Aristotle and Plato Compared Essay Example for Free

Aristotle and Plato Comp bed EssayIn the second book of The Politics, Aristotle digresses from Platos recommendations and provides a antipathetic framework for what he believes is an brainl nominate. The best archetype state according to Aristotle is one that is not rule by philosopher kings. This main feature of rulership is what distances Aristotle from Plato. Is it vivid for there to be a group of philosophers ruling? Is it congenital that these philosophers must be removed from underground life? These atomic number 18 the questions Aristotle deals with in the second book of The Politics. In his book, Aristotle also details the role of women, slaves and foreigners.Plato would definitely be upset with his student Aristotle beca enforce of the main fact of his idea of rulership and the removal of the philosopher class. It is important to note that although Aristotles ideal state has greater exclusivity of groups than Plato its benefits are far greater and practical(a ) in creating virtuous citizens. This essay will go on to discuss and critically break down the main features of human temper, communalism, and backstage property of both philosophers. Before we encounter Aristotles practicable state we must look at Platos idea of communalism.Plato highlights that it is philosopher kings who should rule and be removed from private life. His notions are quite extreme because of the mere fact that his nervous strain of rulership is one that is stripped from attaining wealth and also familial roles. One pot argue that this notion is doomed to fail. If this notion of communalism were to be established in a city-state, citizens would not be able to tell who there biological siblings are, which can evidently lead to incest. other(prenominal) critique to Platos communalism is the fact that citizens would have no attachment each other and can split up social interaction.For example, some of the best aspects of social interaction will be eliminated if property was communal. For all citizens must share everything, or nothing, or some things but not others. It is evidently impossible for them to share nothing. For a constitution is a sort of community, and so they must, in the first instance, share their location, and citizens share that one city-state. provided is it better to share some things but not others? For the citizens could share children, women, and property with one another as in Platos Republic. For Socrates claims there that children, women and property should be communal. (The Politics 372).Through this quote one can gather the belief that unity is impossible through this communal relationship and is only derived through unuttered work. This quote is very significant because it explains sharing children and women, and gives the notion that everybody in the city-state is alike, heretofore this is not the case. A city-state is make up of a variety of citizens. Let us use this example in todays society will it be po ssible for the sharing of children, women and property in the city of Toronto? Although this is an extreme example, creation that Toronto is a multicultural city it parallels the city-state on so many levels.Plato would be upset with Aristotles ideal state because the majority of Platos demands are to a fault far-fetched and cannot be practiced. Trying to make a city-state overly much a unity or a household is not a better indemnity (The Politics 372). The institution of family is natural and the verbotenright removal does not bring about virtue. As civic virtue is most practiced when given individual care and not communal care. Through Aristotles natural arguments we begin to see him classify roles for women Aristotle felt that the household consisted of three parts one is mastership, another that of a father, and a third marital (The Politics 370).For a male unless he is somehow represent contrary to nature, is naturally more fitted to lead than a female, and someone older and completely developed is naturally more fitted to lead than someone younger and incompletely developed (The Politics 370). This criterion proves to be treacherous in a city-state as it provides for domination and a creation of a hierarchy filled with contrariety of gender and age in this society. Slaves are another group of population that seize to exist in Aristotles model. Aristotle points that a slave is among things that exist through nature.Although it is not ideal for there to be slaves, it is practical and benefits the city. Plato points out that Greeks should not make other Greeks slave this gives the impression that it is still okay to have thralldom in the city. Noting that anyone who is not Greek are considered Barbarians and worthy of being slaved. Aristotles approach was to rationalize the use of slavery, stating that some people are slaves because they are incapable of responsibility. However we cannot dismiss the role of slaves in the city-state.Slaves take t o the woods a cognitive process part of society and allow for the working class to have leisure. In toilsome to obtain an end with good and happiness, it is crucial that the middle class has leisure which allows for a space to hazard and discuss things with others, using practical wisdom in concert with others. Aristotle also justifies slavery as the natural use of their bodies. Questions of morality begin to arise Are these justifications legitimate? At an individual level it is immoral, however in terms of a well functioning city-state slavery benefits a larger number of people (political process).The benefits are greater because it complements the organic hierarchy where there are multiple parts that make the city-state function. Aristotle points out that private property is not only necessary but beneficial in providing for a functioning city-state. This goes against Platos appeal for rulership to have a communist lifestyle stripped from private property. Plato seems to be de manding too much and does not take into account that men naturally try to gain access to private property. The mere removal of private property does not seem practical, and Aristotle states that you can have some form of property that is communal.For example, the land might be grown separately, but the crops grown on it are communally stored or consumed or the land might be owned and farmed communally, while the crops grown on it are divided up among individuals for private use (The Politics 374). Here is why Plato is upset with Aristotles features he uses Platos Utopian idea of private property and dissects it to one which can be applied to a practical state. The major theme of what is natural emerges in both philosophers. It is hard to determine what is in our nature and how it effects our political position.Aristotle cleverly uses nature as a way to justify the notions of communalism, slavery, exclusion of women and private property. One can attribute Platos anger of Aristotles p racticable state to his radical diversity in the aforementioned categories. Although Aristotles exclusion of women and slaves are far greater than Platos the benefits applying it to his system of a practicable city-state cannot go unnoticed. Works Cited Classics of moral and political theory. Indianapolis, IN Hackett Pub. Co. , 2005. Print.