Introduction
This term paper focuses more on the difference in views of society among Ancient Greek Philosophers more specifically about the different views about power and state by Aristotle and Plato. In the general context, Aristotle had a natural and biological view of the world. He believed that everything that is in existence has a specific function in the society. Aristotle at time seemed to be in believed of slavery, as he did not recognize the role of women in the society. On the other hand, Plato believes that democracy is always a tyranny rather than oligarchies. He also thinks that the best rulers are at the age of 50 years. Experience is the building block of good leadership and he stresses reading and thinking as the most vital builders of democracy. The two philosophers disagree and agree on different issues about the society and in the paper, the consideration is more on power and state.
Aristotle insists, “Man is either a political animal (the natural state) or an outcast like a “bird which flies alone” (Den, 1983). Aristotle believes that just as a state is a natural creation man is by nature a political animal. Therefore, anyone who by nature and not by chance lives without a state is either below or above humanity. The reason he gives for a man being a political animal than any other animal is the gift of speech that is only posses by man. He supports this by alleging that God never creates things by for nothing in vain. The sound that other animals produce is mere sound and usually an indication of pain or pleasure and it mere sound exists in other animals. The natural environment attains the perception of pain and pleasure and the intimation of those feelings to fellow animals and nothing beyond intimation of feelings. The power of speech is intended to forth the inexpedient and expedient as well as the unjust and just. It is therefore the characterization of man that he feels the sensation of evil and good and it is the coming together of these living beings having the same sensation that makes up a family and hence a state. In addition, the ability of human beings to speak that drives and manipulates his or her powers to keep the state moving.
An exploration into the nature of state, Aristotle believes on the analysis of states based on their single building parts and in respect to its historical origin. Aristotle’s analysis on what makes a state constitute his believe of the existence of two basic instincts. At the front line of these instincts is the reproductive instinct. The reproductive instinct functions to bring together men and women. The second instinct is the self-preservation. Self-preservation serves to bring together slaves and masters for the sake of common goals achievement and mutual benefits. From the two instincts, the resulting thing is the family. The family is thus the very first step in the formation of a state. The association is formed due to the aim of supply of daily needs (Aristotle, 1995).
The second stage of state formation is the unification of several families and according to Aristotle, the main aim of unification at this stage is something more than the supply of daily wants. The result formation is the patriarchal society called the village. The most natural formation of a village is families of one descent. The state has the possibility of coming into existence upon coming together of several villages into a single complete society. The completeness of this society is based on its nearness or quite self-services. The state existence thus has its origin as the bare needs of life and continues to exist for the sake of the good of life. Since the original forms of a society are natural, the state is also natural as it is the end of the association of living beings. The nature of these living beings is the end. The difference between states and family exists in kind rather than in quantity. Aristotle thus believes in state being a natural society being formed due to impulsion of the very nature. The natural end of humanity is thus the good life that he or she derives from the state (Den, 1983).
However, the social contract theory is in contrast of Aristotle’s view of a state. The critic was first coined in by the Greek times sophists who held that, the rise of states are by convention. John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau in support of the critic advanced their theory of contract. The theory advances that, at the beginning human beings lived in an equilibrium state of nature where every individual had all that he or she required for existence. Though the two differed on the interpretation of this state of nature, they agreed on the main content and context of the contract theory. As according to the theory the state was formed due to the necessity of law and order maintenance since the state of nature started to be disorganized due uncontrolled situations leading to confusion and selfishness. The control involved enactment of political authority by social contracting of all people in the society. The theory concludes that states are not natural societies (McGreal, 1992).
On the issues power, Aristotle recognized four categories of society that he called plethos. They include farmers, merchants, laborers and artisans. He believes that the sharing of power amongst and within these divisions should base its criterion on the democracy. He believed those with multiple numbers should rule and thus have power and those who are best and few in number should be in defensible positions. He compares the ruling of majority with dinner contributed by a group rather that which is furnished from a single source. He thus concludes the leadership of the majority is the best option because they are better together though no single can be certain of having the best quality (Aristotle, 1995).
He further supports the argument by adding that, those who are larger in numbers are no possible to corrupt. The multiple thus have power to do all that they can contrary to the law, as they are free not unless the law necessarily falls short. This is exactly what is happening in the current democratic states since those in political power acquire it through multiple numbers elections. Yes, it is true that leaders are being elected to power by majority followers but it is a wonder that in every state today, corruption cases are rampant. It is because the various divisions with such societies. The divisions may be based on race or tribal lines. These divisions since are many the elected usually manages to gather major numbers by convincing major divisions including the division that he or she belongs. When in power, the elected exercises favor towards his or her division thus the rooting of corruption, which builds downwards (Den, 1983).
The beliefs of Aristotle on who should be accorded powers are against material measure as a qualification for leadership positions. Aristotle lays his fears on the rich leading because they will have a claim and imprudence and injustice will make everything unsafe. “States are unstable, however, that are filled with those who have no share of political power and are poor. Therefore, it is left for them to share in the deliberative and judicial functions of government namely, the assembly and the courts. For when they have all come together, their perception of political issues] is sufficient, and when they are mixed with the better citizens, they benefit city-states”( Aristotle, 1941). The majority and thus the poor are ideal for leadership of a state. The leadership and the stability of a state hence its powers and rulers will be made unstable if the majority are the rich rather than the poor who have little claim to such power.
Plato views that those in power take advantage of justice. They just order and give rule on what to be done without any questions. He views that those in power take advantage of their position to decree what to be done. For example, the people who are in power can order for execution of certain action without any question. These rulers dictate what should be done in the society without any consultation. He views that those people take power, as they own it and thus use that advantage to dictate and give rules on what needs to be done in the society. He views that such rulers who take advantage of their power to decree what is to be done are not the best rulers and do not have qualities of good leadership required to lead the people. He argues that power means leading people but not ruling them(Poulantzas, 2000).Leading is different from ruling as a leader considers other people’s concern about the needs and how these leaders lead them towards achieving certain goals.
Leadership involves guiding others toward accomplishing certain goals. He argues the ruled have their own right and opinions on how they need their leaders to lead them. Power should not be an advantage of those who are in power to dictate what to do in the society. The leaders should concern the ruled before giving out what to do in the society (Smith, 2000). After all the civilians are the one who made such rulers to be in the power and the position they are in. Therefore, the civilians are important to the leaders as they make them to be in power.
Socrates also views leaders as people who know how to lead and more so understand leadership as a craft. The act of crafting is relates to power since good craft always aim at achieving certain goals. Any practitioner of craft does the work perfectly in view of achieving their set goals (Lycos,1987). This appeal to those in power that they also need to set their own goals for the sake of achieving certain objectives in their leadership and the state as a whole. Leaders are not to lead the people just because they are in power but because they are moving towards certain goals and objectives in the state. They should lead the people having in mind that state is bigger than an individual is and the states interests are more important than those of an individual are. Thus, good leads should lead those who entrust them to the power like what good shepherds do. They must try to do their best to lead the people who entrusted them instead of seeking for the fulfillment of their own personal interests and welfare.
Plato relates the idea of power and state to the oligarchs and the democrats of classical Athens. The oligarchs view power as it belongs to those who own such sums of money and property. They view that these are the only people who are capable of being in power. They argue that these people are capable of voting and holding public office ( Smith,2000).On the other hand, the democrats argue that the all the male citizens have equal rights. The oligarchy views the few and wealthy people as the only ones that are able to rule and stay in power. Contrary to this is that the democrats view the majority and poor as the rulers since they are the one who vote for individuals into power.
In Athens, democracy was experienced as from fifth and fourth century. However, in 411 and 404 AD, oligarchs succeeding to establish a government where the few individuals who were well off in terms of wealth ruled the very many who were poor. However as long as the oligarchs established the government of few individuals, their government could not last even for a year (Freire, 1985). They received tensions and opposition from the many poor and eventually they forced to terminate their government and the democrats a government of many went in to power. This Plato view of power leads to a state formation to accommodate all these people in the power.
The Plato views specialization as a factor that to the formation of a divided society. He believed that any state consists of three different classes that are the rulers, soldiers and the people. He maintained that officially, membership in the guardian’s classes needs to be to be based upon the possession of certain relevant skills. Plato predicted that the young ones of the guardian’s membership would be formed mainly through mainly those who have same positions of honor. He hold that when the citizens are not satisfied with the roles of those guardians ,the dissatisfaction will be assumed as everybody in the society have different needs which need to be satisfied. However, as much as these want different satisfaction, they can fully be satisfied individually (Althusser, 2006). This is because every human being has different need from those of other individuals. Satisfying them individually is difficult and thus any show of dissatisfaction by individuals is normal in the society. Like metal gold, silver and bronze, citizens have different natures that fit any of them to certain function in the operation of the whole society.
The myth presented by Plato can be used to control the society by encouraging them to accept the rule of the higher government and accepting their roles at the bottom of the government. They should accept the rules from the higher authority and abide by those rules and laws. Plato uses the myth to justify the restrictions that are imposed on the rulers. This is because they have been given superior natures; they do not need to accumulate more wealth as the external rewards (Poulantzas, 2000). Plato insist that the guardians should not own any private property .They should only eat and live together at the expense of government and should not earn salary which is which is greater than what their basic needs require. This factor restricted those who vie for the seat of the government, as there were minimal privileges, which they would receive from such positions. It also ensured that those who happen to get into those positions only serve the people as per the wish of those people and not for their own welfare. This could make the leaders to serve the people to the best as required. They would know that people are very important than their own interests.
After developing a general structural description, it now follows that an ideal society has been established. He maintained that each class in the society should perform its functions as required. Plato maintained that when different classes in the society work together for the common good, this will lead to development of n ideal society. He maintained that each group should perform their functions as expected of that group (Lycos,1987). For example, he argued that the leaders are the one that make decisions concerning their leadership to the people. Since they make decisions, which apply to different groups they need to posses wisdom. This is because different groups have different views and opinions about leadership.
The decisions made by these leaders need to be inclusive of all the groups in the society. Thus, the leaders need to posses wisdom to help them make wise decisions ( Smith,2000). The wisdom also will assist them to make judgments, which are impartial to all the groups in the society. The soldiers as a group forming an ideal society also need to take their roles as they are in charge of security in the society. They are in charge of defense against internal and external enemies. They need to posses the virtue of courage and they should be willing execute their orders even in the face of danger without considering their personal risk. On the other hand, the rest of the people who also form the ideal society must possess the virtue of moderation to allow their leaders to perform their work without pursuing for their personal interests.
Plato maintains that power should be vested an individual who takes the interest of the citizens other their personal interests and welfare while Aristotle argues that the power rest on the majority poor. He argues that the people elect leaders and leaders should rule as per their wishes. Plato maintained that different group’s i.e. leaders, soldiers and the people form an ideal state while Aristotle maintained that a state is formed by the formation of a group by people with different needs who then form a family and finally the family forms a state.
References
Althusser, L. (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). The anthropology of the state: A reader, 86-111.
Aristotle, & Saunders, T. J. (1995). Politics: Books I and II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aristotle, McKeon, R., Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle, . . . Aristotle (1941). The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.
Den, U. D. (1983). Power, state, and freedom: An interpretation of Spinoza's political philosophy. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Haskins, E. V. (2004). Logos and power in Isocrates and Aristotle. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Lycos, K. (1987). Plato on Justice and Power: Reading Book I of Playo's Republic. SUNY Press.
McGreal, I. P. (1992). Great thinkers of the Western world: The major ideas and classic works of more than 100 outstanding Western philosophers, physical and social scientists, psychologists, religious writers, and theologians. New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers.
Poulantzas, N. A. (2000). State, power, socialism (Vol. 29). Verso.
Smith, N. D. (2000). Plato on Knowledge as a Power. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 38(2), 145-168.
