. Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes women are the sub-

species. While women have had to fight endless battles to achieve the recognition they deserve, today it

is a well-accepted fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in performing tasks.

Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long time, our society certainly

contains some of their influences in a general sense. For example, today it is believed that certain

people are born with certain capacities. Intelligence has been attributed to genetics. Because of the

different intelligence levels among people, we have different classes--for example: advanced,

intermediate, and beginners. In their appropriate level, each person develops his or her abilities to the

highest potential. This concept is sometimes at odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human

beings. Yet, in essence, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in

certain capacity levels to complete tasks.

Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate

our practices. The philosophers are very community oriented while we value the individual. Besides

differing with today's standards, each philosopher is in his own way distinct. Plato is very attracted to

metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical. Both perspective views are and will

continue to puzzle students for years to come.

Reference List

Boeree, C.G. (2009). The Ancient Greeks part two: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/athenians.html

Columbia University Press. (1991). Plato: Founder of the Academy. Retrieved June 30, 2010, fromhttp://www.columbia.edu/itc/lithium/wong/plato.html

enotes.com. (2010).Republic (Politiea) Plato. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://www.enotes.com/classical-medieval-criticism/republic-politeia-plato

History and Sciencefor Middle School Kids, Greek Philosophy(2010). Retrieved June 30, 2010, fromhttp://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/philosophy/index.htm

Jenkins, J.L. (2001). Article: Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's Republic(Review).The Philosophical Review. Retrieved June 30, 2010, fromhttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-73538070.html

Kemerling, G. (2006).Plato. Retrieved on June 29, 2010, from http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/warnerr/platoback.htm

Kilcullen, R.J. (1006) Tape 5: Aristotle, the Politics.Retrieved on June 28, 2010, from http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6704.html

Landry, P. (2004). Plato. Retrieved July 1, 2010http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Plato.htm

Massie, P. (1999). Aristotle criticisms of Plato's Republic. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3545/is_3_52/ai_n28740176/

Ross, K.L. (2004). Plato's Republic, note: The ring of gyges and hollow man. Retrived June 30, 2010, from http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm

Short Biography of Aristotle. Retrieved June 28, 2010, fromhttp://www.321books.co.uk/biography/aristotle.htm

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2002).Presuppositions of Aristotle Politics.Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement2.html

Penny, R. (2007). Criticisms of Plato's Republic. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from http://socyberty.com/government/criticism-of-plato-the-republic/

Warner, R. (2005). Plato and Aristotle: The historical background. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from htp://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/warnerr/platoback.htm

Your Dictictionary.com. (2010). Biography of Aristotle. Retrieved on June 29, 2010, from http://www.yourdictionary.com/biography/aristotle