POL 200-Aristotle-The Politics Study Guide (2011-2012)

Michael Tsirakis POL 200Y1

Aristotle's Politics Summary

The city is a political partnership that comes into being for purposes of self-sufficiency but exists primarily for the sake of living well. Man is by nature a political animal, because he has the ability to communicate and to dialogue and about justice and the good. The city is prior to the individual. Natural slaves are those who perceive reason but do not have it. It is mutually beneficial that such people be ruled. There are also slaves according to the law, who may or may not be natural slaves. Mastery is rule over slaves, but political rule is rule over free and equal persons. Holding women, children and property in common as Plato suggests in the Republic is not beneficial to the city. Holding property in common will not reduce factional conflict, but may actually increase because of a sense of injustice. A citizen in the strict sense is one who shares in making decisions and holding office. Citizenship is therefore essentially democratic, but the notion of citizenship in practice must differ according to the nature of the regime. Commonly speaking, however, a citizen is usually considered to be anyone whose parents are citizens. The virtue of a good man and an excellent citizen may be different, because the virtue of a citizen is determined with a view to the preservation of the regime. To the extent the actual regime approximates the best regime, the virtue of a good man and an excellent citizen will coincide. Correct regimes are those which look to the common advantage. Deviant regimes are those which look to the advantage of the rulers, and they involve mastery rather than political rule. The correct regimes are kingship, aristocracy and polity; the incorrect regimes are deviations from those and are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy respectively. Kingship is rule by one person, aristocracy is rule by a few based on merit, and polity is a mixture of democracy and oligarchy. Democracy is rule by the multitude, oligarchy is rule by the wealthy, and tyranny is monarchic rule of a master. Justice is equality for equals and inequality for unequals. Because the city exists for the sake of living well, virtue must be a care for every city. Which element of the city should have authority? The multitude may collectively be better judges of certain things, so it is proper for them to share in deliberating and judging, but they should not share in the highest offices. Laws need to be made in accordance with the regime. The just one's regime is, the more just the laws will be. The good of politics is justice. The best claim to rule is education and virtue, but there is also a claim to rule based on wealth and on numbers. A regime must be based on the rule of law. Polity is the best attainable regime and is formed by the mixture of oligarchy and democracy. A well-mixed polity should reinforce the good parts of each regime while minimizing their shortcomings. The middling element of city is very important for its stability because it is the most willing to listen to reason and can arbitrate between the very poor and the rich. The middling sort is the least likely to engage in factional conflict, and they make the best legislators. As much as possible, the city should be made up those who are equal or similar. Factional conflicts arise because of disagreements over justice. There are two types of equality: numerical equality and equality according to merit. Disputes over different claims to justice can lead to conflict and revolution. To preserve regimes, it is necessary to enforce the laws well, and to arrange offices so that one cannot profit from them. Regimes should take care not to alienate any one portion of the population. The middling element is very important because they tend to mitigate factional conflict. The greatest method of preserving a regime is

education relative to the regime, which means education to appreciate the claims of justice that the non-ruling element has. The problem with democracies is that they define freedom badly, which leads to slavery. The defining principle of democracy is to claim justice as equality based on numbers rather than merit. Citizens in democracies rule and are ruled in turn. The best regime corresponds to the best way of life for a human being. Since the best way of life is living nobly and according to virtue, the best regime is the one, which promotes this life. The best city needs to be a partnership of similar persons, and rule needs to be based on education and virtue. However, the city needs farmers and laborers to provide sustenance and the material necessities of life. Farmers and laborers do not have the leisure to be well educated and live nobly. Rulers need to come from the leisured classes. The citizens will be exclusively the ruling class, which will rule and be ruled in turn such that the young will be soldiers and the old will rule. All the laboring classes will be slaves. Education should be common for all citizens, and habituate the children to virtue. Education should consist of letters, gymnastics, music and drawing. Music is important because it is a noble means of using leisure time and through its harmony it makes the student appreciate the harmony of the soul in which reason rules the spirit and the appetites.

Book I
Chapter 1 The city is a political partnership aimed at the most authoritative good. Investigating the composition of the city will allow us to understand the different kinds of rulepolitical, kingly and householdto see how they differ from one another. Chapter 2 It is best to study these matters by looking at their natural origins. The most basic human partnership is that between a male and female for the sake of reproduction. The female is distinct from the slave. The household arose from the male-female partnership and the master-slave partnership, and it is arranged to fill the needs of daily life. A partnership of several households is a village, and the union of several villages is a city. A city is selfsufficient in that it contains all that is necessary to lead a good life. The city originates for the sake of basic survival, but "it exists for the sake of living well." The city therefore exists by nature, because it is the natural end of human partnerhips. "Man is by nature a political animal," because he alone among the animals has the ability to communicate his ideas about justice and the good. The city is prior to the individual in importance because the individual apart from the city is not self-sufficient. One who does not need the city and is self-sufficient is either a beast or a god. Man has potential for great good, but without law and virtue can be the worst of all the animals. Justice belongs to the city. Chapter 3 The household involves three types of rule: mastery (master-slave rule), marital, and parental. Some think that mastery is similar to political rule, and some think that slavery is unjust. Chapter 4 A slave is "a possession of the animate sort," meaning that he is an instrument of action and belongs completely to the master. A slave by nature is one who does not belong to himself by nature.

Chapter 5 Now we must investigate whether such a person exists by nature or not, and whether or not it advantageous for anyone to be a slave. First it is necessary to examine the proper relationship between body and soul as analogous to different types of rule. The soul rules the body as a master rules a slave and the intellect rule the appetites like a king rules a city. It is natural and advantageous for the soul to rule the body. It is better for animals that they be ruled by man, and the relationship of male to female is a relationship of superior to inferior. A natural slave is one who does not have the full use of reason, because such a person is as different from other men as the body is from the soul. The natural slave perceives reason, but does not have it. It is difficult to tell who a natural slave is, because the beauty of the soul is not easy to see, but for those who are natural slaves, slavery is both advantageous and just. Chapter 6 Yet those who believe that slavery is unjust are correct in a sense, because, in addition to natural slaves, there are also slaves according to law. Legal slavery, usually the result of military conquest, is unjust because not all the conquered people are slaves by nature. If someone who is not a natural slave is enslaved by force, the situation is disadvantageous both to the master and the slave. Chapter 7 Mastery and political rule are not the same thing, because political rule is over those who are free and equal. Chapter 8 Let us now examine expertise in business as compared to household management. The two are not the same, because businesses supply and households consume. There are several ways of life based on self-generated work (as opposed to trade and commerce): the life of the nomad, the farmer, the pirate, the fisher and the hunter, or a combination of several. Everything in nature is made for a purpose; thus other creatures are made for the sake of human beings. Household management is a type of expertise for the acquisition of life's necessities. Chapter 9 Business expertise is also a type of acquisitive expertise. Expertise in commerce is distinct from expertise in business because the former involves exchange. Commerce arose from creation of money as a result of necessary exchange. Business expertise is the same type as household expertise. The difference is that in business there is no limit, because the amount of wealth continually increases. Chapter 10 Expertise in household management is necessary praiseworthy, but expertise in exchange is not according to nature because it involves usury and taking from others. Usury is the type of business most contrary to nature. Chapter 11 The useful types of business expertise are experience regarding livestock, farming methods, and the raising of animals. There are three parts of expertise in exchange: marketing and transport, money-lending, and wage labor. Philosophers are often poor, but only because they are not concerned with business, not because they could not become wealthy. Political rulers should be familiar with business matters because cities need revenues.

Chapter 12 Now let us examine marital rule. The wife is ruled in a political fashion, and the children in a kingly fashion. Chapter 13 Household management is concerned with human beings and their virtuousness. Perhaps there are separate virtues for women and for children; otherwise how could one justify their being ruled? The female, unlike the slave, does have the deliberate element of reason, but she lacks authority. The child also has the deliberative element but it is incomplete. Therefore the virtues of men and women are different, and the virtues of slaves are different as well. Education of women and children with a view to the regime is necessary because women make up half of the free persons in the city and children are future citizens.

Analysis:
Book I of The Politics provides the reader with insight into Aristotle's philosophical method as well as his views on human nature. Aristotle conducts his philosophical inquiries based on the presuppositions that the universe is a rational and ordered whole in which each part has a distinct purpose and function. Reason can discern a thing's purpose by looking at its origin and characteristics in order to determine the end for which it exists. The Ethics follows this method in order to discern the ultimate end of human life. Because reason is the distinct capability of human beings, Aristotle argues that ultimate good for a human being is a life lived according to virtue and in contemplation of the highest truths of the universe. Aristotle defines happiness, the ultimate end for human beings, as activity of the soul according to virtue. Aristotle's political views are inextricably linked to his emphasis on virtue and reason in relation to the ultimate good for a human being. We see Aristotle's inductive method at work in his account of the origin and purpose of the city. Aristotle theorizes that the city naturally comes into being as a result of physical necessity, as the natural completion of the smaller partnerships, the household and the village. Yet he looks to human nature to discern the deeper purpose of the city. Because man is naturally social, as Aristotle pointed out in The Ethics, he also naturally political. Human beings have speech, which they can use to communicate their ideas about the just and the unjust: "Nature does nothing in vain; and man alone among the animals has speech. . . . Speech serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful, and hence also the just and the unjust." This dialogue about justice is the essence of the politics. Therefore, "while coming into being for the sake of living, [the city] exists for the sake of living well." Man can only really live well in the city, because the city for his physical needs, allows him to exercise his sociability, provides a forum for the debate about justice and is the arena in which he can most fully exercise virtue. Aristotle's discussion of slavery, while not the most popular part of the book, is extremely important for an understanding of Aristotle's conception of freedom and its relation to virtue. It is also important to note that Aristotle does not support slavery in the conventional sense, but only in the case where the slaves are actually slaves by nature. Aristotle's assertion that such natural slaves do exist is not a conclusion that follows from his logical argument but simply an empirical assumption. One could agree with Aristotle's argument but simply disagree with his empirical assertion that natural slaves actually exist, in which case slavery is unjustifiable. Aristotle had no conception of inherent human dignity, and therefore had no reason to assume that all human beings are free and equal. Freedom, while not explicitly discussed with much depth or frequency in The Ethics or The Politics, in nonetheless a key concept because of its intimate relationship with virtue. By examining what Aristotle means by slavery, we indirectly discover what he means by freedom, which is the opposite of slavery. A natural slave is one "who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it" (Politics 1245bl). Freedomthe opposite of slaverymust then presuppose the correct use of reason. It is right reason which directs man to the ultimate end of his existence. There must be one final end of all human actions, because a human action in Aristotle's definition is one that is done on purpose and for a definite goal. Now the ultimate end of man is

happiness, for that is the goal at which all actions aim, either directly or indirectly. To define happiness, Aristotle maintains that one must look at man's highest function, the function which man alone can perform. This function unique to man is "activity of the soul according to reason" (Ethics). The ultimate good of man should naturally flow from performing his function well; therefore, "the good for a man [and, by extension, the definition of happiness] turns out to be an activity of the soul according to virtue" (Ethics). Freedom necessitates acting in accordance with the conclusions of right reason, and right reason leads one to choose virtue; therefore true freedom consists in being virtuous. As Moira Walsh states in "Aristotle's Conception of Freedom" (Journal of the History of Philosophy): "The most manifestly free man is the one who apprehends the best end achievable in human action, and successfully directs himself towards it. Thus, it would not be fitting for a free man as such to direct himself towards a limited end as if it were his final end; it would be slavish to work for the sake of any good less than the virtuous life." Aristotle's ideas about women are also rather controversial. Upon deeper examination one finds that his ideas may be different than what one would conclude from a cursory reading. First of all, Aristotle believes that women are fully humanthat is, they are not natural slaves and have the full use of reason. The husband's rule over the woman in a marriage is akin to political rule, which is rule over free and equal persons, in which both the ruler and the ruled are free and equal. It is also intriguing that in his discussion of the different virtues particular to women he quotes a line from Sophocles' play Ajax: "To a woman silence is an ornament." The protagonist Ajax says this line to his wife. Ironically, the advice his wife had given him had been correct and he acted unwisely, leading to his death. By choosing to quote this line, Aristotle seems to be challenging the view prevalent in his time, that women are inferior to men.

Book II
Chapter 1 Because we want to study the best possible political partnership, we should study existing regimes and look at their strengths and weaknesses. First we will examine partnership, and the degree to which citizens are partners. In the Republic of Plato, Socrates talks about having women, children and property all in common. Chapter 2 There are many difficulties to the scheme of having women in common. Socrates proposes this because he wants the city to be a unity, but his reasoning is flawed because the city by nature must a multitudeotherwise it would be a household. A city is made up of many different kinds of people. What is necessary is not a unity, but rather a reciprocal equality in which citizens are free and each have a share in ruling. A city must also be self-sufficient, which requires a multitude of differing people. Chapter 3 Socrates is also incorrect when he desires that people in a city will hold all things in common, even their wives and children. Aside from being impossible to implement in actuality, such a policy is harmful because people tend to care better for things that personally belong to them. Chapter 4 This idea of holding women and children in common is also problematic because it may increase crime by taking away family ties, because a person is less likely to harm a relative. There is also the problem of possible incest. Affection is one of the greatest goods of a city, but the city's being one dilutes affection, because people feel affection for what is their own and for what is dear to them.

Chapter 5 Now let us examine whether in the best regime people would hold possessions in common. Having possessions in common would involve great difficulties and create a lot of friction between people who may have difficulty working together. If, on the other hand, there is private property, people will take care of their own possessions well and share them among friends, so that there will voluntarily be common things. The best scenario is to have private possessions which are for common use. Being able to consider something one's own is also a great source of pleasure, and allows one to exercise the virtues of moderation and generosity. The main cause of Socrates' error is that his presupposition that the city should be a complete unity is incorrect. The city should be one in a certain sense, but not in every sense. Through education, the city should foster commonalities among the multitude. Furthermore, even Socrates' own city will end up being divided, because he separates the guardian class from the farming class and the artisan class. Socrates' selection of rulers is also dangerous because the same people are always ruling, which can cause factional conflict. In addition, even the guardians themselves are not happy; their aim is the happiness of the city of the whole. But happiness cannot exist in the whole if it doesn't exist in individual parts. Chapter 6 Plato's Laws gives similarly unrealistic and impractical prescriptions. In enacting laws, the legislator needs to take into account the territory and its inhabitants, and to look at the neighboring regions. In regard to possessions, it is good for the citizens to live "with moderation and liberally." The Laws also omits a discussion of how the rulers are different from the ruled. The regime Socrates institutes in Laws is a polity, a mix between democracy and oligarchy, which is indeed the best attainable regime, although it is not the best regime in theory. Chapter 7 Other philosophers have also tried to devise plans for the best regime. Phaleas asserted that all should have equal possessions, because he thought that property was the cause of factional conflict. Yet making property simply equal will not really solve the problem, because the legislator needs to take into account the different needs and circumstances of different citizens. Phaleas is also incorrect in supposing that property disputes are the only cause of conflict; in fact, much conflict is about honor. Furthermore, people may commit crimes not simply out of poverty, but also out of desire for luxuries. To remedy these difficulties, each have a sufficient amount of property and work, and live according to moderation. Those who want to be self-sufficient should pursue philosophy, for that is the only type of enjoyment which requires no external things or people. Phaleas also forgets that people may engage in factional conflict precisely because property is equal. Some will think that they merit a greater amount than others and consider equality unjust. Human desires are by nature limitless and insatiable, and the majority of people live trying to satisfy their desires. Preventing conflict requires that the respectable and virtuous people not wish for their own aggrandizement, while the common people simply lack the means for such aggrandizement. Chapter 8 Hippodamus attempted to lay out a plan for a regime, although he had no involvement in politics himself. Hippodamus had a fascination with threeshe wanted to divide the city into three parts, dividing up citizens, territory and laws into 3 groups. He also proposed a single supreme court and a law rewarding innovation. This regime is flawed in many aspects. Dividing the citizens will cause great faction and strife. The law rewarding innovation will promote discord or revolution. Innovation is not necessarily bad, but it should not be publicly honored. It's good to change the laws if necessary, especially since laws by nature have to be general and universal while situations deal with particulars.

Chapter 9 What needs to be considered is is that a well-governed city must allow the rulers to have a certain amount of leisure from the necessities of life, but it is difficult to decide how to do this in practice. In the Spartan regime, the laxness of laws concerning women is harmful, and women live licentiously. Women also control a great deal of the property, and property has therefore been concentrated in the hands of a few. The governmental authority over the people in general is poor. The board of overseers has many poor men on it who can be easily bribed, and the office is so powerful that the king has to bow to their wishes. The regime has become more like a democracy than an aristocracy. The overseers have control over important judicial decisions, but because they are not particularly intelligent it would be better if they had less discretion and judged strictly according to written laws. The office of senator is also poorly handled, because many decisions have been affected by bribes and favoritism. The manner of election is bad, because the people decide for themselves whether or not they merit the job. Instead, the one who merits the office should take it, whether or not he really wishes to rule. Otherwise those who rule are ambitious and are more likely to commit acts of injustice through greed or ambition. Kingship should not be hereditary. Legislation concerning common messes (common areas for eating) is poorly handled in Sparta, because it is aimed to promote democracy but people are required to pay and the poor cannot afford it. The presupposition of Spartan laws is harmful in general, because it is aimed at the creation of warlike virtue to the exclusion of all other virtues. Therefore they are skilled at winning wars but do not know how to be at leisure. They consider the things they are fighting over to be better than virtue itself, which is incorrect. Common funds are also poorly handled, because tax collection is not well-enforced, and they never have enough money to carry on their continuous war campaigns. Chapter 10 The Cretan regime is fairly similar to the Spartan regime. They both have common messes and a slave class which does all the farming. They also have a similar arrangement with overseers and senators. The Cretans handle the matter of common messes better than the Spartans, because the money is taken from the common treasury so that all can take part. The office of orderer, similar to the Spartan office of overseer, has many of the same problems as in Sparta. It would be better to do things in accordance with written law than with human wish, because human desires are not a safe standard. Chapter 11 The Carthaginians handle some aspects of government very well, but are also similar in many ways to the Spartans and Cretans. Signs of a well-organized regime are that people voluntary agree with the arrangement, and if there has never been serious factional conflict or tyranny. Kings and senators are chosen from among the families the families that seem to be outstanding in virtue. The problems of the aforementioned regimes may all be criticized as deviations from the best regime. Some features incline too much toward democracy, and others too much toward oligarchy. The Carthaginian regime tends toward aristocracy in that officials are unpaid and not chosen by lot. It tends toward oligarchy in that officials are not elected on the basis of merit alone but also on the basis of wealth. This deviation from aristocracy makes wealth more honored than virtue, and therefore leads the city to be greedy. For a regime to be truly aristocratic, wealth must be honored above all. Those who are most capable of ruling should rule. The Carthaginians are also incorrect in allowing the same person to hold several offices, because it is best to have one person be able to concentrate on each separate task. The regime manages to avoid some of the negative effects of oligarchy by making it relatively easy for new people to become wealthy. Chapter 12 Solon was said to have been an excellent legislator because he dismantled oligarchy and established a democracy that was a proper mix of regimesthe council was oligarchic, the elective offices were aristocratic and the courts were popular. However, most of these things were already in place before Solon, but he may have harmed the

regime by giving too much authority to the court and making the people a tyrant. But this did not seem to happen as a result of Solon's intentions. Actually, Solon granted only a minimal amount of power to the people.

Analysis:
In can often be difficult to sort out the main point that Aristotle intends to make in Book II of the Politics because it is just a running commentary about the good and bad aspects of different theoretical and actual regimes. Still, the comments that Aristotle makes about the various regimes reveal some of Aristotle's own ideas of the best regime and point to some areas, which he will discuss more directly later on in the book. Aristotle's method in examining each of the regimes is to look at the underlying principles of the regime and then to see whether the regime's institutions support or subvert those principles. The importance of education relative to the regime, which is discussed at length in Book V, is alluded to in Aristotle's criticism of the various regimes and the way in which certain laws tend to produce certain attitude and tendencies among the citizens. It is clear that when Aristotle speaks of education, he does not mean simply the education of children in schools, but includes the entire influence of the laws and structure of the regime on the people. Because of his all-encompassing idea about education of citizens in the regime, Aristotle's discussion of the various cities includes the whole way of life of the regime. Economic life, personal life and cultural life are discussed in addition to more properly "political" topics like the arrangement of governmental offices, the mode of elections, the powers of different parts of the government and the mode of legislation. Aristotle recognizes that economics, private life and culture are affected by the laws of the regime and influence those laws. For Aristotle, the study of politics is not a narrow examination of governmental structures, but is rather the study of a whole way of life of a people. It is worthwhile trying to theorize about the best regime"the sort of political partnership that is superior to all for those capable of living as far as possible in the manner one would pray for"even if such a regime may not be able to exist in practice. Study the best regime provides a theoretical model which reality can approximate and which can help existing regimes to evaluate themselves and make progress. The differences between Aristotle's and Plato's ideas are brought into clear relief in this book. Aristotle harshly attacks the Republic at its weakest and most controversial points. He focuses his critique entirely on Book V of the Republic, which lays out the need for common property and for the communism of women and children. It is arguable that Aristotle's criticism is not altogether fair, because it does not take into account the fact that the city Socrates is speaking of is supposed to be a metaphor for the just soul, or that Book V of the Republic may be meant precisely as a criticism of the attempt to achieve perfect justice in a city, while justice in Plato's view justice truly exists only as an eternal and unchangeable form. While it is not clear why Aristotle would want to give such an unbalanced presentation of the regime, which Socrates outlines in the Republic, his criticisms do act as a springboard for speaking about some of his disagreements with Plato regarding fundamental political presuppositions. Plato believes that "it is best for the city to be as far as possible entirely one," but in Aristotle's view this proposition is fundamentally flawed because such a unity is characteristic of a household or even a single human being, not a city. It would be apolitical. Aristotle writes: "As it becomes increasingly one it will no longer be a city. For the city is in its nature a sort of multitude." Recall, from Book I that a characteristic of the city is that it is, for the most part, self-sufficient in producing that which the citizens need to live. Diversity within the city is absolutely necessary in order to obtain such self-sufficiency, because diversity will provide the means for a division of labor according to people's different skills and aptitudes. Aristotle's criticism of Phaleas is based on basic reflections about the nature of the human soul. Phaleas believed that equalizing property would remove the root cause of factional conflict among citizens, but Aristotle argues that Phaleas' proposition is based on an overly simplistic model of human desires and motivations. People are driven to conflict not only as a result of property disputes, but alsoand perhaps more oftenas a result of striving after honor. The only exception is the philosopher, who needs neither property nor honor to satisfy his desires. Aristotle believes that the highest life for a human being is the philosophical life. He bases this conclusion on his

analysis in the Ethics, where he reasons that to find the ultimate end of man, one must look at man's highest function, the function which man alone can perform. This function is the ability to reason. Reason leads one to properly govern one's appetites and desiresthus acting virtuouslyand in its highest capacity allows one to contemplate the Good. This contemplation of the Good is philosophy, and is the action which is most continuous and self-sufficient of all other actions, and is therefore the highest happiness and dignity of man. Aristotle's comment in the Politics that the philosopher is in a sense above the city reinforces his conclusion in the Ethics and reminds the reader that the ultimate human good is beyond politics, although it is very difficult to attain and a proper political arrangement can facilitate its attainment. In Book II Aristotle also makes his first statement about what he believes to be the best attainable regime. It is necessary to distinguish between the best attainable regime and the best regime because Aristotle believes that they are different. The best attainable regime is a polity, the regime which "is neither democracy nor oligarchy, but the one midway between them." In mixing oligarchy and democracy, Aristotle believes that one can avoid the negative effects of either regime in its pure form while preserving the positive aspects of those regimes. Aristotle speaks at length about the regime of polity in Book IV.

Book III
Chapter 1 The first matter of investigation is the definition of citizenship. Different regimes define citizenship in different ways. Some are citizens only in a qualified senselike children who are not old enough to participate in the affairs of the city or elders who have been relieved are their civic duties. In an unqualified sense, the citizen is one who shares in holding office and making decisions. This type of citizen in the unqualified sense really only exists in a democracy. In general, one can say that whoever is entitled to participate in an officeeven if he actually does not do sois a citizen. Chapter 2 Commonly speaking, however, a citizen is usually defined as a person whose parents are both citizens. There can be difficulty in this definition, however, as regards those who came to be citizens after a revolution. There is a question of whether such people are citizens justly or unjustly. Chapter 3 The question is often raised regarding when a city as a whole actually performed action, particularly when it is a question of whether the city has a duty to fulfill public agreements after a change of regime. The deeper issue at stake in this question is what it means for a city to change. One possible criteria to look at is location, but that is rather superficial. A more serious consideration is whether a city remains the same even though its inhabitants change through birth and death. The answer is that one can only really decide whether the city is the same by looking at the regime. As long as the regime stays the same, the city is bound to uphold its commitments. Chapter 4 A connected matter is the examination of the virtue of a good man in comparison with that of a good citizen. A citizen is somewhat like a sailor, one among a number of partners on a ship, each with different tasks and functions. Although each has a specific virtue according to his capacity and duty on the ship, there is also a general virtue similar to them all, which is the preservation of the ship. In a similar way, the virtue of the citizen is with a view to the regime. It is possible, therefore, for a person to be an excellent citizen yet not an excellent man. Will the virtue of the citizen ever be the same as the virtue of a human being? The virtue of a citizen is the capacity to rule and to be ruled. The virtue of an excellent man would be simply the capacity to rule, not to be ruled. However, there are different types of rule. There is the rule which is proper to a slave, but there is also the

type of rule over those who are "similar in stock and free." This is political rule, which can be learned only by being ruled. Therefore the good citizen will need to know both how to rule and to be ruled. The good person must have this same capacity as well. The only virtue peculiar to a ruler is prudence, while all other virtues are common for both rulers and ruled. Chapter 5 Are only those who may participate in public office true citizens? If a person who is not eligible for office is considered a citizen, then the virtue of a citizen will have to vary depending on the person's status in society. There are several kinds of citizens, corresponding to the different types of regimes. In a democratic regime, laborers must be citizens, while in aristocratic regime citizenship is granted only in accordance with virtue and merit. In an oligarchy, on those who are wealthy are citizens. In one type of city the virtue of the excellent man and the excellent citizen is the same, but in another it is not. Chapter 6 The next point of discussion is the different types of regimes. A regime is "an arrangement of a city with respect to its offices," particularly the governing body. It has already been established that "man is by nature a political animal." Men come together into a political partnership both for the sake of living and for the sake of living well. Mastery is different from political rule in that mastery is exercised primarily with a view to the advantage of the master, while political rule should be exercised with a view to the advantage of the city as a whole. Those regimes which look to the common good are correct regimes, and those regimes which look to the advantage of the rulers are unjust, because such regimes involve mastery, and "the city is a partnership of free and equal persons." Chapter 7 Now it is time to specify which are the correct regimes and which are the deviant regimes. The regime is defined according to composition of its governing body, or authoritative element. The correct regimes are kingshiprule by one, aristocracyrule by a few, and polityrule by the multitude. The deviations from those regimes are, respectively, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Chapter 8 To elaborate on the nature of these regimes, we find that tyranny is the rule of a master, oligarchy is the rule of those who have property, and democracy is the rule of the poor. The essential difference between democracy and oligarchy is the accidental distribution of wealth. In reality, however, it always happens that the majority are poor and only a few are wealthy. The cause of dispute between democracy and oligarchy is that while some are poor and others rich, all are free. Chapter 9 To determine the different claims to rule made in democracies and oligarchies, it is necessary to examine views regarding justice and equality. Justice is equality for equals and inequality for those who are unequal. People do not realize this, however, because they are poor judges concerning themselves. Oligarchs suppose that because people are unequal in one thingwealththey are unequal in everything, while democrats suppose that because people are equal in freedom they are equal generally. The city exists "not only for the sake of living but rather primarily for the sake of living well." Consequently, "virtue must be a care for every city." The city is not just a group of persons in a common location, living together to avoid committing injustices against one another and to transact business. While all of those things are part of city, there is also something more. "The city is the partnership in living well . . . for the sake of a complete and self-sufficient life." Therefore the political partnership is not aimed merely toward living together but toward living nobly. Those who contribute most to this partnership are consequently those who are most virtuous. The dispute over what type of regime there should be is, at its core, always a dispute about justice.

Chapter 10 One major question is what part of the city should constitute the authoritative element. If the majority rules and distributes the wealth of the minority among itself, the city will be destroyed. If the minority of the wealthy rule, they will rob the multitude. If the respectable rule, all the others will be deprived of a share in ruling. If only one best person rules, even more are deprived of the prerogatives of ruling. It is best for law, rather than a human being, to have ultimate authority, because human beings are too easily swayed by their passions. Chapter 11 The multitude does have some claims to rule. Joined together, in certain areas the multitude may have virtue than one excellent man. The many are good judges of things such as music and poetry. By looking at the areas in which the multitude has the advantage in judging one can determine the ares in which the multitude should have authority. Allowing the multitude to take the highest governing offices is unsafe, but depriving them of all authority will surely lead to rebellion or at least serious factional conflict. Therefore the multitude should share in deliberating and judgingi.e. choosing officials and auditing them. At the same time, however, it can be argued that those who know how to rule are also those who have the best knowledge of how to choose who should rule. However, the multitude does have some capability for justice, and taken together their opinion may be valuable. First and foremost, it is undeniable that laws"correctly enacted"should have more authority than the ruler or ruling body. Deciding whether or not laws are correctly enacted depending on the regimes to which they belong. Laws enacted in accordance with the correct regimes are just, and those enacted in accordance with the deviant regimes are unjust. Chapter 12 "The political good is justice, and this is the common advantage." Justice is considered to be a certain sort of equality, but what remains to be determined is what sort of equality and equality in what things. Persons preeminent in some things may not be preeminent in others, and some things are more of claim to honor and merit than others. The well-born, the free and the wealthy deserve some sort of honor. Chapter 13 With regard to a good life, education and virtue above all deserve honor and merit. Different parts of the regime each have different claims to rule. The wealthy have a greater part of the territory, the free well-born naturally have claim to honor, the virtuous have a claim as well, and the majority has a claim to rule on the basis of its being superior and wealthier taken together. Logically, there is difficulty in claiming that the wealthiest have the claim to rule, because then it would make the most sense simply to have the wealthiest person rule. If virtue is the claim to rule, then why should not the most virtuous person rule alone? And if the multitude deserves to rule because it is superior to the few, why should not the most superior person rule alone? One can therefore see that none of these claims to rule are altogether correct, though they are partially correct. If one person (or small group) is so superior to the rest that the virtues of all the other citizens are incommensurable, then that person is not part of the city. Such a person would be "like a god among human beings." Legislation has to deal with those who are "equal both in stock in capacity." For this reason, democratic cities ostracize those who excel in virtue, because they pursue equality as the highest good. Because it is for the common good, ostracism does involve a certain political justice, although it is best if the regime is constructed in such a way that such ostracism is not necessary. In the best regime, if a person so preeminent in virtue appears the only proper reaction would have to be for everyone to obey him and to make him king. Chapter 14 Now let us investigate kinship. There are five types of kingship. The first is from the times of the heroes, which is hereditary, based on law, and for certain fixed purposes. The second is the barbaric, which is similar to the rule of

a household. The third is dictatorship, or elective tyranny. The fourth is permanent generalship based on family, as in the Spartan regime. The fifth is when one person has absolute authority over all matters. Chapter 15 Is it more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or by the best laws? The best man will be able to deliberate well regarding particular matter, while law is necessarily based on general principles and cannot specify each case. Should the one best person rule, or should all rule? A group may be better able to judge something correctly than a single person, and a group is more difficult to corrupt. However, a multitude will inevitably have factional conflict. The rule of those who are excellent in soulan aristocracyis better than kingship. Chapter 16 Absolute kingship is unjust if the persons ruled are equal to the ruler. When all are equal, the only just situation is to rule and be ruled in turn. But that arrangement is simply the rule of law. Therefore the rule of law is preferable to the rule of a single citizen. Having law rule is like having the intellect rule without interference from appetite. Having a person rule allows desire and appetite to affect decisions. Chapter 17 Perhaps it is true that for a certain people kingship would be the best type of rule, but for those who are similar and equal kingship is unjust. Still, when it happens that one person turns out to be preeminent in virtue and outstanding from all the rest, that person should be made king. Chapter 18 In the best city, the virtue of the excellent man is identical to the virtue of the excellent citizen.

Analysis:
Book III is, thematically speaking, probably the central book of the Politics. In this book Aristotle lays out almost all of his major ideas about the purpose of politics, the virtue of citizens, the varieties of regimes and the nature of justice. Aristotle discusses at length a seemingly very technical question of what the true definition of a citizen ought to be. The reason that this issue merits such exhaustive treatment is that definition of a citizen depends greatly on one's underlying assumptions about the nature of politics and also has a strong influence on one's idea of the best regime. Being a citizen is not, for Aristotle, simply a formal legal status, but implies very specific political rights and duties. A citizen in an unqualified sense is one who has a share in ruling the city. This definition underscores Aristotle's belief that politics is essentially about debate and deliberation regarding what is just. Those who participate in politicsthe citizenscan only really do so if they have a share in the city's decisionmaking. Additionally, Aristotle's definition of citizens will also play an important role in his discussion of the best regime in Book VII. Because Aristotle thinks that not all people have the capacity to rule, in the best regime only an elite few will actually be citizens. Another aspect of citizenship is the particular type of virtue that goes along with it. In order to understand Aristotle's distinction of the different types of virtue, it is necessary to remember that for Aristotle a virtue is a specific functional excellence. For that reason, the virtue of human being is that which will lead him to his ultimate endhappiness. But the virtue of a citizen is that which will lead to the preservation of the regime. This is what Aristotle means when he writes that "the virtue of the citizen must necessarily be with a view to the regime." These two types of virtue are generally different, and they are different in proportion to how much the regime deviates from the best regime. In the best regime, the virtue of a citizen is exactly the same as the virtue of a human being, because the aim of the city is, after all, to live wellthat is, according to virtue.

Aristotle discussion of the best regimes and the deviations from them brings out several of his main ideas about justice and the nature of politics and political rule. Political rule is rule among those who are "similar in stock and free." No one particularly has a claim to rule over the other, so the citizens rule and are ruled in turn. As a result, kingship is actually apolitical, because the king makes all the decisions and there is no room for the citizens to deliberate about justice. In fact, there really are no citizens (except the king himself) in a strict kingship, because citizenship requires participation in ruling. In a sense, political rule, like kingship, is essentially democratic in that it is the rule of free and equal citizens over one another. Political rule is also distinguished in that it should be rule which looks for the common good, not for the advantage of the individual ruler. If the advantage of the individual ruler is the goal, the type of rule is mastery, not political rule properly speaking. A key portion of the book is Aristotle's examination of justice and equality, particularly with the regard to the claims to rule made by aristocracies, democracies and oligarchies. Democrats and oligarchs both base their claim to rule mistaken view of equality. Oligarchs believe that because the poor are unequal in wealth, they are also inferior in general. Democrats, on the other hand, think that because all are equally free, all are equal generally. Each of the regimes is based on a particular view of justice, and as such they all reflect a partial truth about political life. Justice means giving equal measures to equals and unequal measures to unequals. Aristotle realizes that people are bad judges concerning themselves and thatas in oligarchy and democracythey tend to confuse a part of justice with the whole of justice. Justice must be central concern for every city, because the city exists "not only for the sake of living but primarily for the sake of living well." As a result, "virtue must be a care for every city," and a city can only foster virtue to the extent that it is just. For this reason, "the political good is justice." Yet since each of the regimes has only a partial claim to justice and the correct regimes tend to degenerate into their incorrect forms, it is necessary to mix the different types of regimes in order to mitigate their basic flaws. In other, one can take the aspects of each regime which are just and mix them together. For example, the multitude does have a certain claim to rule because in some areas it may be able to judge better collectively than any single person. Therefore a good regime should give the multitude this power to rule in the areas where it merits that power, such as in making judicial decisions. In other areas, however, such as the higher governing offices, rulers should be selected according to the aristocratic principle of merit and virtue. At the same time, however, a recurring theme throughout the book is how one should react to those who surpass all the others in virtue and excellence. While Aristotle wants to avoid rule by a single man because it is apolitical and also thinks that the rule of law should be preeminent because human beings are too easily swayed by their passions, he cannot deny that if a such an outstanding person or group of people existed, it would be irrational not to allow them to rule.

Book IV
Chapter 1 It is useful and necessary to study different types of regimes and to determine which is the best and alsosince the best may not always be possiblewhich is the best possible regime. Such knowledge is also useful for existing regimes so that legislators can see what types are laws are suitable for their regime, since laws need to made with a view to the regime. Chapter 2 The worst regime is naturally that which deviates from the "first and most divine" regimekingship. Tyranny is therefore the worst regime and democracy is the least bad of the deviant regimes. Chapter 3 There are different types of regimes because there are many parts to a city. Among the city's inhabitants there are differences in wealth, trade, virtue, family and so on. The regime is simply the arrangement of offices, and

different cities arrange their offices in accordance with which group in the city is preeminent. The two main types of regimes that exist are democracy and oligarchy, since people consider aristocracy to be a sort of oligarchy and "so-called" polity to be a type of democracy. Chapter 4 Democracy is not simply the rule of the multitude, since in every regime the majority has authority. The distinction between democracy and oligarchy is that in "democracy exists when the free and poor, being a majority, have authority to rule; oligarchy, when the wealthy and better born have authority and are few." Cities are composed of several parts. The first is the part concerned with sustenancethe farmers. The second is the "vulgar element," the artisans. The third the "marketing element"those concerned with commerce and trade. The fourth is the "laboring element," and the fifth is the "warrior element." There are also the "well-off," who help the city by means of their property, and the "magisterial element" who are the city officials. While it is possible to be a part of several elements of the city at once, one cannot be both rich and poor at the same time. Therefore the different parts of the city are often considered just in terms of the rich and the poor. There are several kinds of democracy. The first sort is based particularly on equality, where the poor and the welloff are treated equally and the majority rule since both groups have equal authority to rule. Other kinds of democracy include having the rule of law but allowing all to take part in offices, or allowing the multitude and not the law to have authority. In such a case, "the people become a monarch, from many combining into one." Properly speaking, however, such an arrangement is not really a regime, because "where the laws do not rule there is no regime." Chapter 5 There are several kinds of oligarchy. One type is an arrangement where there are property requirements for office, another is an arrangement where the son succeeds the father, and another is where the officials rule rather than the law. Chapter 6 The several types of democracy and oligarchy are here enumerated again in more detail. Chapter 7 The fifth sort of regime is often referred to as polity, but it has not often existed. An aristocracy properly speaking is a regime made up of those who are best on the basis of virtue. But often regimes call themselves aristocracy when officers are elected both on the basis of wealth and on the basis of virtue. There are also some types socalled polities that incline toward oligarchy. Chapter 8 Polity is a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. A city cannot be well-managed if it is not run aristocratically. Aristocracy's defining principle is virtue, oligarchy's is wealth, and democracy's is freedom. Chapter 9 There are three ways of forming a polity. One is to take elements of legislation from both democracy and oligarchy. Another is to take the mean of the democratic and oligarchic arrangements. The third option is to take selections from oligarchic and democratic law and combine them. For example, regarding offices one would have elections (an oligarchic element) but no property assessment (a democratic element). The way to decide whether a polity has mixed democracy and oligarchy well is to see if the same polity can just as easily be spoken of as a democracy or as an oligarchy. Such is the case in the Lacedaemonian (Spartan) regime.

Chapter 10 There are three types of tyranny. One is plenipotentiary monarchy, used by the barbarians. The second is dictatorship, and the third is absolute and unchallenged kingship in which the ruler rules to his own advantage. Chapter 11 The virtue and vice of a city or regime can be examined much like the virtue or vice of an individualvirtue is a mean and the happy life is one in accordance with virtue. There are three parts of each city: the very wealthy, the very poor, and those in the middle. Since the mean is the best, the middling element of the city is the best part. It is best if the citizens are equal and similar persons, and this is the case with the middling elements. The best political partnership is therefore the one that depends on the middling sort and that a regime in which the middle element is proportionately larger compared to other two elements is the most capable of being well-governed. The middling element does not engage in factional conflict, and therefore cities with a larger middling element are more stable. The best legislators come from among the middling element. Chapter 12 The type of regime which a city has depends in large part upon the composition of its inhabitants. If the multitude of the poor is preeminent, there will be a democracy. If the well-off are preeminent, there will be an oligarchy. In any type of regime, the legislator should always aim to make the middling sort the dominant element. Chapter 13 There are several devices which oligarchies use to deceive the people, such as making the assemblies open but charging a fee to attend. Democracy has counterdevices, such as paying the poor to attend the assembly. A polity ought to be ruled by those possessing heavy arms. The poor will not object from not having the ability to rule provided that they are not treated contemptuously or deprived of their property. Many regimes which used to be polities are now democracies because more people shared in ruling as the size of the city increased. Chapter 14 There are three parts of all regimes that the lawmakers need to attend to. The first is the part which deliberates about common matter, the second is the part regarding offices, and the third is the adjudicative part. There are several ways to arrange the regime democratically such that all decide about common matterseither to have people take turns making decisions, or to have all decide at once, or to have the offices make only preliminary decisions and have the people vote on them. There are also several varieties of oligarchic decision-making, such as having only the elected authorities share in decision-making, or having a property requirement to be able to participate in decision-making. Chapter 15 As far as deciding about the nature and types of offices the regime should have, first it is necessary to decide what is to be considered as an office. Offices deliberative and adjudicative power regarding certain matters and command. The number and type of offices depend on the type of regime, the size of the city and the composition of the city. Another issue to be determined is the selection of officialswho selects them, from whom they are selected, and in what manner they are selected. The two most popular possibilities are to have all select from all by election or by lot. Chapter 16 Regarding the adjudicative part of the regime, it is necessary to determine from whom judges are selected, on what matters they decide, and how judges are selected. There are several types of courts and many different disputes which the courts handle, but the most important are the political matters, because mishandling of factional conflicts can lead to revolution.

Analysis:
Book IV begins with what basically amounts to a justification for political philosophy. Aristotle recognizes that the best regime really only exists in theory, but speculating about it and trying to determine its laws, structure, and underlying principles is worthwhile because it provides a model by which one can judge other regimes in see which regime is the best possible in a given situation. Political philosophy not only theorizes about which regimes are the best, but also about which laws are the most suitable for each type of regime. Aristotle believes that "laws should be enacted . . . with a view to the regimes, and not regimes with a view to laws." The fundamental fact that decides the type of regime and, by extension, the type of laws that the regime should have is the structure of authority in the regime. Cataloging the different types of regimes is helpful in that it allows one to see what the main distinguishing factors of the various regimes are and what type of laws accompany each type of regime. The most common two types of regimes are democracy and oligarchy. In the sense that all regimes desire to be wealthy, all regimes are oligarchical, but specifically oligarchies are regimes in which the wealthy rule. Democracies are defined by the rule of the majority, assuming that the majority is relatively poor. An important point that Aristotle always comes back to when speaking about possible arrangements for regimes is that the rule of law is fundamental to a regime. Without the rule of law, there is no regime. For example, when he speaks of a type of democracy in which the assembly, not the law, has ultimate authority, he writes that this arrangement is not really a regime at all; "for where the laws do not rule there is no regime." Aristotle continues, explaining that "the law should rule in all matters, while the offices and the regime should judge in particular cases." Aristotle recognizes that the law cannot specify how it ought to be applied in each specific case. It is the job of the governing body to make those sorts of judgments, but not to rule by decree. Aristotle believes that the best attainable regime is polity. It is interesting to note that throughout Book IV Aristotle never actually speaks of polity as such, but always qualifies the term, saying "so-called polity" or "what is termed polity." He uses the word polity in an unqualified sense when he is describing the best regime. Aristotle does the same thing when speaking of aristocracy, which, theoretically speaking is the best regime because it is the regime in which judges according to virtue and chooses its rulers on the basis of virtue. Aristotle recognizes that in its pure form such a standard is impossibly high, because it requires knowledge of what true virtue is, always as the ability to recognize true virtue in others. Therefore only "so-called" aristocracy is possible, not real aristocracy. Polity is a mixed regimes which combines elements of democracy and oligarchy. Aristotle enumerates three possibilities for mixing regimes, but in the first twotaking elements of legislation from each and taking the mean between arrangementsthe rich are still treated as rich and the poor are still treated as poor. The third, more preferable manner of mixing regimes takes some provisions from oligarchic law and some from democratic law. This method transcends the divisions between poor and rich by having a mixture of offices chosen by lot and by election, thereby integrated the oligarchic and democratic principles into a coherent whole. An important point which Aristotle brings out toward the end of the book of the idea of the "middling element" in society. The middling element is basically what in modern terms would be considered the middle class. Aristotle praise of the middling element is logical, in that he believes virtue to be mean between two extremes of vice. A large middle class is absolutely essential for a stable and well-run government because the middle class do not covet rule, are not envious, foster friendship because of their similarity, and can act as neutral arbitrators between the rich and the poor. Hemmed in between people above it which it dislikes and people below it which it fears, the middling element is more likely to listen to reason and to help maintain stability in the regime.

Book V
Chapter 1 This book is about the nature and causes of revolution, as well as how to prevent revolution. Factional conflict results from disagreements about justice, because different parts of the city have different ideas of equality and each has a partial claim to justice. Those outstanding in virtue would be most justified in engaging in factional conflict but are the least likely to do so. Factional conflict can about a desire to change the type of regime or simply to change specific elements or specific rulers in the regime. Factional conflict is the result of inequality. The two types of equality are equality by number and inequality by merit. Neither pure democracy nor pure oligarchy are lasting because they each have an extreme view of equality which excludes one of the two types. A regime with a large middling element will be more stable. Chapter 2 People engage in factional conflict over issues of profit and honor, and are further stirred up because of fear, contempt, and dissimilarity. Chapter 3 When office-holders are arrogant and aggrandize themselves, factional conflict arises. When a few people are preeminent to a great extent factional conflict may arise in reaction against them. When someone is frightened of paying a penalty for an injustice he has committed, he may engage in factional conflict through fear. Factional conflict may also result from disproportionate growth of one part of a city. A great shift in the regime could occur from overlooking small gradual changes. Dissimilarity of the city's inhabitants could be a cause of conflict until cooperation develops, and a poor location could cause conflict as well. Chapter 4 Factional conflict resulting from petty disagreements among the rulers can affect the whole regime. If one group in the city gains a certain acclaim for some reason, the regime may shift in order to give that group more power. When opposing parts of the citylike the rich and the poorare equal in number they are more likely to engage in factional conflict than if there are only a few in one group and many in another. Chapter 5 This chapter examines the causes of revolution specific to democracy. In democracy revolution often occurs because of the irresponsible behavior of popular leaders. In democracies where the popular leader was the general, the democracy often turned into a tyranny. Chapter 6 There are also specific causes of revolution for oligarchies. The first cause is unjust treatment of the multitude. Sometimes even the well-off themselves begin a revolution in an oligarchy if office-holding is limited to very few. Revolution may also occur from the rise of a popular leadereither with the well-off or with the masses. If the wealthy expend all their resources in wanton living, or if the type of rule is too much like masterly rule rather than political rule, a revolution may result. If offices are allotted on the basis of property assessment, revolution could come about because the assessments were arranged with a view to the situation when the regime was founded and that situation could change.

Chapter 7 In aristocracies, revolutions occur because few share in ruling prerogatives, much like in oligarchies. Above all, however, revolutions in polities and aristocracies are the result of a deviation from justice in the regime. For the most part, revolutions in aristocracies occur gradually. Chapter 8 There are several methods by which regimes can be preserved from revolution. First of all, it is necessary to ensure that the laws are enforced. Also, in aristocracies and oligarchies, it is necessary that the rulers act justly toward the multitude, which has no share in ruling. It is also helpful to avoid factional conflicts within the ruling class itself. To prevent revolution in oligarchy or polity where offices are based on assessments, there should be a mechanism for adjusting the assessments when the economic conditions of the citizens change. For all regimes, it is important to prevent any one person from becoming overly powerful in a short period of time, or else he will surely be corrupted. It is excellent if a regime arranges its laws and offices in such a way that it is impossible to profit from the offices. In such a case, the poor will not want to rule because they will make no money from it, and thus the well-off will rule and the poor will be able to spend their time at work and become well-off. In a democracy, the rich should be treated welltheir property should not be redistributed. In oligarchies, it is important to treat the poor very well, such that there is an opportunity for the poor to become well-off. It is advantageous to assign equality or precedence to those who participate least in the regimethe well-off in democracies, and the poor in oligarchies. Chapter 9 Rulers need an affection for the regime, a capacity for ruling, and virtue and justice relative to the regime. Advantageous laws are laws that help to preserve the regime. The middling element should also not be neglected in this discussion, because they can act as a stabilizing force. The greatest thing that helps to make regimes lasting is education relative to the regime. This means not that democratic people should be educated democratically, but rather that they should be educated oligarchically, and vice versa, to counteract the natural tendency of the regime toward its extreme form. The problem with democracies is that they define freedom badly. Chapter 10 In monarchy, the causes of revolution are as follows. Kingship and tyranny are distinguished from one another in that the tyrant seeks his own pleasure while the king seeks noble goals. Tyranny encompasses the evils of both democracy and oligarchy. Attacks on monarchs occur sometimes because of their disgraceful behavior to others, or because of fear, contempt, ambition, or desire for profit. Tyranny is often destroyed from the outside by a superior regime. It is also destroyed from within when the rulers fall into factional conflict. Kingship is rarely destroyed from outside. Chapter 11 Kingships are preserved by limiting the king's authority. Tyrannies are preserved by eliminating all potential rivals to power. Extreme democracy is basically the same as tyranny. A tyrant above all needs military virtue, and should command awe but not fear. He should be moderate in his dealings with women and strong drink, and he should show himself to be attentive to the gods. He should honor the good citizens personally and make other officials punish the offenders. The tyrant should not give preferential treatment either to the poor or the well-off. If a tyrant does these things his rule will be long-lasting and not completely vicious.

Chapter 12 Oligarchy and tyranny are the most short-lived regimes. Socrates is wrong when he argues that there is a cyclical pattern of revolution for regimes. Why should the best regime ever undergo revolution? Also, it more frequent for regimes to undergo revolution into their opposite than into a similar type of regime.

Analysis:
Aristotle's understanding of revolution is fundamentally different from the modern understanding. The ancient philosopher considers revolution in completely political, objective and value-neutral sense. Modern political theorists, however, always connect revolution with a notion of progress, which presupposes an underlying philosophy of history. In Aristotle, the term "counterrevolution" would be nonsensical since a revolution is simply a change in regime. The modern use of that term indicates a judgment that certain revolutionsnamely, revolutions toward more democratic governmentsare enacting the right kind of change, and other revolutionssuch as those that go toward a more authoritarian arrangementare incorrect and are going against the historical development toward progress. G. W. F. Hegel's Philosophy of History is the primary basis of this modern theory of revolution. While Aristotle only speaks about in one section of one chapter of the book, the importance of education is a key point in his thought. Aristotle writes that "the greatest of all these things that have been mentioned with a view to making regimes lastingthough it is now slighted by allis education relative to the regimes." What he means by education "relative to the regimes" is very interesting and also somewhat counterintuitive. One would assume that educating citizens relative to the regime means educating them in accordance with the underlying principles of that regimefor example, educating democratic citizens to value equality on the basis of number rather than merit, or educating oligarchic citizens to value equality on the basis of wealth rather than number. In fact, Aristotle's suggestion is the opposite of what one would expect. Citizens need to be educated, not to recognize the specific claim to justice of their own regime, but to be able to recognize the competing claims of justice. The reason that such education is necessary is that, except in the best regime, the regime is based on a partial view of justice. Educating the citizens requires helping them to see the elements of justice that are not emphasized in the ruling structure of the regime. As a result, citizens will be more sympathetic to competing claims of justice from the parts of the regime which do not have power, and factional conflict will be avoided. Toward the end of his discussion on education, Aristotle diverges into an examination of the specific weakness of democracy. This brief section will be analyzed in conjuction with Book VI, in which Aristotle elaborates on the underlying principles of democracy.

Book VI
Chapter 1 Although democracy has been spoken of already, it is necessary to address the subject in more detail, especially with regard to its specific character and claim of justice. Chapter 2 The defining principle of democracy is freedom, one aspect of which is having a share in ruling. They claim justice to be equality based on number rather than merit, and as a result the multitude have authority, meaning that the poor have more authority than the rich. A second aspect of freedom is to live as one wants. As a result, democratic people do not want to be ruled at all, but if it is necessary to have rulers then the next best option is to rule and be ruled in turn. Characteristics of democratic rule are as follows; universal eligibility of all citizens for

office, offices chosen by lot, no repeat terms in office, short terms of office, a popular jury, and a popular assembly with great authority. All offices are paid. Chapter 3 How can equality be brought about in the city? In democracies, people believe that justice is whatever the majority decides, while in oligarchy justice is whatever the well-off decide. Both are unjust.. Chapter 4 There are four sorts of democracy, distinguished by the type of people who make up the citizenry. The first and best type is the farming sort, because they are too busy working to hold frequent assemblies, and are not ambitious about ruling because they desire profit more than honor. They are content to have authority to elect and audit their officers. The next best sort of democracy is among those who are herdsmen, because they are similar to farmers. The other types are much worse, because the people are either merchants or laborers, whose tasks do not involve virtue. They can easily attend the assembly because they frequent the town, which will lead to too many disturbances. In order to try to maintain a stable democracy, leaders need to be careful about the composition and size of the population. One should not add more citizens beyond the point where the multitude is more numerous than the well-off and the middling elements. Chapter 5 The hardest task of the legislator is not instituting the regime, but preserving it. Legislators should make sure that property confiscated by the courts become sacred property rather than public property, so that popular leaders do not try to gain popularity by confiscating property from the rich. Frivolous prosecution should incur large penalty to minimize the number of public lawsuits. If there are not enough public revenues to be able to pay people to attend the assemblies, there should be few assemblies and they should be brief, rather than having to tax the rich in order to make the necessary money. The taxation would create too much faction. If there are revenues, one should not allow popular leaders to distribute the surplus just to gain popularity among the people. It is important that the multitude not be overly poor, but it is necessary to manage revenues soundly so that there will be a sustained surplus which can help the poor. The notables should also try to help the poor so that the multitude will remain benevolent toward them. Chapter 6 The most well-blended sort of oligarchy is very close to so-called polity. There should be a gradation of property assessments for offices such that lower offices have very low assessments. While democracy can be preserved by maintaining a considerable population, oligarchy must be well-managed to be preserved. Chapter 7 To give a share in the governing body to the multitude can be done by opening it to all those who possess the assessment or other manners as previously mentioned. For the most authoritative offices, public services should be attached to them so that they are seen as a burden to ensure that only the best people will be willing to take them and that the multitude will not be jealous of those who hold them. Chapter 8 Small cities need to have fewer offices than large ones. Offices are necessary to oversee the market, to oversee public and private property, to take care of revenues, to register court agreements and judgments, to guard prisoners, to attend to defence of the city, and to arrange for deliberation about common matters.

Analysis:
Aristotle's view on the connection between freedom and virtue, which was previously discussed in the analysis of Book I, explains his assertion that democracy is a deviation from the correct regime of polity. Aristotle holds that "the presupposition of the democratic regime is freedom." Following from this emphasis on liberty are two main principles of the democratic regime: (1) to consider "equality on the basis of number and not on the basis of merit," and (2) "to live as one wants." [These quotations are from the beginning of Book VI.] What is wrong with the principle of living as one wants? Indeed, such an idea seems intuitively to constitute the very definition of freedom; in a sense, it does. For what one wants, above all, is happiness. Therefore every want is either directly or indirectly aimed at reaching this ultimate good. What follows from this conclusion is that what one wants, in the deepest sense, is to live a virtuous life, for such a life is happy. The problem with the democratic mentality, however, is that the emphasis on equality and freedom leads one to treat every manner of acting as equally choiceworthy. Aristotle addresses this flaw of democracy: "[Democracies] define freedom badly. . . . [E]veryone lives as he wants and toward whatever [end he happens] to crave,' as Euripides says. But this is a poor thing. To live with a view to the regime should not be supposed to be slavery, but preservation." There are two crucial implications of the philosopher's assertion. First, it is the incorrect definition of freedom, not freedom itself, which is the problem. Second, this definition is incorrect because it leads one to slavery, and consequently even acts as a danger to the preservation of the regime. True freedom, as opposed to democracy's conception of it, entails one objective endhappinessand necessitates that any manner of action incompatible with this end be considered inferior, for such an action would in fact defeat freedom itself. One could therefore conclude that Aristotle's emphasis on living virtuously as the central goal of politics actually stems from a desire to preserve freedom. When examined in this light, Aristotle's position that "the city exists not only for the sake of living but rather primarily for the sake of living well" and his consequent belief that "virtue must be a care for every city" are actually a means to protect the citizens' true freedom.

Book VII
Chapter 1 To investigate the best regime it is necessary to first investigate the best way of life. Virtue is more important for a good life than external things. The soul is more honorable than the body and possessions, because these things are for the sake of the soul, not vice versa. Happiness is the result of living according to virtue. Now, "the best city is happy and acts nobly." Therefore the best way of life both for individuals and for cities is a life of virtue. Chapter 2 Now we need to investigate which is the most choiceworthy way of life and which regime is the best. The best regime is the one in which a person can act in the best manner and live most happily. There is a dispute between those who assert that the political or active life is the most choiceworthy and those who assert that the philosophic way of life is the best. Chapter 3 Those who dislike the political way of life because it involves ruling make the mistake of equating every type of rule with mastery, while political rule is noble because it is rule over free persons. Inactivity is also not praiseworthy. For people who are similar, the noblest arrangement is to rule and be ruled in turn. Yet this is not to say that the active life is necessarily the best, because the philosophical life is in reality not inactive, and its actions are for the sake of goods which are ends in themselves.

Chapter 4 In thinking about the best city, it is important to think about population and territory. A larger population is not always better, because quality of citizens is more important than quantity, and it is often more difficult for a populous city to be well-managed. Too few persons is also bad because the city will not be self-sufficient. Therefore the optimal number is just enough so that the city is self-sufficient. Chapter 5 As far as territory is concerned, one also needs to look for territory that is self-sufficient, and that it allows people to live at leisure but also with moderation. The territory should be readily surveyable so that it is easily defended. Chapter 6 The territory should be near a port so as to have access to trade, but not right on the sea so as to avoid the influx of foreigners. Chapter 7 Considering what quality of persons the political multitude should be, it is clear that they should be both spirited and endowed with thought, as the Greeks are. Chapter 8 "The city is a partnership of similar persons, for the sake of a life that is the best possible." There will need to be several sorts of cities and regimes because of the different sorts of people that make them up. This requirements for a city are as follows: sustenance, arts, arms, funds, priestcraft, and judgment concerning the advantageous and the just. Accordingly, the multitude must consist of farmers, artisans, warriors, a well-off element, priests and judges. Chapter 9 In the best regime, the citizens should not be merchants, because this way of life is ignoble. Further, they should not be farmers because leisure is necessary for virtue and political activity. The fighting element and the judges should be citizens, such that the young are warriors and then afterwards become judges. Chapter 10 The city should be divided among the separate types of persons. There should be common messes, but also a sphere for private property. Farmers should slaves. Chapter 11 The city should be in a place where the terrain and climate are favorable to people's health, and should be adequately fortified to safeguard against attack. Chapter 12 Common messes need to be arranged for the different classes in the city. Chapter 13 Since the best city is the happiest city, we need to review what happiness is before deciding what the regime of the best city should be. Happiness, as defined in the discourse on ethics, is "the actualization and complete practice of virtue." First and foremost, the city is excellent when its citizens are excellent. Men become excellent through nature, habit and reason.

Chapter 14 Should the rulers and ruled be the same throughout life or should they alternate? Unless there is a person or group who so preeminent in virtue that they are like gods, the citizens should rule and be ruled in turn. A regime cannot last if it is contrary to justice. The older should rule the younger, because this is a natural distinction and a person rules more finely if he has been ruled first. The soul has two partsone has reason, and the other does not have reason but can obey it. The reasonable part can also be divided into the active part and the studying part. Action directed toward necessary thing should always be for the sake of noble things. Citizens must be educated to act with a view toward noble things above all. They also must be sure that citizens do not view war as an end in itself, so that they will know how to be capable of being at leisure. Chapter 15 Should citizens be educated first by means of reason or by means of habits? The two should be consonant with one another, and since reason and intellect are the end of human nature habits should be formed with a view to these. The superintendence of the body is for the sake of the soul, and the control of the appetites is for the sake of the intellect. Chapter 16 The legislator needs to makes laws regarding marriage so as to ensure that procreation takes place at the best time both physically and with respect to capability of child-rearing. Chapter 17 Raising children should be regulated with a view to helping them grow strong physically and habituating them in virtue. They should not spend much time with slaves and foul speech should be banished from the city so that it doesn't negatively influence the children. It is also important to be careful about what young people watch. The young should be protected from all bad influences. Education should be split into two age groups: age seven until puberty, and puberty until age twenty-one.

Analysis:
In his discussion of the best city, it is natural that Aristotle would begin with an examination of the best life, since of course the aim of the city is living well. The happiest man would have all three kinds of goodsexternal goods, goods of the body, and goods of the soulbut goods of the soul are the most important. Aristotle argues that while external goods by nature have a limit and can be excessive, there is no possibility of excess with regard to goods of the soul. There is a natural hierarchy of beings to which a hierarchy of goods correspond, and goods of the soul are the highest. They are intrinsically choiceworthy, not chosen for the sake of something else. Aristotle's discussion of the best life leads him to the debate between the practical life versus the contemplative life, a debate which recurs throughout the writings of both ancient and medieval philosophers, such as Plato, Cicero, and Aquinas. In Aristotle's view, the highest practical life is the political life, while the highest contemplative life is the philosophic life. While it is unclear, especially in the politics, whether the political or the philosophic life is best, texts on this subject in the Ethics, particularly in Book X, indicate that the philosophic life is the best because it engages the highest part of the soul in contemplation of the highest things, and is the most complete, continuous and self-sufficient activity. Having established what the best life is, Aristotle then proceeds to work out the details for the best city. The best city brings together all of Aristotle's previous recommendations for a just regime. Aristotle often repeats that for a city to be well-managed, the citizens have to "similar in stock and free." Otherwise, there is discord with regard to varying ideas of justice and competing claims to rule based on numbers, wealth or virtue. At the same time,

Aristotle recognizes that a city needs farmers, laborers and artisans if it is to be able to provide for the necessities of life. It is clear to Aristotle that these laboring classes are not fit to take part in ruling, because they do not have the necessary leisure time required for a proper education in virtue. However, all citizens ought to have a share in ruling, and if the citizens are similar they ought to rule and be ruled in turn. This problem of the demosthe people, or the multitudeis a recurrent theme throughout the Politics. The demos seems to be an insurmountable obstacle to the formation of a perfect regime. Perhaps that is why, in his best regime, Aristotle simply eliminates the demos. The laboring classes are all slaves, and the only citizens are an elite aristocracy of gentlemen, in which the young are soldiers and the old rule. This seems to be the only way for Aristotle to actualize his ideal political set-up, where citizens who are similar in stock and free rule and are ruled in turn.

Book VIII
Chapter 1 The legislator's primary concern should be the education of the young. Education must be public and in common, because there is a single end for the city as a whole. Citizens do not belong to themselves, but rather all belong to the city. Chapter 2 The things that are useful and necessary should be taught, but not things are particular to the laborer or the slave, because such things make the mind abject. Chapter 3 The four customary areas of education are letters, gymnastics, music and drawing. While music is not necessary, it is important because it is with a view to spending leisure time well. Some of the useful areas of learning should also be sought not only with a view to utility but with a view to enable the student to reach higher levels of learning. Seeking utility above all is not fitting for those who are magnanimous and free. Since education through habits must precede education through reason and education of the body must precede education of the mind, gymnastics must be the first thing taught to children. Chapter 4 Gymnastics needs to be pursued moderately, so that it not take precedence over the other subjects, which train the mind. Chapter 5 Music is for the sake of education, play and pastime. Play is for the sake of rest, which should be pleasant, and music is one of the most pleasant things. But some human beings have made play their ultimate end, because the end does in fact involve pleasure. Music itself is good for education because the harmonious blend of sounds leads the soul to balance the passions harmoniously in accordance with reason. Chapter 6 Children should actively participate in the making of music themselves through singing or playing instruments, because it provides them with a noble pastime and keeps them out of trouble. "Education is a rattle for the young." Chapter 7 The three defining principles for the purposes of education are the middle, the possible and the appropriate.

Analysis:
Aristotle's strong belief in the importance of education is evident in his earlier statement that education is the best means of preserving a regime, and is now made even clearer in his unqualified assertion that education should be the legislator's greatest concern. Like all of the central ideas in the Politics, the value that Aristotle places on education is rooted in his emphasis on the goal of the city as living well. Since the raison d'etre of the city is to help its citizens live the good life, teaching citizens to be virtuous is of primary importance. Furthermore, having well-educated and virtuous citizens will also help the city as a whole to be better. A proper education in virtue requires habituation and proper intellectual formation. For Aristotle, education is not solely an intellectual matter, but is first and foremost the education of the soul in virtue, only part of which is intellectual. Before children are ready for intellectual training, however, they must learn virtues of self-discipline through gymnastics, and must acquire a taste for harmony in music so that they will be inclined to seek the harmony of their souls through a proper balance in which the appetites are subordinated to the rule of reason. As always, Aristotle connects virtuousness and freedom, contrasting virtuous conduct with slavishness. Aristotle also connects slavishness with wage-earning work. Such tasks are vulgar because they do not allow leisure time for the cultivation of nobler qualities, and they turn one's attention away from the soul toward the body and material things.

EXTRA About Aristotle's Politics

Aristotle's Politics is one of the most influential and enduring texts of political philosophy in all of history. The Aristotelian tradition, following from the philosophy of Plato and continuing in the writings of Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas and other medieval theorists, has formed the backdrop against which all subsequent political and moral philosophy has found its orientation. Early modern political philosophers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes, as well as modern Enlightenment theorists and even postmodern authors have? Either explicitly or implicitly?defined themselves against the Aristotelian model. While writers in the Aristotelian tradition believed that politics has to be based on a fundamental conception of the good as an objective ultimate end for human beings, political theorists from the pre-moderns to today have tried to base politics on anything but a shared idea of the good. The initial reason for this change is perhaps the fear that claiming the existence of one objective end for human life is too likely to lead to serious conflicts like the Wars of Religion. Coupled with this fear is a profound philosophical skepticism originating with Descartes that questions the existence of any intrinsic human nature, objective end for human life, and even objective truth in general. These motivations are relatively clear at least in the case of Hobbes, who lived through both the Wars of Religion and the English Civil War, both of which were highly ideological conflicts, although concerns for power and material gain were also at the forefront. Hobbes attacks Aristotle vehemently in his writings, precisely because he is afraid that having such a clear-cut and universal conception of the good will inevitably lead to further ideological warfare. It is because the core assumptions of Hobbes' and Aristotle's thought are directly opposed to one another that Hobbes believes Aristotelian ideas sufficiently dangerous to merit such strong condemnation. While Hobbes constantly emphasizes the absolute necessity of acting rationally for self-preservation, Aristotle looks beyond the mere goal of living to the higher aim of living well, in accordance with the natural function of man. This emphasis on living well is a danger in Hobbes' view, for he believes that any lofty ideals for which one may be willing to sacrifice one's life can lead to rebellion and the dissolution of the commonwealth. From Aristotle's perspective, what Hobbes fails to understand is that the goal of self-preservation will not suffice to motivate people to moderate their desires and restrain their actions. Hobbes, however, a skeptic who had been

highly influenced by the writings of Descartes, simply did not believe in the existence of an ultimate good, or even for that matter in the existence of objective reality outside the human mind. The Enlightenment was likewise largely a reaction against the Aristotelian tradition. All liberal political theories, no matter how far-ranging in specific tenets and prescriptions, hold in common one fundamental premise: the freedom and equality of human beings. To safeguard this hallowed bedrock of liberalism, liberal philosophers shrink from the metaphysical view of virtue proposed by Aristotle. For with a fixed standard of human excellence, how can one say that all are equal when some are clearly more virtuous than others? Liberals saw the tendency toward hierarchy and inequality in the teleological view of man presented by ancient philosophy. At the same time, however, liberals still recognized the need for virtue in order to form and sustain a well-functioning society and government. Consequently, liberal political theory claims the ability to separate the virtues necessary for politics from an agreement on the foundations of those virtues. To effect this separation, liberals in the end must rely on a utilitarian conception of virtue based on enlightened self-interest, arguing that unless people act with at least a minimal amount of virtue, the society will collapse and all will be worse off. Yet in doing so, have liberals, proverbially speaking, thrown the baby out with the bath water? For by severing their political theories from objective foundations, liberals actually undermine their own goals and leave the premise of human freedom and equality vulnerable to attack. Liberals do have some reason to fear the hierarchical tendencies of metaphysically-based theories of virtue. Aristotle's theory, for example, seems to justify vast inequality and class stratification. Unlike the liberal philosophers, Aristotle believes that there is a summum bonum toward which all human actions are consciously or unconsciously directed. Arguing from a metaphysical basis, Aristotle assumes that man must have a specific function and that human excellence and human happiness consist in performing that function well. That function must be something unique to man; therefore it is related to man's rational capacity. Man's ability to contemplate and reflect? That is, "activity of the soul according to reason"? Is what separates him from other creatures (Nicomachean Ethics 1098a). Thus it is his highest action and the use of that action in contemplating the highest things is what constitutes man's perfection. Reason, aside from being able to contemplate the highest things, can also discover rules for human behavior. In this way the moral virtues come into play as a secondary but nonetheless important aspect of human excellence. By setting up objective criteria for human excellence, Aristotle prepares the basis for his aristocratic political views. Perhaps the part of Aristotle's Politics most offensive to the liberal sensibility is his defense of slavery. Aristotle posits the existence of natural slaves, "those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from the beast, . . . who [participate] in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but [do] not have it." This justification of slavery, however, does not follow from Aristotle's logic but rests on an empirical claim that such slaves by nature actually exist. Aristotle's presentation of the best regime further demonstrates the aristocratic leanings of his theory on virtue. In this regime, the aristocracy of gentlemen, only a small class of elites are citizens and share in the responsibilities of ruling, while the majority of the people are slaves, doing manual work to maintain the city and produce the necessary goods. With such elements as these forming a part of Aristotle's political theory, it is clear why liberals want to avoid such a view. Still, the liberal project fails to resolve the problem of safeguarding freedom and equality in that it attempts to justify individual rights without providing any underlying philosophical basis for those rights. John Stuart Mill is one of the clearest examples of the liberal desire to separate the goal of politics from a teleological conception of human nature and objective conception of the good, because he believes that dogmatism and conformism, the greatest impediments to freedom and enlightenment, are the worst things possible for society. (In "What is Enlightenment?", Kant also expresses a highly similar view.) In On Liberty, Mill asserts that above all society ought to preserve the freedom "of pursuing our own good in our way." Metaphysically speaking, the idea of "our own good" is a strange concept; for, as in Aristotle's theory, there is only one greatest good, which is the ultimate end for human existence. Yet for Mill, the idea of such a universal end is extremely dubious, for "there is no such thing as absolute certainty" except in subjects like mathematics.

Because Mill cannot base virtue on metaphysical or religious considerations, he adopts a utilitarian framework: "I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being." Though the phrase "permanent interests of man as a progressive being" seems to have some sort of metaphysical tone to it, it is far from the idea of an ultimate good in the Aristotelian sense. For while Aristotle's conception of the good? And the classical metaphysical conception in general? Rests upon universal principles of human nature, applicable to all human beings, Mill's idea of the good presupposes that each person has a unique "individual nature" and therefore a unique individual good. As a result, for Mill human perfection takes a relativistic turn, and is attained through cultivation of one's own unique powers and abilities. To achieve this end, Mill considers proper education and intellectual formation to be extremely important, as well as self-discipline in order to develop one's individual potential to the fullest. Crucial as well is toleration of differing points of view and openmindedness, especially the ability to see the partial truth in different perspectives. The essence of a good existence in Mill's opinion is choice, irrespective of the correctness of that choice: "If a person possesses any tolerable amount of common sense and experience, his own mode of laying out his existence is the best, not because it is the best in itself, but because it is his own mode" (67). Mill's theory demonstrates that in order for liberals to sever the tie between religious or metaphysical absolute conceptions of the good without completely eliminating considerations of virtue, liberal societies must make virtue and the good dependent on utilitarian considerations. This outcome is a result of liberals' dilemma regarding virtue. For while liberals recognize that a well-functioning government and society require virtue, they cannot use the standard of objective human excellence as the basis of that virtue because they believe it necessarily creates hierarchy and inequality. Liberals also shrink from this objective standard because it seems to go against a person's individual freedom to choose his own good in accordance with his individual nature. Yet there are reasons to doubt that Mill's typically liberal approach to virtue and the good, based on utility and highly dependent upon the individual, really does provide a framework which can uphold the human freedom and equality which is both the foundation and goal of liberalism. Mill's words remind us of Aristotle's critique of democracy, which provides some insight into this central dilemma of liberalism. Aristotle describes democracy's defining principle much like Mill: "to live as one wants." The problem with this principle, however, is its false conception of freedom: "[Democracies] define freedom badly. . . . [E]veryone lives as he wants and ?toward whatever [end he happens] to crave,' as Euripides says. But this is a poor thing. To live with a view to the regime should not be supposed to be slavery, but preservation." There are two crucial implications of the philosopher's assertion. First, it is the incorrect definition of freedom, not freedom itself, which is the problem. Second, this definition is incorrect because it leads one to slavery, and consequently even acts as a danger to the preservation of the regime. True freedom, as opposed to democracy's conception of it, entails one objective end? Happiness defined as activity of the soul according to virtue or reason? And necessitates that any manner of action incompatible with this end be considered inferior, for such an action would in fact defeat freedom itself. One could therefore conclude that Aristotle's emphasis on living virtuously as the central goal of politics actually stems from a desire to preserve freedom. When examined in this light, Aristotle's position that "the city exists not only for the sake of living but rather primarily for the sake of living well" and his consequent belief that "virtue must be a care for every city" are actually a means to protect the citizens' true freedom. Therefore it is Aristotle's emphasis on virtue, rather than the modern liberals' emphasis on unqualified freedom, which truly upholds the cherished value of liberty. This view is not unique to Aristotle, but was held by the most renowned ancient and medieval philsophers? Plato, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas and others? Who all agreed that true freedom is inextricably connected to the proper end of human existence, and that severing it from this end leads one to the worst form of slavery? Slavery to one's own whims, passions, and appetites.

Whether one agrees with Aristotle's political philosophy or not, a knowledge of its underlying principles is essential for a clear understanding of nature of all future political philosophy. The project of modern and postmodern philosophers cannot be fully appreciated or objectively analyzed without a basic knowledge of the fundamental ideas against which they were arguing. Even though they do not all criticize Aristotle directly, as do some authors like Hobbes and Nietzsche, modern and postmodern philosophy is largely a critique of the Aristotelian world-view and an attempt to provide new bases and justifications for politics.