Introduction
Over recent times, many debates have been made regarding thoughts expressed by philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates on issues such as justice, ethics, morality, and governance. This is based on the fact that the philosophical ideas expressed by these scholars have proven to be greatly important in offering guidance to various facets of life-like cultural, social, political, and economic endeavors
In this paper, the central focus is going to be on critiquing the statement that man is a political animal—a popular viewpoint proposed by Aristotle and supported by several other philosophers. In doing so, a comparison will be made between this Aristotelian thought and the Christian notion of governance and obedience—with a special spotlight being on the thoughts of St. Augustine.
Implications of the Statement by Aristotle
Preliminarily, it is inherent to state that Aristotle was a follower of Plato and, therefore, most of his viewpoints were more-or-less similar to those of Plato. Nonetheless, Aristotle was more radical in his views and that is the reason his arguments and beliefs received a lot of criticisms and praise alike from various scholars.
Saying that man is a political animal has several implications both on a surface and deeper level. In most of his teachings, Aristotle, just like most classical Roman and Greek cynics, emphasized the importance of relative obedience to the people in power as a means of achieving happiness. Nonetheless, going against the leadership and governing systems in Greek society was considered a great offense thus severely punishable. Therefore, in this sense, being a political animal meant that people should strive to conform to the intricacies of the politics of governance since this is the only way they could achieve happiness.
On another level, Aristotle asserted that the word “political, in this context, referred to public entities that are entailed in a given society. In addition, he stated that human beings, just like animals, are a product of their surrounding environment and society. Consequently, being a political animal meant that in order to satiate basic needs such as food and shelter; human beings were obligated to do almost anything.
It is at this point that his opinions on virtuosity and happiness come in handy. According to Aristotle, human beings could be virtuous by doing the right thing. Nonetheless, he opined that there are some instances that might require people to do some ‘wrong” things, but still be virtuous. To him, the guiding factor for virtuosity was happiness, whether it was achieved by doing a right or morally acceptable “wrong” thing.
As will be succinctly detailed in the course of this paper, the above viewpoint was hugely criticized by St. Augustine and a good number of Christians who were of the opinion that there are no morally acceptable “wrong” things. Instead, only absolutes applied when it came to choosing between right and wrong. In this view, Augustine and his Christian followers—mostly Catholics—argued that one was either right or wrong and not anything “in-between” the two moral extremes.
Finally, Aristotle argued that human beings were entitled to free will. However, just like animals, there were some predisposing factors in their immediate environments that limited humans from exercising their free will. In this context, being a political animal necessitated balancing between free will and these predisposing factors.
Aristotelian Thought versus the Christian (St. Augustine’s) Belief
Going by the implications above, being a political animal tends to interfere with some of the key tenets and principles of life like obedience, morality, virtuosity, and happiness—especially if scrutinized against other belief systems. In the section below, a comparison is going to be done between Aristotle’s standpoint and the Christian belief.
To begin with, according to Aristotle, being virtuous is concerned with the pursuit (and achieving) of some certain form of moral excellence—commonly called happiness or eudaimonia. This viewpoint was pegged on his metaphysics concept called Teleology, derived from the Greek word “telos” which means a goal or purpose. It is from that definition that Aristotle asserted that even in virtuosity; people must focus on achieving a certain purpose (which in this case is happiness). So, if the purpose of being happy meant that one should be a political animal, as earlier implied, then so be it.
In the Christian context, however, happiness was directly tied to the principle of obeying God and his words explicitly written in the Bible. Breaking God’s laws, which included obedience to those in authority, was considered to be wrong thus making one eligible for punishment by God. The absolute nature of obedience to God was furthered by St. Augustine who specifically emphasized obedience to Mosaic laws (the Ten Commandments and laws related to them) and following the example of Jesus Christ who, according to the Bible, was perfectly obedient to God and those in authority.
It is, however, important to note that disobedience to authority is allowed to Christians when the circumstance calls for disobedience to God. The example of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the Old Testament is a clear example of such instances.
Again, the ideology by Aristotle that man is a political animal emphasized the importance of the Greek constitution in offering a form of identity to the society and the people within it, as well. Furthermore, amidst criticisms by many scholars, Aristotle propagated the opinion that God had no purpose in human life and people should therefore learn to rely on themselves rather than on a non-verifiable supreme being.
On the other hand, St. Augustine and his Christian followers emphasized the importance of the Bible is not only revealing the true identity of God and how He should be worshipped but also offered a sense of purpose, belonging, and identity to humans. Moreover, having been a staunch believer of knowledge from philosophers like Plato prior to being a Christian; Augustine urged people to use wisdom and biblical discretion when learning from philosophical teachings put forward by other philosophers.
Conclusion
As a rejoinder, it is worth stating that, unlike Aristotle who vehemently opposed the ideologies related to God and Christianity; St. Augustine appreciated the value of philosophies as well as the bible and God. Nonetheless, Aristotle said that in spite of being political animals; human beings had the capacity to think and reason—something which most animals lack—thus should be able to make intelligible decisions.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that both the Aristotelian and Christian teachings regarding “man as a political animal” duly noted the value of education, moderation, and obedience in avoiding vices such as corruption while intermittently pursuing happiness. It is, probably, based on this vital similarity that the Aristotelian and Christian teachings went a long way in setting the precedence for the protection of various freedoms, equality, obedience, the value of law and justice in Greece, to be specific, and the world, at large.