Plato versus Aristotle

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar vie
ws on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrate
d by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), wh
ere Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing
down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, th
e stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coinci
dental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess kno
wledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest
in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the
similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Becaus
e he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical a
s opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the
art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outlin
e a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main
word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to
creating a stable government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes
Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.
Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct re
sult of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basically states
that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in the world. Each ma
terial thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form. Ac
cording to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their represen
tation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave. Only those who love know
ledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve understanding of the
forms. Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only bein
gs who can reach true knowledge. This concept has to be taken a step further be
cause in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since
they are the only ones who hold the form of the good. Plato seems to be saying
that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the g
reatest form--form of the good--in order to rule. The reasoning is: if you know
the good, then you will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far
the most apt to rule.
In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers. Ev
en though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his discus
sion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, 'Why do you need ideal st
ates which will have philosophers as rulers?' There are many layers to the answ
er of this question. The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal without ha
ving philosophers as rulers. This answer leads to the question, 'Then why do yo
u need ideal states to begin with?' The Republic starts with a discussion of Ju
stice which leads to the creation of the ideal state. The reason why an ideal s
tate is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice. This does not mean, th
ough, that there cannot be states without Justice. Actually, Plato provides at
least two reasons why the formation of a state cannot be avoided. These are: 1
. human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environm
ent, and 2. each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should c
oncentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp 56-62). Although a person is not
self-sufficient, a composition of people--a state--satisfies the needs of all it
s members. Furthermore, members can specialize on their natural fortitudes and
become more productive members of society.
States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally. For t
his reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state. T
he main way to institutionalize rules is through government and in the form of l
aws. Plato's The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people. It is a
separation of power amongst three classes--Rulers, Auxiliaries, Commoners--that
makes the most of each person's natural abilities and strives for the good of th
e community. The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the three classe
s which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently, each i
ndividual.
The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain
tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political roles to dif
ferent members of each class. It appears that the only classes that are allowed
to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosophe
r Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because they are not men
tally able. In other words, they do not understand the concept of the forms. T
hus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead
them. Providing food and abode for the Guardians is the only governmental resp
onsibility the lower class has. The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military,
police, and executive duties. Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philos
opher Rulers whose actions are all intended for the good of the state. To ensur
e that public good continues to be foremost on each Ruler's agenda, the Rulers l
ive in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own private
property. The separation of classes is understood by everybody Self-interest, w
hich could be a negative factor in the scheme of things, is eliminated through a
very moral oriented education system. All these provisions are generated to ma
intain unity of the state. The most extravagant precaution that Plato takes is
the Foundation Myth of the metals. By making the people believe, through a myth
, that the distinction of each class is biological as well as moral, Plato reass
ures that there won't be any disruption in the harmony of the state.
Whereas Plato's The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice a
nd in doing so uses the polis, Aristotle's The Politics's sole function is to de
fine itself--define politics. Aristotle begins his text by answering the questi
on: "Why does the state exist?" His answer is that the state is the culmination
of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman ("pair"),
which have a family and form a "household"; households unite and form villages;
villages unite and form the state. This natural order of events is what is best
because it provides for the needs of all the individuals. Aristotle, like Plat
o, believes that a person is not self-reliant. This lack of sufficiency is the
catalyst in the escalating order of unions among people.
In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on breaking d
own society. His argument says that there are different classes in society, but
they are naturally defined. For example, he devotes a lot of time to an explan
ation of the "naturalness" of slaves and their role in society. Aristotle is al
so very sexist and explicitly states so. His view is that women are inferior to
men in all senses. Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citize
n, whose role is purely political. Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that
some people are not capable of practicing an active role in political life. Pla
to's reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the intricacies of
higher knowledge on the good. Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more po
litical issue. He believes that only those that fully participate in their gove
rnment should be considered citizens of the state. For this reason, he excludes
workers as citizens because they would not have the required time to openly par
ticipate in politicking.
The Aristotelian polis, as opposed to Plato's, is a city with a large mi
ddle class which promotes stability and balances the conflicting claims of the p
oor and the rich. Aristotle combines elements of democracy with elements of ari
stocracy, again to balance opposing claims. Because he is aware that human inte
rest is an inextricable entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods i
s in proportion to contribution to the good of the polis. This system provides
for the self interested who believe that those who work harder should receive mo
re. Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as
the mixed social system allows. This is permissible because of the strong invol
vement of the citizens in government; it is what one would call a "true democrac
y." Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails.
The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixtee
n centuries, yet today it is difficult to find specific instances where either p
hilosophy is applied. This may be a result of the fact that today's political p
hilosophy differs from both philosopher's. While Aristotle and Plato uphold the
good of the community or state above individual good, today's constitution incl
udes a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of each individual in the natio
n. Having these individual rights is a necessity for today's citizens. Going b
ack in history to 1787 will show that one of the reasons there was controversy i
n the ratification of the constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rig
hts. When the drafters promised that as soon as the constitution was ratified,
a Bill of Rights would be added, the doubting states proceeded to ratify it. Ac
cording to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it doe
s not improve the good of the community.
Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and today's societ
y involves the topic of slavery. Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slaver
y in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered grotesque for quite some time
. In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female population
by Aristotle. Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes wom
en are the sub-species. While women have had to fight endless battles to achiev
e the recognition they deserve, today it is a well accepted fact (generally) tha
t women are as capable as men in performing tasks.
Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long ti
me, our society certainly contains some of their influences in a general sense.
For example, today it is believed that certain people are born with certain cap
acities. Intelligence has been attributed to genetics. Because of the differen
t intelligence levels among people, we have different classes--for example: adva
nced, intermediate, and beginners. In their appropriate level, each person deve
lops his or her abilities to the highest potential. This concept is sometimes a
t odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human beings. Yet, in essence
, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ
in certain capacity levels to complete tasks.
Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy have helped shape present thought, th
ough, by no means, mandate our practices. The philosophers are very community o
riented while we value the individual. Besides differing with today's standards
, each philosopher is in his own way distinct. Plato is very attracted to metap
hysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical. Both perspective v
iews are and will continue to puzzle students for years to come.