Difference Between Aristotles And Platos - Free Essay Example

One major difference between Aristotles and Platos idea of the state is that the former believes that all states are natural, whereas the latter only believes that a state is natural if it is just. In the case of Aristotle, he sees political association as deriving from crucial human relationships, namely the association of the family or household as well as that of the village, and says that political association is what completes the nature of man. These associations are natural because they fulfill the need for self-sufficiency, or as he says in Politics, there must necessarily be a union or pairing of those who cannot exist without one another (8). Two relationships form the household, that between men and women, and that between masters and slaves. Aristotle believes that men and women have a dependency on each other so that they can reproduce the human race, a natural impulse of animals to leave behind them something of the same nature as themselves (8). In the case of masters and slaves, they are thought to preserve each others common interest since everything created in nature has a single end and the natural purpose of masters is to rule, while the natural purpose of slaves is to be ruled. Because of this, the master has to be paired with the slave because if they were not paired together, they would end up doing tasks for which they are not suited, and thus would be disobeying the natural order. From these two relationships, the family or household is formed. Aristotle sees this association as natural because it is instituted for the satisfaction of daily recurrent needs (9). The village is then established from the family for a degree of self-sufficiency greater than that of daily recurrent needs and beyond the village there is political association, which is created from an amalgamation of villages. Aristotle sees political association as natural because it is the final and most perfect form of human association, reaching the height of full self-sufficiency and allowing humans to achieve the goal of their existence, the good life. Political association is the end toward which all other associations strive and Aristotle notes that the end for which things exist is what constitutes their nature. He states, what each thing is when its growth is completed we call the nature of that thing and then says, From these considerations it is evident that the city belongs to the class of things that exist by nature, and that man is by nature a polit ical animal (10). Every state exists by nature because it is the completion of the other associations, family and village, which are essential human groupings. For Plato, however, his ideal state is the only one that can be natural. This is because Platos ideal state involves every person doing the task that they are naturally suited to perform in order to ensure the greatest quality work. As Plato writes in Republic, each thing becomes more plentiful, finer, and easier, when one man, exempt from other tasks, does one thing according to nature (47). The goal of Platos ideal state is for the city as a whole to have a share of happiness, which is achieved through specialization of labor. Plato later concludes that this ideal state, with specialization that is based upon natural ability, is entirely good, saying, I suppose our city†if, that is, it has been correctly founded†is perfectly good (105). When the city is perfectly good, Plato says that it will necessarily contain the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. The class of rulers possess a kind of knowledge called wisdom. The guardians have courage, which Plato explains is the preservation of the opinion defined by law and education about what is and what is not to be feared. Moderation is present in every class of the city, and is defined as the consensus between rulers and subjects about who should rule. Justice is the presence and preservation of the other three virtues in the city. Plato says it provided the power by which all these others came into being (111). He explains justice as being each mans minding his own business in the city (111). In other words, justice is everyone doing the one job that they are naturally suited for and not meddling in the affairs of others. Establishing justice, then, would be to order the different classes of the city in natural relation to one another. If justice meant carrying out the natural order, this suggests that a state could only be natural if it were a just one. However, not every state is just, meaning that Platos ideal state is the only one that could be natural. If Plato shared Aristotles view that every state exists by nature, then his ideal state would be no more natural than any other. Also, if every state were natural, then that would also mean, according to Plato, that every state would be a just one, meaning that Platos ideal state would be no more of an ideal state than every other. Another important difference between Aristotles idea of a state and that of Plato is that Aristotle conceives of a state as being ruled by anyone who is a citizen, whereas Plato thinks that only philosopher-kings have the natural ability to rule a state. For Aristotle, man in general is destined for political association because he possesses the capability of language. While the sounds of animals only have the capacity to express pleasure and pain, Aristotle notes that humans have the capability to perceive through language what is good and evil, and what is just and unjust. This grasp of reason and language is what allows man to create households, villages, and finally, states. Since the state came into being because of language and rationality, which is a capability that only humans possess, every citizen, or member of a state, should be able to rule or have a share in the judgement of political affairs, as long as they have a grasp on rational thought. In fact, Aristotles very definition of a citizen is one who shares for any period of time in judicial and deliberative office (84). He also says that a good citizen has to possess the knowledge and capacity for ruling in addition to being ruled, stating, the excellence of a citizen may be defined as consisting in ?a knowledge of rule over free men from both points of view (94). It seems that as long as one has language and rationality, Aristotle believes that they are capable of participating in politics. Contrary to the idea that all citizens possess the capacity to rule, Platos idea about specialization of labor entails a specific set of requirements for a person who is naturally suited to be a ruler. The only type of person who is fit to rule in Platos ideal state is a philosopher king. As he writes, the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide (153). The philosopher must rule as king because a ruler must know what is best for the people of the ideal state. What is best is the aggregate happiness of the state, and the aggregate happiness of the state can only be attained through justice. Plato believes that the philosopher is the only kind of person who could possess knowledge of justice, because in order to know what justice is, one would have to be someone who loves learning, which is the very essence of the philosopher. Platos requirements for a person to be able to rule are certainly more particular than that of Aristotle. In his view, philosopher kings do not only need to have rational thought, but must have true knowledge as the goal of their inquiry. This is because true knowledge is infallible whereas mere opinion is fallible. It has the forms, or ideal, abstract versions of concepts which are eternal and non-material things. conclusions are reached through thought and understanding rather than belief and images. Further emphasizing how unnatural mans association is to politics, in Platos view, is the fact that once the philosop her has gained knowledge of the forms, he would not willingly want to rule the ignorant, trivial, material world.