The Politics

Jul 04, 2010 Jeremy added it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, politics

This is quite a turn away from the optimistic "we can figure it all out" tone of the Nicomachean Ethics. In trying to confront both what a state is and how it functions, he creates this weird/insidious master/slave hierarchy, expanding it to encompass children, women, basically anyone who isn't a member of the Athenian aristocracy. While this in and of itself isn't really shocking considering how the typical greek polis maintained and grew it's own power (i.e. going to war, stealing women, land...more

4 likes · like · see review

Jul 19, 2012 Mohannad Najjar added it · review of another edition

شرح في هذا الكتاب أرسطو كل تصوّرُه عن الدولة و مكان الفرد: المواطن/ العبد/ المرأة / الفلاح/ الأجانب فيها،
لا يبدو الكتاب مُغرياً و مُحفزاً للقراءة. لكنه عهد قطعناه على أنفسنا -بنادي كتاب الفلسفة السياسية- أن نقرأ كامل الكتاب -ولو بدا مملاً ثقيلاً- و نتناقش حوله على مدى الخمسة الجلسات الماضية، ليأتي كثاني كتاب في قائمة أول الكتب المؤلفة في الفلسفة السياسية.

لم أستطع أن أخرج من قراءة الكتاب إلا باحترام شديد لأرسطو، رغم أن المعايير المعاصرة للحقوق ترفض فكره في هذا الكتاب جملةً وتفصيلاً.. وأنا فعلاً...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 19, 2009 Keegan added it · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, greek, philosophy, politics

I can't give a rating to Aristotle's Politics.

That being said, Aristotle's political philosophy runs on a horrendously fallacious naturalistic track, leading him to bizarre conclusions about...everything.

It was perhaps useful as a way of solidifying my conceptions of the wheelings and dealings of classical-era poleis, especially having read this alongside Thucydides, where the abstract, nuanced comparisons Aristotle makes between direct democracy and oligarchy find grounding in the brutality of...more

4 likes · like · see review

Jul 26, 2011 Robert Davis added it · review of another edition

Aristotle speaks through the ages in his classic Politics. Many of his observations, especially those on education, were prescient and are as relevant today as they were 2400 years ago. Aristotle examines different kinds of government and the advantages and dangers of each. He includes insight into many of the problems of democratic government that would be left unsolved for 2000 years- and some of which that are still unsolved. Aristotle predicts the dangers of socialism and communism, but also...more

2 likes · like · see review

May 13, 2013 Javous rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics

Sau khi bộ phim Alexander (2004) ra mắt, có một cuộc tranh luận thú vị xoay quanh lời giảng ở đầu phim của Aristotle cho vị hoàng đế thời trẻ rằng sự thuần khiết tuyệt đối là khi con người sống cùng với nhau, với tri thức và niềm ham mê chảy qua giữa họ. Một số luật sư Hy Lạp thậm chí còn đe doạ kiện đạo diễn Oliver Stone vì lời thoại đó xác nhận và biện minh cho lối sinh hoạt đồng tính luyến ái của người Hy Lạp cổ đại và do đó xúc phạm đến hình ảnh Alexander đại đế. Cũng có học giả như Tom Pras...more Sau khi bộ phim Alexander (2004) ra mắt, có một cuộc tranh luận thú vị xoay quanh lời giảng ở đầu phim của Aristotle cho vị hoàng đế thời trẻ rằng sự thuần khiết tuyệt đối là khi con người sống cùng với nhau, với tri thức và niềm ham mê chảy qua giữa họ. Một số luật sư Hy Lạp thậm chí còn đe doạ kiện đạo diễn Oliver Stone vì lời thoại đó xác nhận và biện minh cho lối sinh hoạt đồng tính luyến ái của người Hy Lạp cổ đại và do đó xúc phạm đến hình ảnh Alexander đại đế. Cũng có học giả như Tom Prasch cho rằng Aristotle chỉ thể hiện mong muốn về một nước Hy Lạp thống nhất và rộng lớn.

Quan niệm trên của Aristotle về “nhà nước lý tưởng" có thể tìm thấy trong quyển VII của Chính trị luận (Nông Duy Trường dịch) vừa được Alphabooks ấn hành. Tác giả cho rằng người châu Âu ở xứ lạnh đầy hăng hái nhưng thiếu kỹ năng tổ chức chính trị, trong khi người châu Á (ý nói Ai Cập và Ba Tư) có sự khôn ngoan nhưng lại thiếu nhiệt huyết. Chỉ có người Hy Lạp ở giữa hai khu vực này là có được sự hài hoà giữa niềm thôi thúc và lý trí. Montesquieu cũng có nhận xét tương tự trong Bàn về tinh thần pháp luật, rằng các dân tộc ở mỗi vị trí khác nhau thì cũng văn hoá chính trị và hành vi chính trị khác nhau.

Nếu được đặt ở đúng hoàn cảnh, theo Aristotle, người Hy Lạp có thể cai trị tất cả. Ông tin rằng chính thể tốt nhất phải được cai trị bởi những người xuất chúng nhất. Ở quyển VII và VIII, tác giả phê phán mô hình giáo dục lúc bấy giờ ở Hy Lạp. Trái với Cộng hoà của Plato, nước “cộng hòa" của Aristotle không hướng đến chiến tranh mà hướng đến hoà bình và sự thư nhàn. Đời sống thư nhàn không chỉ là giải trí, nghỉ ngơi mà còn là nền giáo dục cao nhã và tự do. Nền giáo dục ấy tạo ra con người với tinh thần quảng đại, sở hữu không chỉ tiền tài mà cả khiếu thẩm mỹ, và quan trọng nhất là óc thực tiễn. Người này có thể không có óc tư biện như Socrates nhưng sở hữu năng lực phán đoán cần thiết cho việc quản trị đất nước. Aristotle gọi đó là sự “khôn ngoan chính trị".

Cốt lõi trong bộ môn khoa học chính trị của Aristotle là quan niệm về chính thể (politeia) và con người ở bên trong chính thể ấy. Politeia ngoài nghĩa "hình thái của chính phủ", còn có nghĩa là "phép tắc điều hành nhà nước" hay hiến pháp.Ngay từ đầu quyển I, tác giả đã khẳng định “con người là một sinh vật chính trị". Ngôn ngữ và lý trí cho phép họ tham dự vào một cộng đồng hay hình thức đời sống được thiết trị bởi các chuẩn mực về sự công bằng và bất công. Con người là các sinh vật có ngôn ngữ không chỉ sống cùng với nhau mà còn chia sẻ sự sắp đặt của luật lệ. Là sinh vật chính trị tức là tham dự hoặc khước từ các tranh luận muôn thuở về bản chất sự công bằng, là bước chân vào hoặc tuyên bố mình đứng ngoài cuộc tranh luận đó. Mọi hành động chính trị đều hướng đến sự bảo tồn hay thay đổi, và sau rốt là để con người tốt đẹp hơn.

Trong quyển IV của Chính trị luận, Aristotle bàn về mục đích của khoa học chính trị. Chính trị gia trước tiên phải biết đâu là mô hình nhà nước tối ưu. Thứ hai, họ phải biết đâu là mô hình tối ưu trong một tình huống đặc thù. Thứ ba, họ phải có kiến thức để sửa sai một chế độ, bất kể kém hoàn thiện đến đâu, để làm cho nó ổn định và cố kết hơn. Và cuối cùng, người làm khoa học chính trị phải biết cách cải lương và thuyết phục để đưa chế độ hiện hữu đến gần sự tối ưu. Các nhận xét trên tuy là nền móng cho phương pháp của Aristotle về chính trị luận, nhưng ông không đòi hỏi một phương pháp chắc chắn cho bộ môn khoa học này vì cho rằng chính trị luôn biến đổi và không thể đoán trước.

Vì quan niệm rằng chính trị là ngành khoa học thực tiễn và bản thân con người là loài “sinh vật chính trị”, nên Aristotle mong muốn ở bộ môn này một thứ ngôn ngữ bình dân, không “lên gân” hay dùng nhiều thuật ngữ. Và ngay ở Chính trị luận, ngôn ngữ của tác giả hướng đến các thần dân và chính khách chứ không phải các triết gia. Thứ ngôn ngữ bình dân và thẳng thắn (nhưng khó nhằn) ấy rõ ràng không vừa ý những người theo thuyết trung dung, những người luôn tự cho mình là khách quan nhưng lại làm như thể đứng từ một hành tinh khác nhìn xuống. Chẳng hạn như những nhà phê bình phim thời hiện đại, họ sẵn sàng chỉ trích Oliver Stone nếu như ông để cho Aristotle nói ra điều mà rõ ràng ai cũng biết.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Oct 18, 2011 Venus rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: political, philosophy

The reason why there are many forms of government is that every state contains many elements. In the first place we see that all states are made up of families, and in the multitude of citizen there must be some rich and some poor, and some in a middle condition; the rich are heavy-armed, and the poor not. Of the common people, some are husbandmen, and some traders, and some artisans. There are also among the notables differences of wealth and property- for example, in the number of horses which...more The reason why there are many forms of government is that every state contains many elements. In the first place we see that all states are made up of families, and in the multitude of citizen there must be some rich and some poor, and some in a middle condition; the rich are heavy-armed, and the poor not. Of the common people, some are husbandmen, and some traders, and some artisans. There are also among the notables differences of wealth and property- for example, in the number of horses which they keep, for they cannot afford to keep them unless they are rich. And therefore in old times the cities whose strength lay in their cavalry were oligarchies, and they used cavalry in wars against their neighbors; as was the practice of the Eretrians and Chalcidians, and also of the Magnesians on the river Maeander, and of other peoples in Asia. Besides differences of wealth there are differences of rank and merit, and there are some other elements which were mentioned by us when in treating of aristocracy we enumerated the essentials of a state. Of these elements, sometimes all, sometimes the lesser and sometimes the greater number, have a share in the government. It is evident then that there must be many forms of government, differing in kind, since the parts of which they are composed differ from each other in kind. For a constitution is an organization of offices, which all the citizens distribute among themselves, according to the power which different classes possess, for example the rich or the poor, or according to some principle of equality which includes both. There must therefore be as many forms of government as there are modes of arranging the offices, according to the superiorities and differences of the parts of the state.
There are generally thought to be two principal forms: as men say of the winds that there are but two- north and south, and that the rest of them are only variations of these, so of governments there are said to be only two forms- democracy and oligarchy. For aristocracy is considered to be a kind of oligarchy, as being the rule of a few, and the so-called constitutional government to be really a democracy, just as among the winds we make the west a variation of the north, and the east of the south wind. Similarly of musical modes there are said to be two kinds, the Dorian and the Phrygian; the other arrangements of the scale are comprehended under one or other of these two. About forms of government this is a very favorite notion. But in either case the better and more exact way is to distinguish, as I have done, the one or two which are true forms, and to regard the others as perversions, whether of the most perfectly attempered mode or of the best form of government: we may compare the severer and more overpowering modes to the oligarchical forms, and the more relaxed and gentler ones to the democratic.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Jul 28, 2011 Tim rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I personally find it tough to do any sort of a review on the classics, as just about everything that can be said about a 2400 year old treatise has probably been said. However, like scripture, everyone has their own interpretation of these kinds of documents from antiquity. The interpretations, like any reading, have to do with the culture and time in which one was raised, the society and government around them, as well as one’s age and any previous influential readings and/or life experience. T...more I personally find it tough to do any sort of a review on the classics, as just about everything that can be said about a 2400 year old treatise has probably been said. However, like scripture, everyone has their own interpretation of these kinds of documents from antiquity. The interpretations, like any reading, have to do with the culture and time in which one was raised, the society and government around them, as well as one’s age and any previous influential readings and/or life experience. These previous influences allow a “horizontal” approach to interpretation, where one incorporates many different impressions into the present document.

“The Politics of Aristotle” is a link in the evolutionary process of social and political development. Like Plato’s “Republic”, Aristotle considers the concept of justice in this treatise. First, we must define justice, and then we must figure out the best way to enact justice. It is important to remember when dealing with the classics that we are looking at an attempt to tie down a “universal” (itself a tricky word) into a specific place and time. Everyone generally agrees that “justice” is what is “right”. However, conditioning of various types will influence HOW justice looks when pen is put to paper.

The area in which I believe Aristotle to have the greatest wisdom is in his descriptions of human nature (and how to approach justice WITH this human nature in mind). “Men who don’t have control of their own passions will fail to serve their own interests.” “We always prefer what we come across first.” “Men are always wanting something more and are never content until they get to infinity.” “Ambition and avarice are exactly the motives which lead men to commit nearly all intentional crimes.”

Through my recent dialogue with those residing in the East, it is apparent to me that much of Western philosophy is late in its realization of some universal truths. The conflict of opposites is a universal concept. Moderation as a necessity for “goodness” is a universal concept. This would coincide with the idea of “Non-dualism” that has been around for thousands of years in the Far East. Aristotle attempts to broach these topics through more of an exterior view. For example, he uses the analogy of the “perfection of the nose”. A nose that is “extremely” straight, or “extremely” symmetrical in all areas would eventually become so “extreme” as to not even appear to be a nose. It would morph into something else, if you will. That is an example of dualistic thinking. Extremes in anything produce the opposite of what one is trying to achieve. Moderation, looking at all sides of an issue, eradicating dogmatic thinking, are all ways to avoid these extremes.

Modern Capitalistic thought has grasped onto Aristotle’s ideas of distributive justice, aristocracy, and his negation or downplaying of apparent class conflicts to justify certain actions. What Aristotle has not and could not consider is all the complexities of modern times. Race, a global economy, and our current belief in the equality of ALL men do not mix with Aristotelian thought. Plato had a much better grasp on class conflict with the idea of the state being TWO states…that of the rich and that of the poor. Although Aristotle DID acknowledge that: “Poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy.” He adds: “That is why measures should be taken to ensure a permanent level of prosperity.”

The eloquence of describing the life of the interior is perhaps the part of “The Politics” which struck me the greatest. "Thought is an activity as much as action itself, and it may even be more of an activity than action is. The self-contained individual...may be busily active: the activity of God and the universe is that of a self-contained life." This statement coincided well with one that Aristotle had mentioned in “Rhetoric”, where he states that: “The more I am by myself and alone, the fonder I have become of myths.” This seems to indicate that Aristotle may have had an idea, even if he couldn’t name it, of the inherent need for a “god-image” in the nature of man.

Philosophy as defined by the ancient Greeks IS wisdom. Therefore it is in itself a universal as wisdom is all-encompassing. Man’s attempt to make sense of universals containing many expressions is one of the great challenges of living. For me, it has also brought about the realization that we are all looking for the same thing in the end. Approaching others WITH that knowledge is more conducive to dialogue and to greater understanding…which creates a better life for all of us.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 10, 2011 Cody rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Come on Aristotle! You really wrote a lame book man. I'm gonna have to go read Plato's Republic to shake the funk out. I mean hey, I know you're supposed to be one of the world's greatest thinkers and you were the founder of formal logic and all. But dude, your ethics suck. What the jazz are you talking about in this book about how everyone needs to be ruled, and those who lack the rationality to rule themselves need to be ruled by others?

I mean, I guess that ends up happening to people who lac...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 31, 2008 Jared rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I loved reading this with the question of what is the ideal society and how do you obtain happiness? It was interesting to see Aristotles answers to these questions. I also enjoyed seeing how he argues his idea that happiness is the absence of pain and that money is in charge of getting rid of pain. Even though I do not agree with it that idea has effected the way that many think of happiness

1 like · like · see review

Jul 11, 2012 M. rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This was a very dense piece on politics and it's fascinating that this book was written this long ago.I've read "The Republic" by Plato and in comparison between the two this was more reasonable than the first and then The republic wasn't that much on comparing government rather than building the perfect model he talked briefly about the forms of government around him , but this was more intense in classifying them talking about each form separately and then comparing them , finally trying to fi...more This was a very dense piece on politics and it's fascinating that this book was written this long ago.I've read "The Republic" by Plato and in comparison between the two this was more reasonable than the first and then The republic wasn't that much on comparing government rather than building the perfect model he talked briefly about the forms of government around him , but this was more intense in classifying them talking about each form separately and then comparing them , finally trying to figure the best form it was great.

The only point that I favorite "The Republic" over "Politics" is the view of Socrates to the women , the slaves , the marriage and the labor class.Beside that the "Politics" is my favorite in every other aspect , more reasonable but not a visionary , he stated facts , some historical incident around him , he didn't give much his direct view on the best form of government.

As "The Republic" came first , there was lots of remarking on "The Republic" and it wasn't the usual critic rather than an attack on each point he thought it was a flaw in it.

Between the Two Plato or Aristotle both were geniuses and I'm going to read "The Law" and "The Ethics" and continue Socrates dialogues :)

Some of points I liked :-

Man is by nature a political animal.

A constitution is the organization of offices in a state, and determines what is to be the governing body, and what is the end of each community. But laws are not to be confounded with the principles of the constitution; they are the rules according to which the magistrates should administer the state, and proceed against offenders.

The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have an things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them. Further, those who have any complaint to bring against the magistrates say, 'Let the people be judges'; the people are too happy to accept the invitation; and so the authority of every office is undermined. Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution. The law ought to be supreme over all, and the magistracies should judge of particulars, and only this should be considered a constitution.

The happy life is the life according to virtue lived without impediment, and that virtue is a mean, then the life which is in a mean, and in a mean attainable by every one, must be the best.

The best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant.

Those who think that all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes; they do not consider that disproportion destroys a state.

Every man should be responsible to others, nor should any one be allowed to do just as he pleases; for where absolute freedom is allowed, there is nothing to restrain the evil which is inherent in every man. But the principle of responsibility secures that which is the greatest good in states; the right persons rule and are prevented from doing wrong, and the people have their due. It is evident that this is the best kind of democracy.

(less)

like · see review

Jun 10, 2012 Salma Dahab rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics

I have a tiny remark. I wasn't able to put the last two books 7, 8 in the map of the whole book. I mean is he describing his ideal state in a sense of "Classical Utopia" in which it would be unattainable, ideal, kind of criteria. Or he was describing the best attainable regime according to his perspective, so, those books would be kind of policy paper, However,The change in methodology - For political scientist to philosopher- deny this.

Also, why did he ignore discussing political life in his i...more

like · see review

Mar 18, 2012 Liss Capello rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I am not the person to offer a critique of this work, so I will only take a moment to say that it seemed very well reasoned, and parts of it were very enlightening in regards to the styles of government and how they might play out in real life terms. Aristotle seems very interested in arguing about the realities of politics (perhaps compared to Plato or Socrates, whose works he criticizes at several points). This is a dense, slow read, not so much because the words are difficult, or even the lan...more

like · see review

Dec 31, 2010 Galicius rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: greek, list-for-people-desiring-higher-edu, philosophy, political-science

Book I

Communities and states are established to bring the greatest good to its members. Qualifications of a king and master or householder are not the same as some (Plato) think. It’s not just the number of subjects they have to deal with. A statesman is also different and he rules when citizens set up a government and rule by political science. But there are different kinds of rule.

Aristotle goes no to consider the relationship between master and slave, absolute and relative meaning of the term...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 28, 2013 Michael Koby rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Before reading this I read Plato's "The Republic" which is spent defining justice. This book deals more in the politics of the city. Who are it's citizens, who are not citizens, what kinds of governments are there, why some should be considered better than others, and how the people are raised, educated, and participate in their government.

I liked this better than I liked "The Republic", maybe because this deals more with solid principles where "The Republic" was looking to define a more abstrac...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 01, 2011 C. P. rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: students of political science

What is remarkable is how little has changed in the conservative and liberal positions since Aristotle. Some of it reads like it came from a recent blog.

My interest in finishing reading this classic is to provide some context for my discussion of the polis and the oikos in the second and, hopefully soon, first published edition of my book "Popular Capitalism". The treatment of the oikos was superficial and none of analysis applied to the polis was used in a deeper analysis of the oikos. Federati...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 18, 2012 Jonathan Karmel rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

In Politics, Aristotle theorized that in a perfect world, a monarchy would be a benevolent dictatorship, an aristocracy would be rule by the virtuous and democracy would be rule by the people. But because of human frailty, monarchy actually becomes tyranny, aristocracy actually becomes oligarchy and pure democracy actually becomes mob rule. The practical solution is a form of government that mixes elements of a single ruler, rule by the few and majority rule.

This idea survived and evolved, and e...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 12, 2011 MOL rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: law-school

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Nov 15, 2012 Kevin rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Aristotle's politics is the most comprehensive, well formulated treaty and critic of political infrastructures ever surmised. Compared to his predecessor, Plato, who took a metaphysical approach in the Republic and who only viewed governmental progression as a liner processes; Aristotle looks at governmental progression from a circular view point and backs his evidence with real life occurrences happening in the Mediterranean world at the time. A good introduction for anyone wanting to learn mor...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 17, 2011 Amira Hosam rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

talks about state of nature and how to set "state" ,how to set laws and types of government and which type is the best ? also talks about human nature and how to make it good by education, proper upbringing and music .
may be it is long book , contains many names and many details which need specialist in political sciences or philosophy but u can get also usefulness from it by knowing types of governments, how to make human nature better also the main target is " that book will make u think in e...more

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 09, 2012 Hershel Shipman rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, ancient-greek

Well this is a fundamental political/philosophy book. Aristotle is equivalently wrong on several accounts but on many others I find myself agreeing with him.
Some of the things I found to be wrong are: Some people being more slavie than others. Women being unequal to men, his idea's that the Greeks were superior to everyone around them, and his utter fascination with monarchies.

However, some of this comments on how the best possible scenario for a state is to have a middle class larger than eith...more

like · see review

Aug 13, 2011 E.C. McCarthy rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The shocking revelation of Aristotle's Politics is that it stands as a near perfect mirror of modern society's political discourse. Aristotle first addresses the definitions of various forms of governments (tyrannies, oligarchies, democracies, etc.), then lays out the possible intentions and purposes of government, and describes their suitability to specific city-states in existence in the 300s BC. In this way, he balances theory with reality, and acknowledges the imperfections of all forms of g...more The shocking revelation of Aristotle's Politics is that it stands as a near perfect mirror of modern society's political discourse. Aristotle first addresses the definitions of various forms of governments (tyrannies, oligarchies, democracies, etc.), then lays out the possible intentions and purposes of government, and describes their suitability to specific city-states in existence in the 300s BC. In this way, he balances theory with reality, and acknowledges the imperfections of all forms of government in relation to their creators and enforcers, be they leaders, royalty or the masses. A great deal of Politics refers to civic duty, and the final chapters delve into citizenry and education. It's altogether surprising that the final few pages are devoted entirely to music, what kind of music a citizen should learn and listen to, what instruments should be studied, how bold the music should be, etc. (Note that Politics is likely an incomplete work, so perhaps Aristotle intended to round out his discourse with a more appropriate ending than "The Power of Music," although I found it refreshing and ripe with opportunity to infer deeper meaning.)

It would be deceptively easy to dismiss Politics as obsolete based purely on his treatment of women and slaves (both are essentially property; they serve a purpose, but that purpose is hardly representative of modern, individualist values.) In reading past the bigotry, there is an amazing, constant revelation in this treatise: civilization continues to ask the same questions, turn up the same answers, make the same mistakes, and grow incredibly slowly, if at all. In the arena of politics, we (global "we") are fundamentally no different today than we were thousands of years ago. The question that Aristotle's Politics then answers is not "what is the best form of government" but "what government should each citizenry live with?" Given America's constant assertion that democracy is best, this book stokes the debate by suggesting that democracy may be best for us, based on our self-defined values, but is it necessarily best for everyone? Further, using Aristotle's unemotional, unbiased definitions, it's clear that America isn't actually a democracy at all. We are therefore advocating a system of government for other countries that we ourselves cannot uphold.

Anyone with a desire to understand America's current turmoil without emotional rhetoric muddying the water will enjoy this book. It's written with elegant simplicity and is accessible to the widest spectrum of readers.(less)

like · see review

Jul 03, 2010 Bryan added it

The irony of me calling Aristotle's work average is not lost on me.: Yep, I feel way over my head giving Aristotle three stars, but I'm throwing in my two cents anyhow.

This book is an incredible window into another time. Aristotle's views on a number of topics (women and slavery come quickly to mind) stand out so opposed to our beliefs today that it's almost worth reading this book just to get some perspective on how new some of the social ideas we take for granted really are. Getting that sens...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 05, 2010 Matt rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The final thought that Aristotle leaves us in Nicomachean Ethics is the main source of tension in The Politics. The goal of existence in Nicomachean Ethics is happiness which can be achieved through the contemplative life, but Aristotle is rooted in Greek culture and cannot conceive of happiness outside the city-state. His opening line in The Politics sets his baseline:

Since we see that every city is some sort of partnership, and that every partnership is constituted for the sake of some good

...more The final thought that Aristotle leaves us in Nicomachean Ethics is the main source of tension in The Politics. The goal of existence in Nicomachean Ethics is happiness which can be achieved through the contemplative life, but Aristotle is rooted in Greek culture and cannot conceive of happiness outside the city-state. His opening line in The Politics sets his baseline:

Since we see that every city is some sort of partnership, and that every partnership is constituted for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake of what is held to be good), it is clear that all partnerships aim at some good, and that the partnership that is most authoritative of all and embraces all the others does so particularly, and aims at the most authoritative good of all. This is what is called the city or political partnership. Pg. 36/ 1252al.

The city is thus the vehicle for goodness (aka virtue) which leads to the contemplative life and therefore happiness.

Aristotle, like all of us, cannot escape all of his societal conditioning. This foundational belief that the city is a partnership designed to lead to good is grounded in the oft-quoted “man is a political animal“ or, more accurately, “man is much more a political animal than any kind of bee or and herd of animal is clear.” Pg. 37. An idea Marx latched onto. This lack of separation between the individual’s pursuit of contemplation and study and natural social tendencies is the underlying principle of The Politics. This is not a political book espousing freedom, productivity or the perpetuation of some other code. It is about constructing a state designed to survive and permit its citizens leisure.

Since the end is evidently the same for human beings both in common and privately, and there must necessarily be the same defining principle for the best man and the best regime, it is evident that the virtues directed to leisure should be present; for, as has been said repeatedly, peace is the end of war, and leisure of occupations. Pg. 222/VII ch.15; 10-15.

Much of what is contained within its pages is not meant to be a theoretical rendering of government. Aristotle spends considerable time attacking the flaws he sees in Plato’s Republic and Laws. Just as Nicomachean Ethics was a book about “practical” ethics, The Politics is about “practical” politics. Again, Aristotle sees great value in the mean as a way of traversing problems that arise at the extremes of political positions. He puts great value on the middle class as a stabilizing force and a way to undercut discontent. Aristotle’s goal is to minimize corruption, maximize stability and encourage correct thinking which is thinking that sees value in the contemplative life. Unlike Plato, he refuses to ignore what he perceives as the realistic consequences of division of property and labor. Poorly apportioned equity can lead to sloth and discontent.

Overall, if Aristotle was alive today, he’s the guy behind the scenes as some presidential advisor. He has an idea of what government should do, but he refuses to let his ideals rule his actions. He compares other forms of government, what’s worked, what hasn’t worked, and comes to a thoughtful analysis of what will get him closest to his goal of happiness. Few will probably read The Politics and come away with any great insights into governance, but Aristotle’s method is admirable. Though not above his times, he is a masterful deliberator of his times.

(less)

like · see review

Jun 03, 2010 Rowland Bismark rated it 4 of 5 stars

In many ways, the Politics is a companion volume to the “Nicomachean Ethics”, in which Aristotle defines a life of good quality and sets about describing how it should be achieved. The Politics, to a large extent, is an effort to describe the kind of political association that would best facilitate the ends described in the Ethics.

However, the Politics is not subservient to the Ethics. Aristotle's claim is not that cities must exist to serve the ends of individuals. Rather, he claims that indivi...more In many ways, the Politics is a companion volume to the “Nicomachean Ethics”, in which Aristotle defines a life of good quality and sets about describing how it should be achieved. The Politics, to a large extent, is an effort to describe the kind of political association that would best facilitate the ends described in the Ethics.

However, the Politics is not subservient to the Ethics. Aristotle's claim is not that cities must exist to serve the ends of individuals. Rather, he claims that individuals are to a large extent defined by the cities they live in and that man can be fully human (i.e. fully rational) only by participating in the city. The city is a complete whole and each individual is a mere part. The city is thus more important than the individual.

The tension between practical and speculative reasoning is central to the Politics. Practical reasoning is necessary for political and social matters, while speculative reasoning is necessary for theoretical and philosophical problems. Ultimately, Aristotle concludes in both the Ethics and the Politics that speculative reasoning is superior, as it is through a proper exercise of this faculty that man achieves true happiness

Whereas Aristotle views the exercise of speculative reasoning as and end in itself, he considers the exercise of practical reasoning an integral means to this end. Because an individual cannot learn to exercise his reason properly outside the confines of the city, and because the city is able to function only as a result of man's practical reasoning, practical reasoning is thus a prerequisite for the exercise of speculative reasoning.

Interestingly, Aristotle never concerns himself with questions of how much authority the state should have over the individual. A central question of modern political philosophy is the extent to which the state should be able to impose itself on the freedom of the individual. This question would not have made sense to Aristotle because he saw the goal of the city and the goal of the individual as identical. While his assertion—that the individual is only a subservient part of the state—might seem mildly totalitarian, his view was that the individual could have no truly rational needs or interests outside the confines of the state. As a result, it would be absurd to desire any kind of individual freedom in opposition to the state.

"Justice" might seem an odd term for what is essentially the right to hold more distinguished public offices. It is important to remember, however, that in a Greek city-state, serving in public office was essential to citizenship and was a high distinction. Further, those who occupied places of high distinction were more likely to enjoy other benefits as well.

Aristotle's method, here and elsewhere, is largely descriptive. He conducts extensive surveys of the different forms of government and theory and his own theory is less of a creative endeavor than Plato's in the “Republic”. Rather, it is a series of recommendations based on what he has observed. None of Aristotle's practical advice is particularly novel; his insights are more a synthesis of analyses by a man who has studied politics extensively.

***

Though the Politics ends quite abruptly with the discussion of some minor points of interest in regard to music, there is no reason to believe that some further section of the text has been lost. The Politics was compiled as lecture notes from the courses Aristotle taught at the Lyceum and was not intended for publication. The likely explanation for this ending, then, is that it marks the end of a specific lecture, though Aristotle perhaps taught further topics in political theory at another time.
Aristotle's firm stance against any kind of skill or knowledge that comes to be utilized for someone else's sake epitomizes his means-end dichotomy. Practical reasoning serves the entire city, of which each individual is a part, and speculative reasoning serves one's own happiness; each type of reasoning has its end in the self. When an individual engages in an activity whose end is to please others, such as playing music, however, that individual becomes a means for others to achieve leisure, ceasing to be an end in himself.

The aristocratic amateurism that Aristotle espouses evidences his elitist conception of class differences. Citizens should look down upon musicians and other such practitioners of arts because they practice their skill for the sake of others. Aristotle considers these practitioners simply a means for citizens to the end of leisure. As such, he inherently disparages the value of art for its own sake and the importance of art as self-expression—two notions integral to the modern conception of the self. Of course, ancient Greece was very different from the modern world. Citizens felt contempt for non-citizen manual laborers because their existence had worth only in the service of others. Their skills were not ends in themselves but rather means to others' ends.

Aristotle's discussion of music is difficult to understand for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is that very little is known about what Greek music actually sounded like. Historians know what instruments the Greeks played and that they based their melodies on different modal arrangements, which they felt were expressive of different states of character or emotion. Historians also know that music was very important to the Greeks: they felt that certain harmonies were divine and that music could express character and moral virtues better than any other medium. Aristotle believes that music can serve moral purposes because it can, quite literally, "represent" states of character just as paintings can represent trees and houses. By representing a virtuous character, music can serve as a very powerful tool for moral instruction.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 12, 2010 Chris rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: greek-philosophy

This was my first political science book, and I was surprised to see it becoming a real page turner after the first two hundred pages. I had no idea how important the middle group of people are in a state. I don't know how much this corresponds to the present, but you hear on the news how the middle class is disappearing, the rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer, and now all of a sudden there is cause for alarm because Aristotle says this is how nations become unraveled!

The...more This was my first political science book, and I was surprised to see it becoming a real page turner after the first two hundred pages. I had no idea how important the middle group of people are in a state. I don't know how much this corresponds to the present, but you hear on the news how the middle class is disappearing, the rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer, and now all of a sudden there is cause for alarm because Aristotle says this is how nations become unraveled!

The entire time Aristotle was talking about the ideal state, I really got the feeling of where he considered himself in the hierarchy - as part of the elite. He talked about the polity but to me it felt like he was placating to the poor and middle class so as to maintain the current system, and not for the sake of it being the best state. A good example would be when he talked about farmers not having the time to work in government versus the rich who do, so the rich will rule and the poor and middle classes will be able to scrutinize without having the time or resources to get involved. It seems this is a more practical way to look at a society. We want to believe that we live in a place where everyone has a vote and we're all equal, but like Aristotle says, we're not equal. People with money and education are worth more to a state than a poor person with no education.

Well that's kind of depressing. Reading this book makes me want to hide in the comfort of eastern philosophy where we are all one, where the illusion of ego and status melt away and all we are left with is a single consciousness.

What else. There are a lot of subjects to tackle after reading this book, but I'll stop here. I admire what Aristotle was able to put together. On a separate note, in Plato's "Crito", Socrates provides his reasons for not fleeing Athens after the court decided to put him to death. I wonder what Aristotle's argument would have been (I want the 'sin against philosophy' argument flushed out) for running away. I don't know why, but at a basic level Socrates seems to have more virtue for staying and facing death.
(less)

like · see review

Sep 23, 2012 Jackie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I read immediately after completing Plato's Republic. The ideas expressed here were far more realistic than those of Socrates ideal state. However, I just could not,and will never be able to,reconcile myself to the idea of "natural slavery." If you can get past Aristotle"s views on slavery, there are some interesting facets to this work in stark contrast to Plato.

like · see review

Apr 04, 2012 Chris Gould rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you are a woman or a slave you are not going to enjoy this book! But as a blueprint for living one's life in moderation, it is a very desirable work. It inspired me to study Aristotle for my university dissertation, and to publish my findings under the ebook title: Aristotle: Politics, Ethics and Desirability.

like · see review

Apr 20, 2013 Bob rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

What should the role of government be and how should it be ordered. Some answers and a lot of questions that make great food for thought. Like his Ethics, this book should form part of our educational curriculum as far as I'm concerned.

like · see review

Sep 29, 2012 Joshua Guest rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

There, I did it. I decided to read it because I thought it might have applicable insight into politics in organizations on the same level of Art of War or The Prince. But no. But still, not bad, except for, you know, all the parts about the inferiority of women and slaves and the need to keep them in their place.

like · see review

Apr 21, 2011 Alexander rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Almost even worse than Plato in my opinion, but I might be biased since I did not read this book voluntarily - my studies required it. I think these Greek philosophers and their endless writings are just not my cup of tea somehow.

like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Very relavent for today	2	24	Jul 10, 2012 05:21am
Why it is populalar	1	17	Jun 10, 2012 12:37pm

title link	preview: The Politics
avg rating	preview: The Politics Goodreads rating: 3.84 (9807 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166305.The_Politics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1172346563l/166305.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166305.The_Politics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Politics by Aristotle[/url]

The Politics

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (163)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Aristotle

Books by Aristotle

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Politics

Quotes from The Politics of Aristotle