The City’s Civil Society essay
Philosophy is worth to be called the immutable background to all liberal arts and science in general. Philosophy never seeks to make investigations, its primary aim to explain things and phenomena around humans. By addressing numerous points concerning the principles of universe and human’s part in it, complicated social ties between people also were not left aside by “the mother of all sciences”. As a result, recent humanity is able to enjoy centuries – old studies, which led to new philosophy branch establishment called political philosophy. Frankly, political philosophy is the study of human social organization and of the nature of man/woman in society. A political philosopher is likely to ponder the following questions: What is the ideal form of government? A predominantly capitalistic one, a socialistic one, or perhaps a mix of the two? Is it aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy, democracy, some mix of the different systems, or absolutely no government at all (anarchy)? And which economic system is best? At what point in history did people agree upon the “need” for government? How did they live before the inauguration of government — i.e., in the “state of nature”? Are people inherently good or bad, or neither?, and a lot of more. Every of philosophers, who contributed own understanding to the entire system of knowledge in this part benefited humanity with the ability to get next progress. Serving as the base to humans’ thought development, these works reached the status of immortal. In this paper, we’ll take the view on two outstanding philosophic treatises – “The Prince” by Machiavelli and “Politics” by Aristotle. Even when a lot of centuries were past, these two doctrines remain extremely valuable heritage to recent society. In this work, we’ll make targets on next issues as they directly or indirectly addressed in both works – the bases and ends of political life, the character of relations among the citizens, the proper role of private interests in the city, and the part played by the prince or founder.
Let’s start with the first one – the bases and ends of political life. To begin with, it should be stressed that in recent understanding, politics can be defined as the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Aristotle understood politics in pretty different way. According to this authors, it is more like to be the product of humans’ union, the system to establish society’s operation and the synonym to natural humans’ desire for interconnection. Speaking about the origins of politics, Aristotle presents next idea: “Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good”. In this way, Aristotle seeks to endow politics with the natural existence. The main concept here is the “state”: “If the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best”. So, we are able to learn that Aristotle see state as the natural product of humans’ interconnection, political interconnection with one “highest good”. In this regard, the bases of political life according to Ancient Greek philosopher can be found in humans’ natural predisposition to live in union tied with one “common good”. As for the ends of political life, Aristotle refers to leaving of community: “Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the “Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, ” whom Homer denounces – the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts”.
If Aristotle seeks to address political life as some kind of universal feature of humans’ nature, Machiavelli makes more targeted emphasize to governing, as we used to associate political life today. The bases of political life Machiavelli sees in humans class segregation to citizens and nobles: “Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy”. In this regard, we are also able to notice natural bases of political life in Machiavelli’s work. However, instead of Aristotle, it is grounded not on people’s natural predisposition to live in interconnection. It is more based on “natural conflict of interest” as a result of social segregation to classes. At the same time, Machiavelli did not any references to ends of political life in doctrinal understanding. Probable, he saw political life of society more like the permanent phenomenon that has no end at all. Thus, the ends of political life only can be addressed to personalities of “Princes”.
The next point under analysis is the character of relations among citizens. Speaking about Aristotle’s views there are two main two main ideas here: 1) people are social creators; 2) segregation to masters and slaves. There is no need to come back to the idea of humans’ sociality as an inherent feature of relations among people, as this idea was discussed in previous part. Let’s take some look at Aristotle’s understanding of natural casting. It worth being mentioned that great Ancient Greek philosopher considers not from legal point of view. By drawing the parallels between people and “instruments intended to maintain life”, Aristotle comes to next conclusion: “Again, a possession is spoken of as a part is spoken of; for the part is not only a part of something else, but wholly belongs to it; and this is also true of a possession. The master is only the master of the slave; he does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another’s man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another’s man who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from the possessor”. Being clear with appropriate idea, Aristotle seeks to answer whether it is the violation of right to distinguish citizens as instruments and possessors, as slaves and masters. Actually, one of the greatest thinkers in the entire history does not see difficulties with answering this: “There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule”. To draw the lines between slaves and masters, Ancient Greek philosopher identifies slaves with “those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better”. In fact, this idea about character relations among citizens should not be treated as some kind of discrimination. It is only pattern to explain the origins of ruling and order in society. Aristotle states that both slaves and masters feel need in each other, as one have to possess others seek to be possessed. That’s probably the main idea of Aristotle about social structure.
As for Machiavelli’s views, they remain pretty unclear in part of character of relations among citizens, as the main focus is made directly to principality. Still, the most considerable point here is controversy between people and nobles. According to Middle Age philosopher, these are two inherent casts whose interests will always be opposing to each other. When nobles seek to oppress people, the aim of second is much nobler – they just want to stay oppression free. Herewith, we are able to make conclusion, that Prince is also extremely important part of citizens’ relations according to Machiavelli. In philosopher’s treaty, Prince appears in next way: “A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of them, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority”. In this way, we find him as a kind of a tool to secure and insure intentions of one of two casts in constant struggle with another one. The first aim of the “favor Prince” to serve as a kind of insurance to those who created principality. This is the role prince takes in character of citizens relations, and this role seems to be quite critical. By the way, previous discussion is also useful to address the issue of private interest in the city. The idea is still the same the Prince is the main tool to lobby and promote them. As private interest is similar among representatives of a cast, the common good will hardly be significantly different from personal one.
As for Aristotle, his views of proper role of private interest in the city, worth of more detailed examination. Still, we have to refer to his concept of masters and slaves. Previously, we have noted that philosopher claimed for necessity to possess in ones and necessity to be possessed in others. However, it is important to mention that this beneficial to both sides possession should be endowed with features much different from slavery in general understanding: “We see then that there is some foundation for this difference of opinion, and that all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters: the one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true”. Master and slave are in natural connection with each other, thus, the philosopher saw proper private interest maintenance in city through reasonable possession of those, who are naturally predisposed to be possessed. It is a kind of a harmony that suits interests of both casts. Frankly, possessor and possessed is organic whole in some way, and things harmful to one is harmful to another. It is one of the core principles of household according to Aristotle, and it is well applicable to private interest of citizens in society: “Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries”. Another reference to proper maintenance of private interest in a city can be found in Aristotle’s thoughts about state and society, which were partially addressed before. However, in the aspect of analyzed issue, we have to put next quote: “Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they have the same name”. These words seem to be pretty interesting. The point is inherent connection between private and social interest that exists naturally. According to this philosopher, state is the only possible environment to realize private interests and it is the greatest natural gift to people. In this way, proper role of private interest is determined by person’s inspiration to enter community, to be a part of society that enables social being with the option to be really alive.
The last issue to be addressed is philosophers’ vision of prince’s or founder’s part. In fact, Aristotle’s position towards this issue is absolutely clear and does not require serious rethinking: “A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he has not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society”. In this regard, the Ancient philosopher considered state not only like the environment for person’s operation. He associated it with the source of justice, unified virtues and common tool to establish justification. In this order, the founder contributed humanity as nobody did it before and will never do in future. It is hero, who is worth of humans’ tribute. As for Machiavelli, he considered Prince to take the part of interest guard and promoter. Herewith, we have to make references to philosopher’s sympathy to people focused principality. In this way, we see the part of Prince in maintaining and keeping people’s respect that is beneficial to him at the first hand: “Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number”. Being intended to examine core principles of reasonable “favor principality”, philosopher indirectly makes focus on interconnection between master’s and peoples interests. Though, people focused policy is more like to be necessity to possessor to keep his principality.
To sum up, we can conclude that notwithstanding different focuses of two analyzed readings, they still address the same issues. Hardly, some significant similarities can be found out. Probably, the most significant of them are references towards “natural character” of some social phenomena. However, the absence of similarities does not make these works irrelevant. Both of them consider extremely important points of political philosophy. In fact, Aristotle introduced us natural theory of state appearance and gave a birth to aristocracy study. In his turn, Machiavelli contributed the study about political regimes, and representative democracy particularly. In this way, analyzed works will always be relevant, and who knows, maybe someone will find answers to complicated questions of nowadays in words that were written a lot of centuries ago.
