You Must Be Ruled First

According to Aristotle's The Politics, it is said that a person can be defined as a citizen if both of his parents are born citizens and also if his third or fourth ancestry also happen to be citizens. Unto a person's citizenry, does it mean that there is rather no chance for a slave to ever become a citizen? Does it also mean that the future children of a slave and of his children's children have no chance of ever becoming a citizen? If there is, what instances would that be?

What does Aristotle mean when he said that polis is a group of villages which "grows for the sake of mere life and exists for the sake of good life"? According to Aristotle, the polis is prior to the individual. Will this line of argument feasible at present times? I think people are too short-sighted for such an idealized concept.

According to Aristotle, "in order to rule, you must first be ruled.” Would this be applicable in a state wherein everyone is grabbing for power and influence by all means?

Equality For All

For Aristotle, polis is the association of households and clans in a good life. He also said that the polis itself is prior to everything else. Aristotle compared this with the whole being necessity prior to the part, so the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual. But in order to have a good polis, you must consider your family too. And it is by human nature that we consider our families first before anything else. How do we resolve these opposing statements?

Justice, for him, is the bond of men in states. The administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society. But he also said, “justice means equality but only for those who are equal and not for all.” Who are then those who belong to his “equal” classification? Isn't it that everyone should deserve equality?

Polis Is the Highest Good

Polis, according to Aristotle, refers to a body of citizens. It is a community that is established to seek the highest good, that is, man should always render good acts for them to achieve a community that promotes the wellness of every man.

It is stated in Aristotle's Politics that the state came into existence and is continuing to exist for the sake of the good life. Why, then, was there the concept of slavery if every individual should experience good life? But of course, this does not mean to say that everyone should rule, but why does one have to rule over another? Then the issue on equality is at stake. As the thinker placed it, men are superior than women. In the households, for example, men play as statesmen while the wives, citizens. How then can one explain the concept of equality here? And in a society where equality is not given its premium, could a polis still be achieved?

Politics of Aristotle

Aristotle's Politics states that man is either naturally born to be a ruler or naturally born to be ruled. But what if a man who is naturally born to be ruled grows up in an environment of rulers? What if this man is given the kind of education designed for rulers? What if this man will be educated the qualities of becoming a ruler? Will it be just then to make this man a ruler if this is the case?

In a state where all the citizens are well-educated and professionals (law makers, doctors, engineers), would the state survive if there are no more less professional jobs because everyone has mastered their craft?

As Aristotle stressed, 'all associations are political, inasmuch as they aim at a common good through joint action; the state differs from other associations in that it aims at the highest good, the general advantage of all." Doesn't it that other associations also aim for the highest good for the common benefit of all?