Political Philosophy and Aristotle Essay

When looking at the way Aristotle viewed the world and equivalence it to the British Tradition you first need an understanding of each. In this paper I want to first discuss what Ive learned about Aristotle, The British Tradition, and then compare and contrast the two. Aristotle was a disciple of Plato, but they truism club a bit differently. Plato would be considered in this day and suppurate as approximately integrity who believes in collectivism. A collectivist believes that the ask of society as a whole are more important than the needs of the individual. On the other hand, Aristotle would shake off been a supporter of individualism.Individualism refers to the philosophical system that an individual should have freedom in his or her economic and g everyplacenmental pursuits. In contrast to collectivism, individualism stresses that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state. You could say that Aristotle believed in democracy. Th e best state could signify one that is conceived agree to an abstract ideal one that is considered best for human communities in public one that is best for a particular community under addicted conditions or one that, while in no sense ideal, is as safe(p) as fuel be attained under the circumstances. (Levine PG. 108) Aristotle as well as believed in three domains. The first domain is personal action or ethos. This is an idea to break down by. Aristotle though that people were simple enough that we could live by one code or ethos. Aristotle called this The Good Life. The randomness domain is household or oikos. This is economics or how to manage a household. Aristotle believed that the goal in the household should be different from the goals of the other domains.In the household, for example, a man should manifest different concerns toward children as their father than toward his married woman as her husband, and he should be able to acquire, preserve, improve, and properly utilize property. The responsibilities of the foreland of a polis differ from those of a head of household, and rulers should discharge them in ship canal to attend to the welfare of all its members, not just one or a few. (Levine Pg. 118) The third domain is city state or polis. This to a fault stood for politics.Aristotle believed that we live in groups so naturally we have to make decisions together, indeed we have to be political beings. Of course this is where Aristotle sounds much like one of the founding fathers of our country. He thought women were too irrational for politics and that slaves and rough-cut workers were too busy to be involved. Aristotle believed that to be politically involved you essential free time to develop the necessary skills and knowledge. In other address Aristotle was an elitist democrat. Aristotles social theory was to create an environment conducive to secure habits.He believed that we were are good by nature. In this environment we can then develop our virtues. He also believed that everyone had potential, but actualizing that potential was difficult. He also believed that public deliberation among those with virtuous habits and developed reasoning skills was good for society. As far as the British Tradition goes, they believe in a persistent human nature and that there are foreseeable social outcomes based on this human nature. Ill focus on three different Brits and their different views on human propensities and how they affect society.Hobbes believed that worldly concern were naturally bad and born with selfish propensities. He believed that this could only choke to a negative outcome, unless someone with absolute power were to control society. I believe Hobbes would be somewhat totalitarian or perhaps be someone who was in favor of some sort of martial law. Locke on the other hand was basically the glacial of Hobbes. He believed people were fair nice and this would lead to beneficial consequences for everyon e. Locke endeavored to refute the Hobbesian defense of political absolutism.In so doing, he introduced two notions that would guide centuries of British revisionism that the human fleshly manifests socially benign dispositions, and that human selfish dispositions can have socially benign consequences. (Levine Pg. 130) The third Brit that Ill look at is Smith. He is essentially split between Hobbes and Locke. Smith believes that humans do have natural selfish propensities, but that these propensities are to the benefit of society. So when comparing Aristotle to the British Tradition its obvious that there are some pretty big differences.Aristotle didnt believe in a fixed human nature like the Brits. Aristotle would say that you are a increase of the society in which you are raised. A good society leave behind produce good citizens, and bad society will have the opposite effect. Aristotle would also argue that at any point during a persons manners they can make the decision to de velop their potentials and become a punter person. The Brits on the other hand believed that you were either born good or bad and based on that there would be predictable outcomes.