Aspects of Aristotle book 1., chpt 1-2

8/13/2019 Aspects of Aristotle book 1., chpt 1-2

1/3

CHAPTER I

1

In the opening of the Politics, Aristotle describes his method:

Since we see that every city is some sort of association, and that every association is

constituted for the sake of the good (for everyone does everything forthe sake of what is held to be good), it is clear that all partnerships

aim at some good, and that the partnership that is most authoritative

of all and embraced all the others does so particularly, and aims at

the most authorative good of all.

This method has an assumption that men do things which they hold to be good. This is a secondary

view. The primary concern is that the political association is the most authorative association. That

this association is the polis.

2

Aristotle then notes that some argue that all rule is fundamentally the same. These people

argue that the only difference between political rule, kingly rule, managing a household, and being amaster of slaves is number not type of rule. Number is all that differentiates these types of rule.

Aristotle argues that those who hold this position are incorrect, that number is not the only thing

that differentiates these types of rule. That each of these types of rule are different fundamentally.

That a ruler of a small city and a large family is not the same kind of rule.

3

Aristotle states the method of his inquiry:

For just as it is necessary elsewhere to divide a compound into its uncompounded elements

(for these are the smallest part of the whole), so too by investigating what

the polis is composed of we shall gain a better view concerning this [kinds

of rulers] as well, both as to how they differ from one another and as towhether there is some expertise characteristic of an art that can be acquired

in connection with each of those mentioned. (1252a16-24)

Aristotle intends to analyze the polis. This can be done in two methods: 1) the analytical method

(mentioned above) or 2) the genetic (by growth) method. In the above passage, Aristotle clearly

indicates that he will use the analytic method to examine the polis. Thus he will divide the polis

into its lowest parts. [But the question to carefully examine is "Does he really divide it into its

lowest parts" and if not why not?] Clearly the 1st chapter of the Politics ends with Aristotle

insisting on using (because he says this method is the best and most complete) the Analytic method

to study the polis [as the most authorative human association].

CHAPTER 2

1

This chapter begins:

Now in these matters as elsewhere it is by looking at how things develop naturally from the

beginning that one may best study them.

This paragraph contradicts the first chapter insistence of the Analytic method to understand the

polis. This paragraph insists that the genetic (the growth) method is the best way to study the polis


2/3

(the political association).

2

Continuing:

First, then, there must of necessity be a conjunction of person who cannot exist without one

another: on the one hand, male and female, for the sake of reproduction(which occurs not from intentional choice but - as is also the case with other

animal and plants - from a natural striving to leave behind another that is

like yourself); (1252a26-30)

The first requirement is that people come together for survival in the most primary level: species

survival. This is engendered by sexual reproduction and reproduction occurs in all plants and

animals by instinct: "to leave another that is like oneself."

The desire for reproduction is instinctual in that male seeks out female. This is not a matter

of choice or deliberation (i.e. the seeking out of a male or female). And nature does not care about

any one in particular, any male or female will do. To say "this" or "that" female or male is an act of

choice of deliberation and thus not strictly speaking required by nature. Nature requires that we get

one, which one is a matter of preference and choice. To restate: Nature only requires that wereproduce, with whomever; the with whom is merely a matter of individual (or societal, etc.) choice

or preference.

Aristotle continues on the other natural inclination:

on the other hand, the naturally ruling and ruled, on account of preservation. For that which

can foresee with the mind is the naturally ruling and naturally mastering

element, while that which can do these things with the body is the naturally

ruled and slave; hence the same thing is advantageous for the master and

slave. (1252a30-35)

This is the principle that those who have foresight should rule over those without it. This is the

other natural principle for human association: again for survival. Each element needs each other.The foresighted has the know-how but maybe not the physical ability to survive; whereas the un-

foresighted might have the physical ability but not the know-how to survive. The rule of the

foresighted over the un-foresight is advantageous for both ruled and ruler. Therefore those with

foresight should rule and those without foresight should obey is the principle that nature instills for

survival.

Therefore to restate: Nature inculcates two principles for the coming together of human

beings -- 1) the instinct of reproduction and 2) the rule of the foresighted over those lacking

foresight. These two natural principles and/or inclinations are the driving force behind why humans

come together and ultimately the natural basis of the polis.

3Aristotle distinguishes between female and slave.

"Now the female is distinguished by nature from the slave" (1252a35b1).

This is an important statement because it differentiates between sexual difference and mental

capacity. Aristotle seems to be arguing against the linking of the two. [But remember this if this is

by nature - why cannot the barbarians distinguish women and slaves -- maybe it is not as by nature

as he argues here.]

He continues:


3/3

Nature makes nothing in an economizing spirit, as smiths make the Delphic knife, but one

thing with a view to one thing; and each instrument would preform most

finely if it served one task rather than many.

Nature is said to be like a craftsman making fine tools. Each tool has a specific function and its best

used to do that function rather that doing a thing that it was not created to do. You can bang a nail

in with a wrench (as well as pulling a pipe out with it as it was created to do) but not as well as witha hammer -- whose function it is to bang nails in. Each tool functions best doing the thing it was

built to do. The same thing is said about human beings and of human functions. Each person is

best suited to do what nature constructed him (or her) for:

The foresighted ----- for rule.

The un-foresighted -- to provide labour.

Men ----------------- To make the way of life.

Women --------------- To bear children.

These are the roles which this argument ultimately suggests.

Documents

Aspects of Aristotle book 1., chpt 1-2