Matt Qvortrup argues that Aristotle’s political philosophy is surprisingly modern.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/116/Ar ... _Democracy
Aristotle’s Philosophy of Equality, Peace, & Democracy
-
Philosophy Now
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
-
Kevin Finney
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:49 pm
Re: Aristotle’s Philosophy of Equality, Peace, & Democracy
I appreciate the efforts of Matt Qvortrup to give Aristotle a more Progressive interpretation than has often been the case by his commentators. However, I do tend to think that he overstates at least a bit how modern and democratic Aristotle was, and to apply to him a completely modern term such as "democratic socialist" seems insufficiently sensitive to the historical context in which Aristotle was writing. At a minimum the use of such a term requres more justification with reference to both Aristotle's texts and the historical context than Qvotrup provides.
But it is that context that provides the starting point for understanding the sense in which Aristotle was progressive. As a metic (a foreigner living in an ancient Greek city who had some but not all of the privileges of citizenship) Aristotle was one of many persons who had reasons to fear the arbitrary rule of the citizen class, which was largely a class of warriors who could afford their own armor. Without a doubt many of them were prepared to throw their weight around while strolling through the Agora or elsewhere around the city, and those who were not part of this citizen class were themselves not likely to expect the courts to always be completely unbiased when considering their complaints against members of this warrior class.
I think one can read Aristotle's discussion of Justice in the Nichomachean Ethics, as well as his support elsewhere for the rule of law, and his effort to elevate the esteem in which a life of philosophical contemplation is held, as all efforts to both civilize or restrain this warrior class, and to provide a basis for a more egalitarian treatment of those who were not of that class in the courts and culture of Athens.
Aristotle was the original practical pragmatist or incrementalist when it came to his progressivism. He did not try to assault slavery or gender relations, but tried to walk a line between the temptations to autocracy and the demands of true democracy. His result, of course, was the most important early argument (in The Politics) for a mixed constitution. And it was also in The Politics where he interpreted justice as a sort of mean between the elite conception of Justice and the conception held by the demos - both of which were, in his view, biased in their own interest, and therefore partial and incomplete.
But it is that context that provides the starting point for understanding the sense in which Aristotle was progressive. As a metic (a foreigner living in an ancient Greek city who had some but not all of the privileges of citizenship) Aristotle was one of many persons who had reasons to fear the arbitrary rule of the citizen class, which was largely a class of warriors who could afford their own armor. Without a doubt many of them were prepared to throw their weight around while strolling through the Agora or elsewhere around the city, and those who were not part of this citizen class were themselves not likely to expect the courts to always be completely unbiased when considering their complaints against members of this warrior class.
I think one can read Aristotle's discussion of Justice in the Nichomachean Ethics, as well as his support elsewhere for the rule of law, and his effort to elevate the esteem in which a life of philosophical contemplation is held, as all efforts to both civilize or restrain this warrior class, and to provide a basis for a more egalitarian treatment of those who were not of that class in the courts and culture of Athens.
Aristotle was the original practical pragmatist or incrementalist when it came to his progressivism. He did not try to assault slavery or gender relations, but tried to walk a line between the temptations to autocracy and the demands of true democracy. His result, of course, was the most important early argument (in The Politics) for a mixed constitution. And it was also in The Politics where he interpreted justice as a sort of mean between the elite conception of Justice and the conception held by the demos - both of which were, in his view, biased in their own interest, and therefore partial and incomplete.