The Politics of Philosophy: A Commentary on Aristotle's Politics

by Michael Davis

In the most original interpretation of Aristotle's Politics in years, Michael Davis delivers many memorable and provocative formulations of Aristotle's messages concerning the constitutive tensions of political life. He traces the uncanny parallel between politics and philosophy in Aristotle, arguing that their connection is much deeper than it is ordinarily understood to be and that, for Aristotle, understanding either requires understanding the other. Davis presents his interpretation with a striking clarity and accessibility that makes the book a pleasure to read.

Genres: Philosophy

176 pages, Hardcover

First published January 28, 1996

About the author

Michael Peter Davis is an American philosopher and educator.

Reviews

[Donald Trump · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is very unlike ordinary interpretation of Aristotle's Politics (such as Barker's interpretation). Davis's starting point is the Straussian tension between philosophy and politics, and he argues that Aristotle's task is to find a way out of the tension. This insight is good. Davis also offers some interestings interpretative insights in the book. For example, his connection of the discussion on the revolution in book 5 to Plato's Symposium. But this book has some fatal setbacks. First, Davis goes too far from the ordinary interpretation of the book and avoids many essential points. Perhaps Davis assumes that you have already known the ordinary interpretation, which means this book is not for first time readers or students at all. Second, Davis never explains clearly what the Straussian tension means and what Aristotle's solution is. In other words, this book is written without a clear question and conclusion. Third, many interpretations are artificial, even gratuitous. For example, Davis in chapter 1 argues that philosophy leads to intellectual inequality, which further leads to inhumanity. This is a good point for sure, but his argument is that Aristotle implicitly denotes cannibalism in book 1. This is very artificial, since Aristotle did not say cannibalism at all. In conclusion: I don't recommend this book to any student or first time reader; if you are an expert in Aristotle's Politics, want to try some unconventional interpretation, and have some leisure time, this book is not a bad choice.

[Haoyang Zhang · Rating 5 out of 5]

One way you can read Aristotle’s Politics as the theoretical reflection on Plato’s Republic. Davis’ interpretations particularly show this great tie. Very insightful and beautifully written.

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times Davis's interpretation is strained, but I think a reader can learn far more about a book -- about the way its parts and ideas and arguments fit together and relate to other matters -- through a commentary that gives a particular spin to a book than one that plays things out in a careful and plodding matter. Davis's commentary, in particular, has two virtues: (1) it is highly attentive to the semantic and philosophical "resonance" of what Aristotle says (the various range of suggestions and possibilities and even innuendos arranged around words, phrases, repetitions, etc.) and (2) it treats Aristotle like a real interlocutor, a real person, rather than as a name conveniently attached to a bag of doctrines, arguments, and ideas. I found the book very stimulating and rewarding and excellent at getting me to read the Politics in a fresh way that doesn't presuppose "what we all know about Aristotle." Recommended for anyone who has already spent some time with the Politics and is looking for an invigorating conversation partner.