Aristotelianism and Modern Society

Aristotle’s time on Earth brought about Aristotelianism, a system which expands and reexamines Plato’s basic views, and molds them to the modern (western) study of Aristotle and his theories, beliefs and teachings. Aristotle had a wide range of study, most of which could be speculated, that he based on “Teleology” or the “end” which is to reach all physical and mental ailments to have the ability to reason and contemplate. It seems Aristotle thoroughly believed he had reached his telos, because of his dedication and works based on the theories and studies of physics, metaphysics, biology, medicine, politics, and ethics.

Aristotle’s views of human nature are not hard to comprehend. Aristotle’s views could be taken as this: Every capable human (free Greek men) has the ability to reach telos, and have time to reason, in an abstract sense, theoretical reasoning. There are two forms of reason that can be achieved, one more easily than the other. The first is that of practical reason. This is a form of physics and science that helps attribute to abstract reason. Medicine, engineering, and mathematics are all examples of practical reason which are ways to solve practical or physical problems. The second form of reason is the contemplation of abstract truth, or theoretical reason. These can be taken as “What if,” “How”, and “Why.” This is recognized as the type of reasoning the gods do.

In order to reach theoretical reason, Aristotle believed you must have the physical and mental ability. One must rely on servants or slaves to help carry out mundane tasks, one must possess the mental capacity, and must have each of the following: Moderate wealth, time, community, family, friends etc. It becomes progressively harder to reach telos when one must use his time and money to conduct trivial actions and thoughts. If you possess these, you will have the time to reason, devotion of your time and lifestyle to abstract thought, a higher philosophy than that of others, and on the level of the gods.

Along with Aristotle’s steps to telos, he also believed that there are three main levels of the soul which must remain in check to reach telos (this coming from his teacher, Plato.) The lowest level being Appetite, or self-control (this being moderate food, drink, and shelter.) The second level is Spirit (passion and motivation) which keeps one from being impulsive or argumentative. The first and greatest is that of Reason. Reason rules all other classes of the soul, and one must use his ability to reason to keep other classes in check, or keep them moderated. When the balance of Appetite becomes un-moderated, the want for over indulgence and materialism rules the soul. If Spirit goes unchecked, pride and arrogance rules, resulting in rational reason to be lost, which makes it nearly impossible for one to reach telos if reason does not moderate the classes of the soul.

Aristotle’s theories of society linger of that of the individual. We rely on society to give the individual good character. Society allows the privileged individual to attain telos (the notion that you must rely on others, family, friends, servants.) Aristotle concluded that if society allowed for one to achieve telos, there must be “helpers” who also achieve their telos. Servants have attained their telos or “end” when they help a philosopher king, or other achieve their telos of reason. These under privileged helpers are the building blocks of society, which allow the individual to succeed, and in doing so, the helper has also succeeded.

In a society built on Aristotelian theories, there are several main points to be made. One in the political realm is that the system should function to not directly serve the individual, but rather the common good of all. Everyone has a set standard, that is, the citizen has a voice in political matters namely, full political rights, and the politician is that of a mediator between law and the decided output of the majority. The ruler is one who “creates” the constitution, that being, the way of life in the city-state (Aristotle refers to governments or political systems/constitutions as “cities,” we today however call it the “state.”) In this society, the ruler is responsible for the constitution, and without an ultimate power, order is lost. Once the community is established, its goal is to create a common good, and individuals will by nature vote on what is perceived to be in the said society good. After law is set, and the majority is satisfied, it is the duty of the city-state to provide a “good life” for the individual, that is, to not allow chaos or corruption (allow for a well ordered soul in every individual.) This society is not to be confused with the modern concept of communism, but rather arching towards democracy or perhaps a “Polity” in Greece, where the state must regulate national “welfare” of all (not in an economic sense, but rather security and lifestyle based.) The state is not to suppress its people, or make all people equal in a sense of wealth, but rather maintain the concept of common good, brought about by majority rule.

The second point is the majority rule. In a Polity, the citizens are gathered at political meetings. In a society such as this, suffrage is not enacted, thus women, children, aliens, slaves, and servants are not part of the majority, and are barred from influencing the city-state. The only majority were that of adult males. This raises the question of common good, which may be a critical problem of this society. If the majority of influence is enacted by a minority of citizens, is the common good for everyone, or only for the benefit of the politicians, and privileged? Is this a problem? If one were to analyze this in the sense of telos — this is not a problem — the aid of women as homemakers, city to give a good life, and surfs to do trivial tasks; the society may be well off with many philosopher kings. If one were to attack this scenario from the view of common good for all, this is a potentially fatal problem for the city-state, as not every individual gets the privilege of influence, in which the constitution may deteriorate. One possible solution to either is to create a set of standards or constitution that is seen in either light as acceptable.

The third and final point is that of the “end” of the constitution, how it is created, and what role the politicians play. As the “political animals” congregate and create their society (this, according to Aristotle will always happen with a congregation of people, because of the need for good) the ruler has the task of keeping order, that is, a set of political offices. Just as the ruler is top of the chain, the politician melds the majority decision, weights the outcome or “end” result, and enacts the law for the common good. Just as a craftsman takes a raw material and creates a final good, the politician takes influence or material and creates the result. The individual being the material of which all things are based.

The society just described may seem a lot like a democracy, but has some inconsistencies, as well as similarities. If we were to compare this society with the one of the modern day United States of America, one may be able to find these similarities and concepts intriguing, as well as outrageous.

On the topic of majority rule, this is usually the way modern democracy works. The individuals influence their representatives (ex: town meetings) just as in a Polity, who bring the topic to higher powers for a political voting process. All of this is “usually” done for the good of all, at least, the good of majority. It is sometimes true that laws may pass that benefit minority, and hurts the majority. This can usually be dismissed as the theory of a “good life,” being “take from the rich, give to the poor” in which the poor reap a benefit, and the rich may not be very happy with, but may not harm their quality of living. The similarities continue of the topic of a ruler, that being the equivalent to the President. The chain of command seems identical, even if there are more links in the chain in a state the size of ours. This again follows the aforementioned concept of craftsman and material.

As the similarities shine, so do the inconsistencies. Just as the majority is actually the minority in the described society, the majority in the modern state is the majority. Even if there was a time of no suffrages, in a political sense, we today allow women and servants to vote. The notion of not allowing women to vote may not have been so absurd in early history, but today is seen as improper. This broad category of individuals allows for a wider range of influence for nearly every individual in modern society. This in contrast to only males makes a significant difference in the outcome of law.

As the scope of political awareness rises in our country (from recent election to warfare) the individual continues to influence the “constitution.” As the wealth and quality of life grows because of input, perhaps Americans have lost the notion of the philosopher kings, and have shifted to leisure after their basic needs are met, and the government provides safety and happiness. This, perhaps, being the greatest pitfall of a “good life,” especially in a society of materialism, technology, and wealth. Americans, as well as other nations have lost the main focus of human nature, in the sense that we need to use our leisure to attain telos, and begin theoretical reason for the good of all.

As we fulfill our telos — perhaps many of us already have all prerequisites in order — we have the ability to view society and our human nature in a way we have never been able too. The problem is many choose not to execute the notion of theoretical reason. Perhaps the notion of “minority is majority” could work if the constitution was that of: philosopher kings figure out our existence, and problems of society and women and surfs contribute to the cause. Of course, no political system or constitution is without its flaws. Perhaps some have more flaws than others; even so, we should act in the common good, and figure out a way to life so we all can fulfill our telos, whether we are women, men, surfs or politicians.

References Cited:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ In-Depth look at the theories of Aristotle’s Political Works