Customer Reviews

Politics

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Aristotle was an important thinker, born in 384 BCE at Stagirus (a Greek colony), who is considered by many the founder of the realist tradition in Philosophy. He wrote many noteworthy books, among which "The Politics" stands out. "The Politics" is one of the first books I read at university, and even though it took me a lot of time to read it, I ended up being grateful to the professor that included it as obligatory reading material for History of Political Ideas I :)

In "The Politics", the author begins by analyzing the human being, that is in his opinion a political animal by nature. Afterwards, he explains what are, for him, the origins of the polis: family, small village and then, polis. Aristotle says that even though the polis is the last chronologically, it is all the same the most important, because it is autarchic. The polis (not exactly like our states, but similar to them in some aspects) is a natural community, because it answers to something that human beings need. Only in the polis will men find perfection, only there will they be completely human. Aristotle distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens (the vast majority), and points out that only citizens have political rights. The author delves in many other themes, for example the causes of revolution, the good and bad forms of government, and the "ideal" form of government. What is more, he also considers several constitutions, and talks about the adequate education that forms good citizens for the polis.

Now, why should you read a book that was written many centuries ago and that on top of that isn't especially easy to read?. The answer is quite simple: "The Politics" is worth it. Of course, you will find faults in some of Aristotle's opinions (for instance, he thought that slaves were "live property", and that slavery was a natural institution), but you cannot ignore that most of his book is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. "The Politics" is a book that teaches the reader to analyze reality, and to watch things differently, from another perspective. It also mentions several times that it is always necessary to take into account the context, because there are not perfect solutions good for every circumstance. Even though that seems merely common sense, it is an often forgotten truth...

On the whole, I can recommend this book to all those who are interested in Political Science, History of Ideas, or simply curious. I can guarantee that if you are patient enough to end it, you will learn a lot.

Belen Alcat

Aristotle was in fact a Macedonian by birth and had as one of his utmost desires to be accepted in Athens as a full-fledged citizen, something he never attained. To be or not a citizen at those times, was the determinant factor in the importance each one attained in the social structure. One has to keep in mind that all the political concepts that we inherited from the Greeks, got a different perspective at those times, where slavery was normally accepted and practised against the non-Greeks human beings. Aristotle was a disciple of Plato, whom he quotes many times in a derogatory manner, and he lived in Athens many years after years of tutorship of Philip and his son Alexander of Macedonia, to whom he did not mention a word of praise or reprimand in this book. What amazed most after reading this excelent book is the maturity the institutions had attained at his times, and the degree of accuracy and detail to which he devotes many chapters analysing the constitutions of many Greek states, Sparta included. One word of caution has to be addresed to the student of poltics: this is not a book about statecraft or the arts of governing people at 350 BC. All in all, the text seems to lose some strenght due to the impossibity of translating so rich a text and by the lack of precise terms for each and every situation there described. But, in the end, the reader will get a glimpse of this very important period of western civilazation, specially if one has in mind that the heyday of Greece was gone and what lays ahead was the supremacy of Rome as world militar empire. To add interest to the reader, one has to keep in mind that the powerfull influence the aristotelian thought had in the medieval thinking.

It's amazing how much of what is discussed in the book is still common in today's laws and world. I really enjoyed reading it and applying some of the issues to today's political arena. I do feel that some politicians need to read this and maybe get a better understanding of what they're there to do...

"Man is by nature a political animal," avows Aristotle. First, it is important to note that this is not an authoritarian ruler's blackbook on the art of governing. Aristotle is not Machiavelli. Second, many people when first approaching Aristotle naïvely presume that he is the mirror-image protégé of Plato. This could not be further from the truth. Aristotle's references to his teacher Plato are laced with a cynical tone of irreverence. Plato was an idealist and Aristotle was a profound realist. I think it is a pointless endeavor to pick favorites from among them since rationalism and idealism both have their limitations. Some political theorists split hairs over whether Aristotle or Plato is a 'conservative,' which is hardly ascertainable. This is reductionism at its worst. In Hellenic antiquity, there was no delineation between the state and civil society, which should horrify modern conservative. So, perhaps the 'conservative' thing to do is to be well read in both Aristotle and Plato, rather than simply seeking to emulate one of them. Aristotle had a profound influence on the rise of medieval scholasticism and profoundly shaped the thought of Catholic theologians like Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps one of his big accomplishments is giving the realist camp intellectual ammunition to buoy their position.

It should be noted that Greek political thought and their concept of the polity (body politic) is profoundly dissimilar from post-medieval political thought in the West. Yet Aristotle's Politics is still relevant today in my opinion. I think one of the most profound things to be gleaned from Aristotle's Politics today as it relates to diplomacy, power politics, and international relations is healthy dose of realism not naïve Wilsonian idealism. Aristotle realized there are no canned quick-fix universal solutions to subordinate everything to. Also, Aristotle elaborated upon the various ascertainable political systems in their good and bad forms respectively (i.e. monarchy, tyranny; aristocracy, oligarchy; polity, democracy; etc.) Moreover, the practical approach to governance varies depending on any number of factors such as the body politic, culture and society. Hence, modern efforts to impose 'democracy' and/or 'capitalism' as if these are tangible commodities for export abroad usually are met with failures, or unexpected and less than desired for results. In recent years, nations like Russia acclimated to authoritarian rule never had much success at implementing it. The closest thing to 'democracy' in the Islamic world, for example, Ayatollah Khomeini's populist fundamentalist regime in Iran from back in the 1980s. Is that what the West really wants for the Muslim world?

Aristotle was in fact a Macedonian by birth and had as one of his utmost desires to be accepted in Athens as a full-fledged citizen, something he never attained. To be or not a citizen at those times, was the determinant factor in the importance each one attained in the social structure. One has to keep in mind that all the political concepts that we inherited from the Greeks, got a different perspective at those times, where slavery was normally accepted and practised against the non-Greeks human beings. Aristotle was a disciple of Plato, whom he quotes many times in a derogatory manner, and he lived in Athens many years after years of tutorship of Philip and his son Alexander of Macedonia, to whom he did not mention a word of praise or reprimand in this book. What amazed most after reading this excelent book is the maturity the institutions had attained at his times, and the degree of accuracy and detail to which he devotes many chapters analysing the constitutions of many Greek states, Sparta included. One word of caution has to be addresed to the student of poltics: this is not a book about statecraft or the arts of governing people at 350 BC. All in all, the text seems to lose some strenght due to the impossibity of translating so rich a text and by the lack of precise terms for each and every situation there described. But, in the end, the reader will get a glimpse of this very important period of western civilazation, specially if one has in mind that the heyday of Greece was gone and what lays ahead was the supremacy of Rome as world militar empire. To add interest to the reader, one has to keep in mind that the powerfull influence the aristotelian thought had in the medieval thinking.

Some monumental observations considering the time it was written. But a very difficult read that requires concentration and will-power to finish.

No-one has ever accused philosophy of being practical.

Aristotle was one of the greatest men that has lived on Earth, and his contributions are numerous, however, I found this book to drone on and on about the types of government...I had to put it down, because I was so bored. If it gets better later in the book, please let me know.

Aristotle's The Politics is without a doubt one of the most celebrated works of political science from antiquity. He begins with a description of a state, advances through the numerous types of constitutions, describes the ideal citizen, and defines good government-not to mention numerous other fascinating political insights into the running of a state.

Aristotle's outline for government and state has been influential to political scientists for over 2,400 years. His discussion on the cons of complete unity, as well as his chapter on "the natural and unnatural methods of acquiring goods," certainly must have influenced Karl Marx, and his discussions on the "good of all" certainly led to Mills and Bentham's utilitarianism.

The Penguin Classics edition gives the reader an authoritative, inexpensive copy that is ideal for scholars as well as students. The footnotes are helpful, but not excessive. An excellent purchase all around.

Just as in most of his other books, in "The Politics", Aristotle becomes the founder of organized, ordered, and systematic thought. Of course, he was not the first philosopher to think about the organization and governance of societies, but his work is the first classification and comparison of different possible systems. As I said in a recent review of Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", his greatest originality is the stripping off of myth, legend, metaphor and poetics from his exposition of the subject. This is his main difference with his predecessor and teacher, Plato. This makes for a drier reading, but also for a clearer and better organized rendering of his clear thought. It can be said, moreover, that Plato and Aristotle constitute the founding pillars of the two main currents in Western thought: idealism (Plato) vs. realism (Aristotle). Although any tragedies deriving from these sources is, of course, not a responsibility of these great thinkers, it can be said, in general, the following:

The idealist tradition inaugurated by Plato led to the rise of universal, all-encompassing theories. That is, those which assert that there is a single unifying principle tying up together economics, politics, ethics, and social organization, and that this principle (whichever it may be) is suitable for any society at any time and place. Hence, Rousseaunianism, Socialism, Communism.

The "realist" tradition springing from Aristotle simply says that human problems can not be resolved by magical formulas or recipes. Social situations can not be severed from their immediate environment. Aristotle, then, classifies possible types of systems and defines their advantages and disadvantages for different types of societies. His approach, then, is that there can be no universal and general solutions or organizing principles. Aristotle is absolutely practical in his approach, as opposed to the theoretical systems imagined (as opposed to observed) by Plato. Hence: liberalism, Realpolitik, capitalism, democracy (or I should say "capitalisms" and "democracies", since there are very different varieties of these systems). Aristotle examines then distinct kinds of Constitutions, what they require to be effective, and what effects they might bring upon.

Read it, then, for a clear and well-ordered exposition of themes, subthemes, and advice. Here you will find the origin of half of Western political thought. And precisely the half that seems to be winning the race.

Aristotle's Politics is the first serious analytic investigation of various organized states and an excellent exposition in all the basics of political science. While this book does show Aristotle's immense breadth of knowledge about the various constitutions of the Greek-city states, he is not content just to offer basic factual information about their forms of government, but digs deep to try and explain the "how" and "why" of the political order. In doing so, this book is both rich in its theoretical and empirical aspects. Aristotle was pre-eminent in two virtues that allowed him to make pioneering advances in every field of endeavor; first his minute and rigorous attention to detail (the empirical world) combined with a masterful ability to systematize separate spheres of knowledge. Both these virtues shine through in Politics. Moreover, any careful reading of this book shows that the issues that Aristotle dealt with are still relevant and contentious to this day. This book should not be treated as an historical curiosity, but one that can continue to challenge and inspire.

Political science must start with an understanding and knowledge of human nature. What makes men form communities anyway? Aristotle's story is simple, but useful: first, there must a union of those who can not exist without each other, the male and female, who come together not of deliberate purpose, but out of the instinctive urge to make life continue. The family then comes into existence for the supply of men's everyday wants, and when families organize the village comes into existence and when villages come together society has reached its zenith -- the creation of the city-state. While Aristotle definitely thought that the state was a natural institution, this chronology also shows that he thought that the family was natural and an indispensable element in human society. This shows a much deeper understanding of the inclinations in human nature than the modern sociologist who treats the family as an arbitrary and exploitive social convention that can be undone.

The state, according to Aristotle, exists to cultivate virtue in men and encourage excellence in its citizens. Since the state represents the highest formation of a natural community it should not concern itself with imperialistic pursuits (the dream of Alexander's empire was foreign to Aristotle's mind), but only with the welfare of its citizens. In discussing the merits of the state he anticipates Hobbes, "...who first founded the state was the greatest benefactor. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all...the most unholy and savage of animals." The state gives its citizens the capacity for practicing virtue. However, virtue does not exactly mean moral. A political community is made up of men, women, parents, children, leaders, voters, masters, slaves and so on. All these different members of the political community have a separate nature and hence role to perform in the state (or community). Men farm and engage in trade and exchange and women raise the children and take care of the home, masters have the foresight to execute new plans and slaves the strength to carry them out. But since all these members have the same goal in mind, there are no social, class or gender divisions. Their differences allow them to cooperate and work together. Natural differences beget social differences. We can already see how alien this idea is from current sociological theory that regards any division as a source of conflict and wholly arbitrary. Egalitarianism is not only a perversion of nature, but also of virtue.

Aristotle's understanding of the state as an extended natural (ethnic) community allowed him to make keen statements about the cause of revolution within in states. "Another cause of revolution is difference of races that do not at once acquire a common spirit, for a state is not the growth of a day, anymore than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution." What Aristotle means is that a state is the result of a long process of growth and is the creation of a particular ethnic community, an extended form of blood-kinship, and that the introduction of foreign elements de-stabilizes the community and consequently the state. Historically, this is why large imperialistic regimes finally disintegrate since they attempt to assemble multiple ethnicities under a common political center. Reflecting on this fact, isn't it odd that current wisdom is the exact opposite -- class and gender divisions within a community are seen as latent sources of conflict (although there is no historical evidence for this) and a vast array of differing ethic groups is seen as a national strength (although there is no historical evidence for this either).

There is much more to say about this remarkable book, but many of the issues that Aristotle raised are just as relevant now as they were then. This is truly a first-rate piece of political scholarship, a work that should be studied and mastered.