Aristotles Criticism of Platos Republic

The inherent ambiguity of the word enables Aristotle to use it for expressing both admiration and contempt. These are also the two attitudes that commentators tend to take toward Pol. The first odd feature of the discussion comes at the end of this introduction. It features what Aquinas calls an apology excusatio 7 for the critical examination. Aristotle tells us that we must review other constitutions not only in order to find out what is correct and useful about them but also so as to avoid giving the impression that our search for something different from them results from a wish to show off cleverness sophizesthai at all costs rather than that we have taken up the inquiry because the currently existing constitutions are not well designed.

One can profitably compare this passage with the opening paragraph of Eth.

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Aquinas, Sententia Libri Politicorum, lib. The dilemma stems from two honorable but, in this particular case, incompatible attachments—to truth and to friends. At the beginning of Pol. Thus even independently of whether the actual criticisms are justified or not, this strangely narrow focus can already give rise to suspicions. These suspicions are heightened even further once one 9 Saunders, Aristotle: Politics I and II, In section 4 I will argue that the aim and the methods available to him to achieve the aim necessitate a certain way of arguing that carries an emotive content and so results in emotional responses on the part of the reader.

In other words the odd, polemical features are a deliberate strategy that Aristotle feels justified in using for philosophical purposes. When investigating the soul, it is necessary, while puzzling over the problems that we must resolve in our further advance, to also take into account the views of those of our predecessors who have made claims about it so that we may take on board the things that they said well and avoid those that they said in error.

As far as this aim is concerned, the method appears eminently reasonable. It confirms that the subject matter is worthy of investigation, since other reputable thinkers thought about it too. It summarizes the results achieved so far, and in doing so enables one to avoid unnecessary work and previous mistakes, thus providing the best grounds and starting points for further investigation.

It does even more since, as we learn elsewhere, it provides the problems that the new investigation needs to address: As in the other cases, we must set out the appearances, and first of all go through the puzzles. In this way we must prove the common beliefs about these ways of being affected—ideally, all the common beliefs, but if not all, most of them, and the most important. For if the objections are solved, and the common beliefs are left, it will be an adequate proof.

We must undermine some of these claims, and leave others intact; for the solution of the puzzle is the discovery [of what we are seeking]. When we solve the aporiai, we discover what if anything was true in the views we examined, and we arrive at a satisfactory new solution. In this way Aristotle can claim to both build upon the work of others and advance or even complete an investigation of his own. That is, Aristotle does not concentrate on collecting contradictory statements about various political problems that he would then try to resolve in order to arrive at a new solution.

This is a puzzle because there are different views or theories about it. The aporiai concerning the views of Socrates raised in Pol. First, the question about how much the citizens should share is in fact answered very quickly. Aristotle starts by listing three options: The second option is excluded immediately since a city-state must at least have a territory that the citizens share.

The first option is refuted by the end of Pol. Second, the interpretation becomes much less plausible once one looks at the details of the discussion of other constitutions. Aristotle discusses not only the sharing of property but also the divisions of citizens into groups, the arrangements for who becomes a judge, the system of awarding honors, or the place of leisure in the city the list could go on.

Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Republic -

But, I argue, there is an alternative and much better interpretation. This is because the community of wives and children leads to less affection or friendship philia among citizens and so, it is implied, it would make the farmers less attached to their families and more obedient to the Guardians. This alleged advantage notwithstanding, Aristotle goes on to say that the results of a law of this sort are necessarily the opposite of those that come about from correctly laid down laws and [so also] of the reason why Socrates thought that it is necessary to arrange things concerning wives and children in this way.

For we think that philia20 is the greatest of goods for the city-states for in this way they are least prone to factions. And Socrates praises most of all the unity of the city-state, which as it seems he says as well 21 is an ergon of philia.

• Love, Lust and the Longing for God.
• .
• Forensic Pathology Reviews: 1.

In particular Aristotle objects to Socrates that the kind of philia present within families or perhaps even in close circles of friends is not the kind of philia that holds political communities together. For example, the former but not the latter carries a certain kind of emotional attachment and is a matter of feeling.

Rather, as he tries to demonstrate, the kind of laws Socrates proposes will have the opposite effect and will lead to the lack of philia among citizens and, ultimately, to the destruction of the city-state a22— 3 and 61b7—9. This could suggest that Aristotle is trying to find out what holds political communities together and distinguishes them from, on the one hand, families and households in which the bonds relate to natural feelings a40—b24 and, on the other hand, mere alliances in which there are no bonds among the members over and above their specific, agreed-upon goal b23—7.

If this is his goal, he does not need to investigate the various competing constitutions in their entirety. Rather, he would only need to concentrate on particular constitutional provisions that either foster or impede the political cohesion of the city-state. The Republic is of particular interest to Aristotle, since it is explicitly aimed at achieving unity in the state b29—64a1, b5—15 ; it therefore offers a theory about what holds political communities together.

Finally, although both Crete and Carthage had achieved political cohesion and stability, Aristotle makes it clear that while some of their constitutional provisions deserve credit, the main reasons for the political stability in these two states are extraneous to the constitutions: In fact from this point of view, it makes perfect sense that he has little or nothing to say about whether any of the constitutions he discusses are just or efficient.

Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic:

Aristotle is interested in actual constitutions Spartan, Cretan, and Carthaginian , since they apparently manage to preserve political communities, and there should be something that they do correctly. However, he wants to know whether they do so because of mere luck or whether they truly manage to incorporate some features that in fact promote political cohesion. This involves looking at the goals or intentions of those constitutions asking whether they are correct and at the arrangements they have for achieving them asking whether they are in fact effective.

And this is precisely what Aristotle does: First, whether there is anything in them that is fine or not fine in comparison to the best system. Second, whether there is anything in them that is contrary to the fundamental assumption and character of the constitution, as it was intended by its founders.

The second question concerns the means—such as the provisions or lack thereof made for men and women in order to achieve them.

• Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's "Republic": A Philosophical Commentary on "Politics" Ii 1-5!
• Ashbrook News!
• Unmasked Secrets (Anthology).
• .
• From the Void to the Throne: Shadow to Substance.

Aristotle follows this program quite meticulously. For example, he shows how the Spartan constitution ends up fostering self-indulgence and the rule of women, even while its official aim is self-control and the rule of male super-soldier virtues b20—70a He then shows that the goal itself is not correct b6— In the case of theoretical constitutions, Aristotle would have to start from the undeniable fact that there are existing political communities or city- states even if they are not well run.

That means that a theoretical constitution, such as proposed by Plato or Phaleas, must satisfy two requirements. First, it must preserve the possibility of political community. Second, it must do better at preserving and maintaining political cohesion than constitutions already existing and put into practice.

Ashbrook For…

He begins by asking which is better: But what method can Aristotle employ to find out whether a merely theoretical constitution, such as that of Plato, manages to establish and preserve political community, and if so, by virtue of which features? Living Well and Living Together, One must bear in mind that Aristotle is not really interested in criticism of the theories for its own sake but in finding out what he can take away from them as correct for building the right kind of constitution.

But in both cases Aristotle immediately goes on to more general discussion of the usefulness of a given provision, given human nature, for political cohesion and the rule of law a38—b9 for Phaleas and b31—69a24 for Hippodamus. This is because its correctness would ultimately show only in the success or failure of the constitution to establish a political community. This focus has a direct consequence for what Aristotle sees, in the practical context, as the criterion of truth: For arguments logoi about matters of actions and feelings are less persuasive pistoi than facts erga.

As an example Aristotle points out that if somebody says that pleasure is bad but is then seen seeking 24 Of course, Aristotle could attack the assumptions on other, for example moral, grounds. But that would not help him to discover whether the constitution manages to establish political cohesion, which is what he is interested in.

I will explain this as I go along. This is because they will conclude, on the basis of his observed behavior, that he acted like this not only on the particular occasion that they saw him but all the time, being guided by a principle that pleasure is good even while he does not acknowledge the principle publicly b1—4. Aristotle is committed to the view that there are certain facts that constrain even rational arguments: For these are authoritative [in practical matters].

Sign in Create an account. Robert Mayhew Seton Hall University. The first five chapters of the second book of Aristotle's Politics contain a series of criticisms levelled against Plato's Republic.

Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Republic

Despite the abundance of studies that have been done on Aristotle's Politics, these chapters have for the most part been neglected; there has been no book-length study of them this century. In this important new book, Robert Mayhew fills this unfortunate gap in Aristotelian scholarship, analyzing these chapters in order to discover what they tell us about Aristotle's political philosophy.

Mayhew demonstrates that in Politics II , Aristotle is presenting his views on an extremely fundamental issue: Indeed, he states, almost all of Aristotle's criticisms of the Republic center on this important subject in one way or another. Only by understanding Aristotle's views on the proper unity of the city, Mayhew explains, can we adequately discover his views on the proper relationship between the individual and the city.

Students and scholars of classical political philosophy will be greatly interested in this innovative book. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. Google Books no proxy Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.

The Motive of Society: Aristotle on Civic Friendship, Justice, and Concord. Eleni Leontsini - - Res Publica 19 1: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Republic. Tarrant - - The Classical Review 48 2: Aristotle's Ethics and Plato's Republic: Francis Sparshott - - Dialogue 21 3: The Carpenter and the Good. Rachel Barney - - In D.