Reading: Aristotle's Political Beliefs

We're back to our discussion on ancient philosophy, and I'd like to add a couple of brief points to our prior conversation about Aristotle's theory of reality. One particular quote from Aristotle stands out, sounding peculiar to contemporary ears. He stated, "The first science, the most important one, deals with things that have independent existence and are changeless. All causes must be eternal; there never was a time they didn't exist." Take note of this: he even applied this thinking to species, suggesting that since they arise from the eternal and independent forms acting upon changeable matter, species like horses, daisies, and humans have always been around. In essence, Aristotle believed that all causes are eternal, particularly those that are independent and unchanging. These causes are reflections of the Divine as we perceive it.

This might seem strange – the idea of the Divine being revealed to us. But in Aristotle's worldview, divinity is defined by its independence and immutability. While I previously proposed a definition of religious belief where the Divine is what exists independently and begets everything else, Aristotle would emphasize its unchangeability. Essentially, we're discussing pure form, which remains unaltered.

Aristotle then posited the existence of three primary philosophical disciplines, with theology being one of them. If one wonders where divinity manifests itself, Aristotle would point to the heavens. To the ancient Greeks, stars appeared eternal and unchanging, while celestial bodies like planets – the Greek word for wanderer – exhibited movement. For the Greeks, these fixed stars were akin to visible gods, embodying independence and constancy.

It's important to clarify this because coming across such a quote might be puzzling. When Aristotle speaks of seeing the Divine, he's referring to this very observation. The philosophical debate around the definition of divinity and its existence is intricate. Each religion places a different entity or concept in the position of the self-existent reality everything else relies on. Here, Aristotle provides clarity in his unique manner.

With this understanding of Aristotle's view on reality, I'd like to transition to another of his significant contributions: political theory. He penned a work titled "The Politics," which begins with the assertion that every community or state seeks some good, with the political community striving for the highest good. This seminal work might be one of the most influential political treatises ever written. For centuries, Aristotle's Politics served as a reference point, even for Christians who arguably should have approached it more critically.

According to Aristotle, the state, or political community, encompasses all smaller communities and individuals. He analogizes individual people to parts of a whole, wherein parts are intrinsically connected to and reliant on the whole. Aristotle elaborates on this with three criteria: a part cannot exist without the whole, it cannot function apart from the whole, and it cannot be understood without the context of the whole. Individuals, in Aristotle's view, are thus interconnected components of the state. A state, by his definition, is a self-sustaining community of families.

However, Christians and others might challenge the idea of humans merely being "parts" of the state. The relationship between parts and wholes isn't the sole relational framework; we also have sub-wholes in relation to larger wholes.

For example, water goes by the formula H2O: two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combined to make a water molecule. But the atoms that combine don't fit the definition for being apart. It's not that they can't come into existence, except by being water first and then being broken down. It's also untrue that they can't function in other ways without being part of a water molecule, and it's not true that they can't be understood apart from their combination in a water molecule. So, they fail all three of those tests.

What we have in the case of H2O are hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are sub-wholes incorporated into a greater whole. Typically, whenever that happens, the new, greater whole has properties we could never predict just from knowing its parts. And that is the kind of relationship I would argue exists between individual human beings and a state or any other organization they're members of. They're sub-wholes, not mere parts. It's not that their existence depends entirely on this whole, or that they can't function or be understood apart from the whole.

Now, Aristotle doesn't believe that human beings could exist outside the state; he even presents an argument for this. He says in one place, "the solitary individual dies." And in another, he claims that when families group together for self-sufficiency, it's a natural occurrence, and this automatically produces a state. Therefore, a state is a natural organization. This community arises naturally from the needs and nature of humans. It's not an artificial creation or a result of a contract; it grows out of human needs.

This perspective contrasts with the views many of us might be familiar with, especially if we're citizens of Western European countries or North America. Here, we often believe that individuals can exist independently and that they freely create a state through a contract, detailing its foundation through documents like constitutions. For some older governments, its origin might be vague, evolving through everyday practices and court decisions, like the tradition of British common law. But Aristotle staunchly opposes this view. He is a collectivist, believing that the community is more fundamental than the individual. For Aristotle, it's the community of the state that's self-sufficient, not the individual. However, he concedes there might be exceptions: hermits or unique individuals who can live outside of a state. Such a person, he argues, is either so superior that they should live away from society or so inferior that their existence is barely more than that of an animal. He phrases it as: "Anyone capable of living on his own is either a god or an animal."

Now, let's entertain this idea for a moment, especially since most readers likely identify more with individualism than collectivism. Consider Aristotle's assertion that solitary individuals can't survive. Imagine being stranded on a deserted island with no tools, clothes, or weapons. Contrast this with the tale of Robinson Crusoe, a European man who not only survives but thrives on a deserted island. But Crusoe had supplies; you have none. The predicament highlights the challenges of survival without a community.

However, while individualism might seem unrealistic when viewed in such a stark manner, it doesn't mean we must agree with Aristotle that humans are merely parts of a whole. We're not just parts that can't exist or function apart from the collective. I believe that humans are sub-wholes within a greater whole. When grouped together, the community possesses qualities distinct from any individual member.

Now, the extreme individualists go so far as to deny that there are any such things as human communities. Extreme individualists, taking Ayn Rand as an example, assert that there are no communities, only individuals and the relationships between them. According to this view, marriages, families, states, businesses, churches, and schools don’t really exist, there are just individuals and their relationships. However, this is a self-contradictory objection. The relationships between individuals are indeed the families, marriages, businesses, states, churches, schools, labor unions, political parties; they are all different kinds of relationships. That's what a community is. So if the relationships between individuals are real, so are the communities. The objection doesn’t succeed; it contains the seeds of its own failure.

The next thing we should notice about our social theory is that when Greek families come together and form a self-sufficient community, able to supply its needs and defend itself, a state is automatically formed. Rules will arise, and there will be some protocol for enforcing them. Leadership will emerge naturally, often based on charisma and wisdom in applying the rules. Aristotle noted that the formation of such structures is different among Greeks and non-Greeks.

Aristotle upheld two sayings common in ancient Greece: “If you're not a Greek, you're a barbarian,” and “Barbarians are fit only to be the slaves of Greeks.” This can be seen as the start of racism in Western Civilization and culture, a belief in natural superiority. Aristotle’s famous student, Alexander the Great, took these teachings seriously, conquering vast territories, ultimately covering more land than the Roman Empire at its zenith.

The succession of teachers from Socrates to Plato, then Aristotle, and ultimately to Alexander, led to the spread of Greek influence over the known civilized world. Aristotle's teachings continued to influence Western European civilization and culture. For instance, the idea that a superior person doesn’t work was propagated by Aristotle. He believed that only those wealthy enough to not work, the “liberal men,” were free to pursue the liberal arts, sciences, and sports. Aristotle even suggested that those who do manual labor are probably incapable of philosophy, only the children of the wealthy are worth tutoring.

Aristotle’s emphasis on collectivism posits that the collective is the basic reality. He argued that the collective group creates individuals and not the other way around. When people rebelled against this idea in Western European culture, they became individualists, asserting that individuals are the basic social unit and they freely create communities or groups. This shift led to the Contract Theory of government.

Christianity offers a different perspective, denouncing both individualism and collectivism. It proposes that neither the collective group creates individuals nor individuals create the collective group; God created both simultaneously. Thus, neither of these theories should be acceptable to a Christian. The dichotomy between collectivism and individualism influences the concept of justice, favoring either the state or the individual based on the perspective one adopts. Aristotle’s own words advocate for a government where laws are supreme, aiming for the advantage of the state and the common good of all citizens.

Aristotle's claim that some people are born to be slaves and others masters aligns with the idea of natural leaders and followers. However, he emphasizes a more harmonious and mutual relationship between masters and slaves, different from the harsh conditions experienced by slaves in the southern United States in the 19th century. Aristotle also views the husband-wife relationship as a master-slave relation, a departure from Plato’s more egalitarian stance.

Christianity counters Aristotle's views, teaching equality among all people, regardless of their status, gender, or ethnicity, as stated in Galatians three. All are one in Christ and equally participate in family, state, and church.

So I find it peculiar to put it that way, that some churches are very hesitant about whether women can be leaders in the church. I think the early church did exactly that. They ordained women, they gave them positions of leadership, if they had the ability, just as they would a man.

Aristotle then lists the needs of the state, questioning what families require to become a self-sufficient community. He names food, arms, and revenue, but he also includes arts. Now, that doesn't just mean what we call the fine arts. It doesn't mean that they sit around painting pictures or making sculptures. Any specific skill is what he's referring to as an art. So if someone is good at making houses, that's an art. Someone else might be skilled at making clothes, weapons, or writing poetry. They're all termed "Arts" in Aristotle's view. As far as he's concerned, when you become proficient in a field, you learn a trade or craft, and you learn to do something useful; that's what he means by arts. He also mentions religion because he wouldn't think of slighting the divinities. Remember, for him, there are these different spheres emanating from the Earth. The Earth is at the center of things, which means it's at the lowest point in the universe. With each sphere that radiates from the Earth, there's less matter and more form, becoming more divine until you reach the fixed stars, which he views as visible gods.

He then criticizes his teacher on the matter of unity within the state. He questions, how much unity do we need for the state to survive? He claims that Plato advocated for too much unity. What did Plato argue for? Plato believed in common ownership of wives and property, as well as shared religion and language. However, Aristotle believes that's flawed. Each man, according to Aristotle, should have his own wife, children, and property. He makes a notable comment about communal ownership, stating, "What is owned by everyone is cared for by no one." He believes that individual pride in one's family and home should be the driving force for its upkeep. He opposes the idea of communal ownership and marriage.

After raising the question about the unities required by the state, he spreads out over subsequent chapters, naming several factors that help maintain unity within a state. Citizens should speak the same language, wear similar clothing, dance the same dances, celebrate the same holidays, and most crucially, worship the same gods. Ever wonder where the historical practice of executing heretics arose from? It wasn't from the New Testament. Instead, this stemmed from Aristotle's claim about worshipping the same gods. This idea was carried forward into the Middle Ages and even into early settlements in the U.S. Despite some settlers seeking religious liberty, once they established colonies, they often imposed their religious views on others.

Aristotle then reviews various forms of governance, from monarchy to democracy. When he rejects democracy, he's specifically referring to his version, where every citizen votes on every law, which he deems impractical. His ideal form of governance, termed "polity", aligns more with modern Western democracies. However, he acknowledges challenges in ensuring that only the best people get elected and emphasizes the importance of a large middle class for this kind of governance to work.

Looking at the clock, I realize we've run out of time. We'll continue this discussion in our next session. Please make sure to read the "Politics" – it's a fascinating book