Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

Description

The purpose of the work is to find out how Aristotle understands the categories of state and law and their relationship.

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….3

Chapter 1. Aristotle on historical process and the state…………...6

1.1. Tribal community as an element of the state…………………………….…6

1.2. Slave-owning universalism of Aristotle……………………….... 6

1.3. “Average” and ideal state in the understanding of Aristotle……….7

Chapter 2. The strength and weakness of Aristotle's political views…………...10

2.1. Philosopher's reasoning about the state……………………………..…10

2.2. Attitude to common and private property………………………...12

2.3. Forms of government according to Aristotle……………………………………....13

Chapter 3

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...23

List of used literature………………………………………25

The work consists of 1 file

As the circle of association expands, it becomes more complex, and as it rises to the stages of social life, the number of benefits received by a person from communication, as well as his security, increases. The gain comes from the division of labor.

Polis is the highest form of association. It is large enough to meet all human needs. At the same time, it is “small enough for a good organization based on personal communication and not turning a person into a part of a gigantic structure in which his role is practically reduced to zero. The purpose of the policy is the benefit of citizens.

A polis is an association of people and territory under the rule of one government, having one constitution. The unity of power and territory gives it integrity.

Polis is a communication of free and, in a certain sense, equal people who have reason and are able to determine themselves by controlling their actions. Power in the policy extends to free and equal citizens. four

Reasoning about freedom and equality does not apply to slaves. The philosopher considers slavery natural and necessary. A slave is devoid of reason, it is as natural to control him as to push around an ox. Some people are by nature slaves, while others are free. This applies not only to individuals, but to entire nations.

For example, Aristotle is convinced that the Greeks were born free, while the barbarians are slaves by nature, their subjugation is natural.

At the same time, the philosopher considered unacceptable the enslavement of the Greeks by the Greeks as a result of captivity or for debts, which was then a normal and widespread phenomenon.

Polis is the most perfect form of public association. It is an organic whole and stands above the family and the individual. Its scope is very wide. However, the unity of the policy should not go to the detriment of the family and the individual citizen.

2.2. Relationship to common and private property

According to Aristotle, the community of property is unnatural, and private property corresponds to nature. Man loves himself the most. Within reason, this is normal. Private property is a consequence of selfishness. Private property is an incentive to labor, production and enrichment. What is beneficial to the citizen is also beneficial to the policy. When citizens are wealthy, it is in line with the common good.

Common property is unnatural. General interest no one's interest. Common property does not give incentives to production, it promotes laziness, it is difficult to manage it, it develops a desire to use the results of someone else's labor. The Aristotelian critique of the communist idea and the apology of private property retains its significance to this day.

The defense of private property did not prevent Aristotle from condemning greed and excessive enrichment. The philosopher distinguished two forms of accumulation of wealth. The first form is through one's own labor, through production, the creation of material values. This form increases the overall wealth and is beneficial to the policy.

In the second form of enrichment - through trade, speculation, usury. This form does not create anything new. This is a transfer of ready-made values.

Aristotle's ideal is that property should be private and its fruits used for the common good. This ideal was accepted by Islam and Christianity, but proved to be practically inapplicable.

2.3. Forms of government according to Aristotle

Forms of government depend on who is recognized as a citizen, or on the number of those in power. It is impossible, according to Aristotle, to recognize as citizens all those who are useful to the state. From among the citizens it is necessary to eliminate not only slaves, but also those who, due to the lack of prosperity, leisure, education, are not able to independently come to reasonable decisions. These are foreigners, artisans, merchants, sailors.

Aristotle does not give civil rights to women.

Citizens are those "who participate in legislative and judicial activities." There may not be complete equality between them. A full citizen is one who can be elected to any office. A sign of a good citizen may be a practical knowledge of the organization and life of the policy, both as a subject and as an official.

Aristotle divides states into three groups according to the number of people involved in government: where one person rules, few and most. But to the numerical criterion he adds an ethical one. Depending on whether the ruler thinks about the common good or cares only about his own interests, the forms of government are right and wrong (perverted).

Based on the combination of these two criteria, Aristotle identifies and characterizes six forms of government. The correct power of one person is called a monarchy, and the wrong one is called tyranny. The right power of the few is the aristocracy, and the wrong one is the oligarchy. The right rule of the majority is called polity, and the wrong one is called democracy.

Monarchy is the real concentration of power in the hands of one person. Aristotle has no predilection for this form. He prefers the power of the best laws to power best husband. For the monarchy to be correct, the king must be a great man.

Wrong monarchy (tyranny) Aristotle considers the worst form of government.

The philosopher prefers the aristocracy - the power of a limited number of the best morally and intellectually persons. In order for the aristocracy not to degenerate, a group is needed very good people, which is rare. In the absence of prominent rulers, the aristocracy degenerates into an oligarchy.

In an oligarchy, the rich rule. The high property qualification pushes the majority of the population out of power. Lawlessness and arbitrariness reign. There is complete inequality in the oligarchy. Aristotle considers this unfair. But, according to the philosopher, the opposite principle is also unfair - complete equality, which is characteristic of democracy.

The rich and the poor are essential elements of the state. Depending on the predominance of one or the other, the corresponding political form is established. The hallmark of an oligarchy is not so much the power of a minority as the power of wealth. Democracy is characterized by the predominance of the poor in the power structure. 5

Aristotle identifies several types of democracy. All citizens, regardless of their property status, can participate on an equal footing in the exercise of supreme power, or there may be a low property qualification.

The worst kind of democracy is when the people govern without relying on laws, making their every decision a law. Lawlessness makes this type of power related to tyranny and oligarchy.

Aristotle is selective about democracy. The philosopher approved of moderate qualified democracy. Such a democracy, according to Aristotle, was in Greece during the reign of Solon at the beginning of the 6th century BC. This ruler divided all citizens, depending on their condition, into four categories.

Aristotle condemned the orders established in Greece under Pericles, since he did not recognize egalitarian justice. The thinker believed that most poor people have neither the education nor the leisure to deal with the affairs of government. Their poverty creates conditions for bribery, for group squabbles.

Democracy is an unstable form of government, but Aristotle puts it above the oligarchy and even the aristocracy, because he believes that in a multitude of people there is in everyone a piece of either talent or wisdom.

Politia is a variant of majority rule. It combines the virtues of oligarchy and democracy, this is the golden mean that Aristotle aspired to. Citizens are recognized only by persons with an average income. They participate in people's assembly, choose magistrates. The pure form of polity is rare, as it requires a strong middle class.

According to Aristotle, the cause of coups, the violent change of forms of government is the violation of justice, the absolutization of the principle underlying the form of government. For example, in a democracy, this is the absolutization of equality. Aristotle connects upheavals with social contradictions. The reasons for the coups are the strengthening of one of the classes, the weakness of the middle class.

In his writings, the philosopher gives advice on how to strengthen different forms board. But he considers the establishment of a polity to be the best way to ensure stability.

Chapter 3

The most important element of the political system of society is the state. The assertion made by F. Engels in the work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” that the signs of any state are the presence of an apparatus of power, territory and taxes remains fair.

What is a state? According to Aristotle, the state arises from the consciousness of the common good and is created primarily in order to live happily. T. Hobbes, on the contrary, saw the discipline of fear at the heart of the state and called the state a person, individual or collective, that arose by virtue of an agreement of many people so that this person would provide them with peace and universal protection. B. Spinoza adhered to close views. G. Hegel saw the beginning of the state in violence, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin saw him as a tool, a machine for exploiting and suppressing one class by another. M. Weber calls the state the relations of domination of some people over others, based on legitimate (considered legal) violence.

The class approach to the problem of the state was the leading one in Soviet social science. So, short dictionary in sociology offers a definition according to which the state is a set of institutions and organizations interconnected with each other that manage society in the interests of certain classes, suppressing class opponents.

Within the modern approach to the problem

The state is the main institution of the political system of society, organizing, directing and controlling the joint activities and relations of people, social groups, classes and associations. The state is the central institution of power in society and the concentrated implementation of policy by this power.

The state differs from other social institutions:

The obligatory presence of a social class basis ruling forces represented by social groups, political parties, social movements, etc.;

The presence of a special apparatus of power, represented by central and peripheral bodies;

monopoly on non-economic coercion;

The presence of a state territory;

The sovereign right to issue laws binding on citizens, to conduct domestic and foreign policy;

The exclusive right to collect taxes, issue banknotes, conduct budgetary policy, etc.
The question of the origin of the state and its role in the life of society is of great theoretical, scientific and practical importance. The materialistic understanding of history traditionally sees the state as a superstructure over the economic basis and connects its emergence with the results of the social division of labor, the emergence of private property and the split of society into classes. Exploring this issue, F. Engels wrote that in the conditions of the emergence of private property, the accumulation of wealth is continuously accelerating.

What was lacking was an institution that would perpetuate not only the beginning division of society into classes, but also the right of the propertied class to exploit the propertyless and the domination of the former over the latter. And such an institution appeared. The state was invented.

The concrete historical material now available to scientists makes it possible to deepen and clarify previous views on the emergence of the state. And here we are faced with the problem of the so-called "Asian mode of production." This formulation belongs to K. Marx. Comparing the features of the development of productive forces in Europe and the East, K. Marx drew attention to the absence of private property in a number of Eastern countries: direct producers in the person of rural communities are opposed not by private owners, but by the state.

Rigid centralized control by the state was reflected in the peculiarities of the functioning of the social structure and political relations in these countries. Power, such as a viceroy, opened access to privileges, excess product and luxury. However, losing it, by the will of the despot, most often lost not only prosperity, but also life. Numerous merchants were in the same position, not interested in expanded reproduction and preferring to live on the profit they received. In other words, private property was such only conditionally and entrepreneurship in the economic sphere was not welcomed. The administrative apparatus controlled most of the economy, the vast majority of peasants remained state-owned.

The special role of the state in the East led to the weakness of the individual, his suppression by the collective and, at the same time, the increasing role of corporate structures such as clans, castes, sects, compatriots, rural communities, etc., which included both the poor and the rich. Their main goal was to protect their members from state despotism. Corporate ties, fixed by tradition, smoothed out social antagonism, gave rise to relations of paternalism and gave stability to the existing social structure. The conservatism of corporate ties contributed to political stability even in cases of changing dynasties, such as in medieval India.

Soviet orientalist L.S. Vasiliev in his work "Problems of the Genesis of the Chinese State" specifically investigated the problem of the formation of state power in the conditions of the Asian mode of production. Based on a painstaking analysis of extensive concrete historical material, he came to the conclusion that in this case the state arises before classes as a result of an objective need to solve large-scale economic problems, in particular, those related to irrigation, the construction of strategic roads, etc. 6

Acquaintance with the history of the emergence of the state in many ways contributes to the clarification of the question of its functions. The Marxist approach to this problem is purely class-based: the main function of the state is to protect the interests of the ruling classes. All other functions, both external and internal, are subordinate to this main one. From this it follows: 1) the state can be a superclass structure only as an exception, when the struggling classes achieve such a balance of power that the state power acquires a certain independence in relation to them; 2) it is assumed that the transfer of political power into the hands of the working class and the poorest peasantry will eventually lead to the withering away of the state.

The modern state performs a number of diverse functions:

Protection of the existing state system;

Maintaining stability and order in society;

Prevention and elimination of socially dangerous conflicts;

Regulation of the economy;

Conducting domestic policy in all its aspects - social, cultural, scientific, educational, national, environmental, etc.;

Protecting the interests of the state in the international arena;

national defense, etc.

Of particular interest today is the question of the role of the state in regulating economic relations. In the absence of private property (the Asian mode of production, the administrative-command system), this role is simple and understandable - direct directive leadership, and in developed forms - on the basis of detailed plans. A different, more complex picture emerges in the conditions of developed market relations. On the one hand, the stronger the intervention of the state, even if it is indirect, for example, through economic legislation and taxes, the lower the level of entrepreneurial interest, the less willingness to risk capital. On the other hand, state intervention in economic processes at the level of society as a whole is certainly necessary to solve the problems of technical re-equipment of production, correct structural policy, financial recovery of the economy, etc. Great importance the state also has the other functions listed above.

Importance has a solution to such problems of the political life of society as the state structure, form of government and political regime.

The question of the state system is associated primarily with the distribution of legislative power between the center and the periphery. If the legislative functions belong entirely to the center, the state is considered unitary, but if the territorial units have the right to make their own laws, the state is federal. The federation allows to overcome the contradiction between the desire of the center for dominance, and territorial units - for separatism.

The form of government is related to the nature of the exercise of state power, whether it be a monarchy or a republic. If the monarchy involves the concentration of all power in the hands of one person representing the ruling dynasty, and power, as a rule, is inherited, then republican rule means the recognition of the sovereign right to power of the people, their elected representative bodies.

The question of which form of government is better - a republic or a monarchy - is largely rhetorical. The experience of modern Europe shows that many developed and politically stable countries are monarchies. The American researcher S. Lipset draws attention to the mediative, i.e. the reconciling role of the monarchy in relation to all strata of modern society.

In the same countries, he emphasizes, where the monarchy was overthrown as a result of the revolution and the orderly succession was broken, the republican regimes that replaced the monarchy were unable to gain legitimacy in the eyes of all important sections of the population until the fifth post-revolutionary generation or later.

Conclusion

Before Aristotle, who summed up the thousand-year existence of Ancient Greece with his teaching on the necessity of slavery, no one had ever spoken on this topic so openly and categorically. The thinker gave a deep and versatile analysis of the concept of a slave.

Nature requires slavery for the existence of the state itself. There is nothing shameful or unnatural about slavery.

Political organization appears to Aristotle as a sphere not of equalizing, but of distributing justice. An important indicator of justice, Aristotle considers the absence of extremes between poverty and wealth, the golden mean.

Based on the combination of these two criteria, Aristotle identifies and characterizes six forms of government. He considers polity to be the most perfect form of government.

Aristotle's ideal is an "average" state that implements virtue. Virtue is interpreted as harmony between two extremes.

The center of Aristotle's teachings is the concept of "polity". Politia is a community of people based on a tribal community and slavery who set out to create and always maintain a natural and physiologically justified autarchy in order to join eternity in all their actions, thoughts, and life goals.

The concepts of state and law are closely related. The policy must be based on law. Law - the norms governing the social life of the polity. The law must be based on reason, it must be devoid of emotions, likes and dislikes.

Aristotle's contribution to the history of political thought is very great. He created a new methodology for empirical and logical research, generalized a huge amount of material. His approach is characterized by realism and moderation. He perfected the system of concepts that humanity continues to use to this day.

Bibliography:

1) Alekseev P.V. History of Philosophy: - Proc. - M.: TK Velby, Prospect Publishing House, 2007 - 240 p.

2) V.D. Gubin. Philosophy: Textbook / Under the editorship of V.D. Gubin, T.Yu. Sidorina. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Gardariki, 2007 - 828 p.

Quite often, in the course of the history of political science, philosophy, as well as legal sciences, Aristotle's doctrine of state and law is considered as an example of ancient thought. An essay on this topic is written by almost every student of a higher educational institution. Of course, if he is a lawyer, political scientist or historian of philosophy. In this article, we will try to briefly characterize the teachings of the most famous thinker of the ancient era, and also show how it differs from the theories of his no less famous opponent Plato.

Founding of the state

The entire philosophical system of Aristotle was influenced by controversy. He argued long and hard with Plato and the latter's doctrine of "eidos". In his work "Politics" the famous philosopher opposes not only the cosmogonic and ontological theories of his opponent, but also his ideas about society. Aristotle's doctrine of the state is based on the concepts of natural need. From point of view famous philosopher man is made for public life, he is a "political animal". He is driven not only by physiological, but also by social instincts. Therefore, people create societies, because only there they can communicate with their own kind, as well as regulate their lives with the help of laws and rules. Therefore, the state is a natural stage in the development of society.

Aristotle's doctrine of the ideal state

The philosopher considers several people. The most basic is family. Then the circle of communication expands to a village or settlement (“choirs”), that is, it already extends not only to blood relations, but also to people living in a certain territory. But there comes a time when a person is not satisfied. He wants more goods and security. In addition, a division of labor is necessary, because it is more profitable for people to produce and exchange (sell) something than to do everything they need themselves. Only a policy can provide such a level of well-being. Aristotle's doctrine of the state puts this stage of development of society at the highest level. This is the most perfect type of society, which can provide not only but also "eudaimonia" - the happiness of citizens who practice virtues.

Polis according to Aristotle

Of course, city-states under this name existed even before the great philosopher. But they were small associations, torn apart by internal contradictions and entering into endless wars with each other. Therefore, Aristotle's doctrine of the state assumes the presence in the policy of one ruler and a constitution recognized by all, guaranteeing the integrity of the territory. Its citizens are free and as far as possible equal among themselves. They are intelligent, rational, and in control of their actions. They have the right to vote. They are the backbone of society. At the same time, for Aristotle, such a state is higher than individuals and their families. It is the whole, and everything else in relation to it is only parts. It should not be too large to be comfortable to manage. And the good of the community of citizens is good for the state. Therefore, politics becomes a higher science in comparison with the rest.

Criticism of Plato

Issues related to the state and law are described by Aristotle in more than one work. He spoke on these topics many times. But what is the difference between the teachings of Plato and Aristotle about the state? Briefly, these differences can be characterized as follows: different ideas about unity. The state, from the point of view of Aristotle, of course, is an integrity, but at the same time it consists of many members. They all have different interests. A state soldered together by the unity that Plato describes is impossible. If this is put into practice, then it will become an unprecedented tyranny. The state communism preached by Plato must abolish the family and other institutions to which man is attached. Thus, he demotivates the citizen, taking away the source of joy, and also deprives society of moral factors and necessary personal relationships.

About property

But Aristotle criticizes Plato not only for the desire for totalitarian unity. The commune promoted by the latter is based on public property. But after all, this does not at all eliminate the source of all wars and conflicts, as Plato believes. On the contrary, it only moves to another level, and its consequences become more destructive. The doctrine of Plato and Aristotle about the state differs most on this point. Selfishness is the driving force of a person, and by satisfying it within certain limits, people benefit society as well. Aristotle thought so. Common property is unnatural. It's the same as a draw. In the presence of this kind of institution, people will not work, but only try to enjoy the fruits of the labors of others. An economy based on this form of ownership encourages laziness and is extremely difficult to manage.

About forms of government

Aristotle also analyzed different types of government and constitutions of many peoples. As an evaluation criterion, the philosopher takes the number (or groups) of people involved in management. Aristotle's doctrine of the state distinguishes between three types of reasonable types of government and the same number of bad ones. The first include the monarchy, aristocracy and polity. Tyranny, democracy and oligarchy belong to the bad species. Each of these types can develop into its opposite, depending on political circumstances. In addition, many factors affect the quality of power, and the most important is the personality of its bearer.

Bad and good types of power: a characteristic

Aristotle's doctrine of the state is briefly expressed in his theory of forms of government. The philosopher carefully considers them, trying to understand how they arise and what means should be used to avoid the negative consequences of bad power. Tyranny is the most imperfect form of government. If there is only one sovereign, a monarchy is preferable. But it can degenerate, and the ruler can usurp all power. In addition, this type of government is very dependent on the personal qualities of the monarch. Under an oligarchy, power is concentrated in the hands of a certain group of people, while the rest are “pushed away” from it. This often leads to discontent and upheavals. The best form of this type of government is the aristocracy, since noble people are represented in this estate. But they can degenerate over time. Democracy is the best of the worst forms of government, and it has many drawbacks. In particular, this is the absolutization of equality and endless disputes and agreements, which reduces the effectiveness of power. Politia is the ideal type of government modeled by Aristotle. In it, power belongs to the "middle class" and is based on private property.

About laws

In his writings, the famous Greek philosopher also considers the issue of jurisprudence and its origin. Aristotle's doctrine of the state and law makes us understand what the basis and necessity of laws are. First of all, they are free from human passions, sympathies and prejudices. They are created by a mind in a state of balance. Therefore, if the policy has the rule of law, and not human relations, it will become an ideal state. Without the rule of law, society will lose shape and lose stability. They are also needed to make people act virtuously. After all, a person by nature is an egoist and is always inclined to do what is beneficial to him. The law corrects his behavior, possessing coercive force. The philosopher was a supporter of the prohibitive theory of laws, saying that everything that is not set out in the constitution is not legitimate.

About justice

This is one of the most important concepts in the teachings of Aristotle. Laws should be the embodiment of justice in practice. They are the regulators of relations between the citizens of the policy, and also form subordination. After all, the common good of the inhabitants of the state is a synonym for justice. In order for it to be achieved, it is necessary to combine (generally recognized, often unwritten, known and understood by everyone) and normative (human institutions, formalized by law or through contracts). Every just right must respect the customs of a given people. Therefore, the legislator must always create such regulations that would correspond to traditions. Law and laws do not always coincide with each other. There is also a difference between practice and ideal. There are unjust laws, but they, too, must be followed until they change. This makes it possible to improve the law.

"Ethics" and the doctrine of the state of Aristotle

First of all, these aspects of the legal theory of the philosopher are based on the concept of justice. It may vary depending on what exactly we take as a basis. If our goal is the common good, then we should take into account the contribution of everyone and, starting from this, distribute duties, power, wealth, honors, and so on. If we put equality at the forefront, then we must provide benefits to everyone, regardless of his personal activities. But the most important thing is to avoid extremes, especially a wide gap between wealth and poverty. After all, this, too, can be a source of upheaval and upheaval. In addition, some Political Views philosopher are set out in the work "Ethics". There he describes what the life of a free citizen should be like. The latter is obliged not only to know, but to be moved by it, to live in accordance with it. The ruler also has his own ethical obligations. He cannot wait for the conditions necessary to create ideal state. He must act practically and make the constitutions necessary for the given period, proceeding from how best to govern the people in a particular situation, and improving the laws according to the circumstances.

Slavery and addiction

However, if we take a closer look at the theories of the philosopher, we will see that Aristotle's doctrine of society and the state excludes many people from the sphere of the common good. First of all, for Aristotle, these are just talking tools that do not have reason to the extent that free citizens have it. This state of affairs is natural. People are not equal among themselves, there are those who are by nature slaves, and there are masters. In addition, the philosopher is surprised, if this institution is abolished, who will provide learned people leisure for their lofty reflections? Who will clean the house, look after the household, set the table? All this will not be done on its own. Therefore slavery is necessary. From the category of "free citizens" Aristotle also excluded farmers and people working in the field of crafts and trade. From the point of view of the philosopher, all these are “low occupations”, distracting from politics and not giving the opportunity to have leisure.

Plan:

1 . Introduction

2. Main body

2.1. Aristotle on the state

2.2. Aristotle on Law

3. Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

One of the characteristic features of Aristotle's scientific activity is its versatility. With his works, Aristotle enriched almost all the branches of science that existed in his time. The state and society did not remain out of sight of the philosopher. The main place among his works devoted to the study of the state and society is occupied by the treatise "Politics".

There can be no doubt that even the purely theoretical constructions of ancient thinkers, such as Plato's "State" and "Laws" or those projects that are considered in the second book of "Politics", are more or less connected with real life Greek policies, which gives the right to modern researchers to use these works as sources for understanding some aspects of the existence of these policies.

The topic I have chosen has been studied by various scientists, but I should dwell on only a few of them. So, Blinnikov A.K. in his work considered the activities of Aristotle. The work of Dovatur A. consecrates the types of government according to Aristotle, the problems of law.

The purpose of this essay is to consider Aristotle's views on the state and law, to identify the main elements of the state.

2. Main body

2.1 Aristotle on the state

Aristotle in his work attempted a comprehensive development of the science of politics. Politics as a science is closely connected with ethics. Scientific understanding politics presupposes, according to Aristotle, developed ideas about morality (virtues), knowledge of ethics (mores).

In Aristotle's treatise Politics, society and the state are essentially the same.

The state appears in his work as a natural and necessary way of existence of people - "the communication of people similar to each other for the purpose of the best possible existence." And “communication, which naturally arose to satisfy everyday needs, is a family,” says Aristotle.

For Aristotle, the state is a whole and the unity of its constituent elements, but he criticizes Plato's attempt to "make the state excessively unified." The state consists of many elements, and an excessive desire for their unity, for example, the community of property, wives and children proposed by Plato, leads to the destruction of the state.

The state, Aristotle notes, is a complex concept. In its form, it represents a certain kind of organization and unites a certain set of citizens. From this point of view, we are no longer talking about such primary elements of the state as the individual, family, etc., but about the citizen. The definition of the state as a form depends on who is considered a citizen, that is, on the concept of a citizen. A citizen, according to Aristotle, is someone who can participate in the legislative and judicial power of a given state.

The state, on the other hand, is a collection of citizens sufficient for self-sufficient existence.

According to Aristotle, man is a political being, i.e. social, and it carries in itself an instinctive desire for "cohabitation". Man is distinguished by the ability to intellectual and moral life, "man by nature is a political being." Only man is capable of perceiving such concepts as good and evil, justice and injustice. First result social life he considered the formation of the family - husband and wife, parents and children. The need for mutual exchange led to communication between families and villages. This is how the state was born.

Having identified society with the state, Aristotle was forced to look for elements of the state. He understood the dependence of the goals, interests and nature of people's activities on their property status and used this criterion in characterizing various strata of society. According to Aristotle, the poor and the rich "turn out to be elements in the state that are diametrically opposed to each other, so that, depending on the preponderance of one or another of the elements, the corresponding form of the state system is established." He identified three main strata of citizens: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the middle class, standing between the two. Aristotle was hostile to the first two social groups. He believed that the life of people with excessive wealth is based on an unnatural kind of gaining property 1 . This, according to Aristotle, does not manifest the desire for a “good life”, but only the desire for life in general. Since the thirst for life is irrepressible, the desire for the means of satisfying this life is also irrepressible.

Putting everything at the service of excessive personal gain, "people of the first category" trample on social traditions and laws. Striving for power, they themselves cannot obey, thereby violating the tranquility of public life. Almost all of them are arrogant and arrogant, prone to luxury and boasting. The state is created not in order to live in general, but mainly in order to live happily.

The perfection of man presupposes the perfect citizen, and the perfection of the citizen, in turn, the perfection of the state. At the same time, the nature of the state stands "ahead" of the family and the individual. This deep idea is characterized as follows: the perfection of a citizen is determined by the quality of the society to which he belongs: whoever wants to create perfect people must create perfect citizens, and who wants to create perfect citizens must create a perfect state.

Aristotle identifies the following elements of the state:

· single territory(which should be small in size);

Collective of citizens (a citizen is one who participates in legislative and judicial power);

a single cult

general stock;

unified ideas about justice.

“Having clarified what elements the state consists of, we must

first of all, to talk about the organization of the family ... Let us first of all dwell on the master and the slave and look at their relationship from the point of view of practical benefits.

Aristotle distinguished three types of communication in the family:

Husband's power over his wife

the power of the father over the children;

power of the householder over the slaves.

Slavery is equally beneficial to both slave and master. At the same time, "power

master over a slave, as based on violence, is unjust.

Aristotle is a flexible enough thinker not to unambiguously determine the belonging to the state of precisely those and not other persons. He perfectly understands that the position of a person in society is determined by property. Therefore, he criticizes Plato, who in his utopia destroys private property among the upper classes, specifically emphasizing that the community of property is impossible. It causes discontent and quarrels, reduces interest in work, deprives a person of the “natural” enjoyment of possession, and so on.

Thus, Aristotle justifies private property. “Private property,” says Aristotle, “is rooted in the nature of man, in his own love for himself.” Property should be shared only in a relative sense, but private in general: "What is the object of the possession of a very large number of people, the least care is applied." People care most about what belongs to them personally.

Consideration of various theories of government Aristotle begins with an analysis of Plato's project. He especially emphasizes the difficulty of implementing this project in practice, criticizing Plato's theoretical position - his desire to introduce complete unity into the state, ignoring the real-life plurality. In the "Laws" of Plato, Aristotle finds arbitrary statements, and in some cases ill-conceived provisions that threaten their implementation with certain difficulties and undesirable results.

The state structure (politeia) is the order in the organization of public offices in general, and first of all the supreme power: the supreme power is everywhere connected with the order of state administration (politeyma), and the latter is the state structure. “I mean, for example, that in democratic states the supreme power is in the hands of the people; in oligarchies, on the contrary, in the hands of a few; therefore, we call the state structure in them different.

“Aristotle analyzed 156 types of policies and based on this the classification of forms of government” 1, notes A. K. Blinnikov.

The form of the state is determined by the number of those in power (one, few, majority).

There are correct forms of government - in them the rulers have in mind the common good (they take care of the welfare of the people) and wrong forms of government - in them the rulers care only about their personal welfare.

Monarchical government, meaning the common good, "we usually call royal power"; the power of the few, but more than one, by the aristocracy; and when the majority rules for the common good, then we use the designation common to all types of government - polity. "And such a distinction turns out to be logically correct."

The correct forms of the state are monarchical rule (royal power), aristocracy and polity, and the corresponding erroneous deviations from them are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.

Aristotle's scheme may seem artificial, if you do not take into account the fact that all 6 terms were in use among the Greeks in the 4th century. BC It is unlikely that there were serious disagreements about what is meant by royal power, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy. Plato in the Laws speaks of all these species as something well known, requiring no explanation.

"Aristotle strives to make his scheme flexible, capable of embracing the entire diversity of reality" 1 . Citing as an example the states of his day and looking back at history, he, firstly, states the existence of various varieties within certain types of state structure; secondly, he notes that the political system of some states combines the features of various state structures and that there are intermediate forms between royal and tyrannical power - an aristocracy with a bias towards an oligarchy, a polity close to democracy, etc.

The goal of the state, according to Aristotle, is the common good, the achievement of happiness by every citizen. At the same time, the policy is considered as a political communication of free and equal people. The most correct form of government is a polity in which the middle class dominates everything.

Keywords: Aristotle; polity; the form of the state; right

Aristotle (384-322 BC) - the greatest ancient Greek thinker-encyclopedist, a student of Plato, educator of Alexander the Great, founder of the Lyceum (in another transcription - the Lyceum, or the peripatetic school), the founder of formal logic. It was Aristotle who created the conceptual apparatus, which still permeates the philosophical lexicon and the very style of scientific thinking. For about 20 years, Aristotle studied at the Academy of Plato, and then largely departed from the views of the teacher, declaring: "Plato is my friend, but the truth should be preferred." The birthplace of Aristotle is the Greek city-polis of Stageira in Thrace, therefore Aristotle is sometimes called Stagirite. The scientific history of Aristotle is truly outstanding, he remains, perhaps, the most relevant and widely read author for many hundreds of years.

Charles de Gaulle (1890–1970), President of France, general, wrote at one time: “... at the basis of the victories of Alexander the Great, we always, in the end, find Aristotle.” The authority of Aristotle was so great that before the beginning of modern times, Aristotle's works were referred to as something unshakable and beyond any doubt. So, when a certain Jesuit professor (XVIII century) was asked to look through a telescope and make sure that there were spots on the Sun, he answered the astronomer Kircher: “It is useless, my son. I have read Aristotle twice from beginning to end, and I have not found in him any hint of sunspots. And therefore, there are no such spots.

Among the works of Aristotle, which make up the so-called "Aristotelian Corpus", the following cycles should be distinguished:

– Logic (Organon): “Categories”, “On Interpretation”, “First Analytics”, “Second Analytics”, etc.;

– about nature: “Physics”, “On the Soul”, “On Memory and Remembrance”, etc.;

- metaphysics: "Metaphysics";

- ethics and politics: "Nicomachean ethics", "Politics", "Athenian polity", etc.;

- rhetoric: "Rhetoric", etc.

So, when writing the "Politics" (c. 329 BC), Aristotle did a gigantic job, having studied with his students the constitutions of 158 Greek policies (!). Aristotle's work was based on a comparison and analysis of the current basic laws of city-states available to him. Until that time, this kind of attempt to compare legislation was not only not undertaken, but simply did not occur to anyone. Thus, Aristotle laid the foundations for the future methodology of political science.

About the state

Since the beginning of politics in Aristotle is ethics, therefore the objects of political science are beautiful and fair.

Aristotle considers the state a political organization of society, a product of natural development and at the same time the highest form of communication, and a person, respectively, a political being. “The state,” he convinces, “belongs to that which exists by nature ... and a person by nature is a political being, and one who, by virtue of his nature, and not due to accidental circumstances, lives outside the state, is either underdeveloped in moral sense a being, or a superman ... such a person, by his nature, only craves war ...

In all people, nature has introduced a desire for state communication, and the first person who organized this communication provided a person with greatest good. A person who has found his completion is the most perfect of living beings and, conversely, a person who lives outside the law and rights is the worst of all.

“Since every state is a kind of communion, and every communion is organized for the sake of some good, then, obviously, all communions strive for one or another good, and more than others and for the highest of all good that communion, which is the most important, strives out of all and embraces all other communications. This communication is called the state or political communication.

Politics is a science, knowledge of how best to organize the common life of people in a state. A politician must take into account that people have not only virtues, but also vices. Therefore, the task of politics is not the education of morally perfect people, but the education of virtues in citizens. The virtue of a citizen consists in the ability to fulfill his civic duty and in the ability to obey the authorities and laws. Therefore, the politician must look for the best, i.e. most corresponding to the specified purpose, the state structure.

Aristotle criticizes Plato's communist project of an ideal state, in particular for its hypothetical "monolithic" unity. In contrast to Plato, Aristotle argues that the community of ownership established in the commune does not at all destroy the basis of social schism, but, on the contrary, strengthens it many times over. Naturally, the selfishness inherent in a person, caring for the family, caring first about one's own, rather than the general, - objective reality state life. The communist, utopian project of Plato, which denies the family and private property, deprives the political activity of the individual of the necessary impetus.

And the community of property, wives and children proposed by Plato will lead to the destruction of the state. Aristotle was a staunch defender of the rights of the individual, private property and the monogamous family, as well as a supporter of slavery.

Being an adherent of the slave system, Aristotle closely connected slavery with the issue of property: in the very essence of things, an order is rooted, by virtue of which, from the moment of birth, some creatures are destined for submission, while others for domination. This is the general law of nature, and animated beings are also subject to it. According to Aristotle, “who by nature does not belong to himself, but to another, and at the same time is still a man, is by nature a slave. A person belongs to another if, while remaining a person, he becomes property; the latter is an active and separate tool.” At the same time, slavery in Aristotle is ethically justified, because the slave is devoid of virtue. At the same time, the relationship between master and slave is, according to Aristotle, an element of the family, not the state.

The purpose of the state, according to Aristotle, is the common good, therefore, participation in the management of state affairs should be common. “The goal of human community is not just to live, but much more to live happily.” In other words, the goal of the state is to achieve happiness for every citizen. At the same time, the policy is considered as a political communication of free and equal people.

Aristotle continues Plato's teaching about the state as an association of people for mutual assistance and cooperation, politics as the art of providing people with the highest justice, and about law as its most complete and perfect expression. Law represents political justice. Therefore, the primary task of law is to protect the life and property of each person. The law must correspond, according to Aristotle, to political justice and law. Law is a measure of justice, a regulating norm of political communication. Society cannot exist without laws and rights: "a person who lives outside the law and rights is the worst of all." Aristotle justifies legal coercion: “Most people obey necessity rather than reason, and fear punishment more than honor.”

If Plato is a radical, uncompromising thinker, loves extremes, in his writings - a flight of fancy, courage, refined style, then Aristotle is an opponent of all extremes, a supporter of the middle in everything, his rule is the thoroughness and validity of research in any field.

“In every state there are three components: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the third, standing in the middle between those and others. Since, according to the generally accepted opinion, moderation and the middle are the best, it is obvious that the average prosperity is the best of all goods. In the presence of it, it is easiest to obey the arguments of reason; on the contrary, it is difficult to follow these arguments for a person who is super-beautiful, super-strong, super-noble, super-rich, or, conversely, a person who is super-poor, super-weak, super-low in his social position. People of the first type become mostly insolent and big scoundrels. People of the second type often become villains and petty scoundrels. And of the crimes, some are committed because of arrogance, others because of meanness.

Thus, some are not able to rule and know how to obey only the power that appears in the masters over the slaves; others are not capable of submitting to any authority, and they know how to rule only in the way that masters rule over slaves.

It is clear, therefore, that the best public intercourse is that which is achieved by means of averages, and those states have a good system where the averages are represented in greater numbers, where they are - at best - stronger than both extremes, or, in any case, each of them in separately. Connected to one or the other extreme, they provide balance and prevent the preponderance of opponents. Therefore, the greatest welfare for the state is that its citizens should have average but sufficient property, and in cases where some own too much, while others have nothing, either extreme democracy, or pure oligarchy, or tyranny arises, namely influenced by opposite extremes. After all, tyranny is formed both from an extremely loose democracy and from an oligarchy, much less often from the average types of state system and those that are akin to them.

About the form of the state

The form of the state in the teachings of Aristotle is given decisive importance. It includes the form of the state system, the type of state government, depending on the specific conditions of a particular country or people. Those forms (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) in which the rulers have in mind the common good are correct. Those (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy) who have in mind only the good of the rulers are wrong.

The "correctness" of Aristotle's system does not depend at all on the number of rulers. And this is another feature of the thinker's teaching.

The most correct form is polity, in which the majority governs in the interests of the common good. Politia is a constitutional moderate-democratic republic, whose leaders are able to combine freedom with order, courage with wisdom. Politia is a mixed form of government of the state, arising from the combination of two irregular forms: oligarchy and democracy. So, the principle of creating an ideal form of government is a mixture of two irregular forms. Aristotle described polity as follows: it “is extremely rare and among the few.” In particular, discussing the possibility of establishing polity in contemporary Greece, Aristotle came to the conclusion that such a possibility was small. In the polity, the majority governs in the interests of the common good. Politia is the "middle" form of the state, and the "middle" element here dominates everything: in morals - moderation, in property - average prosperity, in ruling - the middle stratum. “Only where, in the composition of the population, the averages have a preponderance either over both extremes, or over one of them, can the political system count on stability.” For the oligarchy exacerbates the existing inequality of property, and democracy excessively equalizes the rich and the poor.

“Deviation from monarchy gives tyranny, deviation from aristocracy gives oligarchy, deviation from polity gives democracy, deviation from democracy gives ochlocracy,” wrote Aristotle.

About rhetoric

Plato did not highly appreciate rhetoric: “untrue art”, “juggling with words”; Aristotle, on the other hand, dedicates a whole work to her, of the same name, where he discusses in detail the content of a publicly delivered speech, the style, and manner of the speaker's speech. He believes that it is necessary to teach oratory, because this is, in his opinion, part of civic education. Politics can become the property of all citizens largely due to oratorical eloquence. honed oratory should be put at the service of educating political culture, law-abiding behavior, high level sense of justice.

Aristotle changed the style of presenting political and legal ideas - Aristotle's scientific treatise replaced Plato's dialogues. It is from Aristotle that the teaching of state studies originates. Aristotle is the founder of political science and the main developer of its methodology.

It so happened that not all of Aristotle's works have come down to us. Moreover, some of the works were not published by him during his lifetime, and many others were falsely attributed to him later. But even some passages of those writings that undoubtedly belong to him can be called into question, and even the ancients tried to explain this incompleteness and fragmentation to themselves by the vicissitudes of the fate of Aristotle's manuscripts. According to the tradition preserved by Strabo and Plutarch, Aristotle bequeathed his writings to Theophrastus, from whom they passed to Nelius of Skepsis. The heirs of Nelius hid the precious manuscripts from the greed of the Pergamon kings in a cellar, where they suffered greatly from dampness and mold. In the 1st century BC e. they were sold at a high price to the rich and bookish Apellicon in the most miserable condition, and he tried to restore the damaged parts of the manuscripts with his own additions, but not always successfully. Subsequently, under Sulla, they came to Rome among other booty, where Tyrannian and Andronicus of Rhodes published them in their modern form. According to some scholars, this account can only be true with respect to a very small number of minor writings by Aristotle. At the same time, it remains only to build versions of what could be contained in the lost part of Aristotle's manuscripts.

Bibliographic list

Storystate- legal teachings/ resp. ed. V.V. Lazarev. M.: Spark, 2006. 672 p.

Marchenko M.N., Machin I.F.History of political and legal doctrines. M.: Higher education, 2005. 495 p.

Machin I.F.History of political and legal doctrines. M.: Higher education, Yurayt-Izdat, 2009. 412 p.

Mukhaev R.T.History of political and legal doctrines. M.: Prior-izdat, 2004. 608 p.

ThinkersGreece. From myth to logic: works / comp. V.V. Skoda. M.: Eksmo-Press Publishing House; Kharkov: Folio Publishing House, 1998. 832 p.

Legalthought: anthology / author-comp. V.P. Malakhov. M.: Acad. project; Ekaterinburg: Business book, 2003. 1016 p.

Taranov P.S.Philosophy of forty-five generations. M.: Izd-vo AST, 1998. 656 p.

Electronicresource: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C0%F0%E8%F1%F2%EE%F2%E5%EB%FC (Accessed 12/23/2012).