NOTE *[The
power struggles in humanity have not started in the 1960's. They have not
started when the United States Constitution was being written. The struggles
didn't start when the feudal system was the main system of governance(in Eurasia), either.
These ideas have started when the greatest of intellectuals of human history
were slowly chipping away at ideas, conventional wisdom while influencing the
political area around them. Plato and Aristotle, although close being a mentor
and mentee, shared their differences with rulership...or lack thereof. This was
a paper written about some of their differences. Essentially, a large
government/powerful rule or something smaller with more power for the people?]*
Ancient philosophy sparks a great deal of interest in even modern politics. Plato and Aristotle’s political views share similarities but also vary in many ways. Plato thought a single ruler, with vast knowledge, could rule over a large city while knowing what’s morally best for the people. Aristotle believed that a city-state should be governed by an elite group of experts, better known as an aristocracy. I will argue that both of these views benefit towards modern society but also have major flaws that could not work in present times. Plato’s major flaw is that entrusting one individual, no matter their expertise in policy, cannot be trusted due to the nature of a human’s lust for power. The flaw with Aristotle is that he believed everyone should uphold their values to benefit the state versus themselves, which economically doesn’t benefit the community as a whole.
Plato
and Aristotle shared some similar views in the political arena but a closer
look reveals how much they truly differed. Plato was a man who believed that
the ordinary citizen should be governed by only a few people, namely the
philosopher kings. In regards to governance, Plato believed governing was a
craft and therefore “only persons with a particular nature are suited to pursue
expertise in governance” (Brooks 53). This supports that Plato believed a ruler
was only a person that could be handpicked from a group of a perfect family
line.
Plato’s
theory of this “expertise” supposes that each citizen should follow what they
do best, as a specialty of some sort.
“Plato believes that the crafts we choose are commensurable with our
given nature, instead of the demands of the marketplace” (Brooks 52). What this meant was that a citizen must
perform their specialized task for society but not simply change their
occupations when they see fit. Plato believed that if you are a slave, a hard
laborer, or retailer because you were natural at it, you should not be allowed
to rule because it is not your expertise. Plato recognized the need for
expertise, in which many people will consult experts for various things but
stresses these rulers hold a special place in society.
In regards to a democracy, Plato’s
view is that it’s essentially a form of anarchy in which every citizen can
choose whatever he wants, putting the power of the people over the minorities.
Since Plato believes that these ordinary citizens are not capable of
well-informed policy of governing their people, bad results occurred as they
produce just simple guesswork. He compared that non-governing experts cannot
fathom the complexities of governing but only their trade.
According to Thom Brooks, “Plato’s
primary problem with democracy is with the absence of expertise in statecraft,
a constant criticism in his political thought” (Brooks 65). This means that
Plato witnessed aspects of democracy that were unruly and certainly tainted.
Later on in this article, it mentions how Plato understood that these
philosopher-kings should not have absolute authority but be confined to certain
laws as well. Plato makes a distinction of how the governing class governs over
the people but not his or her economic decisions. He tries to make a
distinction between wealth and power, in that the citizen may pursue their
interests in wealth but not going against the law of the land.
A group of regular citizens
handpicked the person whom they considered the perfect rule to be the
philosopher-king. In Plato’s Republic, the finding of these persons of
excellent governing intelligence must come from a closed system, which the
reader is not given much advice on how to do so. The Republic does mention that
the upbringing of these philosopher-kings must be great, compared to the
average, run of the mill, citizen. The education must be different from that of
a regular citizen, who won’t be as closely watched, in order to prevent the
corruption of someone that lead can their country into a downfall. There should
be written rules, as in a constitution, in which these future leaders must
uphold, to omit the opportunity to be an embedded and tyrannical power.
Aristotle had
a different view on the political arena that of Plato but only in a short
sense. He points out that there are 6 types of government, or ways to govern.
The first is monarchy, where a single ruler governs over citizens but it could
lead to the unjust version called tyranny. Aristocracy is the second “just” way
to govern in that the elite have the power to rule but it can turn bad with
Oligarchy, in which these elitists turn into corrupted wealthy people. The
third just way to govern is with a constitutional government but it turns bad
when it’s a pure democracy, evoking anarchy and chaos.
Aristotle believed that the society
must be educated with history, math, and other forms of education, to realize
not only his/her own potential but to be just within his/her society, in order
to have a fully functioning government. These citizens, in Aristotle’s view,
must bind tightly to their cities belief’s and identify proudly of their
city-state. As stated in Randall Currens article, “that students must have been
well brought up in good habits and be experienced in the actions that occur in
life in order to grasp the facts that are the starting-points of ethical and
legislative inquiry” (Curren 545). This ancient form of Nationalism leads to
the question of whether or not this mentality was to keep the citizens biased
for their own country, while ignoring other possibilities.
Aristotle realized the potential
twists between individualism and the state but for these times, having a
private life was relatively unheard of in ancient Greece. As a result of these
beliefs, he critiqued what would later be called “capitalism,” giving rise to
influence many thinkers on this topic.
Aristotle further wrote that the citizen must put the community ahead of
themselves, not to ignore their own needs but to be safe that everyone else’s
needs are not ignored. Putting other before you is considered great in our
society but there are differences that must be pointed out. Socially, this
would mean that the person would take the time to help others. Politically,
this would mean they would empower some other higher power (government or
bureaucrat) to ensure others are helped.
Aristotle highly favored a form of
aristocracy because the true, intelligent, and just leader, would favor policy
intelligently for their countrymen. A bad example of when this going wrong is a
term called Oligarchy. This is where the wealthy and elite rule over their
countrymen to only suits mainly their own interests. Aristotle does articulate
the differences between the two and understood the importance to keep these
“elite politicians” from corruption and extremely strong executive powers.
Plato’s ideas have been used for a
long time, with many kings ruling over their people. Plato’s ideal, single-ruling
politician has a major flaw: humans are easily corrupted, no matter the
upbringing. Examples of Plato’s worldview changing on politics happens in the
Republic because his realization that this perfect philosopher-ruler may be
hard to find or to exist. Plato makes a distinction that people may oppose
their philosopher-kings, as long at confines to their laws.
In comparison to our modern
societies, such as the United States, the democracies referred to in these
ancient cities were vastly different. To simply allow the majority to make
policy was faulty at best because the balance of ideas and power was
unbalanced, unchecked. The wayward and backward motion of this type of policy
production makes is difficult to measure the outcome of what the policy was
intended for. Even for today, if “mob rule” was to control much of policy,
economists would have a fairly difficult time deciphering what policy (and its
outcomes, naturally) actually worked. For this point, Plato was right to some
degree.
Plato
understood the need for a free market society but somehow also believed that
people following a occupational pathway that is “natural” to them. This is a
major flaw of Plato’s point of view because although some people may be
excellent at something because they love doing it, may choose to keep this as a
hobby so that they may not ruin their love of their interests. A contemporary
example of this are current politicians that claim to be free market advocates,
but at the same time, regulate much of the forces, industries, and businesses
within the market, not realizing that this disrupts the distribution of wealth.
Aristotle
didn’t certainly favor one particular type of government but he did favor a mix
of some. He favored Polity, which was a mix of oligarchy (the few rulers) and
democracy (the power of the many). This may be an example of modern politics in
which the power of the many favor a few elite people to represent their needs,
while not disallowing the needs of everyone else. This is an important distinction
but there are still flaws in this mentality. To a point, this idea is used in
American government, but taken from the context of ancient times, it is very
different. Aristotle’s flaw in this thinking is that not only is it possible
that the aristocrats might not have the foggiest clue, but the people may not
either. Aristotle does point this out some of these flaws but fails to mention
how to balance this power.
These
political views of democracy, elitism and inherited leadership are great
examples of antiquity but do not simply represent that of our modern political
views. Aristotle didn’t favor one particular type of governing, per se, but
wanted a mix of some sort. It is nigh on impossible to have a perfect society
in which everyone is only focused on benefiting their fellow man. To put
Aristotle’s view in a modern aspect from the ancient times, it would be like
having several groups of a few thousand people being represented by one person,
to influence policy.
Aristotle
also believed that keeping slaves or oppressing women was somehow relatively a
natural order and society needed to keep the classes (philosophers, warriors
and tradesmen). Plato though slavery was not a good idea and thought the
abolishing of some of these classes was needed. I argue that neither of them
were correct but had a nugget of truth. Plato was right that slavery is bad for
society but also failed to realize that there needs to be classes in order to
allow the incentives of some sort of social mobility. Plato didn’t advocate for an outright
communism but failed to realize that if if you make it classless society, some
people will work hard and receive little. Also, in Plato’s ideal society, some
of the people that would hardly work could also receive much in goods and
services.
In
Politics, Aristotle mentions that money loving is a flaw in society that
results in injustices (Skultety 47). There are, and have been, many acts of
injustice on behalf of greed or money-loving. But Aristotle was right that
there was a need to have some form wealthy around to maintain higher standards
to living, and to provide ideas to the community (much like Russia agreed to
keep many rich people, during the Communist regime) but failed to realize
slavery’s many, many faults on society. They are both wrong to assume the
complete abolishment of classes but also to maintain that government must
protect all social order.
Plato
argued that citizen should do what they were “natural” at in society. When
these citizens do what they were “naturally suited for” it is supposed to bring
unity into the community. This completely disregards the fact that the market
is constantly changing. This is especially true since technology changes
constantly, improving people’s lives. Believing that each community member will
simply abide by these ideas is unruly and unjust. This is because each
individual may want to only benefit much of their family, themselves or ideals
that much of their community represents.
Aristotle
believed more in the community (communitarianism) than the individual
(individualism) and that many ancient scholars agreed that too many people
sought out their own honor versus for the sake of their community. It was also
stated in the article, “Competition in the Best of Cities,” that it would be
hard to find such an individual that would only seek to benefit the society
(Skultety 52). This is because this individual may be seeking means to have
others love them, or merely for some type of popularity contest of sorts.
Contrasting this with modern times, most of the time as individuals seek out a
means to benefit only themselves, they also gain wealth as a result.
Comparing
the mere difference between centrally planned economies versus ones not
constrained by government or its leaders, is substantial economic growth. As a
result of this, people who were considered poor have a much higher standard of
living. A few examples of more
prosperous economies include Ghana, India, Germany, China, New Zealand, South
Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand when compared to their more socialist or centrally
planned countries (Sowell 27). I
understand that Plato recognized the need to allow economic freedom, but did
not foresee that empowering politicians, of any sort of merit, may disallow some
citizen’s economic freedoms when allowing others to prosper. This is a downfall
of empowering the few over many
It’s
even obvious that Plato uses a straw man argument against democratic citizens
when he mentions in the republic, “Rather than ruling with an authority
stemming from political expertise, the majority of democratic citizens are like
‘people groping in the dark’” (Brooks 55). I will argue that this assumption is
false because many people, of varying fields, are very capable of a logical and
intellectual thought process. Even the mere fact that someone can be great at
governing does not mean they will do good for the rest of society. This idea
could have been the basis in which many people have suffered as a result of an
over-empowered, deeply authoritarian government. I understand that Plato does
not want such a governing force but unfortunately with the human race and it’s
lust for power, empowering a few individuals to govern millions of people has
resulted in awful consequences.
As
Plato mentions in the republic, the governing class does not really make
decisions over the citizen’s economic pathways but other things. I disagree
with this being involved in contemporary society because the intentions of
those to help non-economic issues, typically involve economic issues. There are several examples of certain policy that has "good intentions" but after several years or decades, the results are almost opposite. The intention was for its ethical reasons but the results are now being shown
with higher healthcare premiums, businesses not being able to afford healthcare
to their workers, and more government subsidies which I can argue that
disallows incentives for people to provide for themselves.
Plato
and Aristotle were both wrong in many assumption of who should be in control of
the state but were also right in many aspects. Taking practical ideas, tried
and true, from each of them, we can learn a great deal of what truly works for
society. In modern though, keeping a society relatively classless can result in
an economic downturn resulting in unfavorable economic consequences but it
sounds great within a community-based economy. In hindsight, ensuring that
classes remain the way they are is almost as bad because this could result in a
lack of social mobility, disallowing the incentives for people accomplish their
dreams. These ancient philosophers were truly on to something and had great
idea but certainly fall short when implementing these ideas into a modern
society and the laws of economics.
Work Cited
Brooks, Thom. "Knowledge And Power In Plato’s Political
Thought." International Journal OfPhilosophical Studies 14.1 (2006):
51-77. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Sept.
2012.
Curren, Randall. "Aristotle's Educational Politics And
The Aristotelian Renaissance In PhilosophyOf Education." Oxford Review
Of Education 36.5 (2010): 543-559. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 14 Sept. 2012.
Korab-Karpowicz, Wlodzimierz J. "On The Power Of Virtue:
Universalism Of Plato's Political
Philosophy." Dialogue &
Universalism 13.7/8 (2003): 135. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 14 Sept. 2012.
Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the
Economy. Fourth ed. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.
Skultety, Steven C. "Competition In The Best Of Cities:
Agonism And Aristotle's Politics." Political Theory 37.1
(2009): 44-68. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Sept. 2012.
