Socio-Political Theory

IS 11 XB

The Life and Works of Plato and Aristotle

Group 1:

Belon Babes Villegas

Farah Mae Arafol
Krisalee Salomon
Mazuin Quiachon
Ridwan Landasan
Pink Hyacinth Ronsable

Submitted to: Ms. Melanie Ortiz Rosete

Date: July 1, 2010

Introduction

The term "political theory" is used in both narrow and broad senses, but the two are not easily
separated. In the narrow sense, it refers to the branch of academic discipline of “political science” that
discusses with the theoretical analysis of political institutions and practices. In a narrow understanding,
"political theory" ends up over an enormous amount of territory, running the full range from the
philosophical works of several theorists, including Plato and Aristotle.

Ancient Greek philosophy is dominated by three very famous men: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Socrates was first, and Plato was his student, around 400 BC. When Socrates was killed in 399 BC, and
Plato began his work by writing what he learnt from Socrates, continued by writing his own ideas and
opening an academy. A young man called Aristotle came to Plato’s school to study, and ended up
starting his own school as well (Carr, 2010).

Plato and Aristotle are two of the famous Greek theorists. Plato was born in an aristocratic and
influential family. He was originally named Aristocles by his grandfather but his wrestling coach
named him “Platon” in account of his robust figure. Plato founded one of the earliest known organized
schools in Western Civilization. When Plato was sixty years old, the seventeen-year-old Aristotle
presented himself, joining the Teacher's group of "Friends," as the members of the Academy called
themselves. Aristotle then became the student of Plato (Boeree, 2009).

Both philosophers have theories. In a discussion of politics, the standpoint of each philosopher
becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic, his most famous
book, that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city-
state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example,
the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Because he is so involved in
metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual (Ross, 2004). Aristotle,
contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics,
Aristotle’s renowned book, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual
state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to
creating a stable government (Kilcullen, 1996). His less metaphysical approach to politics makes
Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.

To better understand the works of these two great philosophers, we include what the critics have to say
about their theories. Criticisms involve the disadvantages and advantages of some theories used in
Plato’s The Republic and Aristotle’s Politics such as the Importance of the state versus the individual,
function of rulers, the effect of the abolition of the family to the society, the concept that philosophers
must be kings, concepts of unity among the individual, and the concept of good and evil when it comes
to political matters.
I—Historical Background

Plato was one of the most famous, respected, and influential philosophers of all time. A type of love
(Platonic) is named for him. We know the Greek philosopher Socrates mostly through Plato's
dialogues. Atlantis enthusiasts know Plato for his parable about it.

Plato was born around on May 21 in 428 or 427 B.C., a year or two after Pericles died and during the
Peloponnesian War. He was related to Solon and could trace his ancestry to the last legendary king of
Athens, Codrus. Plato was a student and follower of Socrates until 399, when the condemned Socrates
died after drinking the prescribed cup of hemlock. It is through Plato that we are most familiar with
Socrates' philosophy because Plato wrote dialogues, in which his teacher took part, usually asking
leading questions -- the Socratic method (Gill, 2010).

Gill (2010) further mentioned that Pato's Apology is Plato's version of the death of Socrates. When his

master died, he traveled to Egypt and Italy, studied with students of Pythagoras, and spent several years

advising the ruling family of Syracuse. Eventually, he returned to Athens and established his own

school of philosophy at the Academy. For students enrolled there, Plato tried both to pass on the

heritage of a Socratic style of thinking and to guide their progress through mathematical learning to the

achievement of abstract philosophical truth. The written dialogues on which his enduring reputation

rests also serve both of these aims.

In his earliest literary efforts, Plato tried to convey the spirit of Socrates's teaching by presenting

accurate reports of the master's conversational interactions, for which these dialogues are our primary

source of information. Early dialogues are typically devoted to investigation of a single issue, about

which a conclusive result is rarely achieved. Thus, the Euqufrwn (Euthyphro) raises a significant doubt

about whether morally right action can be defined in terms of divine approval by pointing out a

significant dilemma about any appeal to authority in defense of moral judgments.

The Apologhma (Apology) offers a description of the philosophical life as Socrates presented it in his
own defense before the Athenian jury. The Kritwn (Crito) uses the circumstances of Socrates's

imprisonment to ask whether an individual citizen is ever justified the state.

Although they continue to use the talkative Socrates as a fictional character, the middle dialogues of

Plato develop, express, and defend his own, more firmly established, conclusions about central

philosophical issues. Beginning with the Menwn (Meno), for example, Plato not only reports the

Socratic notion that no one knowingly does wrong, but also introduces the doctrine of recollection in an

attempt to discover whether or not virtue can be taught. The Faidwn (Phaedo) continues development

of Platonic notions by presenting the doctrine of the Forms in support of a series of arguments that

claim to demonstrate the immortality of the human soul (Kemerling, 2006).

The masterpiece among the middle dialogues is Plato's Politeia (Republic), which will be further

elaborated and explained in the next section. It begins with a Socratic conversation about the nature of

justice but proceeds directly to an extended discussion of the virtues of justice, wisdom, courage,

and moderation as they appear both in individual human beings and in society as a whole. This plan for

the ideal society or person requires detailed accounts of human knowledge and of the kind

of educational program by which it may be achieved by men and women alike, captured in a powerful

image of the possibilities for human life in the allegory of the cave. The dialogue concludes with a

review of various forms of government, an explicit description of the ideal state, in which only

philosophers are fit to rule, and an attempt to show that justice is better than injustice. Among the other

dialogues of this period are Plato's treatments of human emotion in general and of love in particular in

the FaidroV (Phaedrus) and Sumposion (Symposium).

In the Middle Ages, Plato was known mostly through Latin translations of Arabic translations and
commentaries. In the Renaissance, when Greek became more familiar, far more scholars studied Plato.
Since then, he has had an impact on math and science, morals, and political theory. Instead of following
a political path, Plato thought it more important to educate would-be statesmen. For this reason, he set
up a school for future

leaders. Plato's school was called the Academy, named for the park in which it was located. In his book,
the Republic, he included treatise on education.

When Plato died, in 347 B.C., after Philip II of Macedonia had begun his conquest of Greece,
leadership of the Academy passed not to Aristotle, who had been a student and then teacher there for 20
years, and who expected to follow, but to Plato's nephew Speusippus. The Academy continued for
several more centuries.

The association between Aristotle and Plato dates probably from 368-67 B.C. when Aristotle, at the age
of eighteen, came to join Plato's Academy in Athens. He was a native of Stagira in northern Greece. His
father had been employed as a doctor at the Macedonian court, and but for his premature death it seems
likely that Aristotle would have followed him in that profession. But in fact he remained in the
Academy for twenty years, leaving it only when Plato passed away (Warner, 2005).But although
Aristotle was Plato's most promising student, Aristotle did not succeed Plato as head of the Academy
because of their opposing views on several fundamental philosophical issues, specifically regarding
Plato's theory of ideas. Aristotle was more concerned than Plato with the actual material world, and did
not believe that the only thing that mattered is the realm of ideas and perfect forms.

After leaving the Academy, Aristotle was invited to go live in the court of his friend Hermeas, ruler of
Atarneus and Assos in Mysia. Aristotle remained there for three years, during which time he married
Pythias, the niece and adopted daughter of the king. Later in life Aristotle married Herpyllis, with
whom had a son, named Nicomachus after his father. When Hermeas' kingdom was taken over by
Persians, Aristotle moved to Mytilene. King Amyntas invited Aristotle to tutor his thirteen-year old son,
Alexander. Aristotle tutored Alexander for five years until King Amyntas died, and Alexander came to
power. In gratitude for Aristotle's services, Alexander provided Aristotle generously with means for the
acquisition of books and for the pursuit of scientific inquiry. While the extent to which Aristotle's
tutoring influenced Alexander's successes in conquering an empire is disputable, Alexander did try to
organize much of his empire along the model of the Greek city-state.
In 335 BC Aristotle went back to Athens, where he found the Academy flourishing under Xenocrates.
Aristotle founded his own school, the Lyceum, and ran it for twelve years. The school is often called
the Peripatetic School, because Aristotle used to like walking around and discusses his ideas with his
colleagues. Peripatetics are "people who walk around." Aristotle would have detailed discussions with
a small group of advanced students in the mornings, and larger lectures in the evenings. During his
time at the Lyceum, Aristotle wrote extensively on a wide range of subjects: politics, metaphysics,
ethics, logic and science.

Aristotle agreed with Plato that the cosmos is rationally designed and that philosophy can come to
know absolute truths by studying universal forms. Their ideas diverged, however, in that Aristotle
thought that the one finds the universal in particular things, while Plato believed the universal exists
apart from particular things, and that material things are only a shadow of true reality, which exists in
the realm of ideas and forms. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers is that Plato
thought only pure mathematical reasoning was necessary, and therefore focused on metaphysics and
mathematics. Aristotle, on the other hand, thought that in addition to this "first philosophy," it is also
necessary to undertake detailed empirical investigations of nature, and thus to study what he called
"second philosophy," which includes such subjects as physics, mechanics and biology. Aristotle's
philosophy therefore involved both inductive and deductive reasoning, observing the workings of the
world around him and then reasoning from the particular to a knowledge of essences and universal
laws. In a sense, Aristotle was the first major proponent of the modern scientific method. The Lyceum
was an unprecedented school of organized scientific inquiry. There was no comparable scientific
enterprise for over 2,000 years after the founding of the Lyceum.

In 323 BC Alexander the Great died unexpectedly and the government of Athens was overthrown by
anti-Macedonian forces. Having had close connections with the Macedonian royal family, Aristotle was
associated with the Macedonians and was unpopular with the new ruling powers. The new government
brought charges of impiety against Aristotle, but he fled to his country house in Chalcis in Euboea to
escape prosecution. Aristotle commented that he fled so that "the Athenians might not have another
opportunity of sinning against philosophy as they had already done in the person of Socrates." About a
year later, Aristotle died after complaints of a stomach illness.

His student Theophrastus, his successor as leader of the Peripatetic School, preserved Aristotle’s
writings. Theophrastus' pupil Neleus and his heirs concealed the books in a vault to protect them from
theft, but dampness, moths and worms damaged them. The books were found around 100 BC by
Apellicon, who brought them to Rome. In Rome, scholars took interest in the works and prepared new
editions of them. The writings of Aristotle that we have today are based on this collection. Overall,
Aristotle wrote three types of works: dialogues or other works of a popular character, collections of
scientific data and observations, and systematic treatises. His philosophy can be divided into four main
areas: 1) Logic; 2) Theoretical Philosophy, including Metaphysics, Physics and Mathematics; 3)
Practical Philosophy, such as Ethics and Politics; and 4) Poetical Philosophy, covering the study of
poetry and the fine arts.

II—Books/Theories

Regarded as Plato's most important work, the Republic has long been studied as a seminal text of the
Western literary and philosophical canon. In this group of philosophical dialogues, Plato uses a
conversational prose format to explore the nature of society, seeking to define the characteristics of an
ideal society, or republic. Inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Socrates, in the Republic Plato
theorizes that the answer to society's ills lies not in reforming political systems but in adopting
philosophic principles as guidelines. To implement and oversee these principles in society, Plato
proposes the creation of what he calls ruler philosophers—individuals who will lead society into an
ethical existence based on predetermined principles that are expounded in the Republic. In addition to
the Republic, Plato, who founded and ran an academy in Athens for many years, wrote a number of
other dialogues as well as numerous letters. Because of the influence of the ideas expressed in various
dialogues, including the Republic, Plato has come to occupy a key position in the history of western
philosophy and is often called the father of philosophic idealism. Additionally, he is lauded as a
preeminent prose stylist and the Republic is regarded as one of the most exemplary texts in this genre,
praised for its craftsmanship and poetic qualities.

Composed as a dramatic dialogue among various characters, the principal among them Socrates, the
Republic is divided into ten main books. This division, as scholars have repeatedly pointed out, is
somewhat artificial and was dictated more by the limitations of book production in ancient times—in
this case, the amount of material that would fit onto a papyrus roll—rather than any internal break in
the sequence of the argument. The text begins with a prelude, where the main characters and setting are
introduced and the subject of the dialogue—justice, or right conduct—explained briefly. In addition to
Socrates, who is the main narrator of the dialogue, other characters include Glaucon and Adeimantus,
elder brothers of Plato, and Polemarchus, a resident of Athens at whose house the conversation takes
place. Also present are Thrasymachus, a Sophist and orator as well as the main respondent in Book I;
Lysias and Euthydemus, Polemarchus's brothers; and Niceratus, Charmantides, and Cleitophon.
Ostensibly a discussion about the nature of justice, expounded on first by Thrasymachus, who states the
Sophist position that justice and its related conventions are rules that were imposed on society by those
in power, the rest of the dialogue is mainly a response from Socrates to this statement. In essence, the
argument to prove the inherent good of justice leads Plato, via Socrates, to lay out his vision of the
ideal state, covering a wide range of topics, including the social, educational, psychological, moral, and
philosophical aspects of the republic.

The main intention of the Republic is to define the principles that govern an ideal society. In doing so,
Plato touches upon many important ideas about education, ethics, politics, and morality in this text.
Scholars have pointed out that the main argument of the Republic is partly a response to the political
unrest and instability Plato witnessed in contemporary Athenian society. Following the end of the
Peloponnesian War, Athens became a democracy of sorts, led mostly by laymen, who, in Plato's view,
tended to implement policies based more on popular demand rather than necessity or principle. Thus,
Plato developed a perspective that viewed all contemporary forms of government as corrupt, theorizing
that the only hope for finding true justice both for society and the individual lies in philosophy, and that
“mankind will have no respite from trouble until either real philosophers gain political power, or
politicians become by some miracle true philosophers.” This is the central theme of the Republic. In the
context of this premise, Plato touches upon several major issues, focusing the most significant
discussions on the nature and definition of ethics, education, and the organization of society and
politics, as well as religion and philosophy. In contrast to the Sophists, who advocated the primacy of
rhetoric over moral training, Plato proposes the creation of an educational system that focuses on the
molding of character, with the ultimate goal of the educator being not just imparting knowledge, but
also the ability “to turn the mind's eye to the light so that it can see for itself.” According to Plato, one
of the main problems of his society was the inability to distinguish true reality from reflections or
images of reality. Plato employs his famous allegory of the cave to illustrate how mankind learns and
can be mislead by the manner in which he learns. Plato's preferred educational system strictly controls
the upbringing of the ruling class in order to help them differentiate between appearance and reality and
form correct views. He advocates the study of mathematics and abstract ideas rather than art, music, or
literature because the latter deal with representation of ideas, not ideas themselves; he even goes so far
as to advocate censorship of art, when necessary, in the service of proper education. Another powerful
focus in the Republic is the discussion of justice. Responding primarily to the Sophists' position, that
morality is important only because of the social and personal consequences that follow, Plato contends
that morality and justice are key components of an ideal society and that they must underlie all areas of
human interaction.

Just like his teacher, Aristotle also had his masterpiece, called Politics. In this book, he addressed the
city. Aristotle's conception of the city is organic, and he is considered one of the first to conceive of the
city in this manner. Aristotle considered the city to be a natural community. Moreover, he considered
the city to be prior to the family which in turn is prior to the individual, i.e., last in the order of
becoming, but first in the order of being. He is also famous for his statement that "man is by nature a
political animal." Aristotle conceived of politics as being like an organism rather than like a machine,
and as a collection of parts none of which could exist without the others.

It should be noted that the modern understanding of a political community is that of the state. However,
the state was foreign to Aristotle. He referred to political communities as cities. Aristotle understood a
city as a political "partnership". Subsequently, a city is created not to avoid injustice or for economic
stability, but rather to live a good life: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being
for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together." This can be distinguished from the
social contract theory which individuals leave the state of nature because of "fear of violent death" or
its "inconveniences.”

Aristotle frequently compares the politician to a craftsman. The analogy is imprecise because politics,
in the strict sense of legislative science, is a form of practical knowledge, while a craft like architecture
or medicine is a form of productive knowledge. However, the comparison is valid to the extent that the
politician produces, operates, and maintains a legal system according to universal principles.

One can also explain the existence of the city-state in terms of the four causes. It is a kind of
community, that is, a collection of parts having some functions and interests in common. Hence, it is
made up of parts, which Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts: as households, or
economic classes (the rich and the poor), or demes (local political units). But, ultimately, the city-state
is composed of individual citizens, who, along with natural resources, are the "material" or
"equipment" out of which the city-state is fashioned.
The existence of the city-state also requires an efficient cause, namely, its ruler. On Aristotle's view, a
community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or authority. This ruling
principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the
sovereign office. However, on a deeper level, there must be an efficient cause to explain why a city-
state acquires its constitution in the first place. Aristotle states, "The person who first established [the
city-state] is the cause of very great benefits". This person was evidently the lawgiver, someone like

Solon of Athens or Lycurgus of Sparta, who founded the constitution. Aristotle compares the lawgiver,
or the politician more generally, to a craftsman like a weaver or shipbuilder, who fashions material into
a finished product.

In a nutshell, the city-state, according to Aristotle, is a hylomorphic (matter-form) compound of a

particular population (i citizen-body) in a given territory (material cause) and a constitution (formal
cause). The constitution itself is fashioned by the lawgiver and is governed by politicians, who are like
craftsmen (efficient cause), and the constitution defines the aim of the city-state.
III—Issues

No matter how intellectual the person is and no matter how great his masterpieces are, still he and his
works cannot escape from the eyes of critics. Critics are those people who question the essence, logic
and validity of a certain work of a certain person, in this case, the two renowned philosophers and their
theories. Below are the theories of both Plato and Aristotle from their books entitled The Republic and
Politics, respectively, with their corresponding advantages and disadvantages according to critics.

A. Plato

Theory: Importance of the state versus the individual

A state comes into existence because no individual is self-sufficing; we all have many needs. Plato
argues that the individual exists for the state and not the state for the individual.

Criticism:
Robert Mayhew's Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Republic focuses on Aristotle's main objections to
Plato's political philosophy: the degree of unity envisioned by Plato is impossible/undesirable; too
much unity undermines self-sufficiency; community of women and children and community of
property have numerous adverse effects on society. Mayhew claims that the objections have been
largely ignored on the ground that they are facile or unfair. But the purpose of the book is not to show
that Aristotle's thought has been unjustifiably vilified, though Mayhew says "we shall see in passing
that in most cases Aristotle's criticisms of the Republic are well-founded."

Advantages:
Everybody has met their needs for they are living interdependently by which all of their demands in
order to survive are being satisfied.

Disadvantages:
If ever the state is weak and faces a malfunctional phenomenon, every individual living in the state is
weak too. Hence, lower economic living trend, poor literacy and miserable societal aspects will arise.
Theory: Function of Rulers
They must take the greatest care not to overlook the least infraction of the rule against any innovation
upon the established system of education either of the body or of the mind.

Criticism:
Plato argues that, only in the perfect state can man find perfection. All this is based on his idea of the
forms. By which he seeks to justify this state tyranny of an educated oligarchy. In fact his Guardians, in
spite of long training, are not educated at all, for education makes people better. We could hardly call it
education if it corrupted them. No educated person wants absolute power over others. Educated folk
know their own faults and failings and would shun this exercise of despotism.

They might agree with Mill that, “if all the world but one were of one opinion, the world would no
more have the right to force him to change his view, that he, had he the power, would have the right to
force the world.” Plato does try to justify it by saying that the Guardians take office, not for love of
power but because they cannot bear their state to fall into the hands of lesser men who were incapable
of wise guidance.

Advantages:
With the enough knowledge or education you have, there are big chances that you are capable of doing
decisions about the sensitive issues and concerns for the better of your state or country.

Disadvantages:
Too much knowledge may deviate a person from doing his commitment. Instead, there is a big
possibility that the guardian or ruler will abuse his/her power for he knows fully the techniques and
tactics on how control and dominates his people.

Theory: The abolition of the family

No man and one woman are to set up house together privately: wives are to be held in common by all;
so too are the children and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child is his parent.

Plato wants his Guardians to be protected from all forms of distraction such as love of one’s spouse or
one’s children. Children are never to know their biological parents but to respect all adults of a certain
generation as mothers and fathers. Equally the parents are not to know who their children are but to
treat all as theirs, which in effect means, the states. Instead of marriage there are to be special times
for mating organized as a lottery, by the guardians. It appears as a lottery but in reality this is fixed.
Again the analogy of dog breeding is used so that Plato seems to think that the Guardians will know
which are the best of the men and women and see to it that they only breed together.

Criticism:
“In spite of all the Darwinist, Hitlerian and Platonic comparisons with the breeding of domestic animals
it has to be understood that humans are not animals. We are far more complex and, inspite of
behaviourist claims, we have the rare gift of language and the capacity to deal with abstracts that
animals do not. Breeding experiments are bound to turn out a calamity, most of all for the subjects of
those experiments. The very basis of these ideas is false, perverted and grotesque. Who, for instance, is
to decide and to dictate who or what is “the best”? Who is it that decides whether Nigel or Napoleon is
to be the pattern? Is George Eliot to be reckoned as “better” than Mrs. Pankhurst? For that matter how
many parents have children, which are exact clones of themselves? Even identical twins have
remarkable differences and who can say how and to what degree nurture plays a part in moulding the
potentialities in our genes?”
(Penny, 2007)

“To show how closely modern totalitarianism has followed the Platonic pattern we may consider the
following quotation from Mein; Kampf. Discussing racial purity Hitler wrote. “The Weltanschauung
which bases the State on the racial idea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which
men will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs and horses and cats,
but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human race itself.” In the next chapter he returns to the
theme and again could be paraphrasing Plato. “A Weltanschauung which repudiates the democratic
principle of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people, that is, to the highest
quality of mankind, must also apply that same aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the folk
community. It must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence are given to the best
men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the majority, but on that of personality.” (Mein Kampf, trans
Murphy 1939. pp.228, 248)
Advantages:
A certain country or state will have a full protection from the guardians for they are not being
influenced by internal and external factors such as love and home. They will have an intense
concentration to do their duties and responsibilities. Hence a certain country or a state will achieve a
holistic security.

Disadvantages:
There is a possibility that a certain state or country will face a miserable society for the children who
are born of out of wedlock and have no home will be the main agent of deviance and darkness to a
certain state. Hence, conflict will arise easily, the political stability will not be achieved and peace will
be difficult to retain.

Theory: Philosophers must be kings

Plato, like Marx, suggests that there was a “golden age” and that human society has degenerated
since then. What is needed, he suggests, is that kings should be philosophers and philosophers kings.
These, he insists must have a vision of the good. However this is only explained by a series of
analogies. The Cave, the Divided Line, and The Sun. There is no such thing as an “essential table,”
though there may be absolute goodness and truth, though not in the world of men, nor ever can be
while humans are in control.

Criticism:
Although Plato, like Socrates, had always defined philosophers as those who know they are ignorant,
he always talks about the philosopher Guardians as though they will actually be wise. But if a
philosopher is not wise, then he may not make any better a ruler than someone who is virtuous because
of correct belief (as described at the end of the Meno). Plato's theory, therefore, really depends on
philosophy actually be able to produce wise people. In two thousand years, that has clearly not
happened. It is fairly obvious that philosophy professors are, on the whole, no wiser as persons than
anyone else; and in academic philosophy departments most professors are not even trying to pursue
wisdom in any ordinary meaning of the word.
Advantages:
If a king or a ruler is a philosopher, then he has the full wisdom of knowing the truth. Hence, the reality
that is going on the society will be more focused especially the different concerns and problems of the
masses.

Disadvantages:
It is true that a philosopher has lots of wisdom but on the other hand, if he is not wise, then his wisdom
will just be wisdom and will not be applied in order to help the masses in the society. Hence, if a
philosopher will be a king, he must have not only wisdom but also the knowledge and the tactics on
how to deal with the concerns of the society.

Theory:
Plato holds that the unity of the city should be the unity of the individual human being. By contrast,
Aristotle insists "not only is a city made up of a number of human beings, but also of a number of
human beings differing in kind (eidei). For a city does not come to be out of similar people"

Criticism:
Such unity cannot be the unity of a substance. Individuals do not belong to a society like parts belong
to a whole. In a living organism, each part is continuous to the others, and its dynamics is oriented
toward the whole. Striving to accomplish a substantial unity of the polis would lead to its destruction. It
is its "constitution" that makes a city one, and "unlike a substance and its form, the parts of a city can
rid themselves of one constitution and create another. Yet, the cause of a city's remaining one is not the
constitution as such (or completely), but (at least in part) the choice of each of the citizens" (p. 28).
Political unity entails irreducible multiplicity. Yet since Plato recognizes that diversity is needed for the
city to be serf-sufficient, what is the nature of Aristotle's criticism?
Just as an animal or plant can survive and flourish only if its soul rules over its body (Pol. I.5.1254a34-
6, DA I.5.410b10-15; compare Plato Phaedo 79e-80a), a human community can possess the necessary
order only if it has a ruling element which is in a position of authority, just as an army can possess
order only if it has a commander in control. Although Aristotle followed Plato on this principle, he
rejected Plato's further claim that one form of rule is appropriate for all. For Aristotle different forms of
rule are necessary for different systems: e.g., political rule for citizens and despotic rule for slaves. The
imposition of an inappropriate type of rule results in disorder and injustice.
“If the end of a constitution is to achieve unity, Plato's communism is the wrong means, not only
because what is common is given the least care, but because with such a system friendship would be
fragmented and ultimately destroyed. "There are two things that most of all make human beings care
and feel affection (philein): that which is one's own and that which is dear. Neither of these can belong
to those having such a constitution" (Politics 1262622-4).

Advantage:
If the sense of unity will be present in the society, then common goal for its development and stability
will be achieved.

Disadvantage:
If a problem will arise in a united society, each sector will be affected because of its nature of
interrelatedness and interdependency. Once leadership of the king failed, people under his rule will
suffer the consequences.

B. Aristotle

Theory:
Aristotle's perfectionism was opposed to the subjective relativism of Protagoras, according to which
good and evil is defined by whatever human beings happened to desire. Like Plato, Aristotle
maintained that the good was objective and independent of human wishes. However, he rejected Plato's
own theory that the good was defined in terms of a transcendent form of the good, holding instead that
good and evil are in a way relative to the organism, that is, to its natural end.

Criticism:
The aforementioned principles account for much of the distinctive flavor of Aristotle's political
philosophy, and they also indicate where many modern theorists have turned away from him. Modern
philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes have challenged the principles of teleology and perfectionism,
arguing against the former that human beings are mechanistic rather than teleological systems, and
against the latter that good and bad depend upon subjective preferences of valuing agents rather than on
objective states of affairs. Liberal theorists have criticized the principle of community on the grounds
that it cedes too much authority to the state. Even the principle of rulership which Aristotle, Plato, and
many other theorists thought self-evident has come under fire by modern theorists like Adam Smith and
F. A. Hayek who argued that social and economic order may arise spontaneously as if by an "invisible
hand." Modern neo-Aristotelian political theorists are committed to defending one or more of these
doctrines against such criticisms.

Advantage:
If the concept of good and evil are believed to be objective and are natural, hence, every individual will
realize and appreciate his being as naturally good being a son or daughter of God.

Disadvantage:
If the concept of good and evil are believe to be subjective, hence every individual will be aware and
make his own decision depending on his will for in the first place, he did not base his deeds upon God's
Words but instead he base it upon his will as a human being.
Conclusion

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in
general. In a discussion of politics, the viewpoint of each philosopher becomes an important factor. It is
not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of
the good should be the governors in a city-state. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on
politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual ( Ross, 2001).

Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The
Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a
main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable
government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern
world, yet he is far from modern (Kilcullen, 1996).

Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory
of forms. The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in
the world. Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing, which is the form. According
to Plato, only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve
understanding of the forms. In The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since
they are the only ones who hold the form of the good. The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you
will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule. Plato further argues that
philosopher rulers are needed to create an ideal state that guarantees justice (Banach, 2006).

Moreover, Plato argues that it is a separation of power amongst three classes--Rulers, Auxiliaries,
Commoners--that makes the most of each person's natural abilities and strives for the good of the
community. The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various
individuals. It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the
Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because
they do not understand the concept of the forms (Landry, 2004).

Whereas Plato's The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice and in doing so uses the polis,
Aristotle's The Politics's sole function is to define itself--define politics. He argues that the state is the
culmination of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman ("pair"), which have a
family and form a "household"; households unite and form villages; villages unite and form the state.
This natural order of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals.
Aristotle, like Plato, believes that a person is not self-reliant. This lack of sufficiency is the catalyst in
the escalating order of unions among people. In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on
breaking down society. His argument says that there are different classes in society, but they are
naturally defined. Aristotle is also very sexist and explicitly states so. His view is that women are
inferior to men in all senses. Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citizen, whose role is
purely political. Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that some people are not capable of practicing
an active role in political life. Plato's reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the
intricacies of higher knowledge on the good. Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more political
issue that those that fully participate in their government should be considered citizens of the state
(Clayton, 2005).

The Aristotelian polis, as opposed to Plato's, is a city with a large middle class that promotes stability
and balances the conflicting claims of the poor and the rich. Aristotle combines elements of democracy
with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims. Because he is aware that human interest
is an inextricable entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods is in proportion to contribution to
the good of the polis. This system provides for the self-interested who believe that those who work
harder should receive more. Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the
mixed social system allows. This is permissible because of the strong involvement of the citizens in
government; it is what one would call a "true democracy." Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails
(Clayton, 2005).

The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet today it is
difficult to find specific instances where either philosophy is applied. This may be a result of the fact
that today's political philosophy differs from both philosophers’. While Aristotle and Plato uphold the
good of the community or state above individual good, today's constitution includes a bill of rights that
guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation. Having these individual rights is a necessity for
today's citizens. According to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it does not
improve the good of the community.

Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and today's society involves the topic of
slavery. Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered
grotesque for quite some time. In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female
population by Aristotle. Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes women are the sub-
species. While women have had to fight endless battles to achieve the recognition they deserve, today it
is a well-accepted fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in performing tasks.

Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long time, our society certainly
contains some of their influences in a general sense. For example, today it is believed that certain
people are born with certain capacities. Intelligence has been attributed to genetics. Because of the
different intelligence levels among people, we have different classes--for example: advanced,
intermediate, and beginners. In their appropriate level, each person develops his or her abilities to the
highest potential. This concept is sometimes at odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human
beings. Yet, in essence, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in
certain capacity levels to complete tasks.

Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate
our practices. The philosophers are very community oriented while we value the individual. Besides
differing with today's standards, each philosopher is in his own way distinct. Plato is very attracted to
metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical. Both perspective views are and will
continue to puzzle students for years to come.
Reference List

Boeree, C.G. (2009). The Ancient Greeks part two: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Retrieved June 30,
2010, from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/athenians.html

Columbia University Press. (1991). Plato: Founder of the Academy. Retrieved June 30, 2010,
fromhttp://www.columbia.edu/itc/lithium/wong/plato.html

enotes.com. (2010).Republic (Politiea) Plato. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from

http://www.enotes.com/classical-medieval-criticism/republic-politeia-plato

History and Sciencefor Middle School Kids, Greek Philosophy(2010). Retrieved June 30, 2010, from
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/philosophy/index.htm

Jenkins, J.L. (2001). Article: Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's Republic(Review).The Philosophical

Review. Retrieved June 30, 2010, fromhttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-73538070.html

Kemerling, G. (2006).Plato. Retrieved on June 29, 2010, from

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/warnerr/platoback.htm

Kilcullen, R.J. (1006) Tape 5: Aristotle, the Politics.Retrieved on June 28, 2010, from
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6704.html

Landry, P. (2004). Plato. Retrieved July 1, 2010

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Plato.htm

Massie, P. (1999). Aristotle criticisms of Plato's Republic. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3545/is_3_52/ai_n28740176/

Ross, K.L. (2004). Plato's Republic, note: The ring of gyges and hollow man. Retrived June 30, 2010,
from http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm
Short Biography of Aristotle. Retrieved June 28, 2010, from
http://www.321books.co.uk/biography/aristotle.htm

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2002).Presuppositions of Aristotle Politics.Retrieved June 30,

2010, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement2.html

Penny, R. (2007). Criticisms of Plato's Republic. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from
http://socyberty.com/government/criticism-of-plato-the-republic/

Warner, R. (2005). Plato and Aristotle: The historical background. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from
htp://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/warnerr/platoback.htm

Your Dictictionary.com. (2010). Biography of Aristotle. Retrieved on June 29, 2010, from
http://www.yourdictionary.com/biography/aristotle