Political Philosophy and Aristotle Essay

Published: 2020-05-06 09:24:09
863 words
3 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Philosophy

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

When looking at the manner Aristotle viewed the universe and comparing it to the British Tradition you foremost necessitate an apprehension of each. In this paper I want to first discourse what I’ve learned about Aristotle. The British Tradition. and so compare and contrast the two. Aristotle was a adherent of Plato. but they saw society a spot otherwise. Plato would be considered in this twenty-four hours and age as person who believes in Bolshevism. A leftist believes that the demands of society as a whole are more of import than the demands of the person. On the other manus. Aristotle would hold been a protagonist of individuality.
Individuality refers to the doctrine that an person should hold freedom in his or her economic and political chases. In contrast to Bolshevism. individuality stresses that the involvements of the person should take precedency over the involvements of the province. You could state that Aristotle believed in democracy. The best province could mean one that is conceived harmonizing to an abstract ideal ; one that is considered best for human communities in general ; one that is best for a peculiar community under given conditions ; or one that. while in no sense ideal. is every bit good as can be attained under the fortunes.
” ( Levine PG. 108 ) Aristotle besides believed in three spheres. The first sphere is personal action or ethos” . This is an thought to populate by. Aristotle though that people were simple plenty that we could populate by one codification or ethos. Aristotle called this The Good Life” . The 2nd sphere is household or oikos” . This is economic sciences or how to pull off a family. Aristotle believed that the end in the family should be different from the ends of the other spheres.
In the family. for illustration. a adult male should attest different concerns toward kids as their male parent than toward his married woman as her hubby. and he should be able to get. preserve. better. and decently utilize belongings. The duties of the caput of a polis differ from those of a caput of family. and swayers should dispatch them in ways to go to to the public assistance of all its members. non merely one or a few. ” ( Levine Pg. 118 ) The 3rd sphere is metropolis province or polis” . This besides stood for political relations.
Aristotle believed that we live in groups so of course we have to do determinations together. therefore we have to be political existences. Of class this is where Aristotle sounds much like one of the establishing male parents of our state. He thought adult females were excessively irrational for political relations and that slaves and common workers were excessively busy to be involved. Aristotle believed that to be politically involved you needed free clip to develop the necessary accomplishments and cognition. In other words Aristotle was an elitist Democrat. Aristotle’s societal theory was to make an environment conducive to good wonts.
He believed that we were are good by nature. In this environment we can so develop our virtuousnesss. He besides believed that everyone had possible. but realizing that potency was hard. He besides believed that public deliberation among those with virtuous wonts and developed concluding accomplishments was good for society. Equally far as the British Tradition goes. they believe in a fixed human nature and that there are predictable societal results based on this human nature. I’ll focal point on three different Britishs and their different positions on human leanings and how they affect society.
Hobbes believed that worlds were of course bad and born with selfish leanings. He believed that this could merely take to a negative result. unless person with absolute power were to command society. I believe Hobbes would be slightly totalitarian or possibly be person who was in favour of some kind of soldierly jurisprudence. Locke on the other manus was fundamentally the antonym of Hobbes. He believed people were pretty nice and this would take to good effects for everyone. Locke endeavored to rebut the Hobbesian defence of political tyranny.
In so making. he introduced two impressions that would steer centuries of British revisionism: that the human carnal manifests socially benign temperaments. and that human selfish temperaments can hold socially benign effects. ” ( Levine Pg. 130 ) The 3rd Brit that I’ll expression at is Smith. He is basically split between Hobbes and Locke. Smith believes that worlds do hold natural selfish leanings. but that these leanings are to the benefit of society. So when comparing Aristotle to the British Tradition it’s obvious that there are some reasonably large differences.
Aristotle didn’t believe in a fixed human nature like the Brits. Aristotle would state that you are a merchandise of the society in which you are raised. A good society will bring forth good citizens. and bad society will hold the opposite consequence. Aristotle would besides reason that at any point during a individuals life they can do the determination to develop their potencies and go a better individual. The Britishs on the other manus believed that you were either born good or bad and based on that there would be predictable results.

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read