History of Political Thought

1-Philosophy has pretended to be the reason for politics and this the practice of the reason. A desired indissoluble unity between theory and practice, reason and action, logos and praxis, or that one is not possible without the other.
Philosophy has given dignity to politics as an end has been assigned as a project of universal intelligence and will. Any practice out of reason, will, law and collective order lacks of historical legitimacy and human dignity.
However, since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the ultimate reality is the political reality. In this sence, Aristotle was brutally blunt: ???man is a political animal??? who doesn??™t need politics, in the social, or in the intersubjective relationships, or the community life, ??? is a god or a beast??? More example history paper.
A “political animal” means an animal whose nature is to live in a polis or city, not isolated or in small groups. “Civilization” -from Latin civitas, a city- is the natural state for the human animal.
Aristotle at the beginning of the Policy says: “Each State as we know it is a partnership, the hope of a good and its principle, as it is any association, because all men??™s actions are aimed at what they judge which is a good??¦
I read that Aristotle discusses the kind of polity that he calls “polity”. He generally defines this as the form of government in which all the citizens take turns to rule, but now he defines it in terms of the idea just introduced, that rule is a complex of activities that can be allocated to different social categories. He stated that Politics is the form of government in which different organs of government are controlled by different sections of the population, in such a way that both rich and poor have a share of power. Perhaps it is because power is shared by all categories that it can be said that all take turns to rule.
Like Plato, Aristotle supposed that the need for a division of labor is the initial occasion of the formation of a society, whose structure will be modelled upon that of the family. But Aristotle (preferring the mean) declined to agree with Platos notion of commonly held property and argued that some property should be held privately.
Aristotle also drew a sharper distinction between morality and politics than Plato had done. Although a good citizen is a good person, on Aristotles view, the good person can be good even independently of the society. A good citizen, however, can exist only as a part of the social structure itself, so the state is in some sense prior to the citizen.
???Depending upon the number of people involved in governing and the focus of their interests, Aristotle distinguished six kinds of social structure in three pairs:
-A state with only one ruler is either a monarchy or a tyrrany;
-A state with several rulers is either an aristocracy or an oligarchy; and
-A state in which all rule is either a polity or a democracy.???
Although he believed monarchy to be the best possible state in principle, Aristotle recognized that in practice it is liable to degenerate into the worst possible state, a tyrany. He therefore recommended the formation of polity, or constitutional government, since its degenerate form is the least harmful of the bad kinds of government. As always, Aristotle defended the mean rather than run the risk of either extreme.
The politics, even though, has been degenerated thousand times into brutal practices that believe its purpose, or perhaps precisely for this reason should be fighting to regain his humanity and conquer there land of instinct, greed, corruption, brutality and blind and illegitimate exercise of power.
We understand that politics and philosophy are related and even though Plato and Aristoteles have a different points of view which are equally relevant, they are still applied now days.Bibliography
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement2.html
bine, G.H. & Thorson, T.L. (1973). A History of Political Thought. United States: Dryden Press.


Leave a Reply