- This topic has 3 voices and 20 replies.
-
Posts
-
Aristotle says the state is natural because it is for the good of man and everyone acts in order to attain that which is good. Do you agree with this?
Partially. Everyone has their own definition of that which is good and they act to obtain that which they in particular find good.
I agree more with what Scout1067 said. My problem with Aristotle's statement is that it is built on an assumption that state is for the good of man. I believe that the state does serve its citizens regarding certain matters and therefore is "for the good of man", however I also believe that there is a constant conflict between the state's domain and the rights and liberties of the individual. Therefore it would be "unnatural" for two sides of a conflict, any conflict, to be "for the good of" each other all the time.
What about not necessarily agreeing on everything, but the state is good for unity (constitutionality)?nkuler, I don't think Aristotle has the statist view. He often stresses that a good government is one that allows the citizens to be 'good' individuals. The responsibility of what makes a good state rests on the citizens, not the governing powers. (at least this is how I've interpreted him so far).
But how does it follow that if people act for the “good” then a state must naturally follow. The more I think of this the more convinced I am that Aristotle is trying to simplify a complex relationship too much. The state can be both more or less than the sum of its parts and history has shown that states do not always necessarily do what is “good” for their people.
What about not necessarily agreeing on everything, but the state is good for unity (constitutionality)?nkuler, I don't think Aristotle has the statist view. He often stresses that a good government is one that allows the citizens to be 'good' individuals. The responsibility of what makes a good state rests on the citizens, not the governing powers. (at least this is how I've interpreted him so far).
I have read far too few books to consider myself anything but a virtual ignorant about the ancient greeks, including Arsitotle. I only interpreted the statement as I read it and not Aristotle's overall views. And keep in mind please that English is not my mother tongue so it's very possible for me to misinterprete.Having said this, I come back to the question I posed before. How can the responsibility of creating a good state can rest on that states subjects when it is those people whose rights are limited by the same state itself?Some other questions have popped into my head from your statement. Whose unity? A nation? If so, when can a nation be considered unified? Finally, does the illusion of a unified nation inhibit us as human beings from creating the ultimate unified state with the individual's interests as the only one worth protecting after the interests of respective states have been eliminated?
The state can be both more or less than the sum of its parts and history has shown that states do not always necessarily do what is "good" for their people.
I don't think this is what Aristotle is saying though. He's not describing a utopian state, he's showing how a state can be good when it has good governance. In 'Politics' he's comparing many of the different constitutions of the Greek poleis as well as the different forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, etc). He doesn't say one is better or worse than the other, he's just saying what makes a good form of government. In Books I and II he starts with what makes a 'good' family (the parent/child relationship and the husband/wife relationship), he then compares the function of the slave/master relationship, and then he talks about aquiring wealth. What he says are good relationships here are models for the state to function properly. (again, this is my interpretation of it. I could be way off).
Some other questions have popped into my head from your statement. Whose unity? A nation?
The unity that comes when citizens are involved in the governance of the state (or country).
Finally, does the illusion of a unified nation inhibit us as human beings from creating the ultimate unified state with the individual's interests as the only one worth protecting after the interests of respective states have been eliminated?
I don't understand what you mean by this. If it is what I think, I don't believe the "illusion" inhibits us. What I think Aristotle is trying to point out is a 'good' state is one that allows the citizens to function naturally. ie. a community that can supply its own needs (not meaning isolationism here, supplying their own needs could mean the need to trade with other nations if necessary).
The state can be both more or less than the sum of its parts and history has shown that states do not always necessarily do what is "good" for their people.
I don't think this is what Aristotle is saying though. He's not describing a utopian state, he's showing how a state can be good when it has good governance. In 'Politics' he's comparing many of the different constitutions of the Greek poleis as well as the different forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, etc). He doesn't say one is better or worse than the other, he's just saying what makes a good form of government. In Books I and II he starts with what makes a 'good' family (the parent/child relationship and the husband/wife relationship), he then compares the function of the slave/master relationship, and then he talks about aquiring wealth. What he says are good relationships here are models for the state to function properly. (again, this is my interpretation of it. I could be way off).
This brings us back to defining what "Good" is. I think it is safe to assume that what you and say Ahmedinajad think are good are two entirely different things. To debate this at all we really need to define good. And I am not trying to sound like some shyster lawyer here ;D, this is actually central to the question. What does Aristotle define "good" as?
This brings us back to defining what "Good" is.
Exactly. But even if we agreed upon a definition of good when the state does something that it percieves as good it will either do something good for it (i.e. the state) or the individual. These two entities interests can not be overlapping all the time. Hence the state can not do what is good for the individual, all the time.
Yeah, that IS the question. I think Aristotle's good is “does it benefit all” combined with intelligence, justice, and virtue. A bad man to Arist. is one who is tribeless, lawless, hearthless."But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state."
This brings us back to defining what "Good" is.
Exactly. But even if we agreed upon a definition of good when the state does something that it percieves as good it will either do something good for it (i.e. the state) or the individual.
Ah, I think that's the whole point. A good state is one who doesn't just percieve it, but actually IS good for both. There cannot be a good state without good citizens and vice versa. A simple example is a barbarian who doesn't want to be ruled or follow the law. He cannot make a good citizen. (Arist. gets into how this makes for a just war as well, but that's another topic)
That is probably a good working definition.I still don't know whether I buy the notion that the state is natural. It seems that if everyone pursued their own enlightened self-interest that would achieve the same value of "good" as Aristotle's state.
It seems that if everyone pursued their own enlightened self-interest that would achieve the same value of "good" as Aristotle's state.
But if everyone did that, then couldn't one say that they achieved the state....or civilization?Gotta love philosophy!!
Not necessarily, I think it would look more like collection of communes. Maybe the anarcho-syndiclus commune out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The existence of a state implies some overarching structure and it is this structure that I don't think is absolutely required. However, I am not going to hold my breath for the outbreak of goodwill required for it to work. Humans tend to be a stubborn bunch and more than willing to cut their neighbors throat to get what they want.Yes, philosophy is aggravating and makes my head hurt sometimes ;D
