Greek states as self-aware

What first struck me is how Aristotle's style seems much more modern than that of Plato's. The presentation of the arguments were not extracted by step by step calculations, but rather the more complete sections of arguments present a much more wholistic view of his thought process. As a side note, it also surprizes me that scholars could think that Plato wrote this, as Aristotle makes direct references and arguments against Plato's Republic in Book II, Chapter VI.

Regarding governmental style, the suggestion that a pure form government might not be the best for a city, but rather a having elements from different mind sets counterposed the idea of the more purend strict ideas set by Plato. Aristotle's ability to both envision what good/ideal governments should look like as well as discussing the pros and cons and futures of actual states seemed to be a strength to me and not something ill-reconciled as suggested by many critics in different Introductions. The way democracy is portrayed as a perversion of the polity makes us ask, what is different between the democracy he envisions and the one we have. The checks and balances which we feel necessary he does not tie directly to the idea of democracy, and many of the people who would have influence in a democracy he does not see as having the strength, time or ability to be as involved in the government process as he feels a citizen should be. It seems that the fact that now people without citizenship anywhere is considered unusual would feel odd to his time as many people (mostly of the Artisan class), although spending most of their time in one place, would not belong as a citizen to anywhere.

Aristotle's Naturalism

What struck me the most about Aristotle was that he emphasized function over form. Unlike Plato, who believed in eternal forms, Aristotle believed that the best forms were the ones that had a function. So ingrained was his belief that Aristotle even stated that “virtue” was when an object achieved its end. “…an excellent man,” writes Aristotle in Book VII, “is the sort whose virtue makes unqualifiedly good things for him. Clearly, then, his use of them must also be unqualifiedly good and noble.”

Do I agree with this reasoning? I think I do. Aristotelian thought does seem closer to human behavior than Plato’s did. Plato’s Republic was a word where relationships, both with objects and other people, all served the purpose of reaching “The Truth.” Whatever “The Truth” is, it still mystifies me. Aristotle, on the other hand, has an ethical and political system based on our relationship with objects and each other. A virtuous man, according to Aristotle, need not do psychoanalytic gymnastics as Plato’s would have, but instead ensure that everything has a purpose. A virtuous man also lives “in the mean”, where wish and appetite are consistent.

A Consistent Republic?

While at times Plato does mention the need to show the possibility for what he is proposing to exist, he never truly discusses it beyond noting that not too many changes would need to be made to the Hellenic state. However, this is not the case since many of the steps would go against habits in Greek culture, including his treatment of women and the breaking up of families. Further problematic with setting up this ideal state is that the plans are not even internally consistent. Book V struck me personally as the most offensive and objectionable, and also lacked internal consistency of ideas. For instance, he wishes that women be equal in almost every way, but still refers to them as property and belonging to the community. He also speaks of women as wifes and as belonging to a collective of men, but his preconceptions must block him from seeing that in the community he set up with people being housed together and through the dissembling of the family structure, women will not be wives just as the men will not be husbands. Furthermore, while he does have an interesting idea with many valued points about raising children in a way that leaves them uncertain of their parentage, he does not seem to think of where and how they will be raised beyond the first year or so after they are done nursing. At that age it can not yet be determined what their preferences are so where they should go apprentice as he proposes. From this writing and later section it is clear he has little personal experience in what goes into raising a child.

As a second point I agree with Thomas when he notes that Plato's analyse and argument for maximizing hapiness would not stand up today. However, I do slightly disagree with your point that a government shouldn't and likely can't influence human happiness, while I do agree that Plato's way of trying to maximize possible human happiness is also not internally consistent (especially vis-a-vis the role and place of the Guardians). However, I disagree with Thomas in that since human happiness is a very desirable thing to have in a state, it is something that a government should try to provide room for and at least make sure their is opportunities for the vast majority to be happy/content/satisfied. While lying to the people and trying to exclude vast pieces of literature is very likely unsustainable, even if Plato's Republic were momentarily realised, it would soon collapse or revolt or fundementally shift once the lies are discovered, which would once again lead to a decrease in happiness.

Overall, I was not impressed with this piece, especially as it seemed despite the supposed questioning going on, the listeners where simply there to say yes and propose leading questions and serve reasons why Socrates must delve into deeper points. This lead me to compare the increasing belief in all the suppositions to a case of group think, where little questions are asked and dealt with, but the underlying (questionable) fundamentals remain untackled.

Why Plato does not get human nature

As a student, I am learning their is more to politics than government. Plato’s Republic does outline a government structure, and shows how it may affect government institutions. But can a government do more than this? Can it not only influence the way its subjects think, but how they think? Can it even enforce optimum conditions for human happiness? I don’t believe a government should influence human happiness. In fact, I don’t even believe it can influence human happiness. I have some questions about Plato’s premises, and while I can’t provide answers, I feel that they would not stand to modern scrutiny.

First, I question if human souls all work the same, as Plato assumes. Plato does build an elaborate schema for a three part soul and a “divided line,” of experience, with reason being the highest form. These examples only show that Plato guessed we had the same machinery. What struck me further, though, was the education of the guardians. More specifically, Plato suggests that poetry harms all pupils, and suggests striking lines from Homer’s epics in the beginning of Book 3.

Second, I feel Plato’s views of eternal forms take out subjective experiences, including his own. Eternal forms, or objective reality, do exist, but each individual has a different way of relating to them. Language is probably the easiest example of subjective relation, as it allows its speakers to categorize objects. Plato used language freely in his example of a bed in Book 10, describing the bed as a bed. Perhaps there weren’t many words for furniture in ancient Greek, but I guess that the bed Plato described may have also been called a couch or a futon, each with a slightly different implication of its function. Of course, given how different each human thinks, there are ways other than language that each individual relates to the bed, each slightly different.

If human souls did work the same, and if they did experience reality the same way, then a totalitarian society may have an optimum level of human happiness. But humans don’t work that way. I can’t project the “correct” psychology of humans, but this book did teach me it’s important to political theory. How humans perceive reality, and how they relate to that reality greatly affects how a government forms.

Inagural Post

Hello!

Here is the blog space for our course. I went ahead and played with a few settings, such as linking and labels, but feel free to change things around. I came up with a title, but it can still be changed if you have another idea.

As another note, should we make sure we tag all our posts using our names as well?