1. 3 waves of Plato a. 1st wave : same education for men and women (Against Cephalus : "phusis" vs.

"ousia") b. 2nd wave : community of women and children (Against Polemarchus : "all in common" vs. "each one his due") c. 3rd wave : the philosopher-king

Rulers should be intelligent, with soul; no other criteria should be allowed to interfere (eg. sex, money, family, etc.). Rulers should live communally; they should hold no property and no family in private, though the larger population should have both families and property. Rulers, having to be intelligent, should be chosen on the basis of their expertise in philosophy, demonstrated through education; philosophers should rule, and rulers should be philosophers.

Back to the "three waves" : each one must be read at two levels, at the "political" level (the "obvious" or "first degree" meaning) and at the "inner" level of the soul (remember that the city is large letters for the soul). And if nobody has any problem "reading" the third wave, the one about the philosopher-king, as meaning that, at the level of the soul, the logos should be king, very little time has been spent trying to "decipher" the first two waves along the same lines. Yet, it can be done and it sheds new light on Plato's intent. In effect, each section developing the first two "waves" hold at its center the "key" for this task, a methodological subsection which gives the keyword of the whole section. For the first wave, this keyword is "phusis" (nature, see 453e-454e ), while for the second it is "koinnia" (community, see 464b ) ; and phusis is what most relates to the lower part of the soul while koinnia, harmony, getting along, is the key to the task expected from the middle part in managing the potential conflict between passions and reason. More precisely :

What is at stakes in the discussion about the common education of men and women, read at the "second degree", is the problem of man's nature : male stands for form and female for matter, the way it was supposed to be in that time in the generation process. And what Plato is telling us is that it is no use denying either the material or the "spiritual" side or our "nature", to try and limit man, and the whole of being, to more or less complex bundles of matter, or to attempt to raise him at the level of some kind of immaterial "form" separate from matter ; rather, man should first acknowledge his true nature, accept himself as he is, that is, as both a material and a spiritual being, both male and female, each side of his nature put in its proper place, and contributing its share in the development of his being. Then, the discussion on community of women and children, read at that same "second degree", has to do with activity : children stand for the "product" of the combined action of from and matter, that is, acts. And what we are told is that an individual is in trouble so long as he sees each of his acts as satisfying one part of his being against another ; rather he should tend to determine all his acts as coming from thewhole of himself, and act only in so far as each part finds something acceptable in his behavior (which doesn't mean that each part will find an equal satisfaction in all acts : eating is more of a satisfaction for the appetite than for the mind, but it is a "rational" thing to do so long as you are hungry and don't fall into gluttony). And now, we are ready to better understand the third wave. The domination of reason is not pure rationalism, technocracy or the like, but the mere acknowledgment that the upper part of our soul is the best fit to lead, not to

"overcome" the other two parts, not as a tyrant ignoring them, but as a true leader, acting for the better of the whole, mind and matter, body and soul, with the consent of the will. But then, why is it Plato disguised his thoughts in such a way as to make even the "first degree" reading almost untenable ? Why is it that he took the risk of being seen as a kind of Fascist or totalitarian communist ? We must first recognize that he was well aware of the risk : the whole business about the three waves, the remarks of Socrates at each new step, are ample proofs of it. This being said, the point is that, as always, Plato doesn't want to give us answers, but to make us think by ourselves, and find our own answers along the path he is leading us into : he is only trying to unlock our chains, and to lead us outside the cave, but we must stand, walk, climb and see by ourselves... And yet, even the "social" side of his three waves may be read, not at the grossly exaggerated level he is presenting them to force us to react and look deeper in the subject matter, but at a more palatable level which should not surprise us : aren't we nowadays stressing the fact that, if women are somewhat different from men, at least in their biological constitution, different doesn't mean inferior, and should not prevent them from engaging in most the same activities as men ? And is Plato saying anything different in the discussion of the first wave ? And haven't we been brought up with the idea that, even if all men aren't biological brethren, they should behave as if they were ?... 1. Platos Life Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.E.) developed such distinct areas of philosophy as epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics. His deep influence on Western philosophy is asserted in the famous remark of Alfred North Whitehead: the safest characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. He was also the prototypical political philosopher whose ideas had a profound impact on subsequent political theory. His greatest impact was Aristotle, but he influenced Western political thought in many ways. The Academy, the school he founded in 385 B.C.E., became the model for other schools of higher learning and later for European universities.The philosophy of Plato is marked by the usage of dialectic, a method of discussion involving ever more profound insights into the nature of reality, and by cognitive optimism, a belief in the capacity of the human mind to attain the truth and to use this truth for the rational and virtuous ordering of human affairs. Plato believes that conflicting interests of different parts of society can be harmonized. The best, rational and righteous, political order, which he proposes, leads to a harmonious unity of society and allows each of its parts to flourish, but not at the expense of others. The theoretical design and practical implementation of such order, he argues, are impossible without virtue.

Plato was born in Athens in c. 427 B.C.E. Until his mid-twenties, Athens was involved in a long and disastrous military conflict with Sparta, known as the Peloponnesian War. Coming from a distinguished family on his fathers side descending from Codrus, one of the early kings of Athens, and on his mothers side from Solon, the prominent reformer of the Athenian constitution he was naturally destined to take an active role in political life. But this never happened. Although cherishing the hope of assuming a significant place in his political community, he found himself continually thwarted. As he relates in his autobiographical Seventh Letter, he could not identify himself with any of the contending political parties or the succession of corrupt regimes, each of which brought Athens to further decline (324b-326a). He was a pupil of Socrates, whom he considered the most just man of his time, and who, although did not leave any writings behind, exerted a large influence on philosophy. It

was Socrates who, in Ciceros words, called down philosophy from the skies. The pre-Socratic philosophers were mostly interested in cosmology and ontology; Socrates concerns, in contrast, were almost exclusively moral and political issues. In 399 when a democratic court voted by a large majority of its five hundred and one jurors for Socrates execution on an unjust charge of impiety, Plato came to the conclusion that all existing governments were bad and almost beyond redemption. The human race will have no respite from evils until those who are really philosophers acquire political power or until, through some divine dispensation, those who rule and have political authority in the cities become real philosophers (326a-326b). It was perhaps because of this opinion that he retreated to his Academy and to Sicily for implementing his ideas. He visited Syracuse first in 387, then in 367, and again in 362-361, with the general purpose to moderate the Sicilian tyrants with philosophical education and to establish a model political rule. But this adventure with practical politics ended in failure, and Plato went back to Athens. His Academy, which provided a base for succeeding generations of Platonic philosophers until its final closure in C.E. 529, became the most famous teaching institution of the Hellenistic world. Mathematics, rhetoric, astronomy, dialectics, and other subjects, all seen as necessary for the education of philosophers and statesmen, were studied there. Some of Platos pupils later became leaders, mentors, and constitutional advisers in Greek city-states. His most renowned pupil was Aristotle. Plato died in c. 347 B.C.E. During his lifetime, Athens turned away from her military and imperial ambitions and became the intellectual center of Greece. She gave host to all the four major Greek philosophical schools founded in the course of the fourth century: Platos Academy, Aristotles Lyceum, and the Epicurean and Stoic schools a. Personal life and family Born 427 BCE in aristocratic family, suspicious of new Athenian democracy Never married or had children Served in the military in war of Athens against Sparta Had frustrated political ambitions (see Republic!) Died 347 BCE Student and friend of Socrates, who died when Plato was 31 Travelled widely to learn about the world and different societies Made political contacts in an attempt to realize political ideas Probably began writing dialogues at age 40 or 45 Founded probably just before 370, when Plato was in his mid-50s Based in Platos house, which was called "Academy" Academy closed by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE

b. Philosophical training

c. Platos Academy

Formal education for young men after their schooling in Athens Syllabus described in book 7 of the Republic; distinctively academic rather than oriented to professional careers (eg. in politics) Founding teachers included Theaetetus and Eudoxus Most famous graduate was Aristotle, who came at age 17 and stayed for many years, first as a student, and then as a teacher

1. Platos Ideal State and Divisions of State and Purpose of the State

The City-State

A Brief Summary of Plato's Ideal State The good life is possible only in and through society (State). Society is a natural institution. Man is essentially a social and political animal. The State exists for the sake of the good life. Now according to Plato, the aim of the good society is neither freedom, nor economic well-being. Rather, the aim of the good society is justice. A true State, therefore, must be conformed to justice (the Ideal of which exists in the World of Forms). And so the state does not decide what is just. Justice is an object of knowledge, that is, it is one of the forms. That is why the Statesman must be a Philosopher. If not, he will only lead the state downwards toward self-destruction. Justice in the state is analogous to justice in the individual, and the state must be structures after the pattern of justice in the individual. Now the soul has three parts, according to Plato:

Justice in the individual exists when the lower appetites are subject to governance of reason. This is the state of peace or pax (harmony), and peace in the city state is analogous to peace in the individual. Recall Socrates'self-rule. Freedom means knowing what we ought to do (wisdom), and having the ability to do what we ought to do. In other words, it is only when the appetites are subject to reason that I can do what I ought to do. The unjust man cannot control his anger, or moderate his passion for money, etc. So, for Plato, justice is a kind of order, a harmony between reason and the appetites. A just man will not allow his anger to move him to do something that is irrational. In this

way, only the just man is truly free. So too, only the state that is just is truly free. Thus, the just state looks like the following:

Points to Note

 Censorship is necessary in the context of education. For the good of the State, all poetry and drama that depicts the gods as indulging in gross immorality (violating oaths and treaties) will be censored. The notion of an absolute right to free artistic expression is, for Plato, absolute nonsense. Education: must be for everyone. Education in morality and philosophy is the most important (the true and the good). This will be most conducive to the good society. Private Property: Auxiliaries must possess no private property, but receive all necessities from their fellow citizens. They are never to handle gold and silver. If they are allowed to begin amassing property, they will very soon turn to tyrants. Community of Wives and children: In the two upper classes, there is to be no private ownership and no family life. Marriage relations of citizens of these classes should be under the control of the State. Family and private property are not to be abolished on the artisan level. Wisdom (Prudence): The wisdom of the State resides in the small class of rulers or Guardians. Fortitude (Courage): The courage of the State resides in the Auxiliaries. Temperance: The temperance of the State consists in the due subordination of the governed to the governing. Justice: The justice of the State involves the harmony of all the parts (classes). Everyone attends to his own business without interfering with anyone else's.
An individual person is just when all the elements of the soul (concupiscible appetite, irascible appetite, will, intellect) function properly in harmony and due subordination of the lower to the higher. So too, the State is just (a just society) when all the classes and individuals in them perform their due functions in the proper way.
1. Where does the state come from?
A political animal At this point another, and distinctively Aristotelian, principle comes into play: that the nature of something is best seen (not by analysis into elements, or by looking to its origins, but) by studying the mature and fully-developed specimen. To understand a thing's nature you do not look to its origin but to its full development. In nature the fully-developed instance is the goal or end toward which development takes place, so if you look to the end you can understand the earlier stages of development. If the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature... Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal [1252 b30-1253 a3]

A "political animal" means an animal whose nature is to live in a polis or city, not isolated or in small groups. "Civilization" (from Latin civitas, a city) is the natural state for the human animal. It is the natural state not in the sense that it is the original state, but in the sense that the natural goal of human development is life in cities. This is a rejection of the idea common at the time, and since, that civilization is artificial, conventional, unnatural. Aristotle would have agreed with the 18th century writer who said (I can't remember who it was!) that "it is natural to man to be artificial". (On the contrast between convention (law, nomos) and nature (physis) see Thucydides V.105, Readings, p. 40, and compare I.76, Readings, p. 11). In Aristotle's philosophy, "nature" (in Greek physis, from which we get "physics") -- nature is the principle of growth or development: a thing's nature is what makes it develop in a certain way, and development is for the sake of its goal. Aristotle's physics is said to be teleological, from the Greek word "telos", a goal or end: according to Aristotle every nature exists for some purpose. (However, he did not think that nature was designed by a mind; Aristotle did believe, for philosophical reasons, in a supreme being or god, but he believed that the world had existed eternally, that it was not created by God, that God was not the designer of things. Natural purposes are, so to speak, blind and unconscious, except in human beings.)

2.

Different Kinds of Constitution "Right" and Wrong" Constitutions Aristotle identified six different kinds of constitutions, and he classified them as either "right" or "wrong." According to Aristotle, "right" constitutions served the common interests of all citizens. "Wrong" constitutions served only the selfish interests of a certain person or group. On the chart below, the "wrong" constitutions are shown as corrupted forms of the right constitutions: Rulers One Few Many Right (Common Interest) Kingship Aristocracy Polity Wrong (Personal Interest) Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

Kingship, the first "right" constitution identified by Aristotle, is rule by a single man who becomes a ruler through heredity or election. Aristotle thought kings have the advantage of acting quickly and decisively in emergencies. Still, kings are subject to emotions and cannot handle all necessary matters at once. For these reasons, Aristotle argued, kings should not possess absolute power. They should be limited by the law. When kings rule, Aristotle says in the Politics, "they should be made 'law guardians' or ministers of the law." What happens when a king uses his power to benefit only himself and not the common interest? In this case a king becomes a tyrant. Tyranny, the corrupt form of kingship, is the first example of a "wrong" constitution. Tyrants use force to oppress all others and are interested only in their own personal gain. Aristotle classified aristocracy as one of his "right" constitutions. Aristocracies are societies governed by a small group of men chosen because they are the "best." In Aristotle's view, aristocrats are men of wealth and leisure who have developed their minds so that they have superior intellects. Aristotle believed that these men would only rule for the benefit of all. But when an aristocracy rules for the benefit of the rich, it becomes an oligarchy, another one of Aristotle's "wrong" constitutions. Oligarchies were one of the common forms of government found in the

Greek city-states. During his lifetime in Athens, Aristotle lectured and wrote on politics at his school. Even though Athens was a democratic city-state, Aristotle was never a fan of democracy and he included it as one of his "wrong" constitutions. Aristotle believed democracy meant that every free-born man had the right and duty to help rule the city. Thus, both rich and poor, educated and ignorant, intelligent and dull-witted could attend the Assembly meetings, vote and hold public office. Aristotle saw danger in this form of government. The poor majority would always be able to outvote the wealthy and the best. The poor could ruin a state by overtaxing the rich and confiscating their property. In other words, a democracy could easily become a tyranny with many heads. Aristotle also feared the rise of demagogues in a democracy. Demagogues are power-seekers who gained influence by appealing to the emotions of the people. Even with his reservations, Aristotle was not totally against democracy. "There is this to be said for the Many," he wrote in the Politics. "Each of them by himself may not be of a good quality; but when they all come together it is possible that they may surpass...the quality of the few best." The Best Constitution Aristotle found things to criticize about all the "right" and "wrong" constitutions discussed above. So what did he decide was the best constitution? He decided on a balanced one based on the Greek principle that the extremes in life should be avoided in favor of the moderate middle. One should neither eat too much nor too little. One should neither exercise excessively nor spend most of the time sleeping. As in life, so with government, Aristotle believed. Aristotle concluded that mixing two extreme "wrong" constitutions, oligarchy and democracy, would result in a moderate "right" one. In this case, two "wrongs" would make a "right." Aristotle called this moderate mixed constitution a polity and believed that it would best serve the common interest of all citizens in most states. At Philadelphia some 2,000 years after Aristotle's time, a group of men were also searching for the best constitution. America was in many ways quite different from Aristotle's Greece. For one thing, the 13 American states were a lot bigger than Athens or any of the other ancient Greek city-states. Still, the framers at Philadelphia understood Aristotle's political ideas and passed them on to us in the document they created. Among these ideas are the belief in the rule of law, moderation and a government that serves the common interest of all citizens.

3. Peloponessian War

Peloponnesian War: name of the conflict between Athens and Sparta that broke out in 431 and continued, with an interruption, until 404. Athens was forced to dismantle its

empire. The war however, was not decisive, because within a decade, the defeated city had regained its strength. The significance of the conflict is that the divided Greeks could not prevent the Persian Empire from recovering their Asian possessions. Besides, this violent quarter of a century had important social, economic, and cultural consequences. 6.1: Causes When Athens concluded an alliance with Corcyra (modern Corfu) in 433, and started to besiege Potidaea, it threatened the position of Corinth. Sparta also feared that Athens was becoming too powerful but tried to prevent war. Peace was possible, the Spartans said, when Athens would revokedmeasures against Sparta's ally Megara. The Athenian leader Pericles refused this, because Sparta and Athens had once agreed that conflicts would be solved by arbitration. If the Athenians would yield to Sparta's request, they would in fact accept Spartan orders. This was unacceptable, and war broke out: Athens and its Delian League were attacked by Sparta and itsPeloponnesian League. Diodorus mentions that the Spartans did not just declare war, but decided to declare war and ask for help in Persia (World History, 12.41.1 ).
3: Consequences i. In Athens, the democratic system survived. Even without the income generated by the empire, democracy proved to be a well-functioning political system.

ii. This can partly be explained from the fact that during the war, the economy of Athens changed. Once, most Athenians had been peasants; after the outbreak of the Decelean War, trade and commerce became increasingly important. These activities were almost as profitable as the old empire. iii. Thebes increased in strength and became a major power. Sparta, on the other hand, only temporarily benefited from its victory. Its social structure was unsuited for a world larger than the Peloponnese. In the fifth century, Greece had been a bipolar political system, but changed into a multipolar system. iv. The great victor was, of course, Persia. Not only did it regain the Greek towns in Asia, but it was to have great diplomatic influence among the "Yaun".

v. Many people had been exiled and had become mercenaries to make a living. Others had become professional soldiers because they could no longer return to their farms. Warfare became a specialism. 1. Life of Aristotle

Historical background
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was born in Macedonia. At age 18 he went to Athens and joined Plato's Academy, where he remained for twenty years; his works are full of echoes of Plato. Later he founded his own school, the Lyceum. Socrates never had a school; he philosophised informally, in conversation. Plato's academy was at first probably something like a club, but it developed into a large educational institution like a university. Aristotle's school, the Lyceum, had hundreds or (according to some accounts) thousands of students. Philosophical education became a large industry in Athens, attracting students from all over the Mediterranean. Open volume 3,Supplementary Readings, at p. 110, and you will see a drawing of ancient Athens in Hellenistic times (i.e. after Aristotle's time), showing the location of the philosophical schools, and on p. 77 you will find a lecture on Hellenistic Philosophy. We imagine that in the Academy Plato gave lectures or talks or seminars or held conversations, but we have no record of what he said. He did not write it down. In fact, as he explains in Letter VII 341c, he did not think that philosophy could be learned from writings, but only in conversation: "after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another". Aristotle in some of his writings reports and criticises theories and arguments he ascribes to Plato that are not found in Plato's dialogues, and it is assumed that these were things Aristotle heard Plato say while he was a member of the Academy. In one place Aristotle uses the word "we" to refer to himself and the other members of Plato's school, though even there he is rejecting Plato's key doctrine: "Further, of the ways in which we prove that the Forms exist, none is convincing..." (Metaphysics, I.9). We suppose that in the Lyceum Aristotle gave lectures, and the surviving works of Aristotle seem to be based in some way on such lectures. They do not seem to be works addressed to the general public: they are very concise, often cryptic. Presumably Aristotle elaborated on them in some way when they were used in his school. Perhaps he agreed

with Plato that philosophy had to be learnt in live conversation, and perhaps these writings were used as a basis for discussion in the school. (Here is a new word: "aporetic", meaning making it seem that there is no way out of a problem -- as a prelude of course to showing a way out.) Many passages in Aristotle's works are "aporetic" or "dialectical", i.e. an exploration of a question by examining plausible arguments on both sides without trying to settle the question definitively; such passages perform the same function as Plato's Socratic dialogues, though they are not dialogues in form. But like Plato, Aristotle also wrote dialogues, addressed to the general public. In ancient times literary people like Cicero praised Aristotle's dialogues highly, but curiously they were allowed to perish; they survive only in fragments quoted by other authors. So while Plato wrote only dialogues, Aristotle wrote both dialogues and works for use in his school, and only the latter have survived intact. However, Aristotle's school writings show signs of having been edited by someone other than Aristotle himself. It seems that after his death, or even in his lifetime, some of his colleagues in the school gathered together many shorter writings, some of them fragmentary, only drafts, and cobbled them together into long treatises. Aristotle himself might have begun to do this, but the activity of some other editor is suggested by the fact that fairly often the one work contains two or more different treatments of the same topic: presumably Aristotle would have thrown one of them away or amalgamated them if he had edited his own work, whereas someone else might have been reluctant to throw away or rewrite something Aristotle had written. So Aristotle's books are not easy to read. At first they seem highly organised and comprehensive treatises, but when you read them you often find that the plan announced at the beginning is not actually carried out, that there are overlaps and gaps, and so on. The book we will look at, the Politics, is in eight books. Some scholars (see W.D. Ross, Aristotle, p. 235) suggest that the work would have been better organised if books VII and VIII came before book IV and book VI before book V. Books I and II are a unit. Book III seems like a new beginning of a complete treatise on politics; so do Books IV and VII. The beginnings of these books are not included in the Readings, but if you have access to a complete copy of the Politics read book III chapter 1, book IV chapter 1, and book VII chapter I, and you will see what I mean: each makes no reference to any earlier part of the book, each reads like the beginning of a complete investigation (see for example [1290 a13-29], which gives the program of the investigation). It would be a good idea to look at the beginning and the last paragraph of each of the eight books. Even within the more or less coherent parts of the work there are signs that it has been put together so to speak with scissors and sticky tape. I don't say this to discourage you from reading it. In fact a less polished work is often more thought provoking than one in which the author has tied up all the loose ends.
2. Good Citizen and Good man

Book III is ultimately concerned with the nature of different constitutions, but in order to understand cities and the constitutions on which they are founded, Aristotle begins with an inquiry into the nature of citizenship. It is not enough to say a citizen is someone who lives in the city or has access to the courts of law, since these rights are open to resident aliens and even slaves. Rather, Aristotle suggests that a citizen is someone who shares in the administration of justice and the holding of public office. Aristotle then broadens this definition, which is limited to individuals in democracies, by stating that a citizen is anyone who is entitled to share in deliberative or judicial office. Aristotle points out that though citizenship is often reserved for those who are born to citizen parents, this hereditary status becomes irrelevant in times of revolution or constitutional change, during which the body of citizens alters. This raises the question: to whom may citizenship be justly granted, and can the city be held accountable for decisions made by governing individuals if these individuals have not been justly granted citizenship? Further, if the city is not identical to its government, what defines a city, and at what point does a city lose its identity? Aristotle suggests that a city is defined by its constitution, so that a change in constitution signifies a change in the city. He does not, however, resolve the question of whether a city should honor debts and obligations made under a previous constitution. Aristotle next compares the criteria for being a good citizen and those for being a good man. One is a good citizen to the extent to which one upholds and honors the constitution. Because there are different kinds of constitutions there are also different kinds of good citizens. Perfect virtue, however, is the only standard for being a good man, so it is possible to be a good citizen without being a good man. Aristotle suggests that a good ruler who possesses practical wisdom can be both a good citizen and a good man. There is the further question of whether manual laborers can be citizens. Aristotle acknowledges that they are necessary to a city but states that not everyone who is necessary to the city can be a citizen: good citizenship requires that the citizen be free from the necessary tasks of life. Still, in oligarchies, in which citizenship is determined by wealth, a rich manual laborer may qualify for citizenship. Next, Aristotle details the different kinds of constitutions that exist. There are just constitutions geared toward bringing about well-being for all of their respective citizens, and unjust constitutions geared toward the benefit of those in power. Constitutions vary also in the size of the governing body: a single person; a small, elite group; or the masses. Thus, there are six kinds of government: three just and three unjust. Just government by a single person is kingship, by a small group is aristocracy, and by the masses ispoliteia, or constitutional government, participation in which is reserved for those who possess arms. The three forms of unjust government are perversions of the corresponding forms of just government: a kingship directed toward the sole interest of the ruler is a tyranny; an aristocracy directed toward the sole interest of the wealthy is an oligarchy; and a constitutional government directed toward the sole interest of the poor is a democracy.

Aristotle suggests two entirely different definitions of the good citizen. In his more popular Constitution of Athens he suggests that the good citizen is a man who serves his country well, without any regard to the difference of regimes who serves his country well in fundamental indifference to the change of regimes. The good citizen, in a word, is the patriotic citizen, the man whose loyalty belongs first and last to his fatherland. In his less popular Politics, Aristotle says that there is not the good citizen without qualification. For

what it means to be a good citizen depends entirely on the regime. A good citizen in Hitlers Germany would be a bad citizen elsewhere. But wheras good citizen is relative to the regime, good man does not have such relativity. The meaning of good man is always and everwhere the same. The good man is identical with the good citizen only in one case the case of the best regime. For only in the best regime is the good of the regime and the good of the good man identical that goal being virtue. This amounts to saying that in his Politics, Aristotle questions the proposition that patriotism is enough. From the point of view of the patriot, the fatherland is more important than any difference of regime. From the point of view of the patriot, he who prefers any regime to the fatherland is a partisan, if not a traitor. Aristotle says in effect that the partisan sees deeper than the patriot, but that only one kind of partisan is superior to the patriot; this is the partisan of virtue. One can express Aristotles thought as follows: patriotism is not enough for the same reason that the most doting mother is happier if her child is good than if he is bad. A mother loves her child because he is her own; she loves what is her own. But she also loves the good. All human love is subject to the law that it be both love of ones own and love of the good, and there is necessarily a tension between love of ones own and the good, a tension which may well lead to a break, be it only the breaking of a heart.

3.

Historical Background Socrates

From the ranks of the Sophists came SOCRATES (c.469-399 B.C.), perhaps the most noble and wisest Athenian to have ever lived. He was born sometime in 469, we don't know for sure. What we do know is that his father was Sophroniscus, a stone cutter, and his mother, Phaenarete, was a midwife. Sophroniscus was a close friend of the son of Aristides the Just (c.550-468 B.C.), and the young Socrates was familiar with members of the circle of Pericles. In his youth he fought as a hoplite at Potidaea (432-429), Delium (424) and Amphipolis (422) during the Peloponnesian Wars. To be sure, his later absorption in philosophy made him neglect his private affairs and he eventually fell to a level of comparative poverty. He was perhaps more in love with the study of philosophy than with his family -- that his wife Xanthippe was shrew is a later tale. In Plato's dialogue, the Crito, we meet a Socrates concerned with the future of his three sons. Just the same, his entire life was subordinated to "the supreme art of philosophy." He was a good citizen but held political office only once he was elected to the Council of Five Hundred in 406 B.C. In Plato's Apology, Socrates remarks that: The true champion if justice, if he intends to survive even for a short time, must necessarily confine himself to private life and leave politics alone. What we can be sure about Socrates was that he was remarkable for living the life he preached. Taking no fees, Socrates started and dominated an argument wherever the young and intelligent would listen, and people asked his advice on matters of practical conduct and educational problems.

Socrates was not an attractive man -- he was snub-nosed, prematurely bald, and overweight. But, he was strong in body and the intellectual master of every one with whom he came into contact. The Athenian youth flocked to his side as he walked the paths of the agora. They clung to his every word and gesture. He was not a Sophist himself, but a philosopher, a lover of wisdom. In 399 B.C., Socrates was charged with impiety by a jury of five hundred of his fellow citizens. His most famous student, Plato, tells us, that he was charged "as an evil-doer and curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heavens; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others." He was convicted to death by a margin of six votes. Oddly enough, the jury offered Socrates the chance to pay a small fine for his impiety. He rejected it. He also rejected the pleas of Plato and other students who had a boat waiting for him at Piraeus that would take him to freedom. But Socrates refused to break the law. What kind of citizen would he be if he refused to accept the judgment of the jury? No citizen at all. He spent his last days with his friends before he drank the fatal dose of hemlock. The charge made against Socrates -- disbelief in the state's gods -- implied un-Athenian activities which would corrupt the young and the state if preached publicly. Meletus, the citizen who brought the indictment, sought precedents in the impiety trials of Pericles' friends. Although Socrates was neither a heretic nor an agnostic, there was prejudice against him. He also managed to provoke hostility. For instance, the Delphic oracle is said to have told Chaerephon that no man was wiser than Socrates. During his trial Socrates had the audacity to use this as a justification of his examination of the conduct of all Athenians, claiming that in exposing their falsehoods, he had proved the god right -- he at least knew that he knew nothing. Although this episode smacks of Socrates' wellknown irony, he clearly did believe that his mission was divinely inspired. Socrates has been described as a gadfly -- a first-class pain. The reason why this charge is somewhat justified is that he challenged his students to think for themselves to use their minds to answer questions. He did not reveal answers. He did not reveal truth. Many of his questions were, on the surface, quite simple: what is courage? what is virtue? what is duty? But what Socrates discovered, and what he taught his students to discover, was that most people could not answer these fundamental questions to his satisfaction, yet all of them claimed to be courageous, virtuous and dutiful. So, what Socrates knew, was that he knew nothing, upon this sole fact lay the source of his wisdom. Socrates was not necessarily an intelligent man but he was a wise man. And there is a difference between the two.

4. Middle class Aristotle

In the case of politics, the middle class is the mean between the rich and the poor. In a city that consists only of rich and poor, the rich will feel contempt for the poor and the poor will feel hatred and envy for the rich. The spirit of friendship that is so essential to a healthy city is made possible only by a strong middle class that holds no grudges and is not prone to factionalism. Aristotle laments, however, that a strong middle class rarely develops: it is possible neither in small cities, nor in the superpowers of Athens and Sparta, which have encouraged democracy and oligarchy respectively.

5. Purpose of society Aristotle

Aristotle shows us the differences in the forms of government and tells us which ones are the "correct" forms. Aristotle states that the "correct" form of government is the government that serves "the common good" according to the principles of justice ahead of the ruler. "It is clear then both the best partnership in a state is the one which operates through the middle people, and also that those states in which the middle element is large, and stronger if possible than the other two together, or at any rate stronger than either of them alone, have every chance of having a well-run constitution." This means that the state should operate through the people in the middle class, not the poor, or the very rich. Aristotle maintains, "A state's purpose is not merely to provide a living but to make a life that is good"; otherwise, he comments. "it might be made up of slaves or animals other than man," which is absurd since they lack sufficient deliberative intellect and free choice. A state is "an association" based on civic friendship, designed to promote "noble actions" and "living happily."

6.

Origin of State Aristotle sees the origin of the state differently from Plato, stating explicitly that a State is not a sharing of a locality for the purpose of preventing mutual harm and promoting trade. True to his being a keen biologist first, a metaphysician second, he believed the state should be understood as an organism with a purpose, in this case, to promote happiness, or eudaimonia. Of course, this is only a particular type of happiness, quintessentially that of philosophical contemplation, that the Greeks - or at least the philosophers! - valued most. But in this basic assumption, Aristotles theory of human society is actually fundamentally different from Socrates and Platos. For Aristotle, society is a means to ensure that the social nature of people - in forming families, in forming friendships and equally in trying to rule and control others, is channelled away from the negative attributes of human beings - greed and cruelty - towards the positive aspects love of truth and knowledge - those of what he classed misleadingly as the rational animal. Misleading, because, after all, any animal is rational to the extent that it takes decisions to obtain food or to preserve its life. (The Chinese sages instead defined humans as moral animals.) Certainly, rationality pursued as a philosophical venture remained only available to an aristocratic leisured few.

7.

School from Plato

Peripatetic school
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aristotle's School, a painting from the 1880s by Gustav Adolph Spangenberg

Part of a series on

Aristotelianism

Aristotelianism[show]

Corpus Aristotelicum[show]

Ideas[show]

Influences and followers[show]

Related[show]

Philosophy portal

vde

The Peripatetics were members of a school of philosophy in ancient Greece. Their teachings derived from their founder, the Greek philosopher,Aristotle, and Peripatetic is a name given to his followers. The school originally derived its name Peripatos from the peripatoi ("colonnades") of the Lyceum gymnasium in Athens where the members met. A similar Greek word peripatetikos (Greek: ) refers to the act of walking, and as an adjective, "peripatetic" is often used to mean itinerant, wandering, meandering, or walking about. After Aristotle's death, a legend arose that he was a "peripatetic" lecturer -- that he walked about as he taught -- and the designation Peripatetikoscame to replace the original Peripatos. The school dates from around 335 BC when Aristotle began teaching in the Lyceum. It was an informal institution whose members conducted philosophical and scientific inquiries. Aristotle's successors Theophrastus and Strato continued the tradition of exploring philosophical and scientific theories, but after the middle of the 3rd century BC, the school fell into a decline, and it was not until the Roman era that there was a revival. Later members of the school concentrated on preserving and commentating on Aristotle's works rather than extending them, and the school eventually died out in the 3rd century AD.

Although the school died out, the study of Aristotle's works continued by scholars who were called Peripatetics through Later Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. After the fall of the Roman empire, the works of the Peripatetic school were lost to the west, but in the east they were incorporated into early Islamic philosophy, which would play a large part in the revival of Aristotle's doctrines in Europe in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

8. School from Socrates

Socrates- It is unclear how Socrates earned a living. Ancient texts seem to indicate that Socrates did not work. In Xenophon's Symposium, Socrates is reported as saying he devotes himself only to what he regards as the most important art or occupation: discussing philosophy. In The Clouds Aristophanes portrays Socrates as accepting payment for teaching and running a sophist school with Chaerephon, while in Plato's Apology and Symposium and in Xenophon's accounts, Socrates explicitly denies accepting payment for teaching. More specifically, in the Apology Socrates cites his poverty as proof he is not a teacher. According to Timon of Phlius and later sources, Socrates took over the profession of stonemasonry from his father. There was a tradition in antiquity, not credited by modern scholarship, that Socrates crafted the statues of the Three Graces, which stood near the Acropolis until the 2nd century AD.[12]

9. School from Aristotle

he Peripatetics were members of a school of philosophy in ancient Greece. Their teachings derived from their founder, the Greek philosopher,Aristotle, and Peripatetic is a name given to his followers. The school originally derived its name Peripatos from the peripatoi ("colonnades") of the Lyceum gymnasium in Athens where the members met. A similar Greek word peripatetikos (Greek: ) refers to the act of walking, and as an adjective, "peripatetic" is often used to mean itinerant, wandering, meandering, or walking about. After Aristotle's death, a legend arose that he was a "peripatetic" lecturer -- that he walked about as he taught -and the designation Peripatetikoscame to replace the original Peripatos. The school dates from around 335 BC when Aristotle began teaching in the Lyceum. It was an informal institution whose members conducted philosophical and scientific inquiries. Aristotle's successors Theophrastus and Strato continued the tradition of exploring philosophical and scientific theories, but after the middle of the 3rd century BC, the school fell into a decline, and it was not until the Roman era that there was a revival. Later members of the school concentrated on preserving and commentating on Aristotle's works rather than extending them, and the school eventually died out in the 3rd century AD. Although the school died out, the study of Aristotle's works continued by scholars who were called Peripatetics through Later Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. After the fall of the Roman empire, the works of the Peripatetic school were lost to the west, but in the east they were

incorporated into early Islamic philosophy, which would play a large part in the revival of Aristotle's doctrines in Europe in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

10.Where does the state come from Aristotle defends three claims about nature and the city-state: First, the city-state exists by nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitive natural associations and it serves as their end, because it alone attains self-sufficiency (1252b30-1253a1). Second, human beings are by nature political animals, because nature, which does nothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral concepts such as justice which are formative of the household and city-state (1253a1-18). Third, the city-state is naturally prior to the individuals, because individuals cannot perform their natural functions apart from the city-state, since they are not self-sufficient (1253a18-29). These three claims are conjoined, however, with a fourth: the city-state is a creation of human intelligence. Therefore, everyone naturally has the impulse for such a [political] community, but the person who first established [it] is the cause of very great benefits. This great benefactor is evidently the lawgiver (nomothets), for the legal system of the city-state makes human beings just and virtuous and lifts them from the savagery and bestiality in which they would otherwise languish (1253a2939). Aristotle's political naturalism presents the difficulty that he does not explain how he is using the term nature (phusis). In the Physics nature is understood as an internal principle of motion or rest (see III.1.192b815). (For discussion of nature see Aristotle's Physics.) If the city-state were natural in this sense, it would resemble a plant or an animal which grows naturally to maturity out of a seed. However, this cannot be reconciled with the important role which Aristotle also assigns to the lawgiver as the one who established the city-state. For on Aristotle's theory a thing either exists by nature or by craft; it cannot do both. (This difficulty is posed by David Keyt.) Aristotle can seemingly escape this dilemma only if it is supposed that he speaks of the city-state as natural in another sense of the term. For example, he might mean that it is natural in the extended sense that it arises from human natural inclinations (to live in communities) for the sake of human natural ends, but that it remains unfinished until a lawgiver provides it with a constitution. (This solution was proposed by Ernest Barker and is defended more recently by Fred Miller and Trevor Saunders.)