What is Philosophy? Asking questions? Knowing rather than opinion. Knowledge. An attempt to understand the nature of things. Self-knowledge -"Know thyself". Where does philosophy begin? To theorize -- to wonder. To ask "what is" and "why". What is Politics? Where do we get the word politics? --polis. Living together, the rules which we work under. What is Political Philosophy? Asking questions about politics? What is Politics? What is a Citizen? Who is a Citizen? What is the best way of life? Some Questions are always, i.e. eternal. So to with political questions. Political Philosophy vs. History of Ideas. Political Philosophy takes its questions to be of contemporary relevance -- important for us today to help us live our lives. History of Ideas, only seeks to understand the ideas of past thinkers in light of the past. They seek to see how the ideas made our now -- i.e. formed the history that we live in. History of Ideas see more importance of how an author's ideas are understood (and thus usually misunderstood) by his contemporaries and other following him and how their understanding (or misunderstanding) effects world history; rather than how the author understood himself. Why should we study old books? The old books bring to light questions that are of eternal importance. We look at them for help to understand the questions and not necessary for the answers they give. ****************************************** I: What is Political Philosophy (revisited). 1) Ancient and Moderns Ancients before 1400 - Moderns after 1400 -> Machiavelli is the break. 2a) For the Ancients, what relationship is there between science and philosophy? For the Modern? What does Strauss say the primary theme of philosophy (p.160?) What is the primary tension that structures all politics? Nature - convention..... 3) Read, "What is Political Philosophy?" p3-6. 4) Does Arnhart think there is or is not absolute political wisdom? What does the absent of absolute political wisdom mean for the possibility of politics (Arnhart p.3)? What is plausible argumentation? What is the three stages that Arnhart gives to plausible argumentation (365)? Law of non-contradiction!!!!! II: How to read a book. 1) Read with a pencil/pen. Read word for word. Sentence to sentence. Examine the flow of what the author is saying. 2) Pay attention to list, to contradictions, etc. Pay close attention to what an author writes. He may say one thing yet mean another. Why? 1) Persecution. 2) Didactic method - to teach a person to reason. 3) To hide dangerous teaching (political prudence). a) Esoteric/Exoteric. b) Surface meaning. c) Rhetoric. d) Logographic necessity? 3) Take notes -- at it questions. Does the author say. Notes and making sense out of what you are reading. Notes are to simplify not make more difficult. 4) Example: The Declaration of Independence. III: Aristotle's Politics (a prelude) 1) Who was Aristotle? Not a citizen of Athens but a stranger. From Stagira. His father was court physician to Philip of Macedon father of Alexander the Great. Teacher to Alexander the Great. Student of Plato (at the Academy) but broke with him to form his own school (peripatetic). Founder of biological classification. Founder of the classical divisions of the science. 1st book of literary criticism. 2) Bekker number. 3) Framing The Politics. Aristotle's teaching about political things. What relations does it have to knowledge. (i.e. Practical). Empirical - he went out to collect data about the existing regimes, like he did when studying animal. Also, his concern for the biological basis for politics. 4) How to read the Politics. Not a systematic treatise. A series of logoi. A series of arguments to make us address the fundamental questions of political life. Also a "how to book." The Politics. I: How to Read the politics (revisited). Not a systematic treatise. A series of logoi. A series of arguments to make us address the fundamental questions of political life. Also a "how to book." Therefore let us pay attention to aporia (points where arguments are presented on both sides that are persuasive. II: The Beginning. Book I, ch.1 1) 1252a1-5 This is the definition of polis. Polis = political koinonia koinonia - "association", community, commonality. Traditionally trans as "association". 2) 2 - Those who equate politics with household rule don't speak beautifully (kalon). Who are those who equate ecomomic and political rule. Who say they are the same thing? Socrates, Plato, Xenophon. They equate the two types of rule. Aristotle says that the types of rule are different in kind. There are four types of political rule. a) political rule - ?olitikos. b) economic/household - oikonomos c) kingly - Basilikos. d) masterly - despotikos. 3) Method of inquiry.... Analytic.. look at the parts. II: Ch.2. 1) 1252a Does this square with what Aristotle in Ch.1 says his method will be? This is not the analytic method but the genetic method.. genealogy... It is a break. In fact Ch.2 is a break with Ch.1. 2) What are the two principles for human association in ch.2. a) reproduction b) foresight. They in-turn 1) Husband/wife 2) Parent/child make relationships 3) master/slave It is important to not there is a distinction between a woman and a slave. This is an important distinction, which the Greeks make and claim that the barbarians do not. 3) Is nature purposeful or not? Yet it is. "It makes nothing in an economizing spirit". Nature is purposive (has logos -reason). 4) The genesis of the polis, the city. 1252b10-26. What does he say about the genesis of the city? Where does it begin? Item Goal/telos a) family --> reproduction -> to meet daily needs. b) village -> several households. -> Help the households meet (disappear when the polis arrives ) there needs. c) the polis -> self-sufficiency. The polis comes to be for the sake of life, but it aims not at mere life but the best life -> the good like. Read 8 and 9. 5) Who lives in the city? Man (i.e. anthropos - human beings). Who does not? Beasts or gods (1353a19-35) a) Beasts - a man like Achilles (Homer Illiad). "without clan, law and hearth". He is at war with every man. b) the gods, the cyclops -> has no needs, the gods provide for them and they do nothing. Homer says about them "each acts as law to his children and wives". The rest of the passage describes them "living in caves without customary laws or assemblies. He pays no attention to others." 6) the polis. The most authoritative community. With the right (telos) to rule over another community. It comes into existence for the sake of living, but exists for living well. Although it is be nature (that is nature intends it) it must be instituted -- made. Because man has a partnership in speech -language is that which makes us human (logos - speech, language as well as reason and argument), the polis makes clear the just and the unjust. It makes authoritative opinion (orthodoxy) so that they can live together. III: Ch.3 1) Ch.3 begins as though ch.2 never was. It ignores the beautiful (kalon) speech of the genetic method and returns to the analytic method of book one. It reexaminations the three relationships of the household. 2a) master-slave despotic b) husband-wife no name c) father/child parental. 3) Slavery. Begins with the beginning. It states two arguments. One for the other against. ****************************** Aristotle's Politics Bk 1 ch3-7. I: Ch.3 1) Ch.3 begins as though ch.2 never was. It ignores the beautiful (kalon) speech of the genetic method of ch.2 and returns to the analytic method of book 1, ch 1. It reexaminations the three relationships of the household. 2a) master-slave despotic --> :Return to the listing of b) husband-wife no name relationships w/in the c) father/child parental. household. 3) Slavery. Begins with the beginning. It states two arguments. One for the other against. (Have read) II: Ch.4. 1) Read 1. This raises (brings up) the question that household mgt (oikonomokos) is primarily concerned with chrematistikes, i.e. money making. Therefore, the discussion of the parent/child and the husband/wife are dropped and will not be discussed again until the politiea (regime -Bk 3) -constitution has been discussed. It appears that those two relationships in the household are fundamentally influenced by the regime type you have. The master/slave dichotomy predominate Aristotle's discussion of the household until ch.7 From Ch8 onward moneymaking is discussed rather than the other relationships. 2) Ch.4 asks why we need slaves. They are the instruments which allows the household to achieve its telos. For Aristotle are a combination of soul and positions. Yet what are positions? Instruments for life (1253b30). And there for a slave is an instrument for life that is animate - with soul. 3) The question is then ask why are slaves needed? Could not machines do the work of them? The surface answer is that it is technically impossible. Yet was it. Aristotle wrote a mechanics. One of his student's friends was the inventor of the steam turbine. In Greek drama there where steam toys. Therefore technology was there but suppressed. Why. Well the classics, the Greeks, believed the practical application of wisdom (which was to be merely good in it self and purely theoretical) was a very dangerous thing and should be prohibited. Therefore technology was suppressed - politically. Yet we need things to get done in the household, the cooking, cleaning, taking care of thing, not the head of the household because he had to be in the market place and in the assemblies, not the mother - she had to manage the household -- therefore slaves are needed to help the household work. Yet this is the question one must face. Aristotle says that conventional slavery is preferable to technology. Why? 4) Distinction of slave by nature or convention. Slave by nature lacks foresight -- lacking in reason. A slave by nature when he is a slave is in a situation where he is participating in foresight by being ruled over by one with foresight. 5) What does say life is? Action not production. What does this mean? A slaves life is with his master's, whereas a craftsman's character does not matter as long as he does his job well. The reason you don't care for the character of the craftsman is that you do not share a common life. But with slaves you do share a common life with them and one is concerned with their character. III: Ch.5 Raises the question of whether there are natural slaves or not? (Read 1254a18) 1) There is a metaphor at work in Book 5 what dicotomy is used by Aristotle to symbolize the master/slave relation? Soul/Body. Master' symbolize soul and slaves's body. 2) Another relationship is that of rational over non rational. This is seen in the rule over animals by humans. Aristotle would argue that Animal are better off under human rule than not. That they are perfecting their natures when they are domesticates, in that they participate in logos. Ch.5 end with an interesting point. The person who argues for natural slavery argues that Nature distinguished between naturally slave and naturally master (1245b15-20 8 and also 9 1254b26-1255a2). Yet does nature do this? See esp 1254b33-35. If nature can't make clear the distinction between naturally slave and naturally ruled than what does this say about nature? He says that nature "wishes to make bodies of free men different from slaves... yet the opposite results." IV: Ch.6. There is kind of a dialogue going on here. One side argues for conventional slavery and the other by natural slavery. Natural Slavery Conventional Slavery 1)no-force and force 1) Force is needed and is wrong. does have some virtue. 2) foresight/lack of it 2) captured in war, etc. 3) Can't be freed 3) Can be freed because don't have foresight they might have foresight. 4) NS just/CS unjust 4) Law is a sort of justice therefore Slavery in war is always just. 5) virtue should rule 5) convention should rule or else no rule. rule is needed to survive. Slaves are needed for the good of the household. 6) Slavery benefits 6) does not reply, but is the slave only if he ch.4 its reply. CS is not is a slave by needed in order that the nature since he part- higher life is to be -icipatesin reason only possible. and w/o CS you'd by this way - hence he need tech and the classics becomes fully human. suppressed it because they If not then it is thought the cost out weigh only for the benefit the benefits. of the master. Also, conventional slavery is bad for both master and slave. V: Ch.7 He opens with the argument from the prior chapters we can see that mastery (despotikos) is not politics. (1255b16-20 1) Mastery is not a science. The master/slave relationship is a sub-political relationship and the relationship is not directly translatable into politics. This forces us to return to the types of rule in Ch.2 and Ch.3. That household rule is one thing and despotike another and politics even another. Where as household rule is monarchial -> as fatherly, paternal or even maternal, political rule is rule over free and equal human being. It is interesting that Aristotle associates the husband/wife relationship with political rule. 5 (1255b32) he brings up the association that if there is a science of despotike (mastery) then it is the acquiring of slaves, But yet it is not such a high thing because how can even do it? A steward. It is a very low thing, on the level of cookery. Aristotle attacks the notion of a science of slavery. Such a despotic science is low. Here Aristotle contrasts himself from the Socratic/Platonic position -> that a science of mastery is not only possible but important. Knowledge is not a claim to be rule nor a defense of natural slavery. There is a difference between what is natural and what is political, yet politics is by nature. The opening chapters Aristotle is trying to distinguish between the natural and the political. In Plato/Socrates that distinction disappears. Politics I, 8-13. Summary Bk I: Ch.1 defined polis and the approach to be used (analytic). Ch.2 genesis of the polis break with the analytic method -> Uses the genetic, evolutionary method to understand the polis. Ch.3 Return to the analytic. Establishes the household as the basis of the polis and inquires about it. What are the relations. Master/slave husband/wife and parent/child -> He only discusses m/s and drops the other two. Ch.3-7 Slavery. Ch.8-13 acquisition. Acquisition. Ch.8 Since slaves are possessions, Aristotle desire to examine property as such. What are the two purposes of acquisition? 1) use 2) exchange. Read 4,5,6-7. 6-7 the natural ways of life: 1) nomad 2) hunting 3) robbery/pirate 4) fishing 5) agriculture. list at 1256a39-b4 1)nomad 2)farmer 3)pirate 4)fisher 5)hunter What is missing from the above list? Exchange, commerce. What does it mean to have robbery/piracy as a natural form of acquisition. What distinguishes natural vs. unnatural acquisition? N-limited UN-unlimited Read 11-12, 14-15. CH.9 Moneymaking. Unnatural -> no limit. Where does exchange arise form? (4). Where does money come from? (7). Read the Midas fable. What is the significance of the Midas fable? Read 15,16,17,and 18. End of 18 -> the subversion of the arts. The moral quality of the arts are destroyed in moneymaking. Ch.10 It opens with a question: Whether money making belongs to politics or household rule? What is the role of nature in ch10? (deficient) That it intends the good of man. Money comes into being for the sake of exchange but "interest" makes more of money. Distinction of the need of money to facilitate exchanges vs. banking. Read 5 Is not the metaphor of money begetting money seems to say that usury surpasses nature? Does not usury questions the benefice of nature? IS not the image of moneymaking also that of insist. Ch.11 It opens with the distinction between theory and practice. Name the three forms of acquisition? 1) natural 2) moneymaking 3) unfruitful but useful. 3)e.g. lumbering and mining. What kind of labor is least in the need of virtue? (1258b38). Why? Does not hard work limit men, it does not give them leisure. Whereas exchange does and because it is without limit it require much virtue. Read the Thales story. What is the significance of it? It is useful for the political man to know business but not practice for the sake of the polis. Ch.12 Return to the husband/wife parent/child relationships in the household. However, it is very short. Aristotle says that rule over women (i.e. wives) and children are rule over free persons and differ in kind to rule over slaves. Aristotle argues that 1) the male, unless constituted in some respect contrary to nature, is by nature more expert at leading than the female; 2) the elder and the complete is more expert than the younger and the incomplete. These two principles by nature structure rule. Both principles are fundamentally biological and are derived from his biological inquiry. Notes he does not say woman or man but male and female. Aristotle, thus argues that it is the case by nature simply and not only by human contrivance. Maleness is thus associated with rule, or more correctly stature or authority. Aristotle then brings in political rule. There is an alteration of ruler and ruled in political rule. This is because in political rule those who rule and are ruled tend to be by nature on an equal footing and thus differ in nothing. Yet, when one does rule, both the ruler and the ruled seek to establish differences in external appearances. Ruler and ruled desire to make clear who is authoritative. This is significant because both do so for the sake of making something that would not be evident. That is, who is authoritative. Yet the political desire nature to be equal. The political attempts to move away from the natural hierarchy. Both money and law are ways to level out natural differences among human beings. Nevertheless, people will create differences to clarify who is authoritative and who is lacking in authority. The desire to make clear who is authoritative is seen in the rule of the male over the female. The male rules only because he has a greater sense of authority than does the female. Expressed in human beings, although both possess reason, the female attempts to distinguish themselves from the male. From this differentiation, who was authoritative was established by both sexes. Yet nature reaffirms this, in nature the female is less authoritative than the male. Now, Aristotle discusses the relationship between the parent and child. He says this is like kingship. But a parent seeks to develop his child that one day he shall rule over himself without the parents rule. Is this also the case with the king? If not, then in what way is parental rule is like kingship? If it is, then what does this say about kingship. Aristotle ends Ch.13 and thus ends book I by saying the account of women and children cannot be completed w/o discussing the regime. In the opening of the chapter that the household is more concerned with human beings than possessions (including slaves). Yet this would imply that the household is about the human relations which cannot be understood until the regime is discussed. Therefore, the household can't be understood until after the regime is understood. Thereby, Aristotle argues that the household is sub-political, i.e. rests on the political. The way one understands the household and the relations within the household will depend upon the regime you have. Book II: I: Aristotle's criticism of Socrates in Plato's Republic. 1) What does Aristotle think about having women and children in common? Give some specific criticism? (1261a10) 2) What is the specific criticism that Aristotle lays at Socrates' understanding of the city? Its too unified, the communism of the city is a metaphor of the completely unified city. 3) What wrong with communism in Aristotle's view. 4) What is in Bk 5 and is absent from Aristotle's criticism. II: Hippodamus. 1) What was the key of his political teaching? (3) What significance does this have to political wisdom as such? 2) What does H think should be rewarded? Innovation!! What does Aristotle think about this suggestion? Bad!! Why? Law is inculcated by habit and habit is a process of constancy and if the laws continually change lawfulness will be difficult to habituate in the citizens. III: Sparta. What are the two big problems with the spartan regime that Aristotle describes? 1) Helots 2) laxness of the women? What significance does the problem of women have to teach us American? IV: Carthage. What is this type of regime? What motivates it? Does this regime brings another current nation to mind? USA... Book III ch1-8 I 3rd book opens with the question of the regime - politiea. What is a regime? Contrast it to the polis/city. To understand the city you need to understand the regime. Aristotle says, "We see that the entire activity of the political ruler and legislator is concerned with the polis and the regime is a certain arrangement of those who inhabit the polis." Read 2 Those who inhabit the city = citizen. Citizen = those who share in rule, participate in ruling. Therefore what is citizen is clear, but who is a citizen is the important question. Who is a citizen will vary with the type of regime. Compare citizen vs subject. Read 12 II: Ch2. opens with a debate between the oligarch and the democrat, concerning the debts of the city? If the oligarchy makes debts is the democratic regime required to pay those debts? This seems to say the when the regime changes so does the city. The question of the size of a city? Do ways make a city? No. Can Babylon be understood to be a city? No. Read 7,8 The city is the matter, the regime is the form/order. It is significant that one understands the relation of form to matter. The city is the raw matter, the regime is that which gives it shape. Like a lump of clay, the city awaits the regime to provide it with a particular shape. III: Ch.4 The good man vs the good citizen. Read 3+4 The good man is simply good. The good citizen is good only in his particular city. One must understand the virtue of the citizen is relative to the regime. A good citizen reflects the virtue which the regime views authoritative. Contrast the good citizen to the good man. Is the good man a good citizen? That would depend on the regime. Could a good man be a good citizen in a bad regime? Lets take Nazi Germany? There a good citizen would be a good nazi? Not a good man. In nazi Germany a good man would not be a good citizen. The only place where the good man and the good citizen are identical is the best regime. Read 5+6 IV: Ch.5. Will the best city make the vulgar (i.e. menial workers) citizens? No. Why? They lack leisure. Leisure is needed to participate in politics. If you spend all you time trying to meet daily needs you will rarely have time to spend time in the assemblies. V: Ch.6. The regime is the arrangement of the polis with respect to its offices, particularly the one that have authority over all matters. For what has authority in the polis is everywhere the governing body and the governing body is the regime. Who has authority in a Democratic regime? The many, the poor. What defines a correct regime? (1279a15-20). VI: Regime -> governing body. It is the authoritative element in the city. The regime are to be categorized by two criteria: a) by the one, few and many and b) common advantage vs. private advantage. Whereas common advantage is good (that is to say it is "just") - that is best for the city as a whole and not just any single part - private advantage is bad (that is to say it is "un-just"). Common advantage private advantage One: kingship (wisdom) Tyranny (passions) Nous Few: aristocracy (virtue) Oligarchy (wealth) Arete Many: polity (freedom/equality) democracy (poverty) (license) V: Ch.8. Tyranny is mastery over the political assoc. Oligarchy is the rule of those with property/wealth. Democracy is the rule of the poor. What two things which distinguishes democracy and oligarchy? 1) poverty and 2) wealth. Class Assgn: Briefly discuss the typology of regimes Bk III, ch.7. Also discuss the implication of the regime on the city/polis. Aristotle says in Bk I that the city is by nature. Yet in Bk III he says that there is no city w/o a regime. Yet is the regime by nature? And if it is not then what is the implication on the naturalness of the city? I: Review of the Politics Bk I c.1 the polis/city c.2 the genesis of the polis c.3 the household in general c.4-8 slavery c.8-11 acquisition c.12-13 household in general a) wife/husband -> political rule b) parent/child -> kingly rule Bk IIc.1-8 The best regime in speech (logos) a) Plato -> 1) The Republic, 2) The Laws b) others -> esp. Hippodamus. c.9-11 Actual regimes that are held to be best a) Sparta b) Crete c) Catherage (Athens is missing) What is the significance of this? c.12 Statesmanship and Lawgiver (Athens) He criticizes Athens through it lawgivers only, not the city as such. Recall Aristotle is a foreigner and not a citizen. Could a non- citizen criticize Athens and remain there? BkIIIc.1-3 The regime and the question of the citizen c.4-5 The good man vs the good citizen the limits of citizenship c.6-7 The regimes and their claim to rule. c.8-13 Oligarchy vs. Democracy. c.14-18 Kingship. II: Oligarchy vs Democracy. Oligarch: Those who pay and have wealth should rule. Democrat: The many make better banquets The many are better judges. Oligarch: The analogy of the arts (techne). Knowledge should rule over ignorance. The Oligarch's argument of the wealthy should rule is shown to be false by the democrat’s arguments. However the oligarch's raises an objection to the many's rule, that objection is the arguments from the arts. That those who possess expertise should rule and those lacking in it should not. Only by this argument does the oligarch (apparently) defeat the democrat. Yet the argument from the arts does nothing for the oligarch's claim to rule (i.e. that the wealth should rule). In fact the argument from the arts rejects that argument and asserts that those who posses knowledge should rule. The claim to rule from the argument of the arts is the argument for kingship (the rule of nous/wisdom). Although the oligarch defeats the democrats argument he does not win either. However, does the argument from the arts really destroy the argument of the many? Is there not a difference between making and doing? Between creating and judging? Between founding and preservation/perpetuation? The argument of the arts (that knowledge should rule) is the claim of kingship - that wisdom should rule. Therefore the objection to the rule of the many via the arts requires that kinship and its claim be addressed. This is how book III is to end, with a discussion of Kingship. The 3 logoi: three accounts of kings (1) 1286a7-1286b40 1st logos (2) 1287a1-1287b35 2nd logos (3) 1288a1-1288a32 3rd logos The History of regimes: 1) Can there be a good multitude. (The question of the character of the masses.) 2) Best man vs best laws. - Two questions arise out of the discussion of the best man: (1) the question of offspring (or inheritance) and (2) the use of force. The (2)nd [this - 1287a1] raises a question of, is there an equality of men by nature? The difficulty of being judged in one owns cast [ie. by one's equals]. The superiority of the law. 3) -> The nature of the multitude. (superiority of a family). 1st Logos [1286a7-1286b40] Best Man vs Best Laws If there could be a majority of good man, it would be better. Begins with the argument against the laws. They cannot be superior since they only speak generally. 1286b10 -> (they) cannot give order to what falls out of the laws. The difficulty of the laws: (1) they speak generally and (2) [because of the (1) they] don't take care of the particular circumstance. The 1st argument concludes the polity (regime) of written laws cannot be best. => The second argument deals with the passionate in man. ...ought not to be authoritative [in some], but be authoritative in all. Is the passionate capacity [able] to be controlled by one or many? Can one man be in fact be without passion? (1) Is the character of the polis made of by [the] many? [if that is so - the rule of one] would endanger that unity. (2) Is it greater(easier) or harder(more difficult) to corrupt the multitude? One ought to let the multitude be the freemen who do nothing against the law [1286b35]. Which {man} is incorruptible: A good man or a good majority? 1286b1 -> will not [the many] they rise up in factions? Only the majority if seriously good can they avoid factions. The conclusion is that the one good man can be seriously good. However, if such a good majority could exist it would be an aristocracy, it would seem to be the rule of the good. 1286b5 History of regimes A historical restatement of the question is who is to rule, the one or the many. As shown by the history of regimes, history tends to point toward the rule of the many.(1286b8-21) The History of Regimes: (1) Kingship. (2) polity. [(this) is like the account of the ---- (3) oligarchy. degeneration of regimes in the Republic.] (4) Tyranny. (5) democracy. Every step (is a step) to give more power to the masses. Because the cities are larger, perhaps, it is not any longer easy for any other polity (regime) besides democracy to come into being [1286b21]. The coming together - the development of civilization. (1) an equality of virtue. => the more one develops technology the more one looks equal. They can no longer abide inequality since there is no obvious differences among men. (2) Consequence of acquisition and the achievement of obtaining self interest. Only in democracy can comes into existence through acquisition. The development of civilization end up ending with democracy and nothing but democracies. Civilization development indicates that the majority would rule in their own interest. Therefore, you will either get democracies or tyrannies. In reference to the question : can you have a good multitude. Only in the first, earlier, regime could you find a good majority. Here is the reflection whether a seriously good majority is possible. The difficulty is to get a multitude that is good depends (--> requires) civilization development, the various civilization development that leads to equality leads also to factional differences. The release of self-interest will also destroy (the unity originally fostered by equality). The question is: Need the civilization development to have equality also (need to) lead to fractionalization struggle and the dominance of self-interest. Democracy is the natural end for human equality and [yet it] is also the worst regime (i.e. a bad regime). 1286b21 -> Aristotle raises a fundamental question of Kingly rule. Should the family reign? Even if kingly rule is best for the city, how will it hold for him and his offspring? Not his offspring because they are like the many (i.e like everybody else). This is (said to be) not easy to believe it seems to go against love of it own. Or should he (the king) giver rule to the virtuous one. The point Aristotle makes is that there is a subtle difficulty here. It is not easy to believe it is a hard thing because human nature loves its own. The man superior by nature is he to be superior by nature.? (to be all to human is to prefer one's own) [1st difficulty] (c.f. comment on wives and children in the criticism of Plato's Republic in Book II of the Politics. The superior man will not be superior to nature? It is not easy to believe (Aristotle notes) that the superior man is superior to his own. Human being (i.e. the people) will not allow a superior man to be as hard hearted as do disavow his son from his inheritance. The real difficulty is that human beings would also not believe that one could be as cold hearted or hard hearted to deny his own. (The real problem of not believing one could do so.) Human beings will not stand such a person to be hard hearted. The people will force him to give to his one the inheritance he has to give. To restate, the many (or the public) will demand (and probably force) him to choose his own. Not so much what is so (or what is corresponding to what is), but it is hard to believe you have to do this with no rationality behind it. That the force to choose your own over what is best is done out of mere sentiment. The Second difficulty (persuasion) difficulty of power. -> one is accepted to rule by his evident order of nature. (It is evident he is entitled to rule because all can recognize it in his nature. That his nature is so evidently superior that all recognize it as being such, simply.) If the King rely on force, it would suggest the inability of nature [to reveal what it naturally superior]. It would suggest that nature does not provide for the best to rule simply. The political effective man is superior as such, brought up about what people believe about human nature. The 1st Logos concludes with the doubt concerning the natural superiority of the Pambasileia. This is done through the doubting of the political efficacy of the pambasileia. People are either fundamentally equal or they believe that they are fundamentally equal because the differences are not evident (i.e clear to the mind or to the eye). Although he does not say it, if people are equal then law should rule. The premise is provided that the rule of law is by nature since human being are alike fundamentally or doubts about the clear and evident superiority of any one man will weakening the fundamental claim of the rule of the pambasileia. 2nd LOGOS Bk III, 1287a1. Pambasileia. bolu_ [????_]: not will (force) but deliberation. 1286a2 It is not really a regime. At the end of ch.15 of the growth of the people and the need of a (the) difference(s) between the king [and the people]. Kingship is by persuasion not by force, to rule (merely) by force is not politics* Aristotle returns to the repeating of the term (of nature) 1287a1-1287b35. If men are equal the laws should rule (1287a20). Therefore it is clearly inferred (by the text), [that] the rule of law is by nature. The Argument of the law is that those who are alike by nature should have the same justice. Therefore, it is natural to rule and be ruled in term. If the laws can't determine what is just then how can it be said that human beings can judge these things, since the laws are made by them. The laws educate for judgement. 1) If the laws do not go over the specific case then that judgement is to be done by those who are authoritative (i.e. the rulers). 2) Laws provide for experience. 3) Rule by law bids the good of the intellect to rule rather than the human passions. If the laws can't so neither can men. 1287a25 educate the rulers to judge. ** Law is intellect without appetite and spiritedness. That is to say it is without the beast (1287a30)** Law gets rid of the beast than is in all human beings. Here is the strongest argument for the rule of law vs rule of the one [superior good man]. The Analogy of the Arts 1287a35---> The medicine is not comprehensive. Since this is the case, therefore the analogy of the arts, used to justify the rule of the one of clear superior political expertise, is false. The turn to the one skillful artist rather than the law is then is the be rejected. The rejection of this argument seem to support the argument for the rule of law. The craftsman or artist can be satisfied by pay or the advancement of their personal interest. Therefore, the artist's interest is not that of the whole or virtue. Also, their expertise is not comprehensive. No one artist can encapsulate the whole possibility of any art. 1287b1 ]----> Physicians bring in another doctor when they treat themselves, because they are not able to judge about themselves. When treating themselves, they distrust their own judgement. This calls into question the ability of the artist to separate his skill from his interest. Is this analogy, of calling in another and not dealing with his(your) own case, to be applied to the pambasileia [i.e. one who has universal rule] if there is trouble or suffering in the city. He (Aristotle) speaks of factions, will he listen to another doctor who tells him to give up his rule? Those in political offices act in accord to spite and favor. --> If one man ruling that is safer to laws (written laws), but not true for unwritten laws. May be laws according to writing are not as good as [the] rule of one [good] man. I 1287b5 Customs are more authoritative and about more authoritative things than laws that are written. This argument of custom shows that custom (i.e unwritten laws) can be like law **intellect without appetite. No one man can see over many things (1287b7). And the city requires many offices 1287b10-15. What difference is [there between] one ruler or many (good) men? Should not the many, educated by the laws, deliberate over these things? The many have many hands, eyes and feet. The image Aristotle presents is that of a monster but also that of a god: omnipotent. 1287b25 Things that are deliberating (concerning) are happiness or the things of happiness. [c.f. Rhetoric Bk 1 ch.15]. 1287b25-30 A jesting that the many is like a monster. The rule of the good is to make other good. However this rule is not political but is dealing with what is understood as friendship. Therefore the image is one not of force, not of a king to his subjects, but like that of Socrates (or a teacher) to his students. The pambasileia's relationship to others is that of friendship and not of political rule (which involves force). The most important argument that appears here is that the universal king's rule is based on friendship. However, friendship implies equality, likeness. It is the potentially good (men) who accept the pambasileia. The relationship of friendship is not a political rule. That is a problem. The superior man's rule should be of friendship and not by force. Aren't we reminded here to Socrates' relations to his students in this passage? (c.f. Xenophon Memerobilia.) The end of the 2nd logos ends with the pambasileia resembling friendship rather than political rule. That it is not sufficiently political. The end of the logos is supported by the middle argument of the logos. The middle argument shows that the analogy of the arts to be false, not false simply but false politically. 3rd LOGOS Ch 17 1287a1-1288a2 On the Difference of the nature of the multitude. The difference attitude of the multitude is dependant on the regime. You should see them in context to their particular regime. The Multitudes are disposed to artisan regime by nature, however nature does not suppose to the deviant regimes. Human beings don't seek the bad, the unjust, nor the disadvantageous. The determining element is the type of multitude you have. To restate, the fundamental question is the character of the people. Where there is a multitude with equality their can be no Kingship, (unless it bears a family so superior spontaneously). (1) [see 1287b36-40] The Aristocratic Multitude. The aim of it is excellence (arete) This multitude is the first capable of freemen's rule. (2) The political multitude is a military multitude. It is affluent (to well to do) or those who have the means but according to merit. This is required because of the necessity of bearing arms (1288a13). 1288a15 Not one man but family. One man excels in virtue. All regimes to make their claim to some excellence or virtue arete). That means that the most excellent should rule. The simply natural is to obey those simply superior men who rule. Aristotle is leading to aporia ( a stopping place where the argument is good in both sides). The fundamental question is the extent of which nature brings forth a single man or a multitude capable to rule. If nature does not, then what does that say about nature then. 1288a28-29 To be obedient is to persuade. The single superior man or the multitude (and the need of a persuasion by nature). cf. 1286b30-35 (do nothing against the laws.) (He [the ruler] should have force). However, force should not be needed, because his superiority should simply be so (i.e recognized by all as such). The tendency of the city (via history of regimes) is to move toward equality as things (got) more civilized. Unless nature so provides that he is (so) completely superior in looks he won't be persuasive. The question : How politically relevant is the pambasilea? (This nature of the multitude should be kept in mind what he says in Book 7.) cf. (1286b3) --> That the historic survey follows what happens in Athens. ==>Kingship is found in the earlier stages. ==>Where is philosophy found? In the urban regime, in the latter stages. The peek of the political vs the peek of thought differs only if you take Kingship as being superior political rule to "republican" rule. If democracy, or rule of the multitude is considered superior then the peek of the political and the peek of thought might be the same. [The peek (deAlvarez says) of the political rule is quite clearly the possibility of pambasilea]. However does not the discussion of the characteristic of the pambasilea's rule is in fact the rule of philosophy. Similarly of the pambasileia to the rule of the philosopher is quite striking. If that is the case, then since philosophy is make possible in the urban regime, is it therefore also possible for the possibility of the pambasilea's coming into being arises out of the urban regime also? [c.f. 1286b3] However peek of the polis does not coincide with the peek of thought or the individual human being. The political height always seems to be different that than for the individual. The end for human beings as human being in regard to the citizen. That is also not true for unwritten laws. Is the rule of one [good] man truly superior (better) than the un-written laws?