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
