48 - Constitutional Conventions: Aristotle's Political Philosophy

Hi Peter -

"Episode 48 Consitutional Conventions" seems to have found its way onto itunes under the title "Episode 49  Stage Directions" (unless its just my itunes client getting confused)

- Jon

[Possibly this will be discussed on the later episode pn Plato in Aristotle. If so I apologise.]

There are those who argue today that we should not read the Republic as a political blueprint or utopia but rather merely as a discussion of justice in the individual in which the city state describe serves only as a model of the individual's mind/soul.

Whilst listening to this episode on Aristotle's Politics it struck me that we should be able to answer this question based upon Aristotle's response to Plato.

He could say 'Don't be confused by Plato's description of the ideal state since as he often reminded me it was purely intended as a model of the soul", on the other hand if Aristotle addresses the Republic as a serious Political text then surely that is a definitive answer to those who seek to defend Plato against totalitarianism etc?

Hi Peter,

I'm looking at the list of general works on Aristotle that you suggested and trying to decide which to buy.

It seems to me that the Barnes 1982 is too short (only 100 pages) and the Lloyd 1968 is too dated. Which of the others (or alternative) would you recommend on the basis of readability?

Many thanks

Hi Prof. Adamson,

You mention in this episode that Aristotle refers to people who hold all forms of slavery to be unnatural. Would you mind pointing me to the section in the "Politics" that contains this reference to this ancient abolitionism? Thank you!

Making a normative judgement of Aristotle's observations on the simple basis of current political dogma is a potential pitfall, I guess. Ten years after the recording, democracy has fallen somewhat out of favor and is now often called populism. The prevailing progressive political dogma which we cannot criticize is eternally being eroded, slowly, by its very lack of counterforces. Maybe such dogma is better left to its own devices; it is always doomed, and I guess we will be doomed with it if we become too enthusiastic about some of our pet manifestations of it for too long.

Or maybe I have just been listening to the Indian section for too long.

Late to the party:  one note about the use of the term "politeia" that could help clear the confusion. I read Scolefield's book about Plato's Republic for my PhD. As you well know, the Republic's original name too is the Politeia. Scolefield argues that politeia is a political subgenre shared by athenian oligarchy and Sparta's sympathizer. In many ways the Politeia is an idealized version of sparthan constitution for the Greek elite Aristotele is talking to. I think that put the opposition between Democracy and Politeia in Aristotele under a different light.

I'm really not trying to be provocative here, but moral judgement based on our current place in history or your own views doesn't seem appropriate for the podcast where you spend a lot of time explaining how context of time shapes people's views. No matter how strongly we feel about certain moral positions, I don't think it should be included in a project like this, it cheapens it. Of course, it's your podcast.. who am I to tell you how to do it.. but what is your stance here? Do you strive to be impartial or you just don't care and have no problems injecting your morality because you feel like things like slavery are out of any conversation? But what about broader philosophical frameworks, questions like hierarchy vs egalitarianism? Should it always be assumed that you operate from this worldview of liberal pluralism, egalitarianism, democracy as the default correct moral position? Especially as you are nearing recent history, the enlightenment, 20th century, political philosophy etc. More controversial stuff in general. Like how would you even cover somebody like Julius Evola for example?