Political Philosophy and Aristotle Essay
When viewing the way Aristotle viewed the world and assessing it towards the British Tradition you first need a comprehension of each. From this paper I wish to first discuss what I’ve learned about Aristotle, The United kingdom Tradition, and after that compare and contrast the two. Aristotle was obviously a disciple of Plato, nonetheless they saw society a bit differently. Plato would be considered in this day and age as someone who believes in collectivism. A collectivist thinks that the requires of world as a whole will be more important compared to the needs of the individual.
On the other hand, Aristotle would have been a advocate of individuality. Individualism identifies the philosophy that an specific should have independence in his or perhaps her financial and politics pursuits. Contrary to collectivism, individualism stresses that the interests individuals should take precedence over the pursuits of the condition.
Only $13.90 / page
You could admit Aristotle supported democracy. “The best express could indicate one that is usually conceived in accordance to an subjective ideal; one that is considered perfect for human areas in general; one which is best for a specific community underneath given circumstances; or one that, while in no sense ideal, is as good as can be gained under the situations. ” (Levine PG. 108) Aristotle also believed in three domains. The first domain is personal action or perhaps “ethos”.
This really is an idea to have by. Aristotle though that individuals were not so difficult that we could live by simply one code or cast. Aristotle referred to as this “The Good Life”. The second domain name is household or “oikos”. This is economics or the right way to manage children.
Aristotle believed that the goal in the home should be unlike the goals of the other domain names. “In your family, for example , a male should manifest different problems toward children as their father than toward his wife as her husband, and he must be able to acquire, protect, improve, and properly make use of property. The responsibilities of the top of a stapas differ from the ones from a head of home, and rulers should discharge them in manners to attend to the welfare of all its associates, not just much more a few. ” (Levine Pg. 118) The 3rd domain is city condition or “polis”. This also stood for politics. Aristotle believed that we live in groups so normally we have to generate decisions jointly, therefore we have to be personal beings.
Of course this is where Aristotle sounds much like one of many founding fathers of our country. He thought women had been too illogical for national politics and that slaves and common workers were too busy to be involved. Aristotle presumed that being politically involved you needed free time to formulate the necessary skills and know-how. In other words Aristotle was a great elitist democrat. Aristotle’s interpersonal theory was to create an environment conducive to good practices.
He thought that we were are good naturally. In this environment we can after that develop each of our virtues. He also assumed that everyone had potential, but actualizing that potential was difficult. He also believed that public deliberation among individuals with virtuous habits and developed reasoning abilities was best for society. As far as the United kingdom Tradition goes, they believe in a fixed human nature and that there are predictable social outcomes based on this human nature.
I’ll concentrate on three several Brits and their different thoughts about human propensities and how they affect contemporary society. Hobbes believed that individuals were obviously bad and born with selfish propensities. He believed that this could only bring about a negative end result, unless someone with absolute power would be to control culture. I believe Hobbes would be to some degree totalitarian or simply be someone who was in favour of some sort of martial law. Locke on the other hand was basically the reverse of Hobbes.
He assumed people were quite nice and this would lead to effective consequences for anyone. “Locke endeavored to refute the Hobbesian defense of political peonage. In so doing, this individual introduced two notions that might guide hundreds of years of Uk revisionism: which the human animal manifests socially benign dispositions, and that human selfish dispositions can have socially benign consequences. ” (Levine Pg. 130) Another Brit that I’ll look at is Cruz. He is essentially split among Hobbes and Locke. Jones believes that humans do have all-natural selfish propensities, but why these propensities in order to the benefit of world.
So when comparing Aristotle towards the British Tradition it’s clear that there are some pretty big differences. Aristotle didn’t trust in a fixed being human like the Brits. Aristotle could say that you are a item of the culture in which you are raised. A good society will produce good citizens, and bad contemporary society will have the other effect. Aristotle would likewise argue that at any point during a people life they can make the decision to build up their possibilities and become an improved person.
The Brits alternatively believed that you just were both born advantages or disadvantages and based upon that there is predictable effects.