Log in

View Full Version : Interesting Quote from Aristotle's 'Politics'



percept¡on
29th July 2004, 17:46
Originally posted by [email protected] Politics, Book IV Chapter XI

Now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean. It is admitted that moderation and the mean are best, and therefore it will clearly be best to possess the gifts of fortune in moderation; for in that condition of life men are most ready to follow rational principle. But he who greatly excels in beauty, strength, birth, or wealth, or on the other hand who is very poor, or very weak, or very much disgraced, finds it difficult to follow rational principle. Of these two the one sort grow into violent and great criminals, the others into rogues and petty rascals. And two sorts of offenses correspond to them, the one committed from violence, the other from roguery. Again, the middle class is least likely to shrink from rule, or to be over-ambitious for it; both of which are injuries to the state. Again, those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience. On the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded. So that the one class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically; the other knows not how to command and must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this: for good fellowship springs from friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best constituted in respect of the elements of which we say the fabric of the state naturally consists. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors' goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich; and as they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely. Wisely then did Phocylides pray- 'Many things are best in the mean; I desire to be of a middle condition in my city.'

Wenty
29th July 2004, 18:32
yeah i've read that book, found it pretty boring. Aristotle isn't in favour of democracy, thinks slavery is justified and necessary and he also thinks women are inferior to men, charming.

percept¡on
29th July 2004, 18:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:32 PM
yeah i've read that book, found it pretty boring. Aristotle isn't in favour of democracy, thinks slavery is justified and necessary and he also thinks women are inferior to men, charming.
No.

ComradeRed
29th July 2004, 20:44
Yeah, Aristotle isn't very leftist (quite the contrary!)

BTW, my sig also has a socrates quote about class struggle, interestingly put too...

Wenty
29th July 2004, 23:12
why just 'no'!

percept¡on
30th July 2004, 01:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:12 PM
why just 'no'!
Because it was a childish criticism. And it was inaccurate. Aristotle doesn't praise slavery, he simply describes it in relation to social systems. He is very much in favor of democracy in the modern sense of the word, which is rule of the people as a whole, what he was against was democracy in the ancient Greek context, which was rule of the poor over the rich and middle class.

Furthermore, letting your negative attitude get in the way of enjoying the exquisite pleasure of Classical Greek political philosophy is criminal in my opinion.

Lefty
30th July 2004, 03:39
I think that the popular opinion of the time was that women were inferior. I wouldn't really blame Aristotle for that one.

Wenty
30th July 2004, 16:04
Because it was a childish criticism. And it was inaccurate. Aristotle doesn't praise slavery, he simply describes it in relation to social systems. He is very much in favor of democracy in the modern sense of the word, which is rule of the people as a whole, what he was against was democracy in the ancient Greek context, which was rule of the poor over the rich and middle class.

Whatever your objections you can't call what i said childish at all. Moreover, Aristotle might describe slavery in relation to social systems but he still calls it justified and neccesary.


Furthermore, letting your negative attitude get in the way of enjoying the exquisite pleasure of Classical Greek political philosophy is criminal in my opinion.

I remember hearing someone say reading Aristotle was like chewing hay, i agree!

Pedro Alonso Lopez
30th July 2004, 16:23
Wittengenstein refused to ever read anything by Aristotle, as do a lot of modern philosophers.

Severian
30th July 2004, 16:30
The more interesting bit in "Politics" is where Aristotle lays out most of the arguments against socialism that are still used today.

imperator
31st July 2004, 05:39
Furthermore, letting your negative attitude get in the way of enjoying the exquisite pleasure of Classical Greek political philosophy is criminal in my opinion.

yep.



I remember hearing someone say reading Aristotle was like chewing hay, i agree!

seems to me like you've done both.

Wenty
3rd August 2004, 20:00
done both what.

Fabi
3rd August 2004, 23:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 03:39 AM
I think that the popular opinion of the time was that women were inferior. I wouldn't really blame Aristotle for that one.
Nope, don't really count as an excuse. When you rely on yourself and not on tradition and society's stupidity - which are the same in all societies - then it is very easy to recognize injustice when it is right in front of your eyes. There are always those who choose not to see, or to bend reality to fit some kind of religion/philosophy/science. Just because it is easy to ignore reality and commonly accepted, doesn't necessarily mean it is justified.

If someone accepts injustice, they accept injustice - doesn't matter how accepted that injustice is. If all philosophers/the rest of the people accepted popular opinion of their time, there would never have been any change until today - In other words, there HAVE been people - and there still are people like that - who do not accept injustice, however popular it may be...

On a side note: My fridge is empty and I have literally NO money. Hopefully that will change tomorrow. :lol:

percept¡on
4th August 2004, 06:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:14 PM
Nope, don't really count as an excuse. When you rely on yourself and not on tradition and society's stupidity - which are the same in all societies - then it is very easy to recognize injustice when it is right in front of your eyes. There are always those who choose not to see, or to bend reality to fit some kind of religion/philosophy/science. Just because it is easy to ignore reality and commonly accepted, doesn't necessarily mean it is justified.

If someone accepts injustice, they accept injustice - doesn't matter how accepted that injustice is. If all philosophers/the rest of the people accepted popular opinion of their time, there would never have been any change until today - In other words, there HAVE been people - and there still are people like that - who do not accept injustice, however popular it may be...
Well that's really beautiful. And a complete load of horse shit. Justice (therefore, injustice) is a relative value, NOT an absolute. What seems like injustice with the aid of 2,500 years of hindsight may have appeared perfectly just in the context in which it occurred, even to the most enlightened of minds.

CubanFox
4th August 2004, 08:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:00 AM
done both what.
Chewed hay and read Aristotle.

Fabi
4th August 2004, 10:56
Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 4 2004, 06:25 AM
Well that's really beautiful. And a complete load of horse shit. Justice (therefore, injustice) is a relative value, NOT an absolute. What seems like injustice with the aid of 2,500 years of hindsight may have appeared perfectly just in the context in which it occurred, even to the most enlightened of minds.
:lol: So how do you explain the fact that he feels moved to justify slavery at all? Oviously he does that because THERE ARE people in his time who criticize it - else there would be no need to even address the issue.

There have always been people questioning reality within their lifetime, without relying on new 'moral developments'. I really can't understand where people get the naive idea that somehow things were different then... People grow up and are being indoctrinated to see the world in a way that suits the status quo - slavery was just as injust then as is forced labor today - in fact slavery has never ceased to exist and just because most people choose not to see that fact, does not mean there are not those who do.

Granted, mass hypnosis is pretty successful on all levels and probably was during his time, too, but if there had been no criticism of the status quo during his lifetime (from others and maybe even from within himself) there wouldn't have been a need for him to rationalize and defend it.

Pete
8th August 2004, 23:08
Plato says similar, and so does Augustine. A proper ordered soul is justice. A proper orded city requires some people to be of certain parts. And that is 'justice.'

You will find the moderns much more appealing, as they have less romantic ideals in the air and are more praticle.