Aristotle's Politics vs. Thomas More's Utopia

Cypress

"Cypress you motherfucking whore!"
The polis, or Greek city-state, according to Aristotle, is the highest form of political association. Only by being a citizen of a polis can a person fully pursue a life of good quality, which is the end goal of human existence. Because one can only achieve this goal through political association, Aristotle concludes that "man is a political animal." As well as defending private property and condemning capitalism, Aristotle notoriously regards the institution of slavery as necessary to the workings of society.

Aristotle concludes that no present city or theory is ideal. He identifies cities with their respective constitutions and categorizes six different kinds of cities, three good and three bad. The three good kinds are politeia, or constitutional government; aristocracy; and kingship. The three bad kinds are democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny.

A good constitution is formulated according to the principle of distributive justice: equal people are treated equally and unequal people are treated unequally. People are deemed more or less valuable to society according to the contributions they make to the life of the city. Though Aristotle states that a constitutional government with a sovereign set of laws is ideal, he admits that in cases where there is an outstanding group or individual, aristocracy or kingship might be preferable.


Thomas More’s Utopia is a Christian-humanist view of an ideal society. More offers this vision not only as a mental ideal, but also as one that humans can strive to create in this world. The text is a self-conscious effort by More to offer his readers a Christianization of Plato’s Republic. More’s book, Utopia, is the last great Christian synthesis of the Renaissance. The Christian aspect of the synthesis is Christ’s gospel of caring for the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden.

Utopian society is characterized by the communal ownership of property. All property in Utopia was owned by the community and all production, except agriculture, was located in the household. Trades were assigned on the basis of aptitude and choice, and the householdwas the locus of all production. All houses were maintained publicly, without locks. Utopians treasured leisure—not for the sake of idleness, but to spend their ctime in hobbies and the pursuit of various avenues of self-improvement. Marriage was for love, not by arrangement.

The parliament’s function was to allocate goods and labor to the individual towns, as well as to set foreign policy and create new colonies. The parliament didn’t pass laws, because society, lacking private property, didn’t need them. Teachers, priests, and rulers were chosen from the intellectual class. Utopians fought wars for only three reasons: to defend their territory, to defend the territory of an ally, or to liberate oppressed people. Everyone, including women, is trained for combat in case Utopia must be defended.




Source credits

SparkNotes hyperlink
And
Course guidebook for The Western Intellectual Tradition, Darren Staloff City College of New York, et al
 
Last edited:
The polis, or Greek city-state, according to Aristotle, is the highest form of political association. Only by being a citizen of a polis can a person fully pursue a life of good quality, which is the end goal of human existence. Because one can only achieve this goal through political association, Aristotle concludes that "man is a political animal." As well as defending private property and condemning capitalism, Aristotle notoriously regards the institution of slavery as necessary to the workings of society.

Aristotle concludes that no present city or theory is ideal. He identifies cities with their respective constitutions and categorizes six different kinds of cities, three good and three bad. The three good kinds are politeia, or constitutional government; aristocracy; and kingship. The three bad kinds are democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny.

A good constitution is formulated according to the principle of distributive justice: equal people are treated equally and unequal people are treated unequally. People are deemed more or less valuable to society according to the contributions they make to the life of the city. Though Aristotle states that a constitutional government with a sovereign set of laws is ideal, he admits that in cases where there is an outstanding group or individual, aristocracy or kingship might be preferable.


Thomas More’s Utopia is a Christian-humanist view of an ideal society. More offers this vision not only as a mental ideal, but also as one that humans can strive to create in this world. The text is a self-conscious effort by More to offer his readers a Christianization of Plato’s Republic. More’s book, Utopia, is the last great Christian synthesis of the Renaissance. The Christian aspect of the synthesis is Christ’s gospel of caring for the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden.

Utopian society is characterized by the communal ownership of property. All property in Utopia was owned by the community
and all production, except agriculture, was located in the household. Trades were assigned on the basis of aptitude and choice, and the household was the locus of all production. All houses were maintained publicly, without locks. Utopians treasured leisure—not for the sake of idleness, but to spend their ctime in hobbies and the pursuit of various avenues of self-improvement. Marriage was for love, not by arrangement.

The parliament’s function was to allocate goods and labor to the individual towns, as well as to set foreign policy and create new colonies. The parliament didn’t pass laws, because society, lacking private property, didn’t need them. Teachers, priests, and rulers were chosen from the intellectual class. Utopians fought wars for only three reasons: to defend their territory, to defend the territory of an ally, or to liberate oppressed people. Everyone, including women, is trained for combat in case Utopia must be defended.




Source credits

SparkNotes hyperlink
And
Course guidebook for The Western Intellectual Tradition, Darren Staloff City College of New York, et al

Here where Aristotle and More agree

"Though Aristotle states that a constitutional government with a sovereign set of laws is ideal, he admits that in cases where there is an outstanding group or individual, aristocracy or kingship might be preferable."

"Teachers, priests, and rulers were chosen from the intellectual class."

This is something we see at work in our present time. The emergence of "experts" who are, according to some, to be believed without question. Sad
 
Here where Aristotle and More agree

"Though Aristotle states that a constitutional government with a sovereign set of laws is ideal, he admits that in cases where there is an outstanding group or individual, aristocracy or kingship might be preferable."

"Teachers, priests, and rulers were chosen from the intellectual class."

This is something we see at work in our present time. The emergence of "experts" who are, according to some, to be believed without question. Sad

The big difference that strikes me is Aristotle's vigorous defense of private property, while Thomas More eschews private property in favor of communal ownership.

Expertise was turned into a bad word by rightwing talk radio in the 1990s and early 2000s. Because Rush Limbaugh wanted Dittoheads to believe him and Fox over scientists and historians
 
The big difference that strikes me is Aristotle's vigorous defense of private property, while Thomas More eschews private property in favor of communal ownership.

Expertise was turned into a bad word by rightwing talk radio in the 1990s and early 2000s. Because Rush Limbaugh wanted Dittoheads to believe him and Fox over scientists and historians

I couldn't care less because the bigger cancer is credentialism.

If it was then it's been reinforced by the demand of left wing extremist to unquestionably submit to "experts". "Experts" are the priests of the religion of leftism.
 
I couldn't care less because the bigger cancer is credentialism.

If it was then it's been reinforced by the demand of left wing extremist to unquestionably submit to "experts". "Experts" are the priests of the religion of leftism.

The thing is, left to your own devices, you would have never independently come up with the original thought to complain about expertise and 'credentialing'. You had to be indoctrinated into that narrative by continuous exposure to rightwing media.


Yes, we do need a priesthood of experts. That is just a basic and unavoidable necessity. You and I are never going to be able to design and run high energy particle physics experiments and correctly interpret the results
 
The thing is, left to your own devices, you would have never independently come up with the original thought to complain about expertise and 'credentialing'. You had to be indoctrinated into that narrative by continuous exposure to rightwing media.


Yes, we do need a priesthood of experts. That is just a basic and unavoidable necessity. You and I are never going to be able to design and run high energy particle physics experiments and correctly interpret the results

Prove it. It's not that your opinion is worthless its more like your opinion doesn't mean shit to me.

You may need a urologist to tell you when to pee but I don't.
 
In Utopia, there is no economic heirarchy, no elite leisure class. Everyone works at skills and trades they are suited for.

Because everyone works, the workday is only six hours long.

There is conscription for the hardest and most undesirable work, which in More's day was agricultural labor. Everyone has to spend two years of their life in agricultural labor.

Everyone has to trade houses every two years so no one becomes too attached to property.

Certain kinds of labor in Utopia are done by slaves, usually foreigners, but slavery is voluntary, temporary, and slaves only work six hours a day.

A type of natural religion, or deism is practiced in Utopia. Freedom of conscience and religion is tolerated in Utopia, including atheism. However, atheists are not allowed to go around in public advocating their view because it was thought atheism does not have a metaphysical basis for universal moral code and could potentially be disruptive.
 
Prove it. It's not that your opinion is worthless its more like your opinion doesn't mean shit to me.

You may need a urologist to tell you when to pee but I don't.

Have you been continuously exposed to rightwing media for more than three decades? If so, a lot of your talking points aren't really yours. They are ones you have been indoctrinated too.

Urinating is a biological function that has nothing to do with the need for medical expertise
 
Have you been continuously exposed to rightwing media for more than three decades? If so, a lot of your talking points aren't really yours. They are ones you have been indoctrinated too.

Urinating is a biological function that has nothing to do with the need for medical expertise

As long as you even exposed to left wing media I suspect. If so, your talking points aren't really yours. They are the ones you have been indoctrinated too. I could play your stupid games all day.

Not for you. You have your urologist on speed dial? Stfu
 
As long as you even exposed to left wing media I suspect. If so, your talking points aren't really yours. They are the ones you have been indoctrinated too. I could play your stupid games all day.

Not for you. You have your urologist on speed dial? Stfu

I have about a dozen posts on this board saying that there are no truly original, independent, and creative thinkers on this board. That includes me.

Almost all of our knowledge and ideas are derivative.


That is one reason civilization needs....yep, you guessed it, expertise. People with Phds, people with specialized training, people who have done the hard work to be able to generate unique and innovative ideas, concepts, theories


Having Rush Limbaugh be your mentor is a step below having university professors and trained experts as your mentors, imo.
 
Even as a liberal student, I thought that More and Huxley were both more comedic than seriously philosophical.

Aristotle's concepts of logic will always be applicable, but his concept of government
was developed long before there was sufficient human experience with reasoned government.

Neither of the first two concentrated much on the very first rule of organizing [or even stating] anything:
Anticipate the mistake.

Neither Pollyannas nor Nihilists pay enough attention to that,
and the more practical people who do
aren't usually fertile with ideas.

Practicality and enlightenment are rarely stablemates within the same person.

The main thing to be understood is that evolution has a long way to go before coming up
with a truly serviceable primate.

Homo Sapiens has blatant deficiencies,
and too many have the most debilitating one--
not realizing that we do.
 
I have about a dozen posts on this board saying that there are no truly original, independent, and creative thinkers on this board. That includes me.

Almost all of our knowledge and ideas are derivative.


That is one reason civilization needs....yep, you guessed it, expertise. People with Phds, people with specialized training, people who have done the hard work to be able to generate unique and innovative ideas, concepts, theories


Having Rush Limbaugh be your mentor is a step below having university professors and trained experts as your mentors, imo.

Yes of course you do. If you feel a need to tell me how "independently" you think then you're already worried it isnt obvious in your conversations. And you have good concern to be worried.

Prove rush was my "mentor". Oh that's right you won't just like you didnt prove your last claim. This is precisely why I don't take anything you left wing extremists say seriously.
 
Even as a liberal student, I thought that More and Huxley were both more comedic than seriously philosophical.

Aristotle's concepts of logic will always be applicable, but his concept of government
was developed long before there was sufficient human experience with reasoned government.

Neither of the first two concentrated much on the very first rule of organizing [or even stating] anything:
Anticipate the mistake.

Neither Pollyannas nor Nihilists pay enough attention to that,
and the more practical people who do
aren't usually fertile with ideas.

Practicality and enlightenment are rarely stablemates within the same person.

The main thing to be understood is that evolution has a long way to go before coming up
with a truly serviceable primate.

Homo Sapiens has blatant deficiencies,
and too many have the most debilitating one--
not realizing that we do.

I think Utopia was written Latin, the language only scholars understood in the 16 century. So while More was obviously using satire and humour, I think he considered his work a serious effort to promote the ideas of Christian humanism. His book couldn't be read by the mercantile and petty bourgeois class in England, Latin wasn't their language.

Plato, Aristotle, More were obviously writing philosophically about ideals that could be strived for, if perhaps never achieved.

As for sober and hard nosed realpolitik, we have to look towards Machiavelli's Prince for that.
 
Yes of course you do. If you feel a need to tell me how "independently" you think then you're already worried it isnt obvious in your conversations. And you have good concern to be worried.

Prove rush was my "mentor". Oh that's right you won't just like you didnt prove your last claim. This is precisely why I don't take anything you left wing extremists say seriously.

Yes, I am apparently one of the few here who can admit most of my knowledge comes from taking classes, reading books, watching podcasts, reading articles and magazines.

Knowledge does not randomly pop into my mind out of the blue.

I haven't watched Rachel Maddow or MSNBC in the last ten years. I never watch cable news, and rarely read opinion articles by political pundits.

The only power I have as an individual is to synthesize information, weigh it, and filter it through the perspective of my experience.
 
Yes, I am apparently one of the few here who can admit most of my knowledge comes from taking classes, reading books, watching podcasts, reading articles and magazines.

Knowledge does not randomly pop into my mind out of the blue.

I haven't watched Rachel Maddow or MSNBC in the last ten years. I never watch cable news, and rarely read opinion articles by political pundits.

The only power I have as an individual is to synthesize information, weigh it, and filter it through the perspective of my experience.

Well you've been fed leftist bullshit for decades now so needing a urologist to tell you when to pee is a leftist PhD. William F. Buckley famously said once,

“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

I don't see where the is wrong.
 
Well you've been fed leftist bullshit for decades now

I am one of the few posters here who can say they voted for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, as well as Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

So in a very real sense, I am one of the few here who can change their mind based on new information and reflection.
 
I am one of the few posters here who can say they voted for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, as well as Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

So in a very real sense, I am one of the few here who can change their mind based on new information and reflection.

Makes sense. You are a conservative.
 
I am one of the few posters here who can say they voted for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, as well as Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

So in a very real sense, I am one of the few here who can change their mind based on new information and reflection.

WOW!!!! That's unfathomable to me.

I voted for Humphrey against Nixon,
McGovern against Nixon,
Carter against Ford,
Carter against Reagan,
Mondale against Reagan,
Dukakis against HW,
Clinton against HW,
Clinton against Dole,
Gore against W,
Kerry, against W,
Obama against McCain.
Obama against Romney,
Clinton against Trump,
and Biden against Trump.

Apparently my mind doesn't have a reset button!
 
Back
Top