The Politics by Aristotle

In many ways, the Politics is a companion volume to the “Nicomachean Ethics”, in which Aristotle defines a life of good quality and sets about describing how it should be achieved. The Politics, to a large extent, is an effort to describe the kind of political association that would best facilitate the ends described in the Ethics.

However, the Politics is not subservient to the Ethics. Aristotle's claim is not that cities must exist to serve the ends of individuals. Rather, he claims that individuals are to a large extent defined by the cities they live in and that man can be fully human (i.e. fully rational) only by participating in the city. The city is a complete whole and each individual is a mere part. The city is thus more important than the individual.

The tension between practical and speculative reasoning is central to the Politics. Practical reasoning is necessary for political and social matters, while speculative reasoning is necessary for theoretical and philosophical problems. Ultimately, Aristotle concludes in both the Ethics and the Politics that speculative reasoning is superior, as it is through a proper exercise of this faculty that man achieves true happiness

Whereas Aristotle views the exercise of speculative reasoning as and end in itself, he considers the exercise of practical reasoning an integral means to this end. Because an individual cannot learn to exercise his reason properly outside the confines of the city, and because the city is able to function only as a result of man's practical reasoning, practical reasoning is thus a prerequisite for the exercise of speculative reasoning.

Interestingly, Aristotle never concerns himself with questions of how much authority the state should have over the individual. A central question of modern political philosophy is the extent to which the state should be able to impose itself on the freedom of the individual. This question would not have made sense to Aristotle because he saw the goal of the city and the goal of the individual as identical. While his assertion—that the individual is only a subservient part of the state—might seem mildly totalitarian, his view was that the individual could have no truly rational needs or interests outside the confines of the state. As a result, it would be absurd to desire any kind of individual freedom in opposition to the state.

"Justice" might seem an odd term for what is essentially the right to hold more distinguished public offices. It is important to remember, however, that in a Greek city-state, serving in public office was essential to citizenship and was a high distinction. Further, those who occupied places of high distinction were more likely to enjoy other benefits as well.

Aristotle's method, here and elsewhere, is largely descriptive. He conducts extensive surveys of the different forms of government and theory and his own theory is less of a creative endeavor than Plato's in the “Republic”. Rather, it is a series of recommendations based on what he has observed. None of Aristotle's practical advice is particularly novel; his insights are more a synthesis of analyses by a man who has studied politics extensively.

***

Though the Politics ends quite abruptly with the discussion of some minor points of interest in regard to music, there is no reason to believe that some further section of the text has been lost. The Politics was compiled as lecture notes from the courses Aristotle taught at the Lyceum and was not intended for publication. The likely explanation for this ending, then, is that it marks the end of a specific lecture, though Aristotle perhaps taught further topics in political theory at another time.

Aristotle's firm stance against any kind of skill or knowledge that comes to be utilized for someone else's sake epitomizes his means-end dichotomy. Practical reasoning serves the entire city, of which each individual is a part, and speculative reasoning serves one's own happiness; each type of reasoning has its end in the self. When an individual engages in an activity whose end is to please others, such as playing music, however, that individual becomes a means for others to achieve leisure, ceasing to be an end in himself.

The aristocratic amateurism that Aristotle espouses evidences his elitist conception of class differences. Citizens should look down upon musicians and other such practitioners of arts because they practice their skill for the sake of others. Aristotle considers these practitioners simply a means for citizens to the end of leisure. As such, he inherently disparages the value of art for its own sake and the importance of art as self-expression—two notions integral to the modern conception of the self. Of course, ancient Greece was very different from the modern world. Citizens felt contempt for non-citizen manual laborers because their existence had worth only in the service of others. Their skills were not ends in themselves but rather means to others' ends.

Aristotle's discussion of music is difficult to understand for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is that very little is known about what Greek music actually sounded like. Historians know what instruments the Greeks played and that they based their melodies on different modal arrangements, which they felt were expressive of different states of character or emotion. Historians also know that music was very important to the Greeks: they felt that certain harmonies were divine and that music could express character and moral virtues better than any other medium. Aristotle believes that music can serve moral purposes because it can, quite literally, "represent" states of character just as paintings can represent trees and houses. By representing a virtuous character, music can serve as a very powerful tool for moral instruction.