Aristotle’s political outlook: essentially Platonist?

I think of Aristotle as the empirical scientist and Plato as the metaphysical artist. Both thinkers examine the world around them in order to inform their work. However, the two wear different colored spectacles. Aristotle orients himself towards the best practical form of a state, whereas Plato looks toward an ideal (existing outside of the world) that he judges all other forms of association against. The differentiation in their view of states, particularly a ‘good state’, follows in accordance with their contrasting views of human nature. Aristotle believes human nature is formed around us, whereas Plato believes people are capable of being shaped by their own environment, that is, people can develop their full capabilities if they are conditioned properly. I contend that Aristotle fundamentally disagrees with the standards Plato has set for the best state and its citizens; he therefore proposes an alternative for reform in accordance with more conservative standards.

Aristotle agrees with Plato that the πολις takes precedence over the individual. Both thinkers do not distinguish between society and the individual, or between public and private life. Plato, as Socrates’ mouthpiece, writes, “…in establishing our city, we aren’t aiming to make any one group outstandingly happy but to make the whole city so, as far as possible” (Republic, 95). Likewise, Aristotle explains, “…the state has priority over the household and over any individual among us. For the whole must be prior to the part” (Politics, 1253a18). In accordance with Aristotle’s penchant for biology, he equates a human being existing apart from the πολις as a limb unattached from the whole body. 

One might counter that both Plato and Aristotle did in fact prioritize the individual by proposing ideal states which centered on fostering good, happy, virtuous individuals. Aristotle would retort that these individuals cannot even exist without the formation of a πολις, which is his notion of an ideal state. He famously wrote, “It follows that the state belongs to the class of objects which exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal” (Politics, 1253a1). That is, we are “political animals” because we have to be socialized within a πολις in order to become human beings. Likewise, Plato would argue that, without an educative institution, like the πολις, in place first, human beings would lack any and all resources for living well. Both romanticized the traditional form of the πολις as the ideal environment conducive to inculcating virtue in citizens.

Despite the philosophers’ apparent agreement on both the necessary importance and the purpose of the polity for the individual, the two disagree on the nature of this polity as an ideal state.  

Aristotle considers himself an empirical observer of the natural world. At the end of the Nichomachean Ethics, he lays out his plan to actively study the constitutions of actual Greek cities, and “when these have been studied [he] shall perhaps be more likely to see with a comprehensive view, which constitution is best, and how each must be ordered, and what laws and customs it must use, if it is to be at its best” (Nichomachean Ethics, 182). By the time he writes the Politics, he has examined with his own eyes the various good and bad political circumstances. He concludes from his observations that the existing social and political relations of the world are legitimate. Consequently, he concludes that the existing circumstances of the Greek πολις are close to how nature intended them to be. If the way things are, as it exists, is reasonable, then there is little reason to change the natural course of things. Plato, on the other hand, wants to change the nature of humans and, in fact, finds this impressioning of human beings as necessary for the advancement towards his ideal state.Therefore, he advances radical political reforms in an effort to realize the image of his καλλιπολις. Aristotle, in stark opposition to Plato’s advocacy of extremism, makes a point in the Politics to criticize two particular elements of Plato’s καλλιπολις: one isits excessive unity and the other is its utopian image of the good ruler (i.e. φιλοσοφος βασιλευς). 

In Book II, chaper two of the Politics, Aristotle explicitly rejects Plato’s excessive unity as an end and communism as the means towards this end. He argues from a standpoint of naturalness, writing, “Plurality of numbers is natural in a state; and the farther it moves away from plurality towards unity, the less a state it becomes and the more a household, and the household in turn an individual…So, even if it were possible to make such a unification, it ought not to be done; it will destroy the state” (Politics, 1261a10). From Aristotle’s viewpoint, radically altering existing social arrangements, which are based on a fixed human nature, would be disastrous. People are by nature selfish, “they care less for what is common,” so communism would breed an unnatural displeasure and negligence of property among the polity. Plato might argue that the Guardian class, whose property is combined, would learn to appreciate the virtue of communal ownership after being educated properly in the καλλιπολις. Aristotle might counter that any attempt to radically change the self-interested nature of human beings is an ineffectual and even dangerous task for the good of the state. 

​Aristotle continues with his conservative line of thought in challenging the idea of a Platonic philosopher-king. He dismisses the notion of a philosopher-king because he believes ruling in light of the Form of the Good would be unstable since the Form itself is ambiguous. He does not abandon the idea of metaphysics altogether, but he is skeptical of Plato’s use of metaphysics as a standard for the knowledge of political power in the state. Yet, one might ask, “Is Aristotle’s proposed absolute king, the παμβασιλεα, “a man pre-eminent in virtue,” not a vague ideal as well?” (Politics, 1284b22). To that question, I can only surmise that Aristotle would agree that it is improbable that a person would emerge, equivalent to a god among men, who stands so far above the common people as to deserve to be crowned the natural ruler. For Aristotle, politics is a study of approximations, or as Alfred Whitehead might say, a “fallacy of misplaced concretements”. It would be a mistake to demand from Aristotle a precise characterization of the παμβασιλεα because the notion lacks a basis in empirical evidence. 

​As an informed observer, having conducted an empirical study of existing societies of Greece, Aristotle came to a vital conclusion: the formation of the state and the beings who dwell within the state is natural. At the heart of his argument, Aristotle relates his political theory to a physiology. With an eye towards the natural growth and interaction of systems, Aristotle contends that lesser forms will undergo a process of growing into greater and more complete forms. Likewise, he is confident that existing states will develop into their own capacities, such that Plato’s radical proposals for change pose as hindrances rather than as catalyzers.