Abril 2009. USA . Miami 7th -9th April. 2009. International Congress on Identity and Identification in Antiquity, held at the FIU (International University of Florida). Comunicación: Aristotle´s Response to fourth century Athenian society

Aristotle’s response to fourth century Athenian society
https://www.academia.edu/2108440/Aristotles_response_to_fourth_century_athenian_society

In the fourth century B C, the democratic political system focused on the ‘polis’, which did not fit with the new situation of the individual, went through a crisis at its highest point. New and more realistic projects foretelling different social and cultural horizons began to appear. The Athenian citizens developed a critical attitude towards the democratic postulates of the preceding period. They began to value other forms of government not strictly democratic. And, in the case of the philosophers, they proposed political structures, which can be considered theoretically perfect but utopian in practice.

This lack of interest in the political life, compared with the characteristic activism of the previous century, is reflected on several levels. To begin with we have the New Comedy, which, confronting the social criticism of Aristophanes, centres its plot in the private life of citizens. A second aspect would be the acceptance of universality, of equality among all men, the elimination of differences between Greeks and barbarians that culminates in the policy of Alexander the Great. A third point would be the continuous complaint of Demosthenes about the indolence of the citizens and their abandonment of duties. Another aspect is the generalization of what we could call contemplative life, whose clearest testimony comes from Plato and Aristotle, whose political views are more theoretical than practical. And finally the fact that the democratic constitutions acquire a greater complexity, which generates the abandonment of the prototype of the personal, political citizen and the progressive evolution of what we now refer to as the professional politician.

As Plato, Aristotle alarmingly verifies two simultaneous phenomena that link: the instability of the Greek political life and the moral anarchy. Both of them conclude that the second one is the cause of the first one and consequently they consider that the remedy is to teach a better way of life. According to Aristotle the plenitude of morality is born in the state. It is there, in the community and in the living together, that man perfectly and completely fulfils himself and it is there in the social arena where welfare develops into a greater scale.

He offers these proposals as a solution to the ideological, moral crisis of his time. Therefore, we are going to revise this political, moral theory from this point of view. We are going to start with the theoretical and general proposal that questions the possibility of living together. We will continue with the concept of law. And we will finish with the influence that Education has on the citizens. In the political arena Aristotle symbolizes the culmination of a doctrine, which begins with Homer and continues with Socrates and Plato, in which the political thought is linked with moral and educational theories and, being located at the end of a period, his proposals reflect a deeper content of thought and experience.

SOCIAL LIFE

Aristotle, who bases all his philosophical theory on experience, states that “in general, to live together and share in any human concern is hard”, (...) and sets an example as simple as the associations of people travelling together in which most of them fall to quarrelling, “because in most cases they annoy each other over ordinary, everyday matters” Pol. 1263a15 

In spite of being hard, living together is necessary because “the impulse towards this kind of association exists by nature in all men”, and “whoever is incapable of associating or has no need to because of self-sufficiency is either a beast or a god”Pol. 1253a28-30. Therefore “even without needing the mutual help, men tend to living together and they join together by participating in the common welfare”, because “man is a political animal by nature”. He also takes into consideration that co-operation is essential to face what is necessary and, consequently, the man who has to fight to live alone does not live peacefully and does not achieve the happiness he searches for by nature: “it is absurd to turn a happy man into a lonely man, because nobody, possessing everything, would prefer living alone, as man is a social being and is prepared to live with other people by nature”EN 1169b16. Man, if he has a tendency towards society by nature, does not reach his full realization if he does not live in society.

Aristotle, who has based on nature the man’s social characteristics, goes a step further. He deduces that an individual is incomplete without the state, for the individual is linked to the state as a part of the whole and the whole is superior to the part in nature. If the relationship between the state and the individual is established because of nature, man will acquire his perfection in his relationship with society and society will be shaped according to the characteristics of human nature and not against them. It is within society that human nature is completed.

Admitting the possibility and the necessity (φύσει) of living together means to accept the characteristics which shape a society which is formed by different individuals: “It is clear that if the process of unification advances beyond a certain point, the city will not be a city at all, for a state essentially consists of a multitude of persons. And if unification is carried on beyond a certain point, the city will be reduced to family and family to individual, for the family is a more complete unity than the city, and the single person than the family; so that even if any lawgiver were able to unify the state, he must not do so, for he will destroy it in the process. And not only does a city consist of a multitude of human beings, it consists of human beings differing in kind. A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state”.Pol. 1261a17. A state without multiplicity is “a state that will arrive at a point where in a sense it will not be a state (…). It is as if you were to reduce concord to unison or rhythm to a single beat” Pol. 1263b32 . Aristotle has always in mind in his statements the criticism about egalitarianism proposed by Plato in The Laws and The Republic as an ideal solution to the political problems. Therefore he insists upon the acceptance of diversity as a fundamental principle for society.

Agreement (oJmonohtikovn) must be based on an acute sense of difference among the interests of each person, which has to be reasonably reconciled. And with this purpose man has at his disposal, also by nature, the gift of speech, which enables him to dialogue and which reveals the moral awareness about what is just or unjust, good or bad, and that moral awareness serves as a basis for the support of society: “The reason why a man is an animal fit for a state is obvious (…) Nature does nothing pointlessly, and man alone among animals possesses speech (…) speech serves to make clear what is beneficial and what is harmful and so also what is just and what is unjust”Pol. 1253a9.The use of speech involves that what is fair and unfair is established according to previous deliberation and persuasion. Here we deal with one of the matters for which the western civilization should be more grateful to Greece, the Art of Rhetoric. Persuasion (πείθω) was considered the essential element of a civilized society.

For the writers of the fifth century BC persuasion (πείθω) was linked to the ideas of humanism and justice and against the idea of biva, “strength”, which characterizes the inherent relationship among animals and non-civilized and unjust societies. Generating persuasion is, therefore, indirectly the way of guaranteeing the survival of a social organization based upon an education of thought and speech, thanks to which Greeks felt superior and radically different from the rest and which they considered as their highest reason for pride. Aristotle develops this idea in a new and opener context, as also Isocrates does when giving Philip the piece of advise to use persuasion  when dealing with Greeks and strength (βιάζεσθαι) when dealing with Persians” Isoc., V 16.Then dialogue is the main basis on which the entwined of a plural society is supported.

THE LAW

We have reached a definition of society as something bound to the human race by nature. Built by different people that can agree by means of dialogue. Right, then as to this plural society "it is necessary to make it common and one through education and the person who did intend to introduce education and who believed that through this the state would be sound, should think to put it straight by habits, philosophy and laws"Pol. 1263b35.

Written legislation is, in Aristotle thought, the goal of political science, because it guarantees the common good of citizens  "It is clear then that those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are in effect rightly framed in accordance with absolute justice, while those that aim at the rulers' own advantage only are faulty, [20] and are all of them deviations from the right constitutions; for they have an element of despotism, whereas a city is a partnership of free men"Pol. 1279a17.

He refers in the Rhetoric to written law as "particular law (ἴδιος)  in accordance with which a state is administered" and creates a contradiction between this and "general law" (κοινόν), that would be "the unwritten regulations which appear to be universally recognized"Rh. 1368b5. The former would be  "the general idea of just and unjust in accordance with nature, as all men in a manner divine, even if there is neither communication nor agreement"Rh. 1373b7.

And this qualification of general, common and natural that we have seen as specific of unwritten law, is - in many texts- also considered as an essential feature of written law. Because he considers that legislation, on the one hand, must be thought to be good by all mankind, just for the fact of them being human. On the other hand, written law must be indeterminate, excluding pretensions to cover every single case to which it could be applied, and leaving enough room for freedom.

It is here where we could connect the idea of "universalism of law" (κοινοὶ νόμοι ), "the universally convenient" (τὸ κοινὴ συμφέρον ) as the goal of written law, and that the law is devoted to the benefit of "community" (provı to; koinovn). This is why he says in the Rhetoric that "the judgement of the legislator does not apply to a particular case, but is universal and applies to the future"Rh. 1354b5. This idea of universalism is also a contribution of Aristotle. Because of this vagueness and lack of precision, laws can and must be changed from time to time and be modified when new circumstances appear, when seeking "not the traditional but the good"Pol. 1268b26.

The lack of precision is replaced by Equity. Equity is the concept that regulates the application of the law to a particular case. Aristotle defines equity (τὸ ἐπιεικέιν) as "justice that goes beyond the written law" Rh. 1374a17-20, and as the criterion for considering legal (or fair) what is not established so, by written law.

Another concept that Aristotle deals with, and which is closely bound to equity is that of Proportionate Reciprocity. Aristotle asks himself in a more realistic way than Plato did in The Laws, whether laws, as rules that even out social differences, must treat each citizen in a similar way or if, on the contrary, different citizens must be treated in a different way. His answer is that "the just (…) is the equal  (…) and the unjust the unequal"EN 1131b35 and in consequence "the law must treat the parties as equal"EN 1132a5. However, he is aware that people and matters are sometimes similar and sometimes not. And therefore they must be treated differently. The formula of equilibrium between equality and diversity is what he calls Proportionate Reciprocity: “In the interchange of services Justice in the form of Reciprocity is the bond that maintains the association: reciprocity, that is, on the basis of proportion, not on the basis of equality. The very existence of the state depends on proportionate reciprocity”EN 1132b24.

Furthermore law is a rational principle that eliminates passion and subjective feelings “It is better that these things should take place according to law and not by the will of men, for this criterion is not safe”Pol. 1272b6. The existence of written law prevents that personal considerations of politics, bound to passions and hates can prevail at court.  For the same reason law is objective and incorruptible.Pol 1287a19.

From the notions of “rational principle” and “system of order” as characteristic attributed to the law, we easily draw the conclusion that law has a moral purpose: a good legislation doesn’t just guarantee the rights of the citizens, but it must also try to make them just and good "Thus it is also clear that any state that is truly so called and is not a state merely in name must pay attention to virtue; for otherwise the community becomes merely an alliance (…). And the law is a covenant or (…) a guarantee of men's just claims on one another, but it is not designed to make the citizens virtuous and just"Pol. 1280b8 

EDUCATION

The most important means to guarantee that a community of different people may successfully manage to coexist observing laws that, as we have seen, are intended to achieve the common good, the good life and the happiness of citizens, is education. "The greatest of all the means spoken of to secure the stability of constitutions is (...) a system of education suited to the constitutions. For there is no use in the most valuable laws, ratified by the unanimous judgement of the whole body of citizens, if these are not trained and educated in the constitution”Pol. 1310a14.

The fact that man is a political animal by nature does not imply that his ability to adapt to social life is inborn to him. On the contrary, he needs to acquire it gradually through education. As Plato, so Aristotle considers that school is the main place where future citizens may acquire good taste and mould their character. Leading their instinct towards what is noble and moving them away from what is harmful. He suggests to the governing class as regarding the education of citizens:"it is better to inure them at the very start to everything possible, but to inure them gradually"Pol.1336a19, so that the good habit becomes a free choice and  (Pol.1336b 34) "make all base things unfamiliar to the young, and especially those that involve either depravity or malignity Pol. 1336b34."

He insists in emphasizing the importance that men must choose virtue freely. He does not even consider it rightful that the practice of the good can be due to reasons of altruism or friendship Pol 1337b15.

The governing class must create an educational program for citizens in each different aspects of their lives and: (Pol. 1333a 30)  "life as a whole is divided into business and leisure, and war and peace, and our actions are aimed some of them at things necessary and useful, others at things noble" Pol. 1333a30. That is why education is aimed, in the first place, at what he calls "useful", but it must not stop there. It must go further. The final goal of education is what is "noble", that is to say, what is adequate for living in time of peace: "To seek for utility everywhere is entirely unsuited to men that are great-soiled and free" Pol. 1338b2  and the “useful” is paradoxically subordinated to the “noble”: "happiness is thought to involve leisure; for we do business in order that we may have leisure, and carry on war in order that we may have peace" EN 1177b4 for "a man should be capable of engaging in business and war, but still more capable of living in peace and leisure Pol. 1333a41

As in The Ethics EN 1179b21, so in The Politics Pol. 1332a39  Aristotle deals with the three causes why we become good: the first one is “nature” (fuvsiı), the second one is “habit” , and the third one would be “teaching” (didachv) in the Ethics and “reason” in The Politics. As "natural endowment is not under our control” EN 1179b22, habits are the first target in education, as it is said in The Politics "There are some qualities that it is no use to be born with, for our habits make us alter them: some qualities in fact are made by nature liable to be modified by the habits in either direction, for the worse or for the better"Pol. 1332b1.

But the typical characteristic of the human being and the way through which habits must be brought up is reason "The other animals live chiefly by nature, though some in small degrees are guides by habits too; but man lives by reason also, for he alone of animals possesses reason; so that in him these three things must be in harmony with one another; for men often act contrary to their acquired habits and their nature because of their reason, if they are convinced that some other cause of action is preferable"Pol. 1332b3.

In the last book of The Politics, he develops a complete educational plan in the different skills that he considers necessary to be able to lead a life of leisure and to reach the ultimate aim of happiness. Extending it from the personal to the social sphere. The main subjects in education would be reading, writing and drawingPol. 1338a40. Gymnastics and Music are is also relevant subjects in the education Pol. 1338b4 , Pol. 1336a25,  Pol 1337b28, for the role they play in the formation of the character Pol. 1339a23. In this sense the criticism of Spartan constitution is excellent: "Hence they were stable enough while at war, but began to fall once they won control, because they did not understand how to be at leisure, and had never undertaken any kind of training more sovereign than training for war"Pol. 1271b4 

Conclusion

Aristotle trying to find equilibrium among the values achieved by fifth century Greeks and the new imperialistic horizons of Alexander the Great bases his political theory on human nature. According to him the aim of the state in general is no other than the aim of the individual: the happy and noble life: "A state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common"Pol.1280b39.

Political science teaching politicians how to elaborate just laws, contributes to this objective. Thus he reinforces the rule of law as a guarantee of this objective. He states, "In the practical sciences the end is not to attain a theoretic knowledge of the various subjects, but rather to carry out our theories in action"EN 1179b1. He gives birth to the ideas of multiplicity, universalism, and proportional reciprocity, as characteristics of law and also that written law must change from time to time.

The fact that man is a political animal by nature does not imply that his ability to adapt to social life is inborn to him. On the contrary, he needs to acquire it gradually through education. Aristotle projects on the person what he had established for the government. In this sense we could say that the reason for a city to be rightly governed and the purpose of this good government are the same: happiness as the goal and virtue as the cause.

Bibliography

Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, London: Methuen, 1977.

Biscardy, A, “La gnome dikaiotate et l'interpretacion des lois dans la Grèce ancienne”, RIDA 17,1970, pp. 219-232.

Carey, Chistopher, Artless proofs in Aristotle and the orators”, BICS XXXIX, 1974, pp. 95-106.

Carey, Chistopher, “Nomos in Attic Rhetoric and Oratory”, JHS CXVI, 1976, pp. 33-46.

De Brauw, Michael, “Listen to the Laws themselves”, CJ 97, 2, 2001-2002),  pp.161-176.

Foxhall, L and Lewis,A.D.E., Greek law: justifications not justice, Oxford, Clarendon, 1996.

Gernet, Louis, Droit et Société dans la Grèce Ancienne, Publications de l'Institut de Droit Romaní de l'Univerité de Paris, 13, Paris, Tecueil Sirey, 1955.

Grimaldi, William, Aristotle, Rhetoric I. A Comentary, New York: Fordham University Press, 1980.

Grimaldi, William, Aristotle, Rhetoric II. A Comentary, New York: Fordham University Press, 1988.

Hamburger, Max, Morals and Law: the growth of Aristotle's legal theory, New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1971.

Harris, Edward Monroe, lite d, The law and the courts in ancient Greece, London: Duckworth, 2004.

Harrison , A. R. W, The Law of Athens. Procedure, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1968-1971.

Hirschberger, Johannes, Historia de la Filosofía I, Barcelona, Herder, 1954-1963.

Kuypers, K, “Recht und Billigkeit bei Aristoteles”, Mnemosyne SER 35, 1937, pp. 290-301.

Lucas de Dios, José María (tr.), ESQUINES, Discursos. Testimonios y cartas, Madrid, Gredos 2002.

MacDowell, Douglas,  The Law in Classical Athens, Ithaca: Corner University Press, 1993.

Mirhady, D., “Aristotle on the Rhetoric of Law”, GRBS 31,  1990, pp. 393-410.

Mirhady, D., “Non-technical pisteis in Aristotle and Anaxímenes”, AJP 112, 1990, pp. 5-28.

Ober, Josiah,  Mass and elite in democratic Athens: rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people, Princenton: University, cop. 1989.

Osborne, Robin, “Law in action in classical Athens”, JHS 105, 1985,  pp. 40-58.

Pattantyus, J. E,  “Aristotle´s doctrine of Equity”, The Modern Schoolman LI, 1974, pp. 213-222.

Racionero, Quintín (tr.) Aristóteles. Retórica, Madrid, Gredos, 1990.

Sinclaire, Thomas Alan,  Histoire de la penseé politique grecque, París: Payot, 1953.

Tood S. C), The Shape of Atenian Law, Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.

Von Leyden, W., “Aristotle and the concept of law”, Phylosophy 42, 1967, pp. 1-19.