Plato and Aristotle have differing viewpoints on tyranny; one sees it as a justified form of governance, while the other sees it as a “perversion”. While Plato justifies tyranny as evidence of a man’s ability to rule, Aristotle sees it as counter to the purposes of political association. Aristotle’s arguments against tyranny rely heavily upon his theory on the role of government and its proper end in promotion of virtue.
As Plato sees things, tyranny is a justified form of government because cities are not comprised entirely of good men. (The Republic, pg 31, Jowett and Knight translation). This being the case, those seeking the first two forms of payment, money and honor, are the more likely to rule. Men who would truly regard the interests of their subjects first would also disdain the holding of office except to prevent the ruling by one who is worse. (The Republic, pg 31). Based upon this, one can see that it would be better, in Plato’s view, to have one who was “the true artist”, seeking the betterment of all, or even self, rather than a collection of assorted interests competing for the various modes of payment. From tyranny comes order, whereas other forms of government sow chaos. Another justification for tyranny in Plato’s view is that the practitioner of any art must be adept at the skills antithetical to the art itself, as summed up nicely with the quote from Homer regarding Autolycus (pg 11) during the dialogue with Polemarchus. Thus, as the guardian most adept at theft is best to guard, so, too, the man most qualified to rule is the man most qualified to usurp a ruler. This also results in the idea that, in a tyranny, some form of merit has been demonstrated by the tyrant, whereas a monarch is born into his position without consideration to ability.
Aristotle would argue Plato’s assertion on a number of counts. Aristotle directly attacks Plato’s Republic in many chapters, but the real dissension is shown in Aristotle’s general theory. Aristotle refers to tyranny as a perversion of rule due to its serving the interests of the ruler, as opposed to serving the interests of the ruled. Aristotle would also argue that tyranny defeats his concept of distributive justice, as explained in the heading for Politics, ch. 9, in which each person receives honors and office in accordance with his contribution to the good of the city. Tyranny also is of a lower form of rule, being that of master over slave, than is required for the political association of the city. Finally, tyranny defeats the nature of man. The purpose of political association is ever-increasing self-sufficiency and the realization of virtue or the good life; under any form of tyranny, this is impossible due to the ruler’s concentration on self-interest. Tyranny, Aristotle would argue, depends upon a perversion of rule that serves the interest of the ruler rather than of the subjects and creates a master to slave relation in rule that denies the purposes of political association. It also refuses to acknowledge Aristotle’s concept of distributive justice and further erodes the pursuit of the good life and virtue. These counts of Aristotle’s political theories are sufficient to show his disagreement with Plato without necessitating recourse to his direct attacks.
The proper end of government, in Aristotle’s writing, is the pursuit of the good life. Aristotle arrives at this conclusion by going through the various forms and levels of association which human beings form and developing a hierarchy of political association. As Aristotle sees it, the association arises from the natural impulse of man to leave behind something like themselves. Starting with the association of male and female, Aristotle takes the reader through a series of expanding developments, family and village, to the sovereignty of the city or polis. The impulse, after the association of male and female, becomes that of increasing self-sufficiency, as indicated in his comments on the human associations that lead to the city. The height of self-sufficiency is reached in the political association of the city and the natural impulse changes form again to become the search for the good life. This good life might also be referred to as virtue, civic excellence, self-realization through community participation. No longer is the association’s primary goal self-preservation. The city represents the true nature of man as the natural mature development of his associations. From the city is man’s true nature revealed and derived. In the city, man is perfected and the best of animals, by virtue of association and the pursuit of the good life, while isolated from the city’s law and justice, he is the worst of animals. From this development of natural impulse toward association, man arrives in the political association of the city naturally impelled to pursue the good life which is Aristotle’s belief in the end of government. Government preserves man’s ability to associate and pursue his higher end, which is found within the association itself.
In contrasting the perspectives of these two philosophers, one sees that they disagree on the topic of tyranny and the proper role of government in human affairs, Plato argues in favor of tyranny while Aristotle criticizes Plato’s work directly and indirectly, arriving at an entirely different conclusion. Ultimately, Aristotle’s argument rests upon his definition of the role of government. Aristotle sees government’s end as the preservation and promotion of the highest self-sufficiency and the pursuit of the good life.
No comments:
Post a Comment