We ,The Children of Aristotle

We ,The Children of Aristotle

“Let us study Aristotle : The Despot, The perfect Elitist; Philosophical son of Plato: The Tyrant”, This was how i got introduced to the greatest philosopher of ancient Greek world. Initially it intrigued me; a mere thought about such an introduction was kind of blasphemy for me. This was an year back, after turning some pages of ancient history of both know and not so known world , answer seems to be settling for me now; Yes there is certain truth why my philosopher called Aristotle The Perfect Elitist and Plato , a Tyrant. May be it depends upon how you read him; not one , not twice but any time you read. At time, he appears to be “A defender of Monarch”, “advocate of universal monarchy”, at some time he seems to be “Radical Republican”, at some he seems to be “naturalist”, at some point he is advocate of slavery and at others he denounce slavery. Aristotle is not single character , he is like Ravana with many heads.

A man of notorious secrecy and reluctance, he was just referred as “The philosopher” or “The Master of those who know”. He was an unchallenged man of his time; even today he is! After reading his work, i wonder what he would have to say about our world. Would he reject us or give a conning smile of acceptance. He was the first philosopher who said ,“we are the 'zoon politikon': political animal”. For him man alone ,among the animal, had speech or logos(reason). Human was the animal who used logos to distinguish pain and pleasure, who took advantages of harm, who measured just and unjust. It was very particular to humans. It was humans' logos that certain moral categorisation:a sort of moral constitution, to pick things that are harmless, just to him itself, was developed; he called it a family. Family developed into tribe, tribe developed into community, community into village , and then city and then city state. Its natural development .

Polis is for Aristotle a natural entity , which allows humans to achieve their ends and perfect them. Participation in city is necessary for human excellence. A person who is without city is either above humanity(god) or below humanity(beast). However he makes it clear that , naturality is not biological but sociological. He say man(sorry for sexual bias) is political animal not because we have some biological impulse or drive to participate in politics, but , we have power of reasoning. Its reasoning that makes us “political”. We participate because we have reasoning capacity. Connecting logos ie power of speech or reason to politics ,was the greatest outcome of his argument. The power of speech as he calls ,helped us to develop common moral language, a common concept of just and unjust, common shared ideas etc. This is what made the city. Its also brought with it power of love, affection , friendship, sympathy and all the qualities that make us human.

So far he is great , but he starts to narrow down from here. For him this city is a particular city , the polis will be a small city. A polis of closed society. A society that helps us to get our perfection. To achieve these perfection we need to be held together by bonds , bonds of trust, bonds of friendship etc. For him, we cant trust all people, trust can only be extended to small circle of friends or fellow citizens. Only a small city built on trust can be governed justly and in political sense. The empire can only be ruled despotically. Hence imperialism must go in hand with despotism. Think of this statement. These were the first seeds of imperial despotism sown by Aristotle himself.

Man is a political animal and city is by natural but city cant be universal state. It can be something that cant encompass the whole humanity, a world state or world government will be a dream. World state will and can never be as a small , self governing city state. In city, Loyalty is prime virtue , citizen has to be loyal to city. A good citizen of one city cant be good citizen of another. City will exist, and will have enemies and friends; inside city there will test of loyalty and disloyalty, a test of citizen ship and non citizen. Think of this with respect to modern conflict involving nations like India and Pakistan. A City cant be friends with all cities , there will be wars . Wars are unjust but have to be fought.

Inside each city, perhaps during war, citizens have to participate in the offices of city. Freedom will be there but only through political participation, ie only when there is political responsibility(compare this statement with statement related to casting of vote ). Freedom doesn't mean living as you like , but freedom will be in the form of restriction and awareness . Awareness that, not all is permitted(think this wrt PDA, public display of affection ). This society will promote moderation, restraint and self control(think this with respect to dictact on what women should ware in public). In many angle he seems , atleast for me a critique of freedom.

In this city state , according to Aristotle , in equality is basic rule. Its a human rule, hence there exist hierarchy in the citizenship. Those who cant be citizens , they can be owned , because only citizens cant be owned in citizen and all other things can be owned. Hence non citizens can be brought as slaves. As inequality is natural and basic rule ; slavery can be deduced as natural. Distinction between master and slave is natural (think of this argument; think of slavery that exist in world till recently). For me he seems to be the most anti-democrartic philosopher that i have encountered till date. He who is equivalent to Indian Manu. But he also points out that slavery was controversial topic even at that time. Was he speaking in defence of slavery?Perhaps some say yes he was, and some disagree with a note that you better read him once again. He does oppose slavery that is built on unjust wars. He says these type of salvery are not natural , slave-master relationship is relation of power. But it can be argued that when polity is about upbringing and its not biological, which he himself said. How can , hierarchy of intelligence which defines hierarchy of citizenship, be natural and hence how can slavery be called a natural thing?

In all , Aristotle seems to regard , all men are not free. Hence all don't have equal rights to participate in ruling (as citizens) and being ruled as citizens of a state. He seems to advocate that discipline and self restraint is necessary for an educated mind . This education should be for closed society. A group of closely linked citizen , who can govern the city(think of modern politician, bureaucrats, corporates , film industry). To be specific, A well educated and well trained aristocrat. Best regime will be an aristocratic republic or monarchy ,where a group of educated elites governs the city or nation for the good of all. Its seems atleast for me ,a very elitist proposition. But think of this, Is is not easy for cricketer son to be a cricketer; Is it not easy for Bhatts or kapoors to enter film industry; Think of political parties: are all becoming group or family run entities; Think about IPL teams and there owners, running show in the name of all Indians ; Think about how officers in Delhi or Bangalore take decision in the name of “Good for all”. Think how we accept our own social hierarchy. Think how we choose our friends and our life partners. Think of our own leaning towards people. Its not hard to imagine how Aristocratic we are. If Aristotle would visit this planet now , he would say ,“YOU ARE ALL MY CHILDREN”.

Dedicated to those who taught me.

Shivaprakash