Scan barcode
borumi's review against another edition
3.0
This is my first time at reading Aristotle, and I thought I was ready after being trained by Plato's dialogues. Boy was I mistaken. I also made the error of not reading the Nichomachean Ethics before reading the Politics. It might not have mattered, but I'm considering reading the Politics again after I read the Ethics to get a better grasp at Aristotle's idea of political virtue and the difference between the virtue of man and the virtue of a citizen.
Aristotle and Plato is like the two sides of a coin, and I'm planning on reading a book called The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization after reading their works. It's fascinating how the teacher and the student can differ so much on basically the same issue. They are both preoccupied with how we can make men happier and thus are always questioning the main way for man to become happy, i.e. the virtue of man and man's society. I'm glad I read this after reading Plato's Republic, as I had some questions and objections regarding Plato's idealized and probably improbable republic with a tinge of totalitarianism. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic and some of his other works and even goes on to point out the faults of the other actual regimes in the vicinity. However, I'm still left with the question: so, what's the alternative, then?
This is an important question, because unlike Plato, Aristotle doesn't linger on the discussion of 'what' virtue is, but moves on the main question of 'how' to attain that virtue and whether the ideal virtue is actually attainable or feasible in the given circumstances. This is reflected in his classification of the different sort of economic and educational activities and his search for the not only the 'best' regime and legislation in the unqualified sense, but also the 'best' regime and legislation according to the different cities.
However, he keeps reminding us that all these economic, educational and administrative and adjudicative activities and systems are just the 'means' to achieve the real 'end (telos)' Man is a political animal that intentionally establish political communities not just for self-sustenance but also for the pleasure of living together and the virtue of a noble life. Insomuch as money is just the means and currency used in economic activities and should not become its aim, all the regime and legislation and the components and systems of a city are the means to achieve that political virtue. Even the people should not forget that their wealth, birth or number are just circumstantial merits in becoming full citizens and remain the mere tools of political power play and actively participate in order to achieve their true common goal.
The first reading left me feeling a little alienated (disgusted, to be honest) by Aristotle's blatant stance to denigrate anyone who is not a citizen of Athens (including women, slaves and foreigners) but I tried to get over that by reminding myself not to judge him on my own anachronistic point of view. Then I got put off by his opposition to democracy but I later learned his distinction between democracy and polity and also learned of the demagoguery in the years during and after the Peloponnesian War. I'm still a little disappointed in his conservative tendency to stick to the status quo, but after having got over with it, I'm finding interesting and even quite astute points being made throughout the book.
I'm only sorry that the book is not fully restored. Books 6 and 8 are inconclusive and some pages seemed to have become either physically lost in antiquity or lost in translation. I'm hoping that reading other works by Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics, Metaphysics) will give me a more complete picture.
Aristotle and Plato is like the two sides of a coin, and I'm planning on reading a book called The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization after reading their works. It's fascinating how the teacher and the student can differ so much on basically the same issue. They are both preoccupied with how we can make men happier and thus are always questioning the main way for man to become happy, i.e. the virtue of man and man's society. I'm glad I read this after reading Plato's Republic, as I had some questions and objections regarding Plato's idealized and probably improbable republic with a tinge of totalitarianism. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic and some of his other works and even goes on to point out the faults of the other actual regimes in the vicinity. However, I'm still left with the question: so, what's the alternative, then?
This is an important question, because unlike Plato, Aristotle doesn't linger on the discussion of 'what' virtue is, but moves on the main question of 'how' to attain that virtue and whether the ideal virtue is actually attainable or feasible in the given circumstances. This is reflected in his classification of the different sort of economic and educational activities and his search for the not only the 'best' regime and legislation in the unqualified sense, but also the 'best' regime and legislation according to the different cities.
However, he keeps reminding us that all these economic, educational and administrative and adjudicative activities and systems are just the 'means' to achieve the real 'end (telos)' Man is a political animal that intentionally establish political communities not just for self-sustenance but also for the pleasure of living together and the virtue of a noble life. Insomuch as money is just the means and currency used in economic activities and should not become its aim, all the regime and legislation and the components and systems of a city are the means to achieve that political virtue. Even the people should not forget that their wealth, birth or number are just circumstantial merits in becoming full citizens and remain the mere tools of political power play and actively participate in order to achieve their true common goal.
The first reading left me feeling a little alienated (disgusted, to be honest) by Aristotle's blatant stance to denigrate anyone who is not a citizen of Athens (including women, slaves and foreigners) but I tried to get over that by reminding myself not to judge him on my own anachronistic point of view. Then I got put off by his opposition to democracy but I later learned his distinction between democracy and polity and also learned of the demagoguery in the years during and after the Peloponnesian War. I'm still a little disappointed in his conservative tendency to stick to the status quo, but after having got over with it, I'm finding interesting and even quite astute points being made throughout the book.
I'm only sorry that the book is not fully restored. Books 6 and 8 are inconclusive and some pages seemed to have become either physically lost in antiquity or lost in translation. I'm hoping that reading other works by Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics, Metaphysics) will give me a more complete picture.
More...