Aristotle in his book politics, argues that the political association is the highest form of human association , and making all his conclusions based on the assumption that polis’ is the best and only sensible political system. He further adds that political association is the most sovereign and aims at the highest good Politics is largely an attempt to determine or rather prove that political association is the best suited way for securing the happiness of its members or as called in politics’ the citizens .
The interest of the polis and its citizens were seen to be the same since both the city and man aimed or happiness as the ultimate goal. According to Aristotle, life has no existence outside the confines of the city and that it is not the city that exists to serve the needs of the individual but is a mere part and the city is more important than the individual Aristotle’s admiration of the social system in a polis shows his support to the slavery. The polis consisted of citizens which men were born to citizen parent’s women children and slaves.
Men were considered to be the only rational creation and had to engage and contribute in the political association of the city, while slaves were used for work. Aristotle’s above argument had some major weakness and flaws in it, he address the salves as non-rational, and it’s in there best interest to serve there masters, who would give them a rational vision. The main drawback with this argument is the irrational slave has to have some kind of rationality to judge that his Arora 2 master is right for him and to follow and obey those orders.
If those certain of rationality exist in these slaves then they are not “natural slaves” and should not be enslaved . Aristotle’s belief that a man can become fully human if he engages in the political ssociation of the city , gives the state full authority over an individuals freedom. According to his view an individual could not have any true rational needs or interest outside the confines of the state, as the result it would be absurd to even desire any kind of individual freedom in opposition to the state. Aristotle does not draw a line, which the state cannot cross over an individuals privacy or freedom.
A central question in modern day philosophy, is the extent to which a state can impose itself on the freedom of an individual. As a result it would be absurd to desire any kind of individual freedom in opposition to the state A little further down in the book Aristotle argues and puts forward his idea that a new system of government is required as all the proposed theories and existing governments were not perfect. Before putting his theory on the table, Aristotle reviews and criticizes the existing theories and government using there flaws and shortcomings as evidence supporting his case.
His second book concentrates on these flaws, discussing them in further details. He attacks all heorists proposing abolishment of private property for individuals. Aristotle defends private property by pointing out that greed and selfishness cannot be checked by checking on private property but these vices result from human wickedness. Abolishing private property does not help eliminating these vices. If people were all equal in wealth and power, something on the lines of present day communism, they would end-up becoming lazy and without the will to achieve more in life and move ahead.
Arora 3 In some cases these shortcomings pointed by Aristotle seem to be misinterpreted by him, herein the original writer in his book was not saying that. His attacks on writers like Plato and some other writers is even further off the mark. Book II in totality instead of being a healthy discussion is used by Aristotle to make his case stronger. As the discussion continues it feels like Aristotle is moving from political subject to more spiritual and practical topics. He draws a distinct conclusion between ends and means, happiness and rational activates.
Wealth and health are merely means to achieving happiness, they are ecessary but not because they themselves are intrinsically good, but because its is difficult to achieve happiness without them. Aristotle distinguishes between practical and speculative reasoning, giving speculative reasoning the more importance. The practical part is important but speculative reasoning is the ultimate end in it self. The division of rationality into practical and speculative elements puts forward another self contradiction in Politics.
Aristotle earlier in his book said that, man is a social animal who gains full exercise of his eason only inside the city, this makes it seem like practical reason to political activity is necessary to man, while Aristotle concludes that speculative reasoning is the ultimate end of happiness. A great majority of Aristotle’s recommendations and theories apply only to the Greek period and the polis but still a great deal can’t be learnt from his writings. His theories are largely descriptive, they are series of recommendations based on what he observed and his analysis can easily be seen coming from someone who has studied politics extensively.
