The Political Legacy of Aristotle

 by Ben Bradpiece

To further develop my understanding of political theory. I read the 8 Books of Politics By Aristotle - as it is understood to be the most advanced ancient documentation of Political Philosophy, authored by one of the Greatest Athenian philosophers and polymaths of all time. Throughout the books, I noted several points which I agreed with, intrigued me, and diametrically disagreed with. Several points which I initially hugely disagreed with, I began to understand and became less hostile towards, when considering the context of the documents. In book one, I find it interesting how he suggests that the feudal system is far less categorical and representative of success and wealth, but is merely a measure of how many people stand in the social rung below you. 

Initially, I was hesitant to commit to any other thought process apart from disagreement. However, upon further reading, where he describes in book 4 how the state doesn’t prioritise and adhere to a strict class system, as all branches (‘husbandmen’, mechanics, traders, serfs and warriors) are interdependent of each other, thereby creating a somewhat less “snobbish” society, but one that is genuinely appreciative of each entity within it, I began to understand his reasoning within the geo-political circumstances during which the books were written. 

However, other points the Polymath makes I believe hold large flaws and can be susceptible to modern criticism. First and foremost, I disagree with his statement that the state is a community built on benevolence and positivity that strives for humankind’s goodness.  Both ancient and modern states act, at times, extremely self-servingly, with his own ideas of tyranny governments proving this, describing how tyrants ‘lop off those too high’ to maintain personal, prolonged power. I disagree with his description of Humans in book 1 - he claims humans are unique for our ability of speech (true), but diverges to say that humans are more ‘political than bees or other gregarious animals’. It is true our ability of speech allows for greater global communication, and indeed contributes to an effective political society/process; but it is ignorant to simply ignore the politics of nature - with Bees similarly having a clear hierarchical structure of workers and the queen; with the queen being overthrown if they are unpopular with the workers. 

This allows us to draw links to similar anti-monarchical revolutionary movements such as in 1789 France or the 1917 Bolshevik uprising. Furthermore, I find it surprising that Aristotle defines a society where there are ‘rulers and ruled’, describing how slavery is natural and the ownership of slaves as property was a right of society -  an interesting statement from someone who also advocates the human pursuit of goodness and liberty. He continues by describing human’s inherent altruism and wanting to be social, citing the Lacedaemonians, who share slaves, as an example of this. I, however, don’t believe that one example of “kindness” can represent such a bold symbol of genetic benevolence, especially upon considering how the very notion of slavery is considered evil and corrupt in a modern society. I have found it a common theme for Aristotle to cite positivity with quotes and examples that are in fact extremely immoral and lack ingenuousness, describing how men should abstain from another man’s wife for temperance sake.

Furthermore, his implication that Power implies virtue is incorrect, they are not mutually exclusive, however, in a democracy, those in state positions of power should be selected due to virtuosity, but shouldn’t claim virtuosity simply because of their position. Despite the points cited above, it is important to note that this was authored in an ancient Athenian nation, in which, despite Aristotle’s revolutionary thinking, was still comparatively regressive than the society in which we inhabit nowadays. I agree heavily with his statement in book 2 that the people need the state more than the state needs the people, and that there are comparatively few positions where the state can take advantage of the people, therefore, giving birth to the idea of terms of offices. I agree with his statement in book 5 that royalty is preserved by its limitations of power, and that somewhat conservative ideologies of slow change, organic society and personal wealth aid to maintain their popularity, inconspicuousness and existence.

I agree with his statement that humans should be naturally participatory in political processes, and that this is a by-product of our genetic social culture and political-mindedness. However, many of his points relating to slavery, women and the nature of the state are controversial, despite considering their ancient provenance.