Aristotle and Plato were great Greek philosophers and logicians and they were regarded as the most prominent thinkers in ancient times especially in the field of philosophy including the political setting. In comparing the political theories of these great political philosophers the theory has to be examined in depth. As Plato is regarded by many as the pioneer in writing about political history, Aristotle on the other hand is recognized as being the earliest political scientist. These two men were amusingly very great thinkers. And they each held different notions on improving the existing societies in their lifetimes. Platos maim focus was based on a perfect society as he created a benchmark for a society that was utopian as his proposal was an outline of a society in which the problems he thought were existing in the present society would be reduced. He further sought to give a remedy to the afflictions of both the human personality and society. He wanted to achieve a perfect society. Unlike Plato, Aristotle was not concerned with the perfecting act of the society but he rather wanted to improve on the existing society.
Instead of producing a layout for a society that was perfect, he suggested that the society itself should make an effort in reaching and attaining the unsurpassed possible system. Aristotle studied in Athens at Plato’s academy and later on left to carry out philosophical research in Asia. His life looked like it had a lot of influence on his political thought in numerous ways. His travels also and his experiences in diverse political systems prompted him to have an interest in comparative politics. He insensitively criticizes Plato’s theories on the political scene while still extensively borrowing his values on the same. Politics being a very authoritative science, it is according to Aristotle a prescriptive discipline rather than an inquiry.
He frequently compared the politicians to craftsmen and further explained the production of artifacts in terms of the four main causes which are the material, efficient, formal, and final causes. He then explained the existence of city-states in terms of the four causes whereby the states consisted of the citizens with their natural resources from which the city-state is shaped. The constitution was the recognized cause of the city-state since it helped in the maintenance of order for the inhabitants. He further indicated that established a city-state brought a lot of benefits along with it. He summed up the city-state as a form of a particular population in a given territory and having a constitution that has been fashioned by the lawgiver and is being governed by the politicians who are compared to craftsmen. He clearly understood the fundamental dilemma of politics. Aristotle emphasized that the lawgiver and the politician occupied the constitution and the state wholly and defined a citizen as one who had the right to deliberate or participate in the matters of the judicial office. Aristotle mainly relied on an approach that was deductive and also on the inductive approach which suggested that there was no solid evidence at all that the societies needed a drastic way of reformation as Plato on the other hand had earlier suggested.
Aristotle believed that society had already obtained the best and all that could be done was to try and improve on the existing society. Plato’s school of thought consisted of three class systems that were nonhereditary in which were the guardians who consisted of the ruling and the nonruling guardians. The nonrulers were of a higher level in the civil service and the ruling guardians were the policymakers in the society. On the other hand, the soldiers and the auxiliaries were the minority in the civil service as finally the workers were composed of the unskilled laborers, the farmers, and the artisans. It was very important that the rulers who emerged were to belong to the craftsmen’s class who were spirited in temperaments publicly and skilled in the governments’ area of arts. The guardians were placed in a position whereby they were regarded as the absolute rulers.
Aristotle however disagreed with the idea of a particular class holding political power continuously. He further said that the system excluded men who were very wise and ambitious but were not in the right societal classes thus they could not hold any type of power politically. He further looked upon the system of the ruling class as a political structure that was ill conceived and quoted that the guardians made a sacrifice for their control of power and happiness. The guardians who led a very disciplined life thought that it was necessary imposing the same lifestyle on the society governed by it. Aristotle put a very high moderation value since most people favored it because of its liberal and conservative part. Platos’ utopia was undefined and was carried extremes such that its requirements could not be fulfilled by any human being. Aristotle believed that Plato was underestimating the human character qualitative change in personality that would take place to achieve its utopia.
Plato decided to tell the readers belonging to his republic how the men were to act and what their attitudes would entail in a perfect society. Aristotle on the other hand tried to use the real men in the real world in a fashion that was experimental in foreseeing how and what channels could be used to improve them. Plato and Aristotle both agreed that justice existed objectively which meant that it dictated the belief that good life was to be provided for all people irrespective of their high or low social status. Plato saw law and justice as what would set society guidelines for its behavior. Even though Aristotle emphasized the polis institution neither he nor Plato found it necessary to make a clear distinction between the society and the state thus it became difficult to define polis. The polis was specifically set so that it would allow the participation of the average citizen in politics. This was a contradiction to Plato’s theory which emphasized a ruling class that was in control of the political power including all the decisions that affected the entire society.
The democracy theory which was derived by Aristotle stated that democracy was a pervasive form of government and further clarified that people were to be made sovereign. Plato would never accept the full participation of the public in government political issues as Plato would advocate for the same. By Plato’s theory, the judgments of the public on their disapproval and approval are not based on knowledge but rather on belief. Plato seemingly thought that if any revolution would take place, it would happen in the palace since that is where power is passed on from one power that holds the power to someone else. On the other hand, Aristotle sees the revolution causes have their origins in either the poor or the rich and further feels that if people were to prevent revolutions then they were not to anticipate them at all. Plato thought that a group of guardians will emerge and break the rules.
Both Aristotle and Plato had plans and ideas that were well thought out on how a society is to be built and they had a very tremendous impact on the political scenario in the present age. Also, their opinions and the values they held concerning the society differed but the intentions were the same and that is building better ways of life for their current societies and for the ones to be there in the future. In the current political arena, there is the existence of the world in reality as it dates back to many years ago when the great philosopher existed who believed in real and tangible things i.e. Bush thought that the empty barrels in Iraq were filled with chemical weapons. According to Plato what is real is the general idea of things such as the idea of Iraq being a threat to America and also whether Sadaam Hussein had actual and real chemical weapons was less important than the truth in reality whereby the abstract thoughts were the reality. Aristotle on the other hand took a different view and thought that reality could only be measured by what you could touch and see.
Following this definition announced to the world that Sadaam had hidden weapons of mass destruction and it is also the same definition that was used by David Kay who set out immediately to find the weapons. Powell and Kay were dismayed by people’s ability to not seeing or touching the weapons of mass destruction. But according to Bush he wasn’t in any way going to let anything like Aristotle’s reality theory distract him from what he believed in Plato’s theory. In Plato’s reality threats exist and the world is a very dangerous place and the evidence of our senses must fit the truth when interpreted. On the day Bush launched the war on Iraq he told the entire nation that there was no doubt that Iraq had very lethal weapons of mass destruction according to the information gathered by his government intelligence team. A reporter wanting clarification on the issue of whether the statement he made was false retrospectively.
His reply was based on the fact that the decision he had made to attack Iraq was influenced on the basis on the intelligence survey carried out in relation to war against terrorism. According to the American president every threat had to be looked at carefully and analyzed properly thus reducing the chances of any potential harm to America. In the real sense the attack on Iraq further exposed a new reality which created a change in the context of interpreting any findings from the government’s intelligence. Bush had a theory and a fact and the two do not coincide at all and he got rid of the fact and maintained the theory.
References
Miller D (1987): The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, pg 123-235.
Hacker, A. (1961): Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, And Science. New York: Macmillan, pg 56-78.