SHARING IN THE CONSTITUTION

The first five chapters of the second book of Aristotle's Politics contain a series of criticisms levelled against Plato's Republic. Despite the abundance of studies that have been done on Aristotle's Politics, these chapters have for the most part been neglected; there has been no book-length study of them this century. In this important new book, Robert Mayhew fills this unfortunate gap in Aristotelian scholarship, analyzing these chapters in order to discover what they tell us about Aristotle's political philosophy. Mayhew demonstrates that in Politics II 1-5, Aristotle is presenting his views on an extremely fundamental issue: the unity of the city. Indeed, he states, almost all of Aristotle's criticisms of the Republic center on this important subject in one way or another. Only by understanding Aristotle's views on the proper unity of the city, Mayhew explains, can we adequately discover his views on the proper relationship between the individual and the city. Students and scholars of classical political philosophy will be greatly interested in this innovative book.

The concept of justice, a cornerstone in Aristotle's political philosophy, holds intrinsic significance in both historical and contemporary contexts. This article embarks on an intricate exploration of the primacy of global justice within Aristotle's philosophical framework and its far-reaching implications in addressing contemporary challenges. Drawing from Aristotle's perspective on justice within the polis, the article navigates the terrain of his ideas, extending them beyond conventional boundaries and examining their pertinence in the global arena. Aristotle's nuanced definitions of justice lay the foundation for dissecting its role within the community. The dichotomy of distributive and corrective justice adds depth to the discussion, setting the stage for the exploration of justice on a global scale. Indications within Aristotle's writings hint at a broader consideration of justice, encompassing global concerns that transcend political boundaries. The resonance between Aristotle's principles and contemporary global issues, including poverty, environmental degradation, and human rights violations, is brought to light through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This alignment underscores the enduring relevance of Aristotle's philosophy and its potential to inform contemporary ethical paradigms. Furthermore, the article contemplates the influence of Aristotle's justice-centred ideas on international relations, envisioning its impact on diplomacy, cooperation, and conflict resolution. Acknowledging critiques and counterarguments that question the adaptability of Aristotle's theories to modern complexities, the article upholds the enduring applicability of his principles. Aristotle's emphasis on equilibrium and rectification offers a portal for addressing multifaceted global injustices, even in the intricate web of contemporary interdependence. The article culminates in the assertion that the primacy of global justice within Aristotle's political philosophy reverberates profoundly in the present day. The convergence of his principles with contemporary ethical frameworks, the potential implications on international diplomacy, and the adaptability to intricate global challenges substantiate the perpetual wisdom encapsulated in Aristotle's ideas. Embracing the essence of his philosophy, humanity is poised to forge a path toward a more just, harmonious, and equitable world.

Aristotle offers a conception of the private and its relationship to the public that suggests a remedy to the limitations of liberalism today, according to Judith A. Swanson. In this fresh and lucid interpretation of Aristotle's political philosophy, Swanson challenges the dominant view that he regards the private as a mere precondition to the public. She argues, rather, that for Aristotle private activity develops virtue and is thus essential both to individual freedom and happiness and to the well-being of the political order. Swanson presents an innovative reading of The Politics which revises our understanding of Aristotle's political economy and his views on women and the family, slavery, and the relation between friendship and civic solidarity. She examines the private activities Aristotle considers necessary to a complete human life—maintaining a household, transacting business, sustaining friendships, and philosophizing. Focusing on ways Aristotle's public invests in the private through law, rule, and education, she shows how the public can foster a morally and intellectually virtuous citizenry. In contrast to classical liberal theory, which presents privacy as a shield of rights protecting individuals from one another and from the state, for Aristotle a regime can attain self-sufficiency only by bringing about a dynamic equilibrium between the public and the private. The Public and the Private in Aristotle's Political Philosophy will be essential reading for scholars and students of political philosophy, political theory, classics, intellectual history, and the history of women.

Previous article No AccessReview EssayAristotle & Modern Liberalism . By Mary Nichols . By Stephen Salkever Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle's Politics. By Mary Nichols Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Political Philosophy. By Stephen Salkever The Public and the Private in Aristotle's Political Philosophy. By Judith Swanson Aristide TessitoreAristide Tessitore Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Polity Volume 25, Number 4Summer 1993 The Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/3235127 Views: 3Total views on this site Copyright 1992 Northeastern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

For Hobbes, there is nothing “more repugnant to government” or “more ignorantly” said than much of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics . But it does not take such sharp wit to discern the tension between Aristotle's thought and a liberal tradition that prizes the freedom of each to pursue happiness as he or she sees fit. Indeed, one of the aims of this tradition has been to liberate the individual from the kind of religious authority and sectarian strife for which Hobbes blamed the “ghostly” Aristotelianism of his time. As Rawls notes, liberalism emerges as the solution to the problem of creedal and salvationist religions, and it is with a view to solving this problem for the sake of future peace that, in response to the attacks of September 11th, we are now attempting to remake the world in our image. Given the political goods of liberalism, then, perhaps we should simply abandon Aristotle's political philosophy, as Hobbes advises, or reformulate it to make it consistent with the democratic pluralism of our age, as some scholars today urge. I have argued, to the contrary, that it is precisely because Aristotle does not share liberal presuppositions that his thought becomes useful to us. In particular, by exploring dimensions of the moral and political world that we neglect or obscure, he illuminates the question central to his political philosophy and before us once again: What is a citizen?

Article „ein Thier oder ein Gott“ oder beides. Nietzsches Ueber Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne und Aristoteles’ Politik was published on November 15, 2010 in the journal Nietzsche-Studien (volume 39, issue 1).

Argues that nature, justice, and rights are central to Aristotle's political thought. Challenges the widely held view that the concept of rights is alien to Aristotle, arguing that his theory of justice supports claims of individual rights, which are political and based in nature. Begins with an examination of three main elements in Aristotle's political theory: nature, justice, and rights. The discussion of Aristotle's political naturalism seeks to show how Aristotle can consistently argue that the polis (city‐state) exists by nature and yet is, in a way, the product of human reason. The discussion of justice focuses on the distinction between universal and particular justice and the political applications of each type of justice. The discussion of rights offers evidence of ‘rights’ locutions in Aristotle and contrasts Aristotle's theory of rights with modern theories of natural rights. The book next investigates the constitutional applications of Aristotle's theory, including a discussion of Aristotle's general account of citizenship and constitutions, followed by a study of the best constitution, the second‐best constitution, and deviant constitutions. The main thesis is that Aristotle's theory of political rights is a form of moderate individualism and thus a noteworthy alternative to the extreme‐individualistic theories of rights advanced by many modern philosophers. There is also a separate discussion of Aristotle's views on property rights. The final chapter considers the prospects for neo‐Aristotelian political theory through an examination of Aristotle's main presuppositions––natural teleology, perfectionism, community, and rulership––concluding that Aristotle's political principles may still be defensible, albeit in a circumscribed and qualified manner.

In this article a widespread misperception of Aristotle's political thought is challenged, a misperception shared even by his champions among recent political theorists: that his concept of political community is derived from an image of organic growth and identity, and thus does not account for political conflict. Familiarity with liberal political thought and institutions has led most of Aristotle's contemporary interpreters to look for counterimages to liberal images of political society in his work. As a result, they tend to ignore or underplay the connections which Aristotle draws between political community and political conflict. By interpreting Aristotle's concepts of political community and political friendship in light of his analysis of political argument in Book 3 of the Politics, the article tries to uncover these connections and their implications.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

This book illustrates how Aristotle's ethical concepts such as justice, reciprocity and friendship offer a basis for his political philosophy. In particular, it points out the importance of Aristotle for articulating the concept of a civic relationship and developing a theory of integration, by exploring how he includes a wide variety of people within the deliberative and judicial processes. Comparisons between Aristotle's own thought and present-day 'Aristotelian' political theories, such as communitarianism, civic republicanism and the capabilities approach, are also among the unique approaches offered by the book and are used to illustrate his original vision of politics. They can also, however, offer new insights into the problems of how to read his texts appropriately in their context and why we now need to read them, not only out of an antiquarian interest but also out of our concern for politics.

Aristotle and the Rediscovery of Citizenship confronts a question that is central to Aristotle's political philosophy as well as to contemporary political theory: what is a citizen? Answers prove to be elusive, in part because late twentieth-century critiques of the Enlightenment called into doubt fundamental tenets that once guided us. Engaging the two major works of Aristotle's political philosophy, his Nicomachean Ethics and his Politics, Susan D. Collins poses questions that current discussions of liberal citizenship do not adequately address. Drawing a path from contemporary disputes to Aristotle, she examines in detail his complex presentations of moral virtue, civic education, and law; his view of the aims and limits of the political community; and his treatment of the connection between citizenship and the human good. Collins thereby shows how Aristotle continues to be an indispensable source of enlightenment, as he has been for political and religious traditions of the past.

Aristotle and the Rediscovery of Citizenship confronts a question that is central to Aristotle's political philosophy as well as to contemporary political theory: what is a citizen? Answers prove to be elusive, in part because late twentieth-century critiques of the Enlightenment called into doubt fundamental tenets that once guided us. Engaging the two major works of Aristotle's political philosophy, his Nicomachean Ethics and his Politics, Susan D. Collins poses questions that current discussions of liberal citizenship do not adequately address. Drawing a path from contemporary disputes to Aristotle, she examines in detail his complex presentations of moral virtue, civic education, and law; his view of the aims and limits of the political community; and his treatment of the connection between citizenship and the human good. Collins thereby shows how Aristotle continues to be an indispensable source of enlightenment, as he has been for political and religious traditions of the past.

Book Reviews Fred D. Miller Jr. Nature, Justice and Rights in Aristotle's "Politics." New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Pp. xvii + 424 . Cloth, $49.95. Fred Miller has been writing and thinking about Aristotle's Politics for a good many years now and it is clear from this new book just how fruitful his thinking has been. Nature,Justice and Rights is not only a model of philosophy and scholarship; it must now be acknowledged to be the best overall account of Aristotle's political thought currently available. For, first, Miller examines the several books of the Politics with much care and in considerable detail, paying great attention all the while to the exact structure of particular arguments. His presentation of many of these arguments in logically schematic form is much to be commended and will be welcomed by many readers, both scholarly and lay, as providing just the sort of help they need to get a clear and accurate grip on what it is that Aristotle is saying and why. Second, Miller is thus able to show convincingly that Aristotle's Politics is not an amalgam of ill-fitting treatises, but a carefully crafted whole that contains a unitary and coherent argument. Third, in the process of expounding the progressive stages of this argument, Miller neatly dissects many current scholarly disputes and systematically works his way to decisive solutions of them. In this respect, indeed, his discussion of Aristotle's arguments about nature in Book One of the Politics is masterly. Perhaps more and different things could be said about some of these arguments and the scholarly disputes they have provoked, but there can be no doubt that Miller has moved the whole discussion to a higher plane of both understanding and fidelity to Aristotle's text. Future discussions in this area will have to begin, if they do not end, with Miller. Miller's book is, however, in some respects two books rather than one; or, put differently, it is doing two jobs. The first is that just mentioned, the careful and insightful analysis of the overall argument of the whole Politics. The second is the contention that key elements of this argument, and of Aristotle's political thought generally, can and should be cast into the form of a theory of rights, even natural rights. Miller is not the first to suggest that a theory of rights can be found in Aristotle's Politics, but he is, I think, the first to state and defend this suggestion with the precision and thoroughness it requires. Indeed it is remarkable how easily Miller is able to prove that there exists in Aristotle a full range of rights and of expressions for rights, though one must hasten to add, as Miller himself hastens to explain, that the theory of rights to be found in Aristotle is very far from the theory of rights to be found in such thinkers as Hobbes and Locke. But, as Miller says rightly, we should not suppose that the only theory of rights it is possible to have and defend is a Hobbesian or Lockean one. There is no reason to let Hobbes and Locke and their modern followers claim for themselves [607] 608 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 34:4 OCTOBER 1996 a monopoly on rights and rights talk. Indeed, argues Miller in the concluding chapter of his book, a theory of rights, including natural rights, based on Aristotle is likely to prove better and to make more sense, logically and politically, than current theories based on Hobbes and Locke. Miller is not alone in suggesting for our modern times a political theory of rights inspired by Aristotle, but he has gone furthest in showing just how much of such a theory can be bodily extracted from Aristotle's text. Miller is, nevertheless, right to stress certain distinctive features of Aristotle's theory, notably that political rights are prior to and delimit property rights (the reverse, of course, is true for Locke), and that Aristotle can only be said to recognize natural rights in the sense of "rights based on natural justice" and not in the sense of "rights possessed in a...

Conflict in Aristotle's Political Philosophy

The Public and the Private in Aristotle's Political Philosophy