I'm not really going to talk about Aristotle, of course, or I'd be breaking Grim's rice bowl. Still, he does come up in this
Politico article about Trump, which makes several interesting points, including the following warning about what happens when we assume only the state can solve collective problems and ignore the natural functioning of private institutions and voluntary associations:
To its credit, the Democratic Party has made the convincing case, really since the Progressive Era in the early part of the 20th century, that the strong state is needed to rearrange the economy and society, so that citizens may have justice. Those who vote for the Democratic Party today are not just offered government program assistance, they are offered political protections and encouragements for social arrangements of one sort or another that might not otherwise emerge.
But where does this use of political power to rearrange the economy and society end? Continue using political power in the service of “identity politics” to reshape the economy and society and eventually both of them will become so enfeebled that they no longer work at all. The result will not be greater liberty for the oppressed, it will be the tyranny of the state over all.
7 comments:
I don't get a whole lot of rice out of that bowl. :)
One can say that Trump has revealed what can be called The Aristotle Problem in the Republican Party. Almost every cultural conservative with whom I have spoken recently loves Aristotle and hates Trump. That is because on Aristotelian grounds, Trump lacks character, moderation, propriety and magnanimity. He is, as they put it, “unfit to serve.”
Quite so. However, as the fellow goes on to recognize, options are limited.
Aristotle himself served an outright tyrant, Philip of Macedon, and his most famous student was Philip's son Alexander (the Great). So it's not as if we don't know what the solution is: try to teach the principles in the hope of a better future, but in the present get on as best as you can with the reality you have in front of you.
"Those who vote for the Democratic Party today are not just offered government program assistance, they are offered political protections and encouragements for social arrangements of one sort or another that might not otherwise emerge."
yeah, they are are bribed for votes. Old story. Now the distopian futurist question. After sufficient control is established, and votes are no longer required, what happens to those who's only value was a vote?
Point of information: Philip of Macedon was a king, not a tyrant.
(And if I remember correctly, Macedon awarded the crown by election by freemen among eligible members of the royal family. So not really even a tyrant by modern definition, let alone ancient.)
Aristotle would endorse that claim. I think of him as a tyrant because of his violent debauchery towards those he ruled (which is a feature of tyrants that Aristotle laments in the Politics 1314b27ff). The portrait we get of him in Theopompus is not flattering, and to be ruled by such a man in such a way would strike me as tyranny.
Well, that is a point. (And you might say he paid for his misdeeds in the end.)
Still, I would not call him a tyrant on that basis. Tyranny seems to me—even in the modern sense—to be something that can be exercised only by a ruler, and the world is not short of aggressive drunks who don't rule anything.
Well, bearing in mind that for Aristotle, the major difference between a "monarch" and a "tyrant" is the question of whether they are exercising their rule justly or not. Both are forms of "the rule of one," as opposed to "the rule of a few" or "the rule of many." So if someone who was a monarch falls into terrible habits, it would be sensible to talk of the mode of government having transitioned from the healthy form of 'rule of one' ("monarchy") to the unhealthy form ("tyranny").
At times, though, Aristotle does seem to distinguish between things that are characteristic of tyrants as opposed to monarchs. Philip doesn't ascend to power in the mode characteristic of tyrants, for example. So that complicates the typology in a way that suggests to me that he'd probably endorse your view.
Aristotle himself served an outright tyrant, Philip of Macedon, and his most famous student was Philip's son Alexander (the Great). So it's not as if we don't know what the solution is: try to teach the principles in the hope of a better future, but in the present get on as best as you can with the reality you have in front of you.
Strong men back then were more just than not, as people back then needed security and stability more than heart to heart compromises.
Without the light of God's avatar on Earth, however, getting humans to stop being humans is rather futile. Socrates had the spiritual voice which he listened to, but none of his students ever figured out how to bring that voice to anyone else. The lack of divine revelation would be part of the handicap. Aristotle acquired knowledge, but those blessings, if they were such, were only for him.
Alexander made great use of whatever he was taught, however, combined with his natural talents. Nothing too miraculous though. His ambition and flame for dominion burned ever so bright, but he died young because his own flame burned him out. Similar to Mozart.
Many Viking warleaders and heroic kings from Russia, converted to Christianity. They weren't conquered, although they might have feared a Holy Crusade once or twice in their lives. So get so many warlords to convert by pure faith alone, is difficult if not impossible for humans. After all, Aristotle could not dampen Phillip of Macedon nor Alexander the Great's burning desire for dominion. Something about the Christian Gospel compelled warriors of the past to convert. Their stories are a little bit vague now a days, but very important for a person like Aristotle who wanted to moderate the vices of world leaders.
Christianity before 1000 AD, wasn't very warlike. Not compared to the Pagans, tribals, steppe raiders, Islam, or the Norse. It makes little sense why warrior kings converted and led their entire clan to convert as well. Christianity drains the ambition out of cultures and people, for conquest. It does not facilitate conquest as much. Certainly the Pope wasn't funding or providing troops and the patriarchs of Orthodox Christianity didn't rule over kings.
Post a Comment