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.