Paste your essay in here… Nick Filippelli
Professor Melonas
Political Theory
6 October 2016
The Just Claims to Rule
Generally regarded as two of the greatest philosophers in the history of mankind, Plato and Aristotle have had their fair share of differences and disagreements with one another. In Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics, both philosophers share their contrasting views on political legitimacy and perceptions on justice and education. In these works, they share their innovative ideas on how to make society the best it can be for all by proposing their ideal political regimes: Plato’s utopian kallipolis and Aristotle’s politeia. Throughout his construction of the kallipolis, Plato utilized assumptions and other controversial techniques, resulting in a class of just and educated rulers. However, Aristotle, who is often regarded as the first political scientist, applied a more practical sense of knowledge to arrive at the end of a constitutional form of government, relying on the middle class. Though the two scholars reached their respective conclusions utilizing different reasoning methods, premises, and questions, Aristotle’s conception on what is best for society is much more realistic and applicable to the time period than that of Plato.
From the outset of the text in Republic, it is explicit that Plato, speaking through his teacher Socrates, is cognizant of his highly-regarded position as a philosopher in comparison to the rest of the common people. The text opens with, “I went down to the Piraeus…” which signifies Socrates’s descent from a philosophical life to a more ordinary one in order to engage with the commoners, who live life possessing inferior knowledge (Plato 2). Shortly thereafter, Socrates and his companion Glaucon find themselves immersed in a conversation at the house of Cephalus with the intention of finding a definition for justice. This sets the stage for the remainder of the text, which is based upon finding the definition of justice along with why we should be just. After Cephalus and his son Polemarchus, offer their own definitions of justice, which represent the popular way of thinking, Socrates disproves them immediately by stating that living up to legal obligations is not always just, and that our judgment as human beings is naturally flawed (6-10). Lastly, Socrates falsifies the Sophist, Thrasymachus, by proving that justice, not injustice, is a virtue of the soul (31).
In order to give his own explanation of justice and why it is desirable in itself, Socrates notes that the justice of a city as a whole must be looked at first. Socrates then proceeds to build his perfect city, called the kallipolis, from the ground up. Instead of starting from the topmost ruling body, Socrates uses inductive reasoning to build his city from the third, and lowest class. He bases his reasoning off of the principle of specialization which requires each individual do the job he is naturally good at. Socrates concludes, “The result, then, is that more plentiful and better-quality goods are more easily produced if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of the others” (45). For example, farmers will farm, craftsmen will craft, and hunters will hunt. By no means should this principle be violated. Socrates calls the kallipolis a “healthy city” because the producers will produce only what is necessary, but Glaucon calls it “a city for pigs” because he believes the citizens will be afflicted by unnecessary desires (47). The second class is made up of the auxiliaries who are the warriors of the city. These men are carefully chosen as they have to possess the perfect physical and mental qualities for the job. Music and physical training are what defines the warriors. The highest class, the ruling class, are known as the guardians, who are the best of the auxiliary class. Socrates describes them as, “…those men who, upon examination, seem most of all to believe throughout their lives that they must eagerly pursue what is advantageous to the city and be wholly unwilling to do the opposite” (89). The guardians are allowed to have little, if any, private property, no wages, and must live communally with one another. Any deviation in this plan will result in the possible abuse of power. Socrates states, “…many impious deeds have been done that involved the currency used by ordinary people…” (93). In fact, there is no currency in the city at all, which means, according to Socrates, that there can be no wealthy or poverty (97).
Through Socrates, Plato acknowledges how important education is to the entirety of the kallipolis. The education system ranges from telling stories to children to training the auxiliaries for battle. The stories that were able to be told in the city, specifically children, were very censored, in fear that a child’s soul would not develop healthily. For example, stories of gods must only represent good and honestly, so children do not come to think bad behavior and dishonesty are acceptable (56-57). Likewise, stories about heroes must make children not fear death, and even prefer death to slavery (61). The education of the warriors is perhaps the most important to the city as it is important to form their natures. These natures are shaped by physical training which produces toughness and listening to music which yields gentleness. Socrates urges moderation between these two practices, as he says, “…they must be gentle to their own people and harsh to the enemy. If they aren’t, they wont wait around for others to destroy the city but will do it themselves first” (50). The most prevalent story being taught in the kallipolis is the “myth of the metals.” This was created to prevent anyone from questioning the rule and says that everyone is born with a metal, either bronze, silver, or gold, mixed into them. The metal determines the class of the person, bronze representing producers, silver representing auxiliaries, and gold representing guardians. Children who have high qualities may be able to change classes, but once an adult, class mobility is almost non-existent (91-92). In terms of ruling the city, Socrates believes that philosopher’s should rule the city because they have a high level knowledge, superior virtue, and love finding the truth more than anything (158-159). To further discuss his beliefs on education and its relationship to philosophers, Plato, through Socrates, presents the allegory of the cave. A group of prisoners have been living in a dark cave since birth, not knowing anything besides the darkness of the cave, and the shadows cast upon the walls. The shadows are the highest order of reality they know, but one day a prisoner escapes and the real statues and fire casting the shadows become reality (187). Finally the prisoner leaves the cave and sees the whole world, the highest level of reality one can perceive (188). The allegory is based upon the levels of education. Education, which etymologically means “to draw out,” should turn the soul to long for the right desires, such as knowledge and truth. The escaped prisoner represents the philosopher who never is scared to seek the truth. Socrates uses this allegory to further use as evidence that philosophers are the most fit to rule and govern the kallipolis.
Now that the kallipolis is complete, Socrates can now define both societal and individual justice. He does so by stating the four virtues present in the city and where they are found. Wisdom is found with the guardians as they know how the best way to run the city is (103), courage is found within the auxiliaries who fight for the city (104), moderation is found among the entire city and represents the consensus over who should rule, and justice is found also around the entire city and is represented by the law of specialization (105-106). Now that justice in the city has been laid out, Socrates can now apply those virtues to individual justice. He acknowledges the three parts of the soul: appetitive, spirited, and rational. The appetitive soul lusts after material items such as money, food, and sex, and is represented by the producers, the largest class (115). The spirited soul goes after honor and makes up most of the auxiliary class, while the rational soul desires the truth and represents the guardians (116). Finally, Socrates concludes that individual justice is the harmony between the three parts of the soul, and, more specifically, a just soul is the harmony between the three parts of the soul that is controlled by the rational part (118-119).
In analyzing the construction of Plato’s kallipolis, one can not help but notice the many controversial and morally questionable techniques utilized in creating this utopian society. First off, the kallipolis created is not practical and is an abstract concept at the most. Though the goal from the beginning was to create a just and happy society as a whole, this can not be done without providing happiness for individuals as well. Happiness is subjective, that is what one person may deem as happy may differ from another person. In creating a rigid class system with little regard to personal property, a person is living his or her day for the society, not themselves or their loved ones. This itself can lead to one being unhappy, and it is assisted by no means with the brainwashing tactics Plato also brings into society. Inhabitants of the city are living a made up story in which they are forced to believe that they are inherently part of a certain social class only based on “the myth of the metals.” If this lie was uncovered by even one individual, the entire society would be debunked. This draws eerily similar comparisons to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World where people are conditioned to live out a monotonous life and accept who they are with no room for potential growth. It would be interesting to see what would happen if one broke out of the kallipolis, just as one broke out of the darkness in the allegory of the cave, and saw that the world is so much more than a lifestyle based on rigid class divisions and jobs. In the kallipolis, specifically the guardian class, there is little regard to family life as wives and children are to be shared with one another. A healthy society is dysfunctional without family life, which is vital to a person’s growth and character. It is also worth noting the irony in the title of Republic as Plato’s idea of a utopian society is anything but the governmental structure of an actual republic.
After criticizing Plato’s Republic in his own personal fashion, Aristotle proposes a more realistic system of government than his teacher does. Rather than attempting to perfect society as Plato does, Aristotle aims to improve an already existing society with scenarios for various circumstances. In his opening paragraph, Aristotle notes that the political association is the highest of all association and aims to achieve the greatest good (1). By nature, human beings are driven to desire the highest quality of live, and that is what the city provides. Aristotle states, “…that man by nature is a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is above humanity, or below it” (28). Here, Aristotle makes it clear that human beings by nature have a political disposition, for without such an association they are either gods or barbarians.
Before jumping into his beliefs on governing structure, Aristotle takes time to describe the relationships and constituents that make up a household. He compares the relationship between a master and slave to that between the soul and body (34), the relationship between a husband and wife to free will (49), and the relationship between a father and son to that of a king and his subjects (50). Aristotle then makes note of the two types of acquisition: natural acquisition and unnatural acquisition. Natural acquisition involves acquiring the goods to satisfy one’s needs, while unnatural acquisition, which is looked upon as problematic, entails accumulating money and wealth just for the sake of doing so (48-49). As he moves into Book III, Aristotle discusses what it means to be a citizen of a city. Because it would not be just for all inhabitants to be citizens, such as slaves, Aristotle says that a citizen is one who is entitled to participate in the official affairs of the city. A good citizen is one who adheres to the constitution of the state (100-101).
Now that some foundation is laid as to what the nature of inhabitants should be, Aristotle begins to analyze different forms of government. He begins at the end of Book II, where he criticizes the Spartan and Cretan regimes, respectively, stating that the Spartans serfdom system makes them liable to revolt and that in both Sparta and Crete the rulers are susceptible to corruption (64-65). The three just systems of government, according are Aristotle, are kingships, aristocracies, and and politeias, which are governed by the masses. The three unjust governments are perversions of the prior three which are tyrannies in the case of kingships, oligarchies in the case of aristocracies, and democracies in the case of politeias. Tyrannies work toward the lone interest of the king, oligarchies work towards the sole interest of the rich, and democracies work towards the interests of the poor masses (142-143). Aristotle asserts that every constitution is based on a certain concept of justice, thought that belief on what justice is will vary from constitution to constitution. For example, democrats believe that all humans are born equal and therefore are entitled to equal wealth within the city, while oligarchs maintain that the wealthy should be rewarded. These beliefs will be represented in each city’s respective constitution. (116-117). In terms of a kingship, Aristotle by no means endorses the idea in itself, but does note that if a just and capable leader does arise, it would be just to grant him a kingship (129-130). Aristotle concludes, “…they who contribute most to such a society have a greater share in it than those who…are inferior to them in political virtue. (120).
After analyzing many other forms of government, Aristotle is now ready to propose what he thinks is best: the politeia. Aristotle believes his politeia is the best and most just form of government because it relies on a strong middle class. Rather than relying on wealthy rulers or the poor masses, the middle class is the midpoint between the two and can keep the other two classes in check (168-169). In addition to proposing that this is his most ideal form of government, Aristotle also suggests the three bodies of government that he thinks should be in effect. This includes the deliberative element which deals with public, domestic, and foreign matters and laws (176), the executive element which governs commands (179), and the judicial element which issues rulings (184-185).
In analyzing Aristotle’s propositions, it is clear that he used a more clear and decisive reasoning process than Plato. Though many of his views, such as slavery, are looked upon with disgrace, it is important to keep in mind the day in age of the society of Aristotle was living in. A major point Aristotle uses in his works is the practice of moderation and finding a midpoint between two extremes. He discusses this in depth in Ethics. This moderation technique was brilliantly used in politeia with his belief that a society is best relying on a strong middle class, rather than having a city dominated by the wealthy or poor. Aristotle’s definition of what it means to be a citizen is another important point worth taking a look at. He believed that being a citizen entailed those eligible to participate in some element of government. Today, many citizens, especially those of the United States, often take citizenship for granted and do not look far beyond the fact of what it actually means to be a citizen and participate in government. Lastly, Aristotle’s separation of government into three separate factions is perhaps his biggest contribution in Politics. The three governmental elements, deliberative, executive, and judicial, are also synonymous to the governmental structure utilized today in the United States. His intention to have some people involved in one part of government while others are involved in other parts are similar to the forethought of the American system today, utilizing checks and balances between the three.
Though both philosophers had the same same end in mind, a society supreme to all others, Aristotle’s principles in Politics are far more thought-out and reasonable than those of Plato’s in Republic. Plato’s utopian society ruled by philosophers may seem perfect on paper, but in reality would never suffice in the eyes of the individuals, taking their own collective happiness into account. Aristotle, on the other hand, was able to lay out multiple political regimes, all that could function under different scenarios, using practical thinking methods. While both Plato and Aristotle aimed at achieving the abstract idea of societal greatness, only Aristotle in his flexible and logical reasoning process came close to creating a perfect politeia.
Works Cited
Aristotle, Benjamin Jowett, and H W. C. Davis. Aristotle's Politics. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1920. Print.
Plato, G M. A. Grube, and C D. C. Reeve. Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1992. Print.