Politics (Aristotle)

Politics (Greek Πολιτικά - "The political things " ) is the most important state- philosophical writing of Aristotle. Divided into eight books work mainly deals with various real existing and abstract constitutions.

In this work, Aristotle presents four theses that " for centuries accepted without protest " were. They are:

• 5.1 Factory expenditure ( selection)
• 5.2 secondary literature

Content

Table of Contents

Man politikon as zoon

Aristotle called it the man as political animal (Greek ζῷον πολιτικόν, social being, in Politika I, 2 and III, 6). This term has become a basic concept of Western anthropology. Basic definition of man is living with another just as he realizes his nature has endowed him, in contrast to the animals with speech and reason, and thus with the possibility to make ideas of right and wrong and to share with others. Those who live outside the state, which is, as Aristotle, " either a beast or a god ."

The teleological concept of nature

Aristotle feels like Plato, that order does not arise by chance. Just behind it is not a divine intelligence. Nature is built according to create consistent plan that meets when every thing accomplished the purpose contained in it and so accomplishes his being and fulfills its function as a whole.

Definition of the state

The state is the merger of smaller communities to a large, which meets the goal of happiness for Aristotle. Originated from the logical result of increasing Communities ( family - household - Village - Polis ), is the state as a natural unit for enabling a perfect life. Only in the polis, the consummate self-sufficiency ( = independence ) is possible.

By nature, there is, according to Aristotle Governing and dominated. As a prevalent applies according to Aristotle, the one who can look ahead. Free men should determine the affairs of state, depending on the form of government. Free women and children be distinguished from slaves.

Of state doctrine

First State morphology

In politics, for the first time made ​​a systematic analysis of state forms. In the so-called first form of state doctrine (Pol. III 6 ff ) a total of six basic types of governments are counted. These are grouped into threes each: once as "correct" forms of government and once as their three " missed " deviations.

The three "good" constitutions, which are all aligned with the public interest or government ( monarchy, aristocracy, and polity ), are the three " degenerate " Constitutions compared with that only serve the best interests of the rulers, their self-interest, ( Tyrannis, oligarchy and democracy). Democracy is for him here as the rule of the many outdoor and poor in the state, which occurs at the expense of the efficient and to the detriment of the wealthy. Also, it is not permissible for Aristotle, that the poor are more powerful than the rich. Because they are more numerous, and whichever is the opinion of the majority. This he threw just before the extreme form of democracy that does not serve the public good. The three bad forms of government fail so that after him all the purpose of enabling the " perfect life " in the Indianapolis community.

Second of state doctrine

The democracy dedicated Aristotle in Book IV of the policy special attention. The so-called second form of state doctrine of 4.Kapitels examines the various forms of democratic constitutions on an empirical basis and eventually comes to a milder judgment concerning this form of government, but this does not apply to their extreme form ( cf. Pol. IV and VI). With regard to the sub-species of popular rule he calls at one point five ( Book IV ), elsewhere four ( VI. book ). If we expand the information in the first place with those of the latter, the following picture emerges:

• The first form actually describes the polity, and it defines Aristotle. In her rich and the poor in equal measure to the Government share, no one has priority and it is important that " no part ruled over the other, but both are completely equal. "
• The second form is no longer based on the joint equality of the poor and the rich, as essential parts of the city, but pays attention to the possession of the individual, with the vast majority, participates due to the low census at the political right. In it, the offices will be awarded ( in oligarchic style ) only to the wealthy, while select all more or less the haves and the official shall control.
• In the third form may each share already, which is, of impeccable lineage, ie local, regardless of their material circumstances.
• In the fourth form of democracy only counts the mere citizen status, ie that in addition to the rich and propertied also poor, landless and foreigners can participate with civil rights in the government.
• The most extreme form of popular rule, the fifth in the series, all involved in the state who are not slaves. Aristotle aims thereby probably a critical intention of the Athenian democracy in its radical phase from, but such an assessment is clearly excessive.

While it is governed in the first four forms of democracy by means of laws, this falls away in the extreme form. For this purpose, Aristotle continues: " Where the laws do not decide, because there is the leader of the people (Greek demagogues ). For since the people are the sole ruler, albeit a composite of many individuals. [ ... ] Such alleinherrschendes people looking to rule because it is not governed by the laws, and is despotic, where is the flatterers are in honor, and so because this corresponds to democracy under the exclusive rule of the tyrant. "

The form of government is ultimately best for Aristotle ultimately the polity, whose identity shall state form (described in Pol. 8-9 ff IV ) with the moderate democracy (see above, type I) remains unclear. The polity is actually a mixed constitution and is made up of elements of oligarchy and democracy: From the oligarchy it assumes, for example, the appointment of officials through elections, of democracy, in turn, the fact that participation in the People's Assembly of no - or only very low - census is conditional. Prevails in her - properly understood - equality of the state parts, so that the constitution is really just and is only for the general good and none of part loads.

Economics

The oikos, the household, is " the communion of the noble life in homes and families for a perfect and independent life 's sake. " (Pol. 1280 b 33) Aristotle is not about an economic theory in the modern sense, but to the position of the Oikos as a solid, natural element in the predominantly agrarian structured Polis. The polis is the unit of social life that is capable of self-sufficient to cover all the necessities of life. The location of economic activity is the household. This is determined by natural relations of domination. "Where One of Several composed and always a Common arises, which is showing a Governing and dominated, and indeed we find this in the animated beings, due to their overall nature. " (Pol. 1254 a 29-32 ) This justifies Aristotle subordination of women and children among the masters of the oikos, but also the natural existence of slaves.

Property is a legitimate and integral part of practical life. "Two things raise above all the care and love of man. Self and Protected " (Pol. 1262 b 22-23) for private property is the fact that the individual be given the goods can be more caring than the community. (Pol. 1262 b 3) The presence of the property there are clear legal claims (Pol 1263 a 15-16) and there are fewer disputes (Pol. 1263 b 22-25). Finally, the efficiency is improved by the presence of property. (Pol. 1263 b 28) In the proper degree may also enjoy the property: "It also belongs to the Grand, set his house according to his riches ( because the latter is also an ornamental ) and especially for permanent works to make expenses ( because these are to observe the most beautiful ) and in particular the Reasonable. " (NE IV, 1123 a 6-10)

For Aristotle, a reasonable distribution of wealth is an important element of an appropriate form of government. " Now, if the degree and the center are recognized as the best, so also in relation to the abundance of wealth, the average possession of all the best, because in such circumstances we obey the easiest of reason. " (Pol. 1295 b 5-6) However, Aristotle rejects a principled egalitarianism: "So the equality seems to be fair and it is, but not in all, but among the peers. And also appears the inequality to be just, and it is also, but under the Unebenbürtigen. " (Pol. 1280 a 13-16) If these structural differences are not taken into account, created dissatisfaction. " When it is said, in the same honor is the congregation as the Noble ' [... ] to be resent the educated, as they did not deserve it, just the same amount as the others to own and why they are often conspire and make riots. " (Pol. 1267 a 39-41 )

Modest economic manner in Oikos is for Aristotle the basis of a good life and a stable polis. Also serves this purpose, the exchange of goods and services between farmers, craftsmen and merchants. For this barter it needs the money that has the function of a store of value, means of payment and the scale of the value of goods. (Pol. 1257 a 34 - b 10) In this use of money is a means for the supply of goods the household and for the production of self-sufficiency in the polis. But if money is no longer a means but the purpose of trading, then it comes to money-making art, chrematistics. It's no longer a matter to swap values ​​in use, but the accumulation of money. (Pol. 1257 b 29) Such behavior considered Aristotle as irrational and unnatural. " For since the enjoyment in profusion there, so they seek out the art that gives the overabundance of enjoyment. And if they do not bring this about by the acquisition of art, so try it in other ways and to use all the skills, but against nature; because the bravery to not make money, but generate courage, and the generalship and the medicine should not but gain victory and health. But those who make all the money-making one, as if this would be the goal to which everything would have to be directed towards. " (Pol. 1258 a 1-14)

Correspondingly, the yield something unnatural. It arises due to the greed, the Pleonexia, and is something " hateful because he himself draws the purchase out of the money. " (Pol. 1258 b 2) A more detailed discussion of the money-making art from Aristotle rejected. "This will now be discussed here only in general. It accurately describe in detail, is indeed useful for things to stop us, but would be too vulgar. " (Pol. 1258 b 34-35 ) In this respect, the observation of Economics in Aristotle has an entirely different angle than the modern economics. It is aligned to the right resources and a good life, and not the efficient and constant increase the value of material prosperity.

The three basic theorems of policy

David Keyt distinguishes three basic theorems in the "Politics" of Aristotle. The first brings Aristotle, after he has shown that the polis is composed of several villages, a village in turn of several housing communities.

1 The polis ( the state) exists by nature.

Because each person only lives to it to require the polis the resting in Him plan to complete ( teleological concept of nature ) and, as it will allow him to reach his eudaimonia, the polis from the first moment exists, where there are people.

2 Man is a political animal ( a sociable creatures ).

This theorem has two parts: ( a) A zoological classification of man as a political herd animal ( with the bees, ants, etc. ) and ( b ) to distinguish from the other animals by the language that allows the people accessible by Unger skipjack differ.

3 The polis is earlier than the individual.

Various interpretations:

• The nature previously said that a thing of a thing X Y after beforehand is, if X can indeed exist without Y, Y but not without X. For example, parents and children.
• The substance according to previously is one thing Y if it represents a higher stage of development than X. The polis is the substance of advance towards the individual, because it represents a higher stage of development than the individual.
• Epistemological: The Polis only recognizes the individual: The substance of the polis is the individual. The concept of " individual " but wins only by the polis important. Therefore, the "polis " is advance to the " individual " in knowledge.

Criticism

Otfried Hoffe estimates that the political anthropology still convinced, " but one must restrict: ., Only in the fundamental " Höffe criticizes two points. First, the public authorities are glossed over, since Aristotle " primarily perceives the potential order and reduces the controlling character. " Secondly throws Höffe Aristotle, that he had no Panhellenic perspective, although there are corresponding institutions. That this lack is so Höffe, " the more astonishing as it is necessary for both policy objectives: both for survival ( zen ) of the individual polis, [ ... ], as well as for her successful life (eu zen ) ... ". Höffe concludes that a "global, the whole of humanity comprehensive unity" must be created.

" A very special meaning for the Western political thought wins Aristotle's doctrine of the three good and three bad or degenerate forms of government. ".

After Jochen Bleicken are Aristotle's Categories "clearly rejected as mental structures of a late time [ ... ] that have been found over to legitimize the democratic idea, especially from a critical attitude with their more or less deliberately in the past or invented. Above all, the idea of ​​a "radical" democracy a product late critical thinking [ ... ] Do we have to reject these ideas as structures, only the adoption of a democracy, just the one we have in the middle of the 5th century before us remains. " Angela Pope also notes, " [ e ] ine " moderate democracy " the Archaic has historically never existed, nor was a development of the one from the other system version instead.