The problem with the majority of intellectuals is that they spent so much time thinking about the implications of reality that they are not any good for reality. Plato spent so much time philosophizing with his friends that he thought it would be a good idea for everyone to share wives and children. This would have been a utopia that was so disconnected from reality that it was of no real good to reality. While an intellectual, Aristotle took a different approach. He spent time with real life, going to the basic life of animals to logically look at how they are made up. He taught and advised the most powerful man of his time in Alexander the Great, adding to his practical knowledge of politics and ethics. Dealing with a man who controlled the world would lead one to consider how to best influence him while not offending him. How to logically present arguments while pushing your point and getting people to come to your side. Aristotle used his lens of logic to see the order between all living things, to suppose a system of a better political order, and to instruct on the matters of speech and state.
From a philosophical perspective, Aristotle’s work on biology is an interesting place to start. He was the first taxonomist. He observed the world around him and noticed what was the same and what was different between all the lifeforms that he knew, and he wrote all of it down. Most of the work has now been replaced by knowledge that is more factual. This does not negate the importance of the work though. Aristotle approached biology with his logic as with everything else. “To begin with, we must take into consideration the parts of Man. For, just as each nation is wont to reckon by that monetary standard with which it is most familiar, so must we do in other matters. And, of course, man is the animal with which we are all of us the most familiar” (12). Aristotle understand that he would know himself and his fellow man best out of all the other animals as he is most familiar with himself. This is his syllogism at work. Starting from the known particular and working out to the universal. The universal did not stop at man but went throughout all things that had life and movement. He had addressed the movement of the heavenly things in Physics and Metaphysics. Here he is more particular about the movement and having life with said movement. The way that he saw man in relation to all the animals is an important part of his philosophy.
He placed man at the top of creation and ordered his world accordingly. There were two things that set man apart from the rest of the creatures. First, the way that he stood. “Bipeds have theirs corresponding to the superior part of the universe because they are erect, and of bipeds, man par excellence; for man is the most natural of bipeds” (245). It may be a very simplistic way to look at the world when one says that man is the superior merely because he can stand better than everything else. He is not wrong though that standing as efficiently as man does is a trait that has allowed for man’s resilience in survival. The ability to run, survey the land, and use weapons made man the superior hunter. The other trait that set man apart is his skills with his hands. “Of all animals man alone can learn to make equal use of both hands” (20). Hands and feet are not unique to man but the level that dexterity is special for two main species. This is where things got interesting. For Aristotle, it was not only the fact that man could develop equal ability with each hand, but also that he only had two hands. A common ancestor to man from an evolutionist perspective is the culprit of an interesting observation by Aristotle. In reference to monkeys, “Owing to this circumstance and to the fact that its feet resemble hands and are composed in a manner of hand and of foot: of foot in the heel extremity, of the hand in all else—for even the toes have what is called a ‘palm’: —for these reasons the animal is oftener to be found on all fours than upright” (25). The lesser evolved monkey developed four “hands” that it could use with a high level of skill. In order for it to become a superior man, according to Aristotle, it actually had to have one set of hands evolved slightly more while another set hugely degrade to a lesser form with less function and mobility as a foot. Aristotle saw man as distinct from animals though, for evolution was to be developed over two thousand years later.
The other attribute of man that allows him to better understand all of the earth’s cohabitants is man’s varying living arrangement. Humans are obviously not the only living thing on this planet and how man relates to those around him is important. Aristotle saw man as distinct from the rest of creation. When looking at lower animals, he noticed that animals had natures that lead to living in either isolation or with others of its kind. He did not see an animal that would switch between these two living arrangements, except man. “Man, by the way, presents a mixture of the two characters, the gregarious and the solitary” (9). Man is unique in his ability to adapt to the world around him that an animal is not capable of doing, at least within the social construct. The world around him followed basic logical constructs that he observed all around him. In reading these works, even though the syllogism is not used in most of them, logic is a main thread through it all. This lead Aristotle naturally to the study of political order and ethics.
Studying a man like Aristotle as an individual is difficult because he was often responding to men who came before him. The subject of politics and ethics were very important to him, but he did not write in a vacuum. He was writing to correct the thinking of his time. In no other portion of Aristotle’s thinking is he more opposed to the men who came before him than in the area of politics, because he had very different views on how society should be built. Socrates and Plato put forth such an ideal existence in The Republic based upon their understanding of man that the lines of reality were blurred in unhelpful ways. Aristotle does not take on Plato’s ideal work but rather disputes Plato’s Laws because it was more realistic and contains more logic than The Republic. The world that they constructed is taken down to the studs then is put back together in a similar fashion but upon the bedrock of society instead of the ideal perfection of man. Aristotle built his society upon the family, “The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men’s everyday wants” (445). As families grew through offspring, a natural hierarchy formed, “Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood” (446). The eldest ruled for they had the most experiences in life and thought that they were best which is the natural development of the monarchy. From there, he adds upon the single unit, “But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village” (445). Aristotle was not content to allow for simply the natural form of government (monarchy) to lay at rest but rather sought to find the best form of government. “Our purpose is to consider what form of political community is best of all for those who are most able to realize their ideal of life” (455). Within this community though, Aristotle saw that while there should be unity, there should be a plurality to this unity.
That the greater the unity of the state the better’. Is it not obvious that a state may at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a state?—since the nature of a state is to be a plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a state, it becomes a family, and from being a family, an individual; for the family may be said to be more one than the state, and the individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the state. 455-456
This is in direct response against Plato’s Republic. Aristotle is trying to give humanity a strong reason for living and working. The idealist looking for the ultimate unity in a society would lose itself to its own unity. “For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it” (456). Aristotle saw the need for private families and private property in order to get people to take ownership of things and care more for one another and the outcome. “For I do not think that property ought to be common, as some maintain, but only that by friendly consent there should be a common use of it; and that no citizen should be in want of subsistence” (534). Comradery, brotherhood, and cooperation, instead of absolute unity, was to be the force behind population growth, protection, and societal care.
Beyond the family, Aristotle did give much thought to the manner that society should be governed well or poorly, “we should consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable by all” (487). He looked at the three basic governmental types: monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional government. The problem with all of these systems is that they could be corrupted, “Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: —of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all” (476-477). He draws interesting conclusion about the relationship between the good of each of these systems and the corruption of them, “For he lays down the principle that when all the constitutions are good (the oligarchy and the rest being virtuous), democracy is the worst, but the best when all are bad. Whereas we maintain that they are in any case defective, and that one oligarchy is not to be accounted better than another, but only less bad” (488). The tyrant is the worst kind of ruler while the democracy is the best of the corrupt. Knowing that people and systems could be corrupted was a problem, but a problem that had a solution. The problem was the individuals could be corrupted and if any individual in leadership is corrupted, it then had to be corrected. Otherwise, the unity, peace, safety, and prosperity that came through society would be lost. Redemption and saving grace were through education.
The state, as I was saying, is a plurality, which should be united and made into a community by education; and it is strange that the author of a system of education which he thinks will make the state virtuous, should expect to improve his citizens by regulations of this sort, and not by philosophy or by customs and laws… Let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of ages. (459)
While Aristotle did throw off the experience of the ages often throughout his works, he only did so when his logic, observations, and experience proved them to be wrong. Education was still the only salvation that he saw in order to make a man good and thus a society good.
Education was the key to Aristotle’s society. He would see all young men of good natures and families go through a similar basic curriculum before moving onto the higher education, if there is giftedness in learning. The first level would have been Grammar, followed by the Dialectic, and ending with Rhetoric. The reason that Rhetoric was the ending of the primary education is because everyone needed it and what it was meant to do. Aristotle said, “it is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not of being unable to defend himself with speech and reason” (594). Aristotle saw the error in shaming the intelligent man for not being able to defend himself physically, while letting the strong man not carry on in his education and develop his rhetoric. He saw this as a mistake and sought to correct it. “Rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as dialectic; it is clear, also, that it is useful” (594). To give a few explanations, the Dialectic is the use of logical arguments such as the Socratic dialogues in order to get to truth or some level of understanding. It could be used in any subject or with any person in order to learn. Rhetoric is logical persuasion with speech. It was to persuade in order to move a person into action or decision, particularly in the political realm. This led to a natural tie between these things, “It thus appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectic and also of ethical studies. Ethical studies may fairly be called political” (595). Rhetoric is the bridge between logical argument and winning in politics. Politics is about moving and persuading people to a cause. “There are, then, these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions” (595). In classical education circles, it is commonly said that a rhetorician is a good man speaking well. This is distinguished in the same circles from an orator who is merely persuasive or a manipulator of people. Good virtues and logic are the basis of Rhetoric, but emotions must also be known but not abused in order to move people in the correct ways. From there, the rhetorician must craft his message for his listener, “Rhetoric falls into three divisions, determined by the three classes of listeners to speeches. For of the three elements in speech-making—speaker, subject, and person addressed—it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object” (598). In order to persuade anyone, a person must first know his own strengths and weaknesses so that he can maximize the former and minimize that latter. A person must also know his subject for an educated audience is sure to see through words that have no backing. Lastly, one must understand their audience in order to meet the audience where they are and take them towards the speaker’s desire objective.
Aristotle was a man who saw the world differently than most people. He approached life with a logical rigor that could make men callous and cold like a machine, yet he saw the beauty in everything around him. His eyes were full of wonder while putting things into mental boxes. He saw his place among all the life on this spinning rock that man calls home. He understood behavior, motives, and corruption enough to build it all into his system to keep the fragile peace of man. He also understood that most men need to be shown and lead down a path winsomely. Otherwise, they are like a stubborn donkey digging in its heels. There are plenty of things that he got wrong, but for living twenty-three hundred years ago, there is still plenty of his thoughts that still hold true.
Works Cited
Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle. Great Books of the Western World. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler and Philip W. Goetz. Trans. W. D. Ross. Second Edition. Vol. 8. Chicago: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc, 1990. Print.
Plato. The Dialogues of Plato; The Seventh Letter. Great Books of the Western World. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler and Philip W. Goetz. Trans. Benjamin Jowett and J. Harward. Second Edition. Vol. 6. Chicago: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1990. Print.