The history of Aristotle and Plato, educating Alexander the Great and a complete description of Prima philosophia, the books Politica and Ethica, how well as Aristotle's views on the state
Aristoteles
Aristotle's biography
Aristotle was the greatest student of Plato, Aristotle lived between the years 384 -322 B.C.
Aristotle was the son of Nicomachus, a private physician at the royal court in Macedonia. When Aristotle was 17 years old, Aristotle went to Athens and became a student of Plato.
 |
| Aristotle with face detection |
Once in 342 B.C. Aristotle was given an enormous task by King Philippus to educate his son Alexander the Great, who later created the Empire (World Kingdom).
Although Aristotle was the greatest student than Plato, in many respects there are very large differences.
These differences arose out of the influence of the circumstances of his life, especially when the two scholars wrote his teachings.
Difference between Plato and Aristotle
This difference is, among others, that Plato in his teachings still mixes up all the objects of his investigation, whereas if Aristotle has separated them, namely 'about justice' is written in Aristotle's book entitled "Ethica", and 'about the state' in Aristotle's book entitled "Politica".
Actually, the contents of Aristotle's two books are very different, but by Aristotle it is considered or intended as a series, namely Ethica is an introduction to Politica.
Because morality also prioritizes humans as citizens of a country and not as independent humans.
Furthermore, Plato is the creator of idealism, he views that objects that exist outside of man, which can be seen or captured by the five senses are just shadows rather than objects in their pure form that are in another world, namely the world of ideals or the world of ideas.
Meanwhile, Aristotle is a creator rather than realism.
Aristotle did continue Plato's way of thinking, from idealism to realism.
Prima philosophia Philosophy of Aristotle
But because Aristotle then wanted to investigate the general characteristics of everything that existed in this world, a new scientific teaching emerged, namely 'Prima philosophia', a philosophical teaching that first seeks the deep nature of what exists, so looks for the meaning of circumstances.
Therefore, the philosophy is a teaching about reality or ontology (a realistic way of thinking).
So according to Aristotle, the essence of an object is in the thing itself.
The essence, or the form of things, is in matter, so one must look for the objective unity of form
that's a lot of it. It is merely a substance, its kind is a thing which is in the second place.
Even so, the general thing does not stand alone, but it is in that particular object. The general is according to its first value and degree, and the thing which is actually known to be.
With such differences in philosophical teachings, there will be a clear difference between Plato's teachings and Aristotle's teachings about state and law.
Aristotle did not distinguish between the world of ideals and the world of phenomena, but his mind was directed directly to the real world rather than the world of the five senses.
In this way, it is hoped that there will be more things of a general nature than the innumerable particular things being achieved.
Like Plato, Aristotle also thought that the state was meant for the benefit of its citizens, so that they could live well and happily.
So according to Aristotle, the state is a unity, whose goal is to achieve the highest good, namely the perfection of human beings as members of the state.
Thus Aristotle has become a realistic person, whereas Plato is an idealist.
Things like this will be understood by us considering the circumstances that Plato created his philosophy in a state of democracy, where people are always looking for ways to achieve justice.
Meanwhile, if Aristotle created his philosophy in the state of the world kingdom, where the people who were once independent were controlled by a foreign ruler who ruled with unlimited power.
Thus if the ethical element which must be the basis for universalistic thinking about the state and law is made part of State Science, then it must also be used as a measure for actions, also for the government (ruler).
This would be impossible, because it would be prohibited by the ruler of the absolute kingdom, especially if the existing governmental power was a foreign power.
Hence from this Aristotle's systematic is very different from Plato's systematic.
Politica
In Aristotle's Politica, Aristotle said that the state is an alliance that has a specific purpose.
The analytical way of thinking in his book Ethica is continued in Aristotle's book Politica to explain the origin and development of the state.
According to Aristotle, the state occurs because of the merger of families into a larger group, the group is joined again to become a village. And this village joins again, and so on until a state emerges, which is still a city or a polis.
A village that is in accordance with its nature is a village that is genealogical, that is, a village based on descent.
Thus, according to Aristotle, the existence of a state is according to or based on nature.
Humans as family members by nature cannot be separated from the state.
Because humans are social creatures or zoonpoliticons, therefore they cannot be separated from society or the state.
Basically, humans themselves are animals or gods, humans become good because of their interactions in society, or in the state, because the basis of the state is justice.
Then from it arises a material need in order to achieve happiness.
That Aristotle views morality as part of the life of the state, is because Aristotle thinks that the state can only achieve perfect happiness in and because of the state union.
What is meant here is only worldly happiness, the happiness of the hereafter is not mentioned.
Meanwhile, one's happiness really depends on the happiness of the country.
So humans can only be happy when humans are in the state and live as a state, because humans always need help from other humans to meet their needs.
Thus, in the balance between humans and the state, the state is primary, the state takes precedence. This is because if the interests of the state are well maintained and fulfilled, naturally the interests of humans as citizens will be the same.
The idea that prioritizes the interests of the state or society is called collectivism.
So Aristotle's opinion regarding the structure and nature of the state or society is that the state is a unit, an organism, that is, a whole that has its own foundations of life.
In this way, the country is always experiencing rise and fall, ebb and flow and sometimes die; it is the same as the condition of humans, animals or plants.
Humans or individuals are only part of the organism, and which have no basis for their own life, and cannot be separated from their unity, namely the state.
Because what constitutes the whole is the state, while the human being is only a part of it which cannot be separated, then the one who has the main position is the state.
The state controls all aspects of life, everything is regulated by the state, thus state power is absolute.
And the fate of citizens depends on the fate of their country.
If the country is prosperous, the citizens will also prosper.
Who now should hold the power of that country? The answer to this question is sought by determining, who exactly is meant by the citizen ?
But remember that what is meant by country here is a model country.
So in this case the workers are not citizens of the model state, nor are children, even women, especially slaves, all of which are not citizens of the model state.
Because those who are considered citizens are those who do not have to work for themselves and therefore are free people.
What is meant by the model country ?
It is a country that aims to carry out the public interest. Therefore, it must be distinguished from other countries.
One can distinguish this, after knowing the possibilities rather than the form of the state. So thus comes a description of the forms of the state.
Regarding the types of state forms, Aristotle distinguishes into three types of forms which then each type is further differentiated into two.
Two things are used as criteria in describing the forms of this state, namely :
- The number of people who hold the government; that is, the government is held by only one person; or by several people, so only by a small group; or by principle, all the people are the largest group.
- The nature or purpose of his government; it means that government is intended for the public interest (this is good), or is it only for the interests of the rulers (this is bad).
Based on the two criteria for the State by Aristotle, Aristotle gets the forms of the state :
A. A country in which the government is held by only one person, so that power is only concentrated in one hand, this is further differentiated based on its nature, namely :
- A country where the government is held by only one person, and the government is intended for the public interest, so this is a good thing. This country is called the Monarchy.
- A country where the government is only held by one person, but the government is only intended for the interests of the ruler himself, so this is a bad character. This country is called Tyranni.
B. The country in which the government is held by a few people, so by a small number. Here, in fact, state power is concentrated, but not on one person, but on one organ or body consisting of several people.
This differentiates again based on its nature, namely :
- A country where the government is held by several people, and it is good, because the government is aimed at the public interest. This country is called the aristocracy.
- A state in which the government is held by several people, but its character is bad, because the government is only intended for their interests, the holder of the government itself. This country is called the Oligarchy.
C. A state in which the government is held by the people means that in principle the people holding the government are the people themselves, at least by a large group of the people.
These are further differentiated based on their nature, namely :
- A country in which the government is held by the people and the nature of the government is good, because it takes into account the interests of the public or the people. This country is called the Republic or the Constitutional Republic.
- A country in which the government is held by the people, but the nature of the government is bad, because the government is only intended for the interests of the holder of that power.
Even though in this country it is said that the government is held by the people, in practice the government is only held by certain people. This country is called Democracy.
These forms, according to Aristotle, are all possible, because each can achieve justice in moderation.
But the question now is what justice is ?
Because sometimes people think that someone has been fair, because someone has tried to be fair.
And how should people carry out justice ? someone sovereign can become a Tyran ?
And if there is a law in that country, isn't it that the law only comes from the Tyran class, or the Oligarchy class, or the Democrat group ?
So where should the state power be ?
Because according to Aristotle, the power of the state must be in the hands of the citizens or the people, who gather together as a unit, and all of whom have sufficient intelligence and virtue, where the advantages and disadvantages are balanced with each other.
This is justice, namely the implementation of public interests, sovereignty.
The government is usually carried out by a person or by a group based on law.
Laws are usually vague because they are general in nature, and usually require a judgment or approval from someone.
But is it not that a person can be influenced by his own passions or interests ?
So laws that are rooted in moral order are stronger and more stable than written laws.
Because the first law is always leading to a perfect life.
The perfect life is a life that leads to virtue. People cannot be happy if they don't act or behave well.
Thus Aristotle's opinion, that conquering neighboring countries with his will or not, is an act that is not legitimate and is an unwise government policy.
But a country must know how to defend itself.
With this opinion, the consequence of his stance was that the Constitutional Republic was the best form of state.
Because the government is run by a person or by only a few people, there will likely be errors in making decisions, because these decisions may be influenced by anger, hatred, resentment or lust.
But if the government is held by all the people, or the largest group of the people, the ruling which is made on the basis of anger and so on will have very little chance of happening.
Apart from that Aristotle argued that no government is eternal, because in each form of government it contains within itself the seeds of 'self-rape' or a kind of revolution.
This cannot be avoided, because it is already a human trait.
For example, there are groups who want equality between fellow humans, because they feel or consider themselves equal to others, both in their abilities and in their abilities.
On the other hand, there are groups who want or want differences. Because they feel or consider themselves to be classified as special people, they feel themselves superior to others.
So they then ask for privileges in the treatment done to them, so basically they want to be different from other people.
Furthermore, we must remember that each form of government cannot satisfy everyone, meaning that everyone does not always feel that they are treated fairly, so of course there are groups who feel that they are not getting justice, so they feel they are being treated unfairly.
This group of them is the seeds of "self-rape" or a revolution which can erupt at any time. wants to overthrow the existing government, and then replace it.
This is also why there is no eternal form of government.
It is just that in a country that is in the form of a Constitutional Republic these seeds are very small, and their implementation will suffer difficulties, because doing so would mean rape or self-resolution.
Therefore a country with a Constitutional Republic ruled is the best. The theory of "self-rape" or this revolution will later be more firmly contained in the teachings of Polybius, which will be discussed later.
So according to Aristotle the best form of state is the Constitutional Republic.
Aristotle's opinion contradicts Plato's; who say that the best is Aristocracy, or different from the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, a medieval scholar who was heavily influenced by Aristotle's teachings, because according to Thomas Aquinas, the best form is Monarchy.
This is all due to differences in hypotheses about state goals.
According to Aristotle, the goal of the state is the perfection of the human being as a member of society, while the priority here is society. because human happiness depends on the happiness of society.
So in short, the purpose of the State is the public interest.
As much as according to Plato the goal of the state is to know or reach the real idea. Thomas Aquinas had a different opinion. According to him, the aim of the state was to strive for unity.
However, Aristotle's opinion that states that the state or society is the highest part, in the following centuries will get another assessment from the next scholar, is Epicurus.
