/lit/ - Literature

>>16238649
>trilism regarding politics w an inverse
Guhh, completely unrealistic

Bump. One of you must have read it.

You can't bump your own thread but I'll bump it for you since it's actually about a book.

>>16239395
I was really shit on. It's a bad framework for understanding reality imo

My favorite line. Is the rest of it this clear headed?
Aristotle can be such a prig sometimes

>>16239531
What about it do you think fails as a framework of understanding politics?

>>16239600
It's an old Greek framework of 3's plus the inverse is atrocious. At what point is it an aristocracy vs not and iirc he didn't really say which is better just to passively stick with democracy. It seemed more a survey than a formal argument for better governments

>>16238649
>Natural Slavery
Based

>>16238649
Why did you post my waifus hands?

>>16239610
>>16239610
His tripartite division is
>Rule by the one - Monarchy/Tyranny
>Rule by the few - Aristocracy/Oligarchy
>Rule by the majority - Polity/Democracy
An aristocracy ceases to be an aristocracy the second either the comes to encompass the majority or shrinks to a single member. It ceases to be an aristocracy and becomes and oligarchy (as with all the ideal/corrupted forms of government) when the ruling few serve their own good and not the good of the community.
The justification for the corrupt vs ideal forms of government is grounded on his metaphysical account of the four causes.
>The Material cause is the individuals and institutions which make up the state
>The Formal cause is the constitution, which is roughly the culture and social division
>The Efficient cause is the rulers, which means the structure of the government, as well as its laws and lawgivers.
>And the Final cause is the purpose of the state: the facilitation of the good life for all of its members
as he says at the beginning of the book:
>it is clear that every community aims at some good, and the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims highest, that is, at the good with the most authority. This is what is called the city-state or political community
This highest good is tied with his idea of the final cause of human beings: as political animals and as striving towards virtue—eudaimonia, the highest good. So, the normative justification of his state is one where each member may flourish. And if we recall the Nicomachean Ethics, among the core virtues were Liberality, Magnificence, Magnanimity, and Proper ambition; all of which are only possible within a political community.
He gave his ideal republic in the book, which was either a polity or aristocracy (depending if you include slaves as members of the political community or only citizens). Each citizen is an owner of a household and a member of the government (except priests if memory serves). The reason he favoured a larger franchise is because participation in political and social affairs is a means to achieve human flourishing and achieve virtue. Which, as we saw, was the final cause of both government and individuals. This is also why he favours slavery even beyond the arguments in the first book: because he though manual labour degrades the character of the individual and precludes them from political participation. Further, a city-state governed by the virtuous will naturally be a highly successful and flourishing one.
So it was more than just a survey, he did give a normative argument for better government.
I can only think of one or two forms of government that have developed which aren't captured by this taxonomy. His normative argument is still in service today, but the division of self-interest vs general interest has overturned with the developments from Mandeville and Smith where self-interested activities are seen to produce public goods.
Pay attention.

>>16239922
So 49% of the ppl is an aristocracy? Plus why can't I just deny men suck at governing. Why not propose a system like he does in his metaphysics? One which is not needing a human to make it run?
His proposal didn't seem to be justifiable, if anything it was a wayward conclusion. The nature of man contributing makes them virtuous is hogwash and isn't representative anywhere. They become animals but it does follow his ethics but i think he did a bad job justifying his politics and it seems just as if it was necessary given his teacher and the times. I don't think plato did a gj at it either and I'm more platonist than aristotelian.

>>16239956
Forgot weeb credentials

According to Aristotle's definition it would be an aristocracy, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by men not being fit to rule or a government not needing a human to make it run.
I don't see how participating in politics makes people become animals. Sure, there are some vulgar examples in some contemporary societies, but i don't think that proves much.
Sorry I really don't understand what you're saying.

>>16240209
Is for
>>16239956

>>16240209
Well I'm criticizing it and his conclusion that man is great for virtue and relativistic incremental virtue is virtue enough (per his ethics). I don't at all buy his governments have any metaphysical backing. He just says good is government doing for the society, but wat in the f does that mean? I just don't find it that good in itself. I don't think reality is a trilism at all, I'm certainly a monist, and the negation of them seems even more fantastic. It just seems like a jerk off

>>16240241
I don't think Aristotle thought government was good in itself, but something that facilitates things that are good in themselves (that is, it is desirable for some other good, which is individual virtue, the highest good). If politics is the facilitation of virtue, then what other kind of normative argument could you make for specific forms of government other than relativistic incremental increases in virtue? Unless you're saying that government doesn't exist to allow its citizens to flourish. my intuition says that your problem with his politics has something to do with anarchism, but i'm not sure.
I'm not sure what you mean by trilism. The idea that there are three forms of government?

>>16240623
trilism is like ontological dimension like dualism or monism or pluralism. I'm not an anarchist but I don't see how it increases virtue at all. The democracy is least corruptible because you can't ever tell when it's corrupt because majority agree and not on class lines.
My issue w his politics is it's just ad hoc. I can spin a better political theory in my sleep w better justification and more metaphysical realism.

>>16240669
oh, i'd never heard of trilism before.
I don't see how his politics is ad hoc when it was based on his study of the 170 constitutions and city-states of ancient Greece. Most of it is more political science than philosophy. His accounts of constitutional dissolution, different types and causes of revolution, considerations on economic and household management are all based on past or existing systems. It's only in his ideal republic that things get more speculative.
If man is a political animal, and you follow Aristotelian metaphysics (that is, everything has a teleology), then it is part of his final cause to be a member of a polis. Following this logic, you literally cannot realise yourself as a person without belonging to a society. You aren't even properly human in Aristotle's eyes if you aren't a part of one. After all:
>He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
Ethics mostly concerns itself with the proper conduct between individuals. As such, most virtues that can only be pursued within a society; and within a society, only if you have some influence over its direction, or are a included a part of its actions. It is necessary that someone who participates in politics has more virtues open to them than someone who does not. And participation in public affairs is considered a duty of the citizen, as it is necessary to prevent the dissolution of the state or its slide into another form.
By democracy he specifically meant a corrupt form of majority rule; he did not think all majority rule was corrupt. His ideal form of majority rule is what we would call today representative democracy.
You can criticize the accuracy of his metaphysics (as many have) but i don't think it is fair to call it ad hoc. And it isn't surprising that one of the first metaphysicians to put pen to paper didn't have a perfect system.

>>16240969
>is a beast or a god
That seems like it takes too many assumptions for it to be virtuous to even just debate all the time. It's just not as formal as his metaphysics or physics. They don't all follow and he does some quick reinterpretations of some points (his 4 causes for example) which see no analogy in any other field. I would have loved to see his logic have a teleological or efficient form. I mean plato's was justifiable by his metaphysics. I can accept plato was sincere and it brought his ideas out further. Aristotle's just tentatively followed. It seems almost apologetic cf his other works.

>>16241013
I can't give a sophisticated defense at the moment as my copy is a few thousand kilometers away and it's been a while since i've read it. But i think it is consistent. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. But i enjoyed our chat. Thanks—i haven't had too many lately.

Aristotle had some brilliant insights:
>it is more necessary to equalise appetities than possessions
>it is thought that justice is equality and so it is, but not for all persons, only for those that are equal
>it is an error when men equal in one respect suppose themselves equal in every respect

>>16241062
Np anon

Good night anons. See you in the morning if the thread is still up.

>>16241120
I don't get the second one.

Have bump because I don't remember any of this when I really should

I personally really enjoyed his commentary on the polities of his time
His analysis of the different classes and how the balance and relations between them works which despite being written almost 2.5k years ago, felt much more precise and insightful than what came out of Marxist-Liberial-Conservative-Structuralist analysis(es?!) in more recent times
His take on how to be a good evil tyrant is also timeless
He also solved the philosophy of law in like two sentences accidentally