Aristotle “He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for...
-
Upload
cory-houston -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Aristotle “He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for...
Aristotle “He who is unable
to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.”
AristotleThe Father of Political Thought
All humanity was political by nature. A “constitution” was how humans were
organized politically That constitutions could be judged good or
bad by evaluating if politics took care of “parts” or “wholes”
384– 322 bce
Humans are naturally political
Because man is a social beast by nature, his lives in a community, and to live in a community you need rules.
This need for rules creates politics, either good or bad.
Aristotle’s view of wholeness If YOU’RE not whole then YOU’RE not fully
alive. You do not want to see the “members” of the body separated.
SOCIETY needs to be “whole” to be fully alive as well.
If you think you can stand alone outside of society, then you are as ridiculous as a “huge foot” all by itself.
Aristotle’s view of wholeness Aristotle measured goodness with wholeness.
Government is never perfect, but it can be
good if it concerned with the “whole” of society.
If government doesn’t care about the “whole” society, if it’s there only to benefit a “part” of society, then that government is perverted.
Making the “whole” through the “parts”a.k.a. Citizens vs. Subjects
If you are a citizen, you are engaged in the political process.
All citizens are equal, but they are not all the same. They need to do their part to contribute to the whole.
If you’re not responsible enough to be a citizen and do your part to contribute, than you are a subject and will be lorded over.
Aristotle on parts The parts (citizens), when are put together, will
build a life that maintains the spirit of the whole community. How would you define the “American Spirit?” How about the “Spirit of the Chinese?” How about “Iraqi Spirit?”
Could our Constitution work for the Chinese or the Iraqi? Why or why not?
The Spirit of the whole is its Constitution It’s important to note that Aristotle’s definition of
“constitution” is different from ours today. To Aristotle, a constitution is how a community
works . . . NOT a document that is the rule of law. He wanted to study constitutions/communities . . .
He wanted to see the “whole” very badly but couldn’t.
So he studied the parts/citizens to define the the spirit/constitution of the whole community.
Is a constitution good or bad?
Is a government set up with the common
interests of the “whole”, or merely only the ruling
“part” that has the power?
“Right” constitutions were directed to the
common interest of the whole.
“Perverted” constitutions were directed at the
selfish interest of the ruling body.
Aristotle on constitutions To Aristotle, there were only three natural ways to
rule. Rule by the one Rule by the few Rule by the many
But, if there were “right” and perverted” constitutions then these three ways to rule are doubled for the good and bad.
Aristotle on constitutions“Right” Constitutions
Considers the common interests of the whole.
1. Kingship--the rule by one.
2. Aristocracy--the rule by a few.
1. Constitutional Government--the military ruling as the mass (in Aristotle’s time).
“Perverted” ConstitutionsConsiders only selfish interests of
those ruling.
1. Tyrant--a perversion of Kingship.
2. Oligarchy--a perversion of Aristocracy
1. Democracy--a perversion of Constitutional Government, which is the rule. No one ruling the poor, uneducated masses . . . MOB RULE!
So given Aristotle’s views . . . Does our constitution match the animating spirit of
the American people?
Describe what our “animating spirit” would look like.
Could our constitution fit everyone in the world?
Would our constitution fit the spirit of the Iraqi
people? Considering the spirit of the Iraqi people, what you
think their constitution might look like?
Aristotle still has universal influence! The founder of constitutional
thinking. Saw the world in parts of
wholes. Believed you could recreate
a whole by merely observing a part.
Believed all wholes had constitutions.
To this day, no country considers creating a constitution without referring to his views!
384– 322 bce