Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
History and Evolution:
By William E. Steinman:
Part 25, Aristotle's Philosophy:
September 8, 2003:
Aristotle divided philosophy into three fields. He defined theoretical philosophy which seeks knowledge as its only end. He separated from this practical philosophy which is about political science. His third category was poetical philosophy which is about art.
Concerning civilization he viewed the evolution of civilization as consisting of five progressive steps with the development of philosophy being the fifth culminating development. In the first step, for survival's sake, the focus is on procuring the necessities of life. With survival assured man turns to art. From art man looks to the art of politics which is necessary to community and a good life. This leads to the fourth development where, within a safe state, man can have the time for scientific enquiry. In the fifth step man's attention shifts from the natural material world to philosophy in an attempt to understand final cause. He called this final stage divine philosophy.
In his philosophy, Aristotle began to see the heavens as the embodiment of the divine. Here he broke with the philosophy of Plato asserting in his manifesto an acknowledgment of the importance of this world. He rejected Plato's concept of the soul being confined within the body and needing to break free of the material world. Thus he separated his philosophy from Plato's and became his own man.
As to the safe state wherein divine philosophy can occur, Aristotle describes the highest purpose of the city-state being to provide the conditions whereby those who are able may live as philosophers. In a classic display of ancient Greek arrogance he asserts that only Greeks have this degree of superiority. Further Greeks are qualified to use other peoples as serfs and slaves to do all of the heavy lifting. Only Greeks are qualified to be citizens, soldiers, and leaders. This is their right and duty. The form of leadership would be an oligarchy.
As to specific duties, unlike Plato he saw the king and the philosopher as separate functions. He thought it was unnecessary for a king to be a philosopher. Instead, the king should have a true philosopher as his advisor. The king was to be a man of action and deed. He wanted the philosopher to be independent of politics.
He saw a man's environment as having direct influence on his morality. That is a man's morality will be a result of the influences of his family, education, social status, wealth, type of work, and his leisure associations and activities. He held that morality cannot be separated from a man's situation and politics. Therefore politics and ethics cannot be separate sciences. They are different aspects of a shared study.
Although a man has an inherent potential for moral behavior, his ability to realize that will be influenced by the current political circumstances. It is easier to be good in a good society. Thus we must consider moral philosophy within the context of the political philosophy.
For Aristotle, ethics are about man's higher good rather than some kind of absolute value system. He defines the highest good as that which leads to man's happiness. This happiness is the condition wherein the soul is in accord with virtue.
He sees two separate classes of virtue, these being moral virtues
and intellectual virtues. These come out of the two different
powers of the soul which are the rational and irrational powers.
These virtues are not inborn, but the potential for them is. Thus
man can develop his virtue. In his view, virtue is somewhat like
a balance point between extremes. The extremes he finds are excess
on the one hand and deficiency on the other. For example frugalness
is a virtue. Stinginess by contrast is a vice as is
squandering. So frugalness is the balance point between stinginess
and squandering.
Aristotle defines the highest happiness open to man. Since happiness comes as a result of virtue the highest happiness should result from man's highest virtue. For Aristotle, that highest virtue is that which distinguishes man from all the other animals, that being the ability to reason. So, in its best form, happiness is the life of contemplation. He also allows that the political life of moral virtue can bring a lesser form of happiness.
As to the state, it like any other community exists to serve an end. For Aristotle, who know of no other but the Greek city-state, this end was the good of man to support his moral and intellectual life. The order of evolution is the family and when several families join together for common purpose there is the village. Eventually, the villages will join together to form the state. The state begins so as to facilitate life, but it continues for the sake of the good life. It is only in the state where man can live the good life. Because the good life is man's natural goal, the state is a natural society.
Aristotle held that man is a naturally political animal. Therefore the state is not an artificial contrivance of man but a natural institution, a thing of nature. From his view, those who had no state were either subhuman or extra-human, that is beasts or gods. The facility of speech clearly shows that man is by destiny a social animal and the complete social life is possible only within the state.
Aristotle's view on slavery was in agreement with Plato's.
The underlying premise is that men differ in abilities and intellect.
While we may agree with that, no thinking person can agree with
Aristotle's conclusion. Therefore, he believed, some people are
only fit for subjugation. Others are naturally destine for dominance
and rule. Thus, slavery was simply a fact of nature. No matter
how it is rationalized, this notion is abhorrent to thoughtful
humans anywhere, anytime.
Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
|
|
|
|