In Aristotle’s Book VII, “Political Ideals and Educational Principles” he contradicts many of his statements in previous writings, most prominently his statements on the importance of the city. The city, according to Aristotle, is the highest form of the good life due to no longer needing to focus on activities that would be considered to be in the Oikos realm, rather now men have the freedom to expand upon their critical thinking and enter political discussion. However, Aristotle contradicts his account that the idea of fully participating the Polis sphere will not achieve the good life, rather it will limit him in the pursuit of happiness. He even defines citizens as people that partake an active role in public affairs. Why would Aristotle
…show more content…
In his previous writings, Aristotle had firmly believed that pursing the virtue of justice was one of the most important factors in maintaining a stable city that could allow the freedom to pursue the good life. It was not the use of the military, or even having a military to conquer and return with the spoils of war, mainly Greek slaves that, in his opinion, were capable of complex thoughts. Yet in Book VII he believes that military force is necessary and that is natural for a city that is striving to achieve the good life for its citizens to have. Similarly, to the idea of too much preoccupation of the political life, why would he suddenly switch his opinion? Could it be that in order to protect a city that is trying to be the best city that it could be, it needs some sort of defense system? A military that is not used for actively seeking battles, but rather is focused on defending its’ citizens from harm by others who are not actively searching for the good? That is what Aristotle believes, that states which are only preoccupied in searching for war will fall apart during times of peace, but in his previous writings, justice is the main component in creating an ideal city, but he does not touch on the idea of justice in Book VII. Could creating a military force primarily be for the protection of the virtue of …show more content…
However, there are people that were not female and were able to partake in critical thought yet shunned it, these people were mechanics. These people were people who worked with their hands such as crafters and doctors, who did not partake in the political sphere nor in abstract thought. Aristotle did not really have any idea on where they should fall in his assessment of how a good city, yet in this book he does state that people should not be mechanics, “…Citizens must not live the life of mechanics or shopkeepers, which is ignoble and inimical to goodness…” (Aristotle 216). This is a clear distinction between the two groups and forms a classist hierarchy of people. These people are needed to tend to activities that fall under the Oikos so that those who are considered to be citizens do not have to lower themselves to hard labor. Does that mean that people who are mechanics should not be regard as citizens? They are capable of larger thought and could have a say in the political action, yet are choosing not to? Why would they choose to be when there are natural slaves that could fulfill those roles well, so that everyone could think like a citizen. On the flip side, could someone who is considered to be a citizen decide not to engage in critical
In his previous writings, Aristotle had firmly believed that pursing the virtue of justice was one of the most important factors in maintaining a stable city that could allow the freedom to pursue the good life. It was not the use of the military, or even having a military to conquer and return with the spoils of war, mainly Greek slaves that, in his opinion, were capable of complex thoughts. Yet in Book VII he believes that military force is necessary and that is natural for a city that is striving to achieve the good life for its citizens to have. Similarly, to the idea of too much preoccupation of the political life, why would he suddenly switch his opinion? Could it be that in order to protect a city that is trying to be the best city that it could be, it needs some sort of defense system? A military that is not used for actively seeking battles, but rather is focused on defending its’ citizens from harm by others who are not actively searching for the good? That is what Aristotle believes, that states which are only preoccupied in searching for war will fall apart during times of peace, but in his previous writings, justice is the main component in creating an ideal city, but he does not touch on the idea of justice in Book VII. Could creating a military force primarily be for the protection of the virtue of …show more content…
However, there are people that were not female and were able to partake in critical thought yet shunned it, these people were mechanics. These people were people who worked with their hands such as crafters and doctors, who did not partake in the political sphere nor in abstract thought. Aristotle did not really have any idea on where they should fall in his assessment of how a good city, yet in this book he does state that people should not be mechanics, “…Citizens must not live the life of mechanics or shopkeepers, which is ignoble and inimical to goodness…” (Aristotle 216). This is a clear distinction between the two groups and forms a classist hierarchy of people. These people are needed to tend to activities that fall under the Oikos so that those who are considered to be citizens do not have to lower themselves to hard labor. Does that mean that people who are mechanics should not be regard as citizens? They are capable of larger thought and could have a say in the political action, yet are choosing not to? Why would they choose to be when there are natural slaves that could fulfill those roles well, so that everyone could think like a citizen. On the flip side, could someone who is considered to be a citizen decide not to engage in critical