Who is Aristotle? & What is the Politics?

It is important to give a cursory glance to the background of Aristotle and his works before elucidating happiness in his terms and analysing the same with contemporary scenario. Aristotle was a wealthy philosopher who delved deep into the ethics and politics. He devoted his entire life reading and writing different works. As stated, he was wealthy enough, consequently, like most wealthy people of that period, he also had a prejudice against slavery. Aristotle opened up a center for research known as Lyceum, where he used to teach individuals, thereby most of his works are in form of lecture style. The Politics is also written in translated lecture form.1

Aristotle is considered an important personality as he was one of the first philosophers to distinguish between the topics of ethics and politics. It is said that both books of Aristotle – The Politics and Nicomachean Ethics (hereinafter referred to as 'Ethics') were written side by side.2 Thus, it makes important to analyse the concepts of happiness mentioned in the Ethics while going through the happiness mentioned in the Politics.

Happiness vis-à-vis Political Virtues

"One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day; similarly, one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy."
― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

As mentioned, Aristotle considered 'Eudaimonia' (broadly misinterpreted as happiness)3 as the man's highest good. Indeed, human beings also agree with his assertion, but there lies no concrete definition to define the same. Consequently, Aristotle describes eudaimonia as 'an activity of the soul in accordance with the best and most complete excellence.'4

Individual Eudaimonia: In his opinion, excellence (or virtue) is a process that leads an individual to Eudaimonia. Now the question arises of what this process is and how it takes place? Aristotle says excellence is a medium path sandwiched between two paths of excess and deficit. He further mentions that if one has to follow this medium path, then he must look into the soul and determine, where he stands (on which path out of the three) and after determining the same, should strive for the medium path. For instance, regarding anger, there is one extreme – irascibility, and another extreme – in-irascibility, and the mean to seek is a good temper. One who considers his soul too irascible should shoot towards in-irascibility to get close to the medium one. Thus, Aristotle mentions through the self-assessment and input of (rational) friends, one can determine where their souls are and can move towards the medium path.5

Political Eudaimonia: In the above-mentioned paragraph, the paper endeavoured to put forth Aristotle's individualistic concept of Eudaimonia. Let us now delve into the state (hereinafter referred to as polis) based Eudaimonia. Aristotle claims that what is good for the individual is good for the polis.6 However, it is hardly possible that the subjects residing in a polis together agree to each other overall moral judgments as well as rules set by the polis. Moreover, the above-mentioned claim made by Aristotle cannot be possible as Eudaimonia concerning individuals is an activity of the soul. Thus, to resolve all these issues, Aristotle in The Politics mentioned 'one who commends the single individual on the basis of virtue will also judge the sounder state to be happier.'7 Consequently, Eudaimonia is divided into two parts one as eudaemon man and the second one as eudaemon polis.

Aristotle conceives an idea of a good life which one ought to live together as citizens in the city-state. The state, as they say, secures the peace and order that are believed to have the scope for goodness or virtue to blossom. Some people believe that politics may be important source of happiness, while others are convinced that friendship or personal freedom is most critical to good life. As per critics, Aristotle has viewed the aspect of command and obedience in friendship more often than the aspect of caring for and consideration of the one other in friendship (philia). While friendship is central in finding yourself and happiness. Nevertheless, this sort of critics also focus on the idea that mainly it is a search for private pleasure which led to such conclusion that being caring for others becomes involved only when these persons interrupt your happiness. This is a consequent which gives a hint that although in friendship, one's personal interest is conflicting but when one does a favour to a friend, it is perceived as a loss incurred on one's personal side. The supposition of human good being mixed up, interwoven with developing and realizing individual abilities, whether in solitude or versed in the company of friends, is one more aspect of the dialog broken. Yet, the Aristotelian judgment asserts that the good friends must have something in common in particular, and shared attention to common topics. Prosperity, according to Aristotle, is the state encompassed by both living in a state with friends but also governance of such state. He contends that the best states are when each person lives in such close connection that the interests of an individual are just the general interests of all. Furthermore, the virtues which fall under the category of ethics were meant to be implemented in administration of these states by the same person. Plato believes that living in the state is an opportunity for all individuals to achieve virtue, hence the streets are described as god-founded in his work Politics.8

Relation Between Individual Eudaimonia And Political Eudaimonia: The connection between these two concepts is necessary, according to Aristotle, for the separation of Ethics and Politics. Individual Eudaimonia can exist without Political Eudaimonia, but vice versa is not possible as a polis is itself a natural association of individuals. Furthermore, Individual Eudaimonia requires consultation among friends to introspect oneself, which is not possible without a virtuous polis.

Julia Annas Views

Julia notes that Aristotle says "there is philia for each kind of association," which includes villages and families. This way, one can retain personal friendship rather than civic, thereby eudaimonia is possible even in less virtuous polis as men can meet with their friends in private sphere.9

Mulgan Views

Mulgan notes that for the existence of good (virtuous) polis, it is necessary that participants/citizens should be good men. Further, if a virtuous man participates in a less virtuous polis, then it would be not vital for his virtues. This way both – men and the polis are dependent on each other.10

Footnotes

1. Richard Kraut, Aristotle: Political Philosophy (Founders of Modern Political and Social Thought), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 6-9, 1st Edition, 2002.

2. Ibid.

3. 'Misrepresented' as Happiness is fleeting, often entirely dependent on external occurrences and incomplete as is not an activity of soul while the Eudaimonia is the activity of the soul, in accordance with a rational principle, that seeks to pull the soul together into the virtuous, most excellent, self-sufficient individual.

4. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1098a 15-18.

5. J M Cooper, Reason and Human Good in Aristotle, Hackett Publishing Co., Inc.; UK Edition, p. 89-90.

6. Aristotle, The Politics, VII.2.1324a 5-12.

7. Aristotle, The Politics, VII.2.1324a 11-12.

8. Edward Halper, Aristotle's Political Virtues, The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Vol. 3, 1998, pp. 154-161.

9. Julia Annas, Aristotle's 'Politics': A Symposium: Aristotle on Human Nature and Political Virtue, The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 49, No. 4, 1996, pp. 731–753.

10. Time Duvall and Paul Dotson, Political Participation And "Eudaimonia" In Aristotle's "Politics", Imprint Academic Ltd., History of Political Thought , Spring 1998, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 21-34.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.