In The Republic, Plato creates the ideal city, which is needed to guarantee Justice. He aims to create a peaceful united city that will lead to the greater good of the community and individuals. Unlike Plato who imagines the ideal city, Aristotle looks at actual cities in The Politics.
February 02, Kelvin Knight, Aristotelian Philosophy: Reviewed by Peter C. He identifies three explicitly: Weaving these together is an emphasis on the "revolutionary" character of MacIntyre's views.
Unlike either Aristotle or the Aristotelian tradition, which Knight characterizes as frequently legitimating elitist and exclusionary politics, MacIntyre offers a theory of the virtues that is inclusive, egalitarian, and deeply opposed to the global capitalist order of post modernity.
Knight achieves his goals with varying degrees of success, and at times the attempt to juggle so many balls at once leaves his narrative somewhat disconnected, as the effort to trace out an Aristotelian tradition over centuries is punctuated by sideways glances at various interpretive disputes.
This is most pronounced in the third chapter, where in a mere 35 pages Knight follows Aristotle's path through the remarkably diverse cast of Luther, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, and Gadamer, not to mention several lesser figures and a handful of contemporary thinkers. Knight seems to recognize the problem, admitting, "This book is victim to the author's overnumerous intentions" He is, nevertheless, more successful than not.
In particular, his account of MacIntyre's development into a "revolutionary Aristotelian," supplementing Thomist Christianity with a residual fidelity to Marx, is both helpful and persuasive. The book consists of four chapters: The opening chapter on Aristotle centers on the claim that his practical philosophy -- his ethics and politics -- is decisively connected to and shaped by his metaphysics.
Knight focuses on several important Aristotelian concepts, in particular theoria, praxis, and poiesis. Theoria, the noblest form of human activity, is the contemplation of that which is eternal and unchanging.
Praxis, by contrast, refers to human action or activity in the realm of the contingent, that which could be other than it is and which we seek to affect by our actions. Poiesis refers specifically to production, the purposeful bringing-into-being of something distinct from its human producer.
The distinction between theoria and praxis is familiar, but according to Knight that between praxis and poiesis, action and production, is equally important for understanding Aristotle's political views.
Aristotle and Plato had different philosophies about many subjects like justice and injustice, the function of humans, truth, the human soul, art, and politics. Starting with Plato ( BC BC) one of the most important philosophers of the world and the founder of “The Academy”. For Aristotle, democracy is not the best form of government. As is also true of oligarchy and monarchy, rule in a democracy is for and by the people named in the government type. In a democracy, rule is by and for the needy. In contrast, rule of law or aristocracy (literally, power [rule] of the. Plato refers to democracy as “an agreeable anarchic form of society” (Plato, p. ) with lots of variety, which considers all people as equal, whether they are equal or not. In an anarchic society there is no protection of people’s basic rights and complete chaos.
Because poiesis is undertaken not for its own sake but in order to create some other object, Aristotle regards it as an inferior form of activity, subservient to an external end, that of the product's consumer rather than its producer.
Praxis, on the other hand, designates virtuous political and ethical action that contributes directly to the actor's own happiness eudaimoniarather than serving ends determined by others.
This distinction between action and production, praxis and poiesis, is philosophically tenuous. After all, "unlike theoria, which produces nothing beyond itself and leaves everything as it is[,] praxeis are, like poieseis, often useful and effective" Aristotle does not consistently maintain the distinction, and logically his "more elemental conceptual distinction would [be] that separating theoria from praxis and poiesis alike" The real function of Aristotle's distinction between action and production is to underscore his "denigration of lives spent in occupations other than those of philosophy or politics" The distinction permits Aristotle to argue that properly political and ethical praxis, like theoria, pursues ends internal to its own activity, unlike the mere technical knowledge involved in productive crafts, which pursue ends external to themselves and must therefore be directed by an architectonic master craft.
Knight thus suggests that Aristotle uses his metaphysical claims to justify an exclusionary politics, in which the majority of subjects are regarded as unable to lead virtuous lives or contribute to a genuinely common good, but rather serve as means to the happiness of the fortunate few who govern them: In other words, it has served as a legitimatory ideology" I am inclined to think that Knight's reading of Aristotle in this respect is too harsh.
To be sure, Aristotle is less confident than we that all members of a polity can contribute positively to its good governance, a hesitation reflected in his reluctance to extend citizenship to "vulgar craftsmen" and his claim that "not everyone without whom there would not be a city-state is to be regarded as a citizen" Politics III.
And he argues forcefully -- twice! He also argues that the most just form of government available to a wide range of cities, the form he calls "polity," extends citizenship reasonably widely Politics IV. Finally, his argument that the rule of law is desirable under most circumstances is predicated fundamentally upon a recognition of broad equality Politics III.
In all of these respects, Aristotle's political science is, I think, significantly more egalitarian than Knight takes it to be. Still, Knight's argument is both careful and fair, drawing on a close reading of relevant Aristotelian texts, and my view, not his, is a minority one on this score.
Knight's second and third chapters trace a tradition of Aristotelian political thought across two millennia.
Chapter two focuses on the emergence of Christianity and the medieval period, chapter three on the twisting course of Aristotelianism through German philosophy, from Luther to Gadamer.Aristotle considered democracy a despotic form of government because he felt that it caused competition between the classes, and it was vulnerable to leaders ruling by emotion rather than strict adherence to the law.
However, Scholastic argues that democracies in Aristotle's time . In this book, Kevin M. Cherry compares the views of Plato and Aristotle about the practice, study and, above all, the purpose of politics. The first scholar to place Aristotle's Politics in sustained dialogue with Plato's Statesman, Cherry argues that Aristotle rejects the view of politics advanced.
Oct 9 reread Giorgini, “Aristotle on the Best Form of Government” This class meets with Giovanni Giorgini. Professor Giorgini is a Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Bologna.
Sep 08, · Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics.
* Aristotle says that all associations are developed to achieve some good objectives and state is a big association which comprised of all other types of associations including family.
He says that man is a political animal and the good life can only be achieved if a man spends his life as a citizen of the state. During this time Plato would develop his most famous work The Republic. This would notably, along with many of his later works, blend his ideas of politics, ethics, psychology, and metaphysics into an interlinked philosophy.