Aristotle Politics

Since I am in the National Academy and wants to torture those friends of mine not here, I'm gonna do a review on a classical text or literature on constitution and political theory. This is probably the most important text ever, as it discusses the ideas or the foundations of a good constitution.

Aristotle's Politics is one of the most influential and enduring texts of political philosophy in all of history. The Aristotelian tradition, following from the philosophy of Plato and continuing in the writings of Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas (pening ke belom lagi fromall these wierd names?) and other medieval theorists, has formed the backdrop against which all subsequent political and moral philosophy has found its orientation.

Early modern political philosophers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes (which I am sure is quite familiar to all of us), as well as modern Enlightenment theorists and even postmodern authors have either explicitly or implicitly defined themselves against the Aristotelian model (which is the whole idea of Aristotle on the criteria and characteristics of a good constitution). While writers in the Aristotelian tradition believed that politics has to be based on a fundamental conception of the good as an objective ultimate end for human beings, political theorists from the pre-moderns to today have tried to base politics on anything but a shared idea of the good.

The initial reason for this change is perhaps the fear that claiming the existence of one objective end for human life is too likely to lead to serious conflicts like the Wars of Religion. Coupled with this fear is a profound philosophical skepticism originating with Descartes that questions the existence of any intrinsic human nature, objective end for human life, and even objective truth in general.

These motivations are relatively clear at least in the case of Hobbes, who lived through both the Wars of Religion and the English Civil War, both of which were highly ideological conflicts, although concerns for power and material gain were also at the forefront. Hobbes attacks Aristotle vehemently in his writings, precisely because he is afraid that having such a clear-cut and universal conception of the good will inevitably lead to further ideological warfare. It is because the core assumptions of Hobbes' and Aristotle's thought are directly opposed to one another that Hobbes believes Aristotelian ideas sufficiently dangerous to merit such strong condemnation.

While Hobbes constantly emphasizes the absolute necessity of acting rationally for self-preservation, Aristotle looks beyond the mere goal of living to the higher aim of living well, in accordance with the natural function of man. This emphasis on living well is a danger in Hobbes' view, for he believes that any lofty ideals for which one may be willing to sacrifice one's life can lead to rebellion and the dissolution of the commonwealth. From Aristotle's perspective, what Hobbes fails to understand is that the goal of self-preservation will not suffice to motivate people to moderate their desires and restrain their actions. Hobbes, however, a skeptic who had been highly influenced by the writings of Descartes, simply did not believe in the existence of an ultimate good, or even for that matter in the existence of objective reality outside the human mind.

The Enlightenment was likewise largely a reaction against the Aristotelian tradition. All liberal political theories, no matter how far-ranging in specific tenets and prescriptions, hold in common one fundamental premise: the freedom and equality of human beings. To safeguard this hallowed bedrock of liberalism, liberal philosophers shrink from the metaphysical view of virtue proposed by Aristotle.

For with a fixed standard of human excellence, how can one say that all are equal when some are clearly more virtuous than others?

Hahahahahaha.... I don't want to be stressing your minds unnecessarily anymore... Anyway, basically what I understod from yesterday and today's session - as I have several more weeks to go - is that Constitution is the most important part and duty of a citizen. A citizen's duty is to interpret the meaning and function of a constitution. Without this knowledge, we would not know the importance of the power that is in our hands - that we place in the representatives we elected to voice out our needs.

Another thing that I want to say is that this workshop has given me a greater understanding and appreciation of not only the American Legacy - the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but also OUR own Malaysian government and independence... and I'll explain that later in part 2...