Aristotle’s policy and democracy
In this essay I will give my point of view on the book of ‘Aristotle policy’ and as a small summary of the book it can be said that it is the thought of Aristotels which made the problems of the government and the city known as before and today the Government is the people with many quotes which highlights in the first books or main chapters that the author being of a time where he is philosopher of various issues that leads to giving examples with slaves, the curious thing is that this concept of slaves was changing Over time what is called a worker today.
For Aristotle, history is written from the present trying to explain the structure and development of a peculiar past. History attends mainly to the scope of internal relations between human groups in a given society. But it also deals with "supranational" relationships, connections between states. The peculiarity is that the story has as center the projects, the actions, the life of the men who are their protagonists and, in the political sphere, those who decide what type of society, form of state and government wish to establish.
Aristotle could have lived thousands of years ago, but I think life is cyclical just like history since many of its examples can be seen and adapted to the present without any problem.
A point that uses the book is like man by not fulfilling the function of just feeling pain and pleasure in having a voice and saying that it is convenient and that it is harmful to the same man. It is typical of oneself as something natural and as being man divides us from being beasts and the points that marks it since he cannot live in community or is ‘a beast or a god’ can be interpreted as the person by himselfIt cannot be, it is always necessary to be in a group since we guarantee our protection as individuals which is very true we will always occupy someone else.
The law must be total equality that produces the extinction of social classes and does something equal where neither for being rich or poor justice must be done and apply the laws. This explains what he also says in book 3: ‘When it turned out that there were many similar ones, they no longer support the government of one’. Considering that in the era of Aristotle they were kings and currently reflects as the political class (‘king’) controls citizens (‘virtuous men’) and ceases to be something natural or a virtue and becomes individual protectionism.
Something important of this book and is to highlight is to read how democracy arises or the reason why ‘democracy arises from believing that those who are equal in one aspect are equal at all’ and then the oligarchy, which he considersthat ‘supposes that those who are unequal at one point are unequal in everything’. This is the 20th century. I mean that they are concepts applicable to any current country in which the oligarchy dominates since the power falls on a few (deputies/president).
The magistratures are important in the time of Aristotle since the appropriate man should be assigned to be ableHowever, larger cities should have much larger magistrates than a small city, so it is important not to leave behind the idea that some magistratures can be adhered and which can be broken down from the same.
This is reflected in many countries since when it ceases to have power in the center and separates in secretaries from any economic, cultural, international relations, etc. And as the most suitable person is chosen for the position, according to their aptitudes and knowledge then this current system meets what Aristotle says ‘the virtues of man do it’ although this is the most romantic idea of an person in chargethat being the ‘virtuoso’ and which can exercise this power over the city.
The process of being a citizen and living in an oligarchic state with the name of democracy is the management of a perception of a single word where a city only knows war and does not know peace;You can only recognize another place as one where there is less war, it is the same thing that happens with democracy and becomes total oligarchy, even if the only way to have a little power as a citizen is in the elections is said in the electionsAnd this looks in all countries not only in Mexico.
It has been said and even written, that democracy is not a matter of reason, but of entrails. Formula very debatable by the way, but that exaggerates or denatures a fair idea: democracy, in effect, it is not so much an ideology, a doctrine, a system, as a way of conducting with others, a personal and social lifestyle …But democracy is something that is carried in itself and with it: a way of being and of being in the social universe, a special attitude with everything that she entails in acts and expressions.
The organization also depends on man as an individual and this must be highlighted in young people who will be the responsibility of having a city in their hands. You can believe that the strongest letter of any country is young since generations are overcome by leaps and bounds.
Aristotle detected in politics the existence of a process, of a movement, in which the fundamental thing is the transmission of experiences for all, and from there to develop a political theory.
Aristotle after the family, deals with the study of the most complex political communities: the village and the polis. His approach tries to distinguish between associations with a strong power, for example, an organized political community, from which they are associations with a less intense, more diluted power. Sovereignty forms necessarily imply different rules, laws and intersubjective relationships. The lack of education in any regime is its own annihilation since the one who has responsibilities with the citizen will come out of these young people.
This idea shows that the theoretical elaboration of evolution and constitutional change for Aristotle have a justification in history, in the evolution of society, the social relations of men and also in the theories of the great legislators and philosophers. By saying this, we must make it clear that Mexico lives within deep inequality since it is an ideology in which every man marks married her. This leads to ideological fanaticisms and ceases to be natural and goes into an ‘automatic’ way by accepting everything that the ideology actor believes to be the right thing to have ‘other data’. This leads us to see the entire book as in a single ideological situation of a country that can affect a democratic country since it does not have a similarity with the city. People fail to be governed by a person who is not equal to citizens. This leads us to the oligarchy of the Mexican State and the hypocrisy of many since Mexicans are discriminated against by the northern neighbor and the same Mexicans discriminated by the residents of the South. So how can there be an impartial democracy within a state that is governed by the oligarchy in the name of a democracy? Of young people and how these ideologies of racial supremacy are changed as kindly with a stronger ideology since in recent years society is handled by total ideologies and blindly is what you can look
The process of this democratic system today is outside the parameters that Aristotle’s books will put in this democratic process that is full of different ways but with similar to the past. The historical existence of various forms of political organization from which Aristotle takes care and tries to extract the general principles of political science, is due to the different ways how men have organized the way of living and living in time. For Aristotle the city is a certain unit, but not uniformity.
Aristotle appeals to history, political evolution and political practices that are no longer in force, but that live in the memory of their readers as a source of information about what they need and what they do not have to do in a society to organizeCitizen coexistence. To seek the foundation of the political, of political science in a past that had demonstrated its success and its failure at an era, could and could serve as a model to articulate relationships between citizens and to establish what could be the most political regimesviable and better.
In a conclusion for this essay, the democracy process is a necessary process for a city, state or nation without specifying where there are a group of individuals. There is democracy and administration since there are always social classes within this city, but although man can highlight by virtue and be a leader within his city within this book I find the great coincidence of the concepts of a subject andAnother through this time are the same only with different words. The points to be highlighted are:
- The story is cyclical but does not have the same names
- The man can be virtuous which makes ungovernable by a single man
- Democracy and oligarchy in these times are the same
- Young people must be educated with a democratic and impartial mentality.
I finish with a phrase from the book. "But an oligarchy where you have the same opinion is not easy to destroy from within".
Leave feedback