u/CJlion827

Greetings! A little over a week ago, I made a post asking about your opinions on Plato's critiques of democracy, and so I thought it only makes sense to analyze what his great student, Aristotle, said on the matter of societies and governments.

Before I list his divisions, it must be understood that Aristotle defines true governments and perverted governments off of two things: 1) Who has the power, and 2) who do the people with power aim to benefit. True governments aim for the common benefit of the people, while perverted governments only look to benefit a subset of the populace.

True Governments

1. True Kingship - Rule by one virtuous man with the end goal of the common benefit of the society

2. Aristocracy - Rule by a small group of individuals with the end goal of the common benefit of the society

3. Polity - Rule by the majority of the populace with the end goal of the common benefit of the society

Perverted Governments

1. Tyranny - Rule by one man who only seeks to benefit himself

2. Oligarchy - Rule by a few rich men who only wish to benefit the rich members of society

3. Democracy - Rule by the majority of the citizens who only want to benefit the needy people of the society (i.e. themselves)

As is usual when talking about philosophy, this is a very, very short summary of Aristotle's views on government and societies (the Politics is 8 books long). It should be noted that he does have a hierarchy of the governments and perversions (i.e. which are better than which). It goes as follows: True Kingship > Aristocracy > Polity > Democracy > Oligarchy > Tyranny.

So what do y'all think? Do you agree/disagree with his divisions? Is his standard for defining governments (who has the power and what is their goal) proper? And finally, I suppose, where would the United States (or any modern nation, really) fall onto these divisions? If you do have any questions or want any clarifications about Aristotle's view on politics, I will try to get to them if I can.

If you've seen me on this subreddit before, you would know that I love philosophy. And, of course, a very large part of philosophy is political philosophy. Nowadays, it is majorly held that democracy is the best (or at least, most practical) form of government, but I still find it useful to look back to see some of the older critiques of such a form.

(As is par for the course, I can only offer a short summary of Plato's true reasoning. If you want his actual explanations, read Books V-IX of the Republic) For Plato, in his Republic, he has a very specific definition of democracy. It is not simply majority rule; rather, it is the form of government in which the highest good of the people is freedom. In this democratic society, Plato writes that the unrestricted freedom of the people will cause them to start ignoring all authority, whether it be the law, teachers, or even their own parents. This ignorance will lead to major disorder and chaos. He also says that a democratic society allows every member to rule, rather than restricting the power to the trained view (for Plato, the philosopher-kings). And because the majority is often unwise, the society will suffer. Moreover, as the majority is unwise in Plato's view, it allows evil people to very easily and quickly rise to power, for all they need to obtain votes is appear charismatic and upstanding, while concealing their true intentions.

So, what do you think? Are these valid criticisms, or wholly incorrect?

Essentially just the title.

I’m interested in practically all philosophy (thinking about maybe majoring in it for college). From the ancients (Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Confucius, etc…), to the medieval period (Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, etc…), to early modern and modern scholars (John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, etc…). I simply find it fascinating that people like Aristotle and Confucius, despite being in two completely different areas of the world, come to quite a free agreements on the nature of ethics, or how Plato essentially predicts the utilitarian philosophy of the modern era and offers a refutation to it all the way back in ~400 BC. What about y’all?