|
Aristotle and Plato: two political
thoughts. Discuss similarities and differences between the
two.
Plato was the father of the “Utopian” idea in
which several features were essential. He broke down the
human soul in three parts; Desire spiritual and rational.
Plato addresses the three features as being key to the
establishment of the perfect society. If every person
counterweights with the whole of society and these features
than society can understand each other and progress and work
towards the advancement of the society. Aristotle takes the
same concept but more clearly defines it and takes it to the
next level that goes beyond the perfect state and allows its
applications to influence the whole system rather that
purely serve as its basis. Aristotle has a perfect society
but is not as nearly exaggerated as that of a utopia.
Aristotle takes a more lenient attitude in his philosophy in
general, in which its application is easier to real life.
Aristotle sees only two parts to the human soul; the
philosophical/ theoretical and the rational. Superficially
one may derive from this that the human soul is far deeper
than that of Plato’s partitions. In fact Aristotle regards
human individual more than Plato does. Aristotle believes
that each and every human has the philosophical/ theoretical
dimension to him or her but the distinguishing feature is
the ability to be rational. Plato uses the analogy of
golden, silver and iron souls to distinguish the
differences.
The scales on which both philosophers regard
the human soul on are consequently determinate to the whole
political structure and system more so in Plato’s utopia. To
be able to recognize the difference of perspectives, looking
at what qualifies one to become a ruler is essential. Plato
claims that the pre-determined level of a soul is the
definite feature of the ruler. The king must be of a golden
soul who also happens to be a philosopher. Aristotle takes
the latter part of this interpretation and applies it to the
rational part of the human soul and defines it as being the
determinate factor unique characteristic that qualifies to
be the leader. The soul classification of Plato creates a
blatant hierarchical system that I personally see as a huge
flaw to Plato’s utopia and therefore more agree with
Aristotle’s view that all citizens are free and that the
leader can only be if here were rational. One may think what
if there were many people who are rational? The answer I
find to that is exactly supports the hierarchal system he
purposes. Aristotle proposes that the whole of the society
in general should determine who is the leader, more like a
democracy but with smaller terms and more watchdog councils
set up but in a structure where all rational people have a
turn to benefit society. On the contrary Plato sees that
only the one philosopher king can rule, which in reality
causes severe complications and more room for error as iron
soul and silver soul have no say in society and only serve
as the wheels for the progress of society, as oppose to
Aristotle who believes all free men are born equal opening
the possibility for interaction and understanding, giving
the potential of all people of becoming good citizens. Both
philosophers express the modern terms of nature of nurture
but with a political significance. Plato believes that the
predetermined soul level is the humans nature which one
cannot escape and is part of no matter what, and Aristotle
believe that our nature is equal in all of us and the
nurture is the next significant factor that can lead to the
ability of rationalism.
The orientation of the whole of society within
itself without relation to the ruling structure in both
philosophers society conflict and conduct totally
differently. Plato continues and to use his classification
system throughout the whole of society. Aristotle proposes a
far less hierarchical society. Both perfect societies are
based on the ultimate goal of achieving happiness for all.
Plato claims happiness can be easily achieved once all the
different classes co-operate with another, with each
accepting their position in society, mainly due to the
reason no matter what social class one is they are essential
and part of this perfect society. In extreme cases on can
compare this to communism where each has a role assigned by
the state and must work with it or will lead to the collapse
of the whole of the society. This strict system that is
based solely on class has been obviously seen to collapse as
in Eastern Europe in the latter part of the centaury.
Aristotle takes are far more relaxed view that in
application may have a more long lasting lifespan. Aristotle
sees that the happiness of society can be found through the
pursuing of leisure. Aristotle strictly emphasizes the
importance of leisure seeking but recognizes that this must
exist in specific environment. The role of family and the
union of family are encouraged in many aspects in
Aristotle’s philosophy. In fact one can actually identify
many aspects of the political structure of the perfect
society based around the family structure, where there
exists a ruler who could be seen as the father but in many
aspects a family is not a totalitarian state and is more
like a cooperation, still lead but not alone. Family takes
the role of providing the nurture in the souls and also
provides the drive for leisure seeking and essentially
leading to the perfect society. Aristotle leaves no part of
societies citizens isolated. Plato prefers to look at the
isolation he puts the citizens in as soul categories that
one must accept to be happy. Applying both points of views
parallel, I can see very little competition in which Plato
may prevail. Applying Plato’s specific points of views to
modern societies would cause havoc and would lead to a
society far from that of a perfect one. It is also important
to apply this to the society he essentially wrote it for in
the first place. Such structures have been set up century
after century regimes upon regimes in all parts of the
world, resulting to each and every ones failure.
BACK
TO CLASSIC
|