Renowned philosophers throughout history have extensively explored the ideal social and political organizations in search of humanity’s optimal way of life. Examples of such thinkers include Aristotle and Plato, whose works influenced each other. Their groundbreaking perspectives have greatly impacted politicians and future intellectuals, sparking unprecedented discussion and controversy in the Western World.
Both Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Republic offer a wealth of knowledge about human behavior and societal values. In his work, Aristotle goes as far as referring to and criticizing his mentor, which compels contemporary scholars to examine both perspectives and derive diverse interpretations. The books thoroughly discuss topics like justice, governance, happiness, and innate human nature, all of which profoundly influence modern thinking and individuals’ way of life.
Both Plato and Aristotle have their individual perspectives on the definition of an ideal state, with both agreeing that the purpose of a state is to ensure justice and maximize utility for its citizens. This is achieved through the establishment of leaders who possess wisdom, virtue, and knowledge and exercise power and control. While there are similarities between the two philosophers, each presents their own distinct approach to addressing this question. Both Aristotle and Plato extensively discuss the attributes of an ideal government and identify the detrimental aspects of flawed constitutions in terms of politics and society.
Plato and Aristotle discuss the essence of humanity, focusing on wisdom, justice, and moderation. In modern society, democracy is widely regarded as the ideal form of government, emphasizing its connection to “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Nonetheless, Plato strongly opposes this notion and argues that democracy emerges from certain detrimental qualities.
According to the author’s argument, when a young man who has been raised in a miserly and uneducated manner experiences the pleasures and associations available from wild and dangerous creatures, this transition from having an oligarchic constitution to a democratic one occurs. Plato expresses concern that this shift will result in a government led by the needy, with greed prevailing due to the influence of the appetitive part of the soul. This will lead to polarization between social classes and disunity within the state (Grube 1992: 230).
Even though freedom is considered a virtue by Plato, he is concerned about democracy as it removes the existence of a ruling authority, which he sees as highly risky. According to Plato, although human nature is not inherently aggressive, individuals are essentially irrational and prone to losing balance in their souls. Therefore, he favors a government led by a philosopher king or a ruler who possesses inherent goodness, justice, and virtue.
Aristotle opposes democracy as it would be under the control of the poor, solely benefiting them. This means that either the wealthy would be ousted from the country or they would clash directly with the less fortunate inhabitants, leading to instability, unfairness, and uprising. However, Aristotle does not have a preference for any specific form of government. He believes that governance should be entrusted to individuals known as citizens or those who possess both ambition and capability to strive for greatness. These citizens should also be plentiful in number and originate from the middle class so as to avoid societal discord found in democracy and oligarchy.
According to Aristotle, there are six forms of government. These forms include the “three true forms” – kingly rule, aristocracy, and constitutional government – as well as their corresponding perversions: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (Jowett 2000: 147). The distinction between these categories relies on the nature of the ruler, which is a point of connection between the two philosophers. Aristotle contends that a constitution is just when it benefits society as a whole but unjust when it solely favors those in need. If power rests in the hands of one individual, it is classified as a monarchy if the leader is virtuous and as a tyranny if they are corrupt.
According to Aristotle, a government is classified as an aristocracy if its leaders strive for virtue. However, it becomes an oligarchy if the leaders lack this virtue. The leaders play a vital role in determining the quality of a government and shaping Aristotle’s ideal conception of it. In Aristotle’s perspective, the perfect rulers are educated middle-aged citizens who belong to the middle class. They possess knowledge of the state’s needs and only enact laws and govern in ways that benefit society as a whole. These rulers must actively pursue virtue and ensure maximum happiness for society overall. Additionally, they must work towards reducing the size of the “city-state” to effectively control individuals and maintain a stable government.
Aristotle’s preference is to maintain a government size where all individuals can convene in one assembly. He believes this promotes harmony and stability by ensuring everyone is on the same page. In contrast, Plato contends that philosopher kings are necessary for an ideal government. These kings serve as morally pure and virtuous monarchs who possess a multitude of desirable qualities (an inexhaustible list). The philosopher king embodies justice and is capable of establishing a just state. Aristotle acknowledges the alignment between his ideas and those of Plato, agreeing that a monarchy led by a perfect ruler would be ideal. However, he expresses skepticism about its feasibility.
Aristotle and Plato both share the belief that a state should be viewed as a collective of individuals instead of relying on an imaginary philosopher king. They also delve into the various forms of governments that may exist. Both philosophers assert that states have a designated purpose and consist of individual members. To be deemed legitimate, a state must fulfill specific responsibilities and obligations.
Aristotle believes that the state is a product of nature and holds more significance and self-sufficiency than the individual. He compares the isolated individual to a part that relies on the whole. Therefore, humans, being political beings by nature, must be part of a state in order to fulfill their needs and meet survival requirements. This raises questions regarding human interactions within a state and the possibility of establishing a completely just state. Plato argues for the existence of a city-state dedicated to the greater good, with philosopher kings playing an essential role in this endeavor. When citizens are united, society can maintain justice and promote happiness, which is one of the primary goals of the state. In his work “The Republic,” Plato encourages us to contemplate what we perceive as the greatest good and evil in order to determine the purpose of laws and desired outcomes for the city.
He then responds with a question: “when all the citizens rejoice and are painted by the same successes and failures, doesn’t this sharing of pleasures and pains bind the city together?” (Grube 1992: 136). Consequently, the philosopher kings will govern without faction and will be guided by the concept of the common good and the greatest utility for the entire community. This will prevent internal division and conflict in the nation. Plato Sonksen 5 firmly believes in this educational process that will train his philosopher kings and sees a connection with Aristotle. Aristotle also believes that education, preferably public rather than private, will help maintain a good political order and create a ruling class of middle-class, middle-aged individuals. Education thus becomes a significant responsibility of the state. It seems that Aristotle aims to use education and governance by elders to ensure that the next generation surpasses the previous one.
Once the state’s responsibilities are defined, individual responsibilities emerge. After the establishment of the state, every citizen is duty-bound to contribute to it. According to Aristotle, citizens have a responsibility to actively participate in politics. In his Politics, he states that a citizen, in the strictest sense, shares in the administration of justice and holds public office (Jowett 2000: 101). The presence of such citizens allows for prioritizing the greater good and achieving true justice since everyone has a stake. Moreover, citizens fulfill this duty because it is their responsibility as part of the state.
This perspective seems different from current thinking and helps explain some conflicts observed in United States’ democracy. Initially, citizens were officeholders working for the benefit of the state rather than using their positions for personal gain like some politicians who have turned citizenship into a paid profession.
Instead of Aristotle, Plato’s perfect city is founded on four virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. Individuals themselves should strive for these virtues, as they contribute to the state’s inherent quality. Humans, being social creatures, cannot thrive alone and are not inherently evil. This is why they must pursue these virtues, for the greater good of the state. They can achieve this by focusing on their own designated tasks, which leads to justice and ultimately elevates the level of justice within the state.
According to Plato, justice is the act of doing one’s own work in a specific manner. He asserts that justice is what remains in a city after moderation, courage, and wisdom have been established. Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics discuss how individuals’ responsibilities contribute to the formation of an ideal state. Although these texts were written thousands of years ago, they are still relevant in contemporary discussions on social and political organization.
Both Plato and Aristotle present arguments on their beliefs regarding the ideal state, philosophy, leadership, citizenry, and responsibility. They explore different definitions of wisdom, knowledge, and virtue to arrive at their own individual conclusions. (Sonksen 7)
Bibliography
Grube, G. M. A 1992 Plato: Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Jowett, Benjamin 2000 Aristotle: Politics. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Rock Painting “Spotted Horses And Human Hands” Analysis
The art in the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras is some of the oldest known in human history, and has been found in Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia. Archaeologists have found wall paintings, carvings, sculptures, and tools. Authors Joseph Campbell and Karen Armstrong discuss mythic iconography in art from these periods, however, these articles offer limited interpretation of specific works of art. “Spotted Horses and Human Hands” is a cave painting on limestone found in the Pech Merle cave.
The horses are thought to have been painted in 25,000-24,000 BCE, and the hands around 15,000. “The head of the horse (on the right) follows the natural shape of the rock. Black dots surround areas of both horses and cover their bodies” (Stokstad, Cothren 1). To paint the main lines, artists could have “blown” the paint along the wall using their hands and arms as guidelines. The spots could have been made using a hole punched out of a piece of leather as a stencil. The horse was central to myth in the upper Paleolithic. But why the horse?
Why not the more ferocious bear? The choice could have been a variety of factors. Aside from being visually appealing, the horse was not a threat to the people. The horse could be tamed, approached, and handled at virtually any age. Even if the evidence for riding horses is weak, the Paleolithic people could have seen the horse as a symbol of fertility. The mare, much more manageable than Page 2 the stallion, is the womb, the bringer of life, and is therefore sacred. This could be why horses in Paleolithic art are painted with bulging bellies. Myths to Live By states that the Ainu people raised bear cubs as one of their own, but “when they have become older and a little too rough… they are kept confined in a cage, and when the little guest is about 4 years old, it is time for him to be sent home” (Campbell 32).
The purpose of the ritual is to encourage the bear to tell his fellows how well he was treated by the people, which might encourage the gods to send another divinity to “visit”. A Short History of Myth states that “an experience of transcendence has always been part of the human existence.
The spiritual world is such an immediate and compelling reality that, the indigenous peoples believe, it must once haven been more accessible to human beings” (Armstrong 8, 14). In this context, horses may have been used for a leadership ritual instead of as a sacrifice to a divinity. “Within a powerful mythological context, horses could be calmed enough… to participate in the transference of divine power to the king…. [This ritual] transformed a human chieftain into a semi-divine being by transferring power from the goddess to her appointed consort on earth” (Blumenburg).
Exactly what this ritual was, we may never know. But the author states that the horse was used as a sort of “gateway” to the divine, passing on divinity to who the goddess had chosen to be leader. The horse was obviously more than just a food source to the Paleolithic people. It could have been a connection to the spirit world, offering divinity to the leaders and symbolizing fertility. By keeping the horse nearby (or simply depicting it on cave walls), Paleolithic people could have maintained their close contact with the divine. Spotted Horses and Human Hands. Pech-Merle cave, Dordogne, France. (Stokstad, Cothren)
Works Cited
- Armstrong, Karen. A Short History of Myth. Canongate, 2005. Page 8, 14.
- Print. Blumenburg, Bennet. “The Origins of Mythology in the Upper Paleolithic Cultures of Eurasia. ” Ancient History and Religion Timeline Project. 1994. Web. 10 Sept. 2012.
- Campbell, Joseph. Myths to Live By. Bantam Books, 1988. Page 32. Print.
- Stokstad, Marilyn, and Michael Cothren. Art History: Ancient Art. 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. , 2011. Page 1. Print.
Literature Analysis Of The Novel “A Mercy” By Toni Morrison
Aesop, a well-known Greek fabulist and storyteller, once stated that “every truth has two sides; it is as well to look at both before we commit ourselves to either.” According to him, it is important to consider both perspectives before making judgments or forming opinions. Toni Morrison echoes this sentiment in her novel, “A Mercy,” by presenting the story from multiple characters’ viewpoints. By doing so, the reader is encouraged to examine all aspects of the narrative before reaching hasty and inaccurate conclusions.
In her novel, “a mercy,” Toni Morrison explores the perspectives of Lina and Sorrow to emphasize the significance of considering all perspectives before forming a judgment. Morrison introduces this idea by contrasting the differences between Lina, an accountable and reliable slave, and Sorrow, a enigmatic slave discovered near a river.
Morrison initiates her manipulation of perspective by establishing Lina as a trustworthy character. Lina possesses intelligence, diligence, and earns the Mistress’s admiration, leaving no room to doubt her ideas. Consequently, despite Sorrow being mentioned multiple times in the story, when Morrison injects Lina with negative opinions about Sorrow, the reader too develops a repugnance towards her.
The text reveals Lina’s strong dislike for Sorrow through her initial description of her. Sorrow is depicted as someone with red hair, black teeth, recurring neck boils, and unsettling silver-gray eyes that make Lina’s hair stand on end. Morrison further intensifies the readers’ negative feelings towards Sorrow by narrating her tumultuous past from Lina’s point of view. Lina characterizes Sorrow as a deceitful, useless, peculiar girl who only remembers being brought to shore by whales. Morrison deepens this mistrust by portraying Sorrow as “bad luck in the flesh” who carries misery with her. She even blames Sorrow for the Mistress’ unfortunate accidents, claiming that the deaths of the Mistress’ sons were a result of Sorrow’s natural curse. Morrison effectively builds a strong animosity and skepticism towards Sorrow in the minds of the readers by presenting multiple negative perspectives through Lina. Little do they know, a surprising turn of events awaits them.
Morrison initially presents a deceptive framework for the reader by offering Lina’s perspective in the novel. However, Morrison later surprises the reader by swiftly disclosing the true perplexing nature of Sorrow through her own viewpoint. By effectively generating a rapid and effortless dislike for Sorrow, Morrison skillfully manipulates these emotions to unsettle the reader. Once Sorrow starts speaking, the reader immediately rekindles their prior sentiments towards her, only to swiftly discover that they had falsely accused her. The tale of Sorrow commences on the ship, where she had spent her entire life.
After being drugged by a doctor, who was supposed to remove her “recurring neck boils” (the same boils that Lina believed were a sign of evil), she woke up to find the boat raided and empty, with everybody Sorrow knew either taken or killed. After spending many nights alone on the ship, Sorrow found comfort in an imaginary friend named Twin, who became her source of safety, entertainment, and guidance. Twin meant everything to Sorrow, so when she managed to escape the ship and ended up on the Sawyers’ land, she followed Twin’s advice and lied about her origins.
Sorrow justifies her negligent actions and aimlessness as motives to seek solace in the company of Twin, who brings her comfort. Morrison persistently emphasizes Sorrow’s misconduct to remind the readers of their misconceptions and evoke in them feelings of understanding and sympathy towards her. By intensifying the readers’ frustration towards Sorrow, Morrison aims to profoundly impact them when the truth is disclosed and they recognize that Sorrow is merely a vulnerable young girl, marked by hardships, longing for security and guidance.
In the text, Morrison effectively communicates the importance of considering all perspectives before forming judgments. By provoking strong emotions in the reader regarding Sorrow, she ultimately reveals the fallacy of their initial assumptions about her character.
From Lina’s point of view, Sorrow is portrayed as a lazy, worthless, and malevolent entity. However, the truth is that Sorrow is actually just a young girl with a vivid imagination. Morrison exposes this reality to the reader in an unsettling manner, provoking feelings of sympathy and understanding to highlight the reader’s misguided judgment. It serves as a reminder not to solely rely on one perspective or narrative because there may be hidden truths waiting to be uncovered.