Political thought of Aristotle’s philosophy
To talk about Aristote’s political thinking, it is essential that it be understood that this actor thought of philosophy more than 2000 years ago. He is before an ancient man, a thinker who is not modern, or postmodern and is not medieval either, therefore cannot be found in him preferences by liberal democracies such as those lived today in the West, it would be an anachronism to go back in timeand claim that he is an authentic liberal, that he is a democrat as democracy is understood today.
It is not possible to make complaints because this thinker (like most of the ancients) was a slave, in ancient times having a slave was something that absolutely all human beings of antiquity had.
Understand that this person had an ancient worldview, it is not the modern, postmodern human being, which stands above nature, looks at it with a little domain and then wants to control it and get economic production from nature. He watched a tree and was amazed, did not want to make wood from that tree like the modern man.
Aristotle watched a mountain and had all the tradition that believed that in that mountain there were gods, not as at present where the human being sees a mountain and sees it as a possibility of exploiting it through tourism, that is, the relationship that isacquired with nature is utilitarian, the relationship with the whole of the universe is domain because society is a postmodern being and through its thought it passed the modernity that makes the human being believe that it is the center of the universe, instead he does notHe arrived at that time.
He saw a cosmos, a divinized universe, therefore his vision of the whole, his vision of the cosmos, his vision of the universe is a vision in which man is assembled average with fear, in which the human being is lost, amazedof the divinized universe and cannot understand politics as domain only, but has to understand it from astonishment, you have to understand it as part of a whole.
He said that the most important thing that human being has is happiness, it is in the world to be happy, if you come to the world, you have wealth and you are not happy, it is of no use, if you come to the world, you have glory and you are a ruler very loved by people and there is no happiness, you are nothing. All acts of man have happiness. (P. 443)
For this thinker there is a vision of the world in which the human being is another animal, it is a political and rational animal, that is, the way of understanding the human being that Aristotle has is not the one that a man has today,Therefore, when understanding it as an animal, it reasoned that this animal to the extent that you exercise the virtues as a habit, to the extent that it exerts its measure as a habit, it will always be excellent, because we are what we do. Therefore the concept of political animal that is said so much in the media that is used so much for modern politics, the idea that the human being is a political animal, is not to believe that it is a kind of animal that wants to do politicspartisan and that anyone who legitimately does a hype.
He is not saying that the human being is someone who wantsExtremely different from the rest of the animals, he has a pre -Christianity vision, he does not see the human being as Christianity sees it, as a lord of nature, no, he sees that it is a more, rational animal, but a more animal. And it is political because it finds its realization in the polis.
The human being for him is political because the only way to perform is within a polis, they are animals that are carried out in the polis, in the political, and what he explains is that if they are not animals that want to be in the polis, they are, or beasts or God, because the human being is in the middle, between the beasts and the gods says the philosopher, since if they are in the middle they are political animals, they are animals that want to enter into relation to others, and for the, every act is a political, but not partisan act, but any act is to impact the polis.
If it is educated, it impacts the polis, if it feeds in a dining room it impacts the polis, it is a political act, the polis is being helped, not only something that escapes its own needs is being done but alsoAnother person will benefit from what is done. You can do politics without partisanism.
Aristotle in his book says that there are forms of governments and that these forms of governments have some perversions, they deviate from the path of that form of government, there are 3 forms of government: democracy, aristocracy and the monarchy. (p. 238)
Democracy is not at the time of this philosopher what is now understood by liberal democracy, in which in a country like in Mexico, absolutely all people over 18 can vote, at the time of El Penner to beA democrat had to have a certain social reputation, you had to be male, you had to be educated, you had to be considered a free man, you cannot ask for a liberalism 2400 years ago to this thinker. That is, for Aristotelian thought, democracy is a form of government among other forms of government, in which, the people governing by the people in their time, for example not being a slave, being free and being male.
He sees that it is a possible way to make democracy, but he sees a defect, and that is that in the crowd, there are many times not absolutely truths, that is, the fact that many people think the same, does not mean that this is the truth orfair or what you have to go looking from the political point of view.
It also says that democracy is viable, but it has a perversion called demagogy, which is when democracy is taken as a form of domain, a ruler who abuses people treating them as ignorant, who from the speech says yes, butThat when he is ruler does what he wants, that abuse of democracy is called demagogy.
Then he speaks of another form of government that is the aristocracy, a system of government that Aristotle also likes. Today it is practically impossible to speak of aristocracy or that the aristocracy is viable, but at the time of the viable era, and he says the following: the aristocracy is the government of the notables, it is the government of the virtuous, it is the government of those of those of thempeople we have considered that they have a training to govern.(p. 324) Hence, to govern you have to have a training.
Then he says that this system is possible, but this system can have a perversion too, but what is that perversion? The perversion of the aristocracy is the oligarchy, which is the oligarchy? It is when the power does not take the virtuous, but those who have money and for example they can take care of power, it is those that have power for power without virtue, the aristocracy is the government of those who have power and virtue also.
Finally, he speaks of another viable government system in his time that was the monarchy, it was the government of a single king who was not even chosen, that is, he imposes himself as king after the war or by thousands of political events, theHe said that the monarchy was also a viable system.
What’s going on? By subjecting all to the opinion of one, there is the problem that if that one is wrong, they all fall, but also says that if that is a virtuous monarch, the monarchy is also viable. And he says that the perversion of the monarchy is called tyranny, when the person who governs, took power but has no minimum virtue.
What proposal does Aristotle do? the same proposal that makes in its ethics, that is to say ethics and politics are related. What proposal does politics? The middle class government, whether the monarchy, whether democracy or aristocracy, the middle class but not bourgeois middle class, but the artisans, people who have no claims of power but who will not settle forpoverty.
A middle class for him is that which has achieved the virtue that ethics develops, the virtue of the just medium, that is, people who do not want to be excessively rich or poor, people who do not want either debauchery or slavery, thanThey want freedom, that is, the people who concentrate on their work, who concentrate on their prosperity, but know very well that when the polis needs them, they will act, and when the polis does not need them, they do not seduce them power, they workFor personal prosperity.
Those medium classes is the hope of people who seek, the one who carries out a moderation and an ethic
The political proposal proposed is polytheia, that is, a government of average classes of people who are neither poor or rich, these people have to govern, through virtue, virtue that leads you to happiness. How virtue is achieved? Through the right medium, you are going to be a virtuous person when you have no excesses in life, that is, you will be free when there is no excess of debauchery, or when there is an excess of absence of freedom (slavery (slavery). Someone free is someone who is not a slave, because the slave has a total absence of freedom, and free does not have an excess of freedom, which is debauchery.
He says that the people who are virtuous are people who exercise the fair, neither are libertine nor slaves, are in the middle, are free, those people who practice virtue, and many virtues are happy people, therefore happiness inThe polis has to be achieved by a government that practices the just medium, by a government that has no excesses, because the excesses for him are bad.
In conclusion with Aristotle’s book, much of his way of thinking must be shown, which is what is coming for them and that is what is coming for modern society, since he is a man of more than 2000 years, for exampleOn page 79 of Book 1, he says that man is more suitable to send that woman, this is a lie and has already been proven, but says it in a macho context, in a radically sexist society such as Greek and mostOf people they thought that it was correct in those times, and until a few decades ago, in Western countries, in fact women could not vote in Mexico until a few decades ago.
Another example that you have is what appears in book 1 Chapter 6: On slavery, its legal justification. This is convenient and fair in certain conditions. Aristotle is in favor of slavery, all ancient philosophers were in favor of slavery, because the economic system of antiquity, in all cultures slavery was based, it has to be understood that in other stages they do not have the concept of freedomwhat do we have today. He believed that part of a man’s economic system (because when he talks about free men, he does not talk about women) a man’s economic system consists of having houses, having animals, and having slaves, so you understand that he says it inA specific context. It could bother, because he mentions that slavery for polis is necessary. So, get angry because he says this kind of thing 2000 years ago, it would be gross.
Leave feedback