Aristotle view on politics Essay

policy-making science studies the tasks of the politico or statesman (politikos), in much the way that medical checkup science concerns the work of the physician (see goernment IV. 1). It is, in fact, the body of knowledge that such practitioners, if truly expert, will to a fault preserve in pursuing their tasks. The or so big task for the politician is, in the theatrical role of lawgiver (nomothetes), to frame the appropriate makeup for the city-state. This involves enduring laws, customs, and institutions (including a system of object lesson education) for the citizens.Once the authorship is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate measures to exercise it, to introduce re work bug outs when he finds them necessary, and to prevent developments which efficacy subvert the semipolitical system. This is the province of legislative science, which Aristotle regards as more important than regime as exercised in everyday political activity such as the offer of decrees (see EN VI. 8). Aristotle frequently compares the politician to a slynesssman.The analogy is imprecise be coiffe politics, in the hard-and-fast sense of legislative science, is a establish of practical knowledge, while a craft akin architecture or medicinal drug is a form of productive knowledge. However, the parity is valid to the extent that the politician produces, operates, maintains a legal system according to everyday principles (EN VI. 8 and X. 9). In hostel to notify this analogy it is helpful to observe that Aristotle explains the return of an artifact in foothold of tetrad causes the tangible, formal, efficient, and final causes (Phys.II. 3 and Met. A. 2).For example, clay (material cause) is mold into a vase shape (formal cause) by a potter (efficient or moving cause) so that it can contain liquid (final cause). (For reciprocation of the four causes see the entry on Aristotles physics. ) One can also explain the existence of the city-state in te rms of the four causes. It is a kind of lodge (koinonia), that is, a collection of parts having whatsoever functions and interests in common (Pol. II. 1. 1261a18, III. 1. 1275b20).Hence, it is made up of parts, which Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts as households, or stinting classes (e. g. , the rich and the poor), or demes (i. e. , local political units). But, ultimately, the city-state is composed of individual citizens (see III. 1. 1274a3841), who, along with livenesslike resources, are the material or equipment out of which the city-state is fashioned (see VII. 14. 1325b38-41). The formal cause of the city-state is its musical composition (politeia).Aristotle defines the organization as a accepted ordering of the inhabitants of the city-state (III. 1. 1274b32-41). He also speaks of the makeup of a partnership as the form of the compound and argues that whether the community is the same over time depends on whether it has the same nature (III. 3. 1276b111). The constitution is not a indite register, unless an immanent organizing principle, analogous to the understanding of an organism. Hence, the constitution is also the way of life of the citizens (IV. 11.1295a40-b1, VII. 8. 1328b1-2).Here the citizens are that minority of the resident physician population who possess full political rights (III. 1. 1275b1720). The existence of the city-state also requires an efficient cause, namely, its ruler. On Aristotles view, a community of every sort can possess order only if it has a ruling segment or authority. This ruling principle is delimitate by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the self-directed office (III. 6. 1278b810 cf. IV. 1. 1289a1518).However, on a deeper level, there must be an efficient cause to explain wherefore a city-state acquires its constitution in the head start place. Aristotle states that the person who first established the city-state is the cause of very gr eat benefits (I. 2. 1253a301). This person was on the face of it the lawgiver (nomothetes), any(prenominal)one like solon of Athens or Lycurgus of Sparta, who founded the constitution. Aristotle compares the lawgiver, or the politician more gener entirelyy, to a craftsman (demiourgos) like a weaver or shipbuilder, who fashions material into a finished product (II.12. 1273b323, VII. 4. 1325b401365a5).The judgement of final cause dominates Aristotles authorities from the opening lines Since we see that every city-state is a sort of community and that every community is established for the sake of some estimable (for everyone does everything for the sake of what they believe to be good), it is pass off that every community aims at some good, and the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims highest, that is, at the good with the most authority.This is what is called the city-state or political community. I. 1. 1252a17 Soon after, he states th at the city-state comes into being for the sake of life but exists for the sake of the good life (2. 1252b2930). The alkali that the good life or blessedness is the proper end of the city-state recurs throughout the governance (III. 6. 1278b17-24, 9. 1280b39 VII. 2. 1325a710).To sum up, the city-state is a hylomorphic (i. e., matter-form) compound of a particular population (i. e. , citizen-body) in a given territory (material cause) and a constitution (formal cause). The constitution itself is fashioned by the lawgiver and is governed by politicians, who are like craftsmen (efficient cause), and the constitution defines the aim of the city-state (final cause, IV. 1. 1289a1718). For a further news of this topic, see the following supplementary document