Aristotle

Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) was a student of Plato.

His Life

Aristotle was born in Stagira (the origin of his nickname, the Stagirite), Thrace — not far from Athens. His father was a physician in the Macedonian court. He learned, initially, from his father, but at the age of eighteen was sent to Plato’s academy. He became immediately notorious for two reasons: one, that he was a dandy; two, he was easily the sharpest student in the academy. Plato lavished praise on Aristotle and, though the latter disagreed greatly with his master, Aristotle reciprocated, building an altar to Plato after his death.

Regardless, Aristotle left the academy after Plato’s death. He had expected to be made master of the Academy, but was passed over for his foreign origin. He was invited by Hermeias, one of Plato’s students to Asia Minor, where he was a king, and took up the offer. He did not influence policy, but married his daughter Pythias — with whom he had a daughter. He fled the Kingdom when the Persians invaded (they had Hermeias crucified).

Most famously, in 343 BC, he tutored the great Macedonian king Phillip’s son, Alexander (to be the Great). This was no mean posting; Phillip was looking for the greatest teacher in all the world, for his son who was to become ruler of all the world, and Aristotle clearly fit his criterion. Soon after, Phillip would unite the Greeks at Chaeronea, and Alexander would eventually conquer the ‘world’. All this was in return for having his home town of Stagira restored after is destruction due to war.

While Alexander was having his adventure, back home at Athens, the Athenians were having none of it. Not ones for being subjugated (for very long, at least), the city was split amongst a pro-Macedonian party and a pro-independence party led by Demosthenes, the famed orator. When Aristotle returned to the city, finished with his work in Macedonia, he took the pro-Macedonian side. During his next twelve years in Athens, Aristotle wrote most of his works.

Aristotle established the Lyceum when he was 53, and it was (obviously) popular. The school was different from Plato’s inward-focused Academy; Aristotle’s Lyceum was focused on the ‘outside’ world — it focused on biology and the natural sciences, and his influence over these fields can not be exaggerated. Most of this was boosted by Alexander, who often granted Aristotle’s requests regarding funds, research (as in an expedition to the source of the Nile), and who probably sourced of most of the flora and fauna Aristotle documented.

Aristotle was certainly a magnificent polymath; His works covered logic, rhetoric, the sciences, to the ethics and politics of his predecessor, and so much more. There are some questions of authorship, and only a fraction of his output survived. In fact, all his dialogues were destroyed when the Visigoths sacked Rome. What we know of his work consists of, essentially, notes — taken by Aristotle, or by his students from his lectures.

In 322 BC, Aristotle was forced to flee Athens. Alexander had perished, and the Athenians had risen up against the Macedonians. Aristotle was to be tried, much as Socrates was, as the ideologue of the Macedonians, but he fled the city to avoid the fate of his master’s master. He arrived at Chalcis, but so stricken by his exile, died either by poison or some other illness. In one of the cruel ironies of fate, the same year at the same age, Demosthenes, the firebrand of Greek independence and opposite of Aristotle in this regard, drank poison to save himself from his Macedonian pursuers. Athens, and the Greeks by extension, would fall into discord and infighting, until finally subsumed by the Romans.

His Thought

Aristotle’s Naturalism

Aristotle defines his philosophy, intentionally or otherwise, based on the previously mentioned contrast with Plato’s method, and even the pre-Socratics. On the one end, we have Plato’s ‘academic’ rationalism and idealism; on the other end, we have the pre-Socratic’s harsh, for instance, atomism. Aristotle defined his ‘naturalism’ as a sort of middle-ground between them.

He gives high opinion to nature and figures it always acts with a purpose, and thus everything has a meaning. We find these meanings and understanding, not in the contemplation of Forms, but in the sustained observation of particulars. That was Aristotle’s method — he didn’t deny the usefulness of either Plato’s Theory of Forms, or the pre-Socratic emphasis on the perceived world.

Metaphysics and the Nature of God

Aristotle’s metaphysics emanates from his naturalism; as Plato’s metaphysics emanated from his Theory of Forms and epistemology generally. It tussles with issues that the pre-Socratics attempted to tackle as well. For one, he took issue with Plato’s dualism. Specifically, its emphasis on the world of being would lead to ‘otherworldliness’. His critique of the Forms was a monistic doctrine; in Aristotle’s account, the forms of an object were merely properties of its particulars. Various particulars shared various properties. This didn’t mean that everything was one thing. Particulars each had a sort of essence: what makes a human? The common property of ‘human-ness’ that is present in all humans, and absent in all… non-humans.

For one, Aristotle had to rebuke the Parminedean account of the staticity of the world, and explain how change comes to be. Not only that, he also had to describe what change was. This was a challenge which his method was particularly suited for. To this end, he conceived of God as a ‘mover’. The origin of motion that begins the natural progression outlined above, and also its end; the final purpose of all things. But this leaves a lot of missing pieces in the puzzle of God; his abstraction of God leaves Aristotle to explain God’s action as a contemplation of the essence of things. Therefore his God, as the origin of all things and essence, is condemned to forever contemplating himself.

He believed matter would grow to become something greater than itself, it would take up a form. Matter originates not; it existed originally as a void, only considered because it had the possibility of taking up a form. In biological terms, the embryo would be the matter, and the baby its form. The adult would be the form, and the child the matter. And so there is a constant progression in nature. The final destination of this progression, the final cause or entelechy, determines the nature of the progression. What determines the final cause? The internal, natural structure of the matter; as a human child can not become a bird, nor can a baby bird become a human adult.

Ethics and the Nature of Happiness

The supreme question, that we see even philosophy as a means to, is ultimately ‘how do we live a happy life?’. Morals, ethics, esthetics, logic, all are pathways on our journey to answer this question. Happiness is the main goal of life. To answer this question, Aristotle figures we must start at what differs man from other creatures – it is the power of reason, rationality. Happiness in life must be attained by the full function of this unique feature. Aristotle pays more attention to the practical features of ethics; he argues that what is right depends on context. There are some general guidelines he provides, however, in the form of the golden mean. The golden mean is the ‘middle-road’ between two extremes; for instance, between cowardice and recklessness, we find courage, our golden mean. This is generally the correct attitude, but for action context is important, and part of virtue is learning to do good in all situations. In that sense, good is a habit.

There are also external aspects to happiness. For instance, Aristotle does not advocate ascetism and acknowledges that, not only do worldly goods grant us happiness, they also save us from unhappiness (as in the tenant who worries over rent payments, and the homeowner who is free from such problems). Perhaps the most important external aspect is friendship: friends are a multiplier on happiness, and friendship is more important than justice on account of the fact that friendship makes justice unnecessary (if all the world was your friend, you would never do any wrong to anyone). But again, Aristotle warns against excess: “he who has many friends has no friend”. He also gives us details on what friendship consists of: friendship implies equality and stability of character on both sides, though Aristotle does argue that unequal relationships (such as that of debtor and creditor) have a degree of friendship like, perhaps, that of a mother for her child.

Ultimately, however, the path to happiness lies in the self. Not in sensual pleasure, not in power, but in the mind; in the pursuit of the truth.

Psychology and the Nature of Art

Aristotle left his mark on psychology as well. He laid the foundations of the law of association, for instance. One the more abstract issues of psychology, such as free will, we find a mixed bag. He attempts to strike down determinism, but his arguments are full of holes. His definition of the soul is also influenced by his biology: the soul is the sum of the powers of the body. A personal soul can exist only in its own body, but the soul is not material, and dies with the body. Part of the soul, the active reason, goes on though; it is the universal, as opposed to the particular element that dies with the body.

Aristotle also wrote famed works on esthetics. Art is our outlet for emotional expression and the form of art is as a mirror of nature. Art is not superficial reflection, however, as in the representation of inner workings does it shine. In this way, the best art appeals to the human intellect and emotion and, channeling his Schopenhauer, Aristotle acknowledges this art as the highest form of joy we can experience. Art should aim at unity, the focus of form. In the realm of emotions, the true power of art is in catharsis, the purging of unhealthy emotions. All art should strive to achieve catharsis in their consumers.

The Foundation of Logic

Aristotle was the forefather of the field of logic; logic being the art and method of correct thinking. It is both abstract and scientific; it can be reduced to simple rules, but it concerns our thoughts so it is naturally chaotic. Plato and Socrates paid some attention to the concept of logic, otherwise they would have no consistency, but it did not take form till Aristotle. Of utmost importance to logic are definitions, since words (and their definitions), are the smallest part of any argument, and thus the things we must pay most attention to.

To Aristotle, definitions consisted of two parts: a class to which the object belongs (ring any bells?), and the specific characteristics that distinguish it amongst the aforementioned class. Aristotle makes an example of man: he is an animal (his class), but his specific characteristic is that he is rational.

But Aristotle didn’t just borrow from Plato’s concepts. He differed on the concept of universals: a universal is a member of a class, not a class itself, but it in itself is a subjective and not objective reality. For instance, man is part of the animal class, but there is no one ‘man’; men exist, but there is no ‘universal man’. ‘Man’ is merely a term we use. Plato held these universals as an objective existence, however, and more important than the individuals, also called particulars; of man a particular would be you or me, the term we would use for that particular would be ‘manhood’ or ‘personhood’. Remember: ‘You may eat an apple, you may eat all the apples, but the idea of an Apple goes on.’

This is where Aristotle disagrees, and he disagrees quite vehemently. Aristotle believed that these abstractions, present throughout Plato’s works, and practically the basis of the Republic, was false. Plato was so obsessed with the universal, that he completely ignored the particular. But Will brings us to the fact that Aristotle criticized Plato because he was so alike him: ‘as only similars can be profitably contrasted, so only similar people quarrel, and the bitterest wars are over the slightest variations of purpose or belief’. Aristotle, despite his criticisms, was also fond of the tool that is the abstraction.

For example, the syllogism: a syllogism is a trio of propositions, the first two propositions are used to concede a truth in the final proposition (All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is a mortal). Mathematically, we can express this as: A = B; C = A; therefore, B = C. The problem here is that the first premise, here that ‘all men are mortal’, takes for granted the point to be proven. Meaning, it is not impossible for Socrates to be immortal, and Socrates may in fact be immortal, but Socrates being irrational would mean that man is not universally mortal, and the syllogism takes this for granted. By taking for granted any first premise, Aristotle denies particularity in favor of universality.

Politics

Communism and Conservatism

Aristotle’s philosophy was not so different from his predecessors, inclined as it was towards aristocracy. But he had reasons beyond his association with the emperor; Athens was far more anarchic in Aristotle’s time than even Plato’s. Aristotle’s conservatism is displayed in a few of his ideas: for one, he believed that faults within the state or the ruler, so long as they were minor, were better tolerated than changed. For the power of the law rested in its stability and tradition, and change in these laws must not be taken lightly. The accumulation of the knowledge of generations upon generations, in a country’s laws, are not irrational or without reason. This is the chief of Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s Republic, which he partly agreed with and partly disagreed with.

His critique of Plato’s ascendance of universals, the Republic, over the particulars, the individuals that make up the Republic, make an appearance. No state could flourish when it would suffocate its brightest (the aristocratic class). His psychology also comes into play on the communal nature of the Republic: ‘he who has many friends, has no friend’, and in the same way the whole of a city can not be a community. Neither will love, which emerges when ‘a thing is your own, or that it awakens real love in you’, flourish in the Republic where children are taken away by the state, parents do not know their significant others, and all property may as well be the community’s property.

More practically, Aristotle argues that dividing society into three stratums so unequal in economic, martial, and numerical power would only put people down; it would disincentivize and prevent men from striving for better. “This is my class, this is my fate”. The communism of his Republic further demotivates the populace; if you will not get anything for your work, and will not get more for the more work you put in, then you will see little value in work. And if people don’t work, then you can kiss civilization goodbye.

The allure of utopia comes from ‘optimism’; utopianists think that human’s are not at fault for society’s ills, but that private property or some function of the state (or lack thereof) is responsible. The reality is that evils in society, and in the state, arise out of the wickedness of human nature – a conclusion the good-natured find hard to come to. Ultimately, Plato’s Republic, despite his attempts at social engineering, will not change the inherent nature of man at large. It will only, temporarily, change the situation man finds himself in.

Now, despite his argumentation for the golden mean, Aristotle clearly subscribes to the opposite side of the extreme Plato; to the optimist, the pessimist. He believes that most men are, essentially, worthless, and trying to save or preserve them will invite ruin upon the others who aren’t so worthless. “From the hour of their birth some are marked out for subjection, and others for command.” This is a reflection of a common Greek attitude against manual laborers, and generally against industry, for it extends even to the merchants. Aristotle argues quite viciously against usury for instance, and includes merchants and financiers in his class of slaves.

Marriage and Education

Aristotle’s conservatism also shines in contrast to Plato’s radicalism on the issue of womens’ rights. Aristotle, quite simply, believed women to be the inferior of men, and only fit as the slaves of their betters. He urges men stay away from women until their late thirties, to take advantage of their freedom in the meantime, and then to marry a women of twenty-some years. By this measure, both male and female will lose their desire and ability to bear children at the same time, and thus avoid quarrels over off-spring. It is also partially motivated by pseudo-science and various myths on reproduction around the time. Aristotle recommends that the State take responsibility for ensuring these ‘maximum’ and ‘minimum’ ages of marriage, and even the rates of population growth. Granted, the Greeks had good reason to worry about population, since they didn’t have the technology, as we do, to make gold out of sand.

He also urges the State oversee education. He agrees with Plato on the importance of education on the individual, society, and thus the State. “The citizen should be moulded to the form of government under which he lives.” It is also only through a State-provisioned education that a common unity can be achieved, even among ethnic heterogeneity. He urges education as a means to social engineering, to condition man to control his savage nature. Also to develop social habits, for in isolation does man’s evil nature develop; As Nietzche summed up, “To live alone one must be either a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: one must be both – a philosopher”.

This is all for the purpose of his conservatism, to avoid revolution. For, Aristotle argues, revolution brings about many consequences; the direct of which are calculable, but the indirect of which are not and will, more often than not, prove disastrous. He also aspires to Plato’s cynical use of religion, ‘[A ruler] should appear to be earnest in the worship of the gods; for if men think that a ruler is religious and reveres the gods, they are less afraid of suffering injustice at his hands, and are less disposed to conspire against him, since they believe that the gods themselves are fighting on his side’.

Democracy and Aristocracy

Aristotle figured that, if his previous conditions were fulfilled, any form of government would suffice. Still, he had a preference for tyranny: he believed that, as Homer put it, “Bad is the lordship of many; let one be your ruler and master”. This likely because of his association with Alexander and Phillip. For this one man, the law would not apply, for he would exist beyond the law. “Only a ridiculous person would try to make laws to govern the [ruler, for he] would probably respond as did the lions in the story of Antisthenes when the hares harangued the assembly, holding that everyone was to be considered of equal worth: ‘Where are your claws?’”

Aristocracy is still preferable in practice, however, since finding the qualities of perfection required in a single ruler would be near-impossible, or at least too rare to be practicable. The problem with the aristocratic class is that it changes, not with merit, but with money. And thus, the highest offices become open to the highest bidders, not the most capable. When these aristocrats diminish themselves in this infighting, they lose power and democracy arises, where the lower classes assume power. Democracy also has its advantages; Aristotle appraises the crowd more fairly than Plato, and he sees clarity and incorruptibility in it. It takes greater power to corrupt a crowd, and the many likely have a clearer, less biased view of an issue than the few. And yet, it is not impossible to do either, so he still argues aristocracy as superior, as Plato did, on account of the stupidity of the masses. If the people were smarter, more virtuous, and less easily misled, there would be no problem, but alas.

Thus, Aristotle ends up at the exact same conclusion as Plato: a hybrid of democracy and aristocracy is necessary, and it would be the ideal state, but he does it with his own twist. This is constitutional government, where we do not assume men to be greater than they are, nor do we embrace a utopian constitution – a golden mean. What should be the ruling class of this state? The class which does not rule in either numbers, nor in nobility, but in combination of both; the middle-class, another application of the golden mean. Aristotle essentially describes the modern form of the state, or we could say invents it, couched in his naked conservatism.

• Aristotle