Ancient Political Thought Aristotle And Plato Essay

Ancient Political Thought: Aristotle And Plato Essay, Research Paper

Ancient Political Thought

Throughout the Republic it becomes obvious that Plato believes that the best city-state has the highest level of sharing and unity while in the

Politics, Aristotle believes that too much unity can deunify a city-state. The “unity” argument is a prime example of Plato?s way of thinking about

the nature of a community, and Aristotle?s criticism of this unity gives insight into Aristotle?s way of thinking about his views on the nature of the

community. In order to understand Aristotle?s attack on Plato?s “unity,” it must be understood that for Aristotle, unity is synonymous with the level

of sharing in a community. In Politics II 1, Aristotle begins his assessment by stating that, “We must begin, at the natural starting point of this

investigation. For all citizens much share everything, or nothing, or some things but not others” (Pol. 1260b36-39).

There are three possibilities in Aristotle?s argument regarding how much citizens should share in common: Nothing, everything, and some things

but not others. Similar to Plato?s style of forming an argument, Aristotle states the problem and all the possible outcomes. He then proceeds to

disprove two of them, thereby making the last remaining possibility the correct one by means of deduction.

Aristotle argues that it would be “evidently impossible” for a community to have nothing in common (1260b39-40). A community?s citizens all

share the same location, and they are all organized by a common constitution. Therefore, the first possibility can be ruled out. Aristotle attacks

the two remaining possibilities simultaneously. He asks, “is it better for a city-state that is to be well managed to share everything possible? Or

is it better to share some things but not others” (1261a2-4)? Plato would argue that it is best for a city-state to share everything, including women

and children, with all members of a society. In addressing the remaining possibilities, Aristotle questions if Plato was right in the Republic to

assert that “children, women, and property should be communal” in society (1261a6-7), or is having too much unity (sharing) a bad thing.

In the Republic, Socrates explains to Adeimantus the importance of having a communist-like society where everything is shared by the

community. He states that “If a sound education has made [our children] into reasonable men, they will easily see their way through all these

mattes, as well as others which we will pass over for the moment, such as the possession of wives, marriage, and child-bearing, and the

principle that here we should follow, as far as possible, the proverb which says that friends have all things in common” (423e-424a).

Aristotle cannot simply dismiss the possibility of sharing everything, because it can, in theory, take place in a community. All members of a

community, if they so desired, could raise and educate their children together, and share all of their wives amongst their friends and neighbors.

However, Aristotle would like to prove that although it is possible to bring up children in a communal setting, it would undermine that city?s unity,

rather than support it. It is important to note that Socrates says that the principle of sharing children should, as far as possible, be followed. In

order for Aristotle?s to make his argument, it must be assumed that Plato means that once a child is born, he is given over to the community, and

therefore, does not know who his parents are, and his parents do not know who their child is.

Aristotle?s first argument centers on the statement that what is common and shared, by nature, is given the least amount of care and attention.

When a large number of people share something in common, they tend to neglect that something. “What is common to the most people gets the

least care since they are concerned more of all with their own things, but less with common things” (1261b33-35). Aristotle compares sharing

children with an entire community to a master who employs too many servants. A servant will be less motivated to perform specific actions,

because he very well might assume that another servant has already taken care of that task. Furthermore, if the servant knows that the task has

not been competed but fails to perform the task himself, if he is caught slacking off, he can simply exonerate himself by making the claim that he

thought that task was already competed. If, however, a master only had one slave, this slave would not be able to claim that the work was not

done, or that he was not needed, because he is the only one who can serve in the entire household.

From this example, Aristotle infers that if our children are brought up in a communal setting, the same thing will happen to human relationships

that happens to masters with too many slaves. If we all share our children, “There comes to be a thousand sons to each of the citizens,” and this

forms a situation in which “any chance man is equally the son of any chance man, such that all [the "fathers"] will equally neglect them (all t

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать