|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Ancient Political Thought Throughout the Republic it becomes obvious that Plato believes that the best city-state has the highest level of sharing and unity while in the Politics, Aristotle believes that too much unity can deunify a city-state. The "unity" argument is a prime example of Plato’s way of thinking about the nature of a community, and Aristotle’s criticism of this unity gives insight into Aristotle’s way of thinking about his views on the nature of the community. In order to understand Aristotle’s attack on Plato’s "unity," it must be understood that for Aristotle, unity is synonymous with the level of sharing in a community. In Politics II 1, Aristotle begins his assessment by stating that, "We must begin, at the natural starting point of this investigation. ... There are three possibilities in Aristotle’s argument regarding how much citizens should share in common: Nothing, everything, and some things but not others. Similar to Plato’s style of forming an argument, Aristotle states the problem and all the possible outcomes. ... Aristotle argues that it would be "evidently impossible" for a community to have nothing in common (1260b39-40). ... Aristotle attacks the two remaining possibilities simultaneously. ... In addressing the remaining possibilities, Aristotle questions if Plato was right in the Republic to assert that "children, women, and property should be communal" in society (1261a6-7), or is having too much unity (sharing) a bad thing. ... Aristotle cannot simply dismiss the possibility of sharing everything, because it can, in theory, take place in a community. ... However, Aristotle would like to prove that although it is possible to bring up children in a communal setting, it would undermine that city’s unity, rather than support it.
Approximate Word count = 1327
Approximate Pages = 5.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|