I wanted to say something in class, but unfortunately we ran out of time, so I'm saying it now. I don't agree with Aristotle. The claims he made, as we discussed in class, were oddly Marxist, but also very generalized. He claims that "the ends of the master arts are things more to be desired than all those of the arts subordinate to them" (5). Sure. I can roll with that, but the trick is determining which arts are "subordinate" to which dominant arts. This is the point in which I feel Aristotle overgeneralizes--keeping in mind that the text is a lecture. I'm thinking in terms of one of his students. He claims the "most authoritative of the sciences...is manifestly the science of politics." How? I understand what he means when he says, "To secure the good of a nation or a state is a nobler and more divine achievement" than say the Mona Lisa, but what is "the good of a nation?"
Let's look at that question in a modern context. For those of you who haven't been following the Republican debates, DO IT! They're fascinating! Each candidate argues a different mode of action that reflects what they feel is for "the good of the nation." We're taking into account the economy. Mitt Romney opposed the Job Creation Act of 2010 while Barack Obama signed for it. The Act extends the Bush tax cuts which both helps and hurts different demographics of people within the United States. So what's the "good of a nation?" Each man represents one side of two arguments, but neither argument is right because both arguments hurt the nation in a different way. Therefore, no one is completely happy--assuming happiness is "the highest of all the goods that action can achieve" (11). There's no way to tell what is the "good of a nation"; just the good of an individual. Which is why I think that other modes of art have more dominant qualities than the intricacies of politics. There are certain universal "master-crafts" that evoke positive responses out of everyone. I could argue the art of comedy. Funny makes people laugh which in turn makes people "happy"--at least in the short term. So what's the "good of a nation?"
4 comments:
I have to agree; I wrote in the margin of my copy that Aristotle's idea that the good of the nation is more important than the good of an individual is "highly fascist". I'm not sure if this opinion of his is what you meant by "Marxist", but fascism and Marxism are two very different and opposing ideas.
This particular statement of his definitely seems like propaganda one would hear in a Mussolini speech or something. It really put me off.
I think Aristotle is trying to say that all other arts are subordinate to political science because all other arts are enabled by effective political science. He says the arts "are subordinate to political science. Inasmuch then as the rest of the sciences are employed by this one... the end of this science must include the ends of all the others" (5-7). What he's saying is political science is required to create a environment where every other art can exist.
The "good of a nation" that Aristotle talks about comes out of this logic. He says that good of the state is required to achieve supreme good. The "good of the state" is implied to be that which enables the people of the state to excel at every subordinate art.
So a "good nation" would be one that is economically and socially stable that allows more individuals to reach the end of their arts and reach what is "good."
I was also completely baffled by the fact that Political Science was the way to Supreme Goodness and Ultimate Happiness. The way I relate to Political Science in a modern context makes me feel far from happiness. Politics seems to bring confusion, disagreements, cattiness, low blows, and (for me) bad grades. In keeping with your theme of comedy, I must say that relooking at the current political candidates as people that are able to achieve this Ultimate Goodness gives me a chuckle. To think that these people have the supreme character that we must hold in high regard is alarmingly hilarious. Perhaps it is just difficult for me to separate my experience and former understanding of happiness and goodness with what Aristotle sees as being happy and good.
You say that Aristotle’s claims were “oddly Marxist”. I wasn’t in class, so I missed the viewpoints on this topic, but it seems to make sense that Aristotle would have Marxist views. The end game of Marxism is to become a classless society without need for a government. Aristotle seems to want to do away with individual needs in lieu of the “good of the nation”. So if everyone changed their attitude to want the good for all, then essentially everyone would be working for the same thing. Once everyone achieved this way of thinking, there would be no need for government. I suppose it’s odd to do away with government since Aristotle’s whole end of the means is Political Science. Then again, Political Science’s end seems to be the means to the Happiness and Goodness end, aka the final goal.
I also was frustrated by Aristotle’s generalities. I find his generalizations to create the ultimate rhetoric instead of the ultimate happiness. Rhetoric is so open ended, leaving the audience to interpret his statements as they see fit. I’m guessing he wanted to generalize in order to reach a broader audience. Apparently his persuasions didn’t work on us, otherwise I’d drop this class and most of my life to focus solely on the path of Political Science to achieve happiness.
Maybe part of our problem with Aristotle’s views on Political Science comes from our modern culture and context. We live in a capitalist society, and I don’t believe Aristotle’s claims fit into a capitalist society. I’m not sure that Aristotle would find his claims to fit a capitalist society, for as I mentioned his goal seems to be to create a socialist society. You say that there is no way to find the “good of the nation”, just the good of the individual. I’m thinking Aristotle can’t clearly define the “good of the nation”, because times, society, culture, etc. changes. Perhaps Aristotle is getting at the idea that it’s easier for individuals to think of themselves before the nation, and this is the problem. They equate goodness with "pleasure or wealth or honour" (11). Individuality needs to be subordinate to the good of your neighbor. If everyone were to think of everyone else before themselves, then everyone would work towards the common good and once that is achieved then everyone would feel common happiness. This socialist way of thinking would eliminate desires for wealth, pleasure, and honor, because everyone would share these things equally.
It’s still not exactly clear what acts one should take to better a nation. This is when Aristotle’s frustrating rhetorical generalities come in to play. I can only guess that he’s trying to be timeless in his art of speech, because each generation or culture of people may find a different “good of the nation” to apply to their times. To his defense Aristotle does admit that the "notion of a Universal Good" has "difficulties that it involves" (17).
Personally, I’m on board with holding comedy above political science as the route to happiness.
Furthermore, isn’t ignorance bliss?? Sigh… “ignorance"... that's a whole other story. would
I have to keep arguing, because Aristotle's ideas about the good of the nation are absolutely not Marxist.
Marx was hoping for a class-less society which would benefit the individual, not the state. In his class-less society there is no real state: there is merely mankind. Marxism has a powerful touch of (ironically) capitalist individualism. Marx was concerned with men losing their individuality as they became appendages of the machine. This was occurring as a result of industrialism, which separated the worker from the fruits of their labor.
The point of the communist society is not to bolster the power of any state, but to free man from the oppression of capitalism and allow him to be intimately connected with his own labor.
I commented that Aristotle's concepts sound like fascism, which is distinctly unlike Marxism. Marxism is concerned with re-appropriating agency to the individual. Fascism is a movement to remove the agency of the individual and give it to the state, and the general propaganda used to back this up is that one must give up their personal happiness for the good of all.
In short, Marxism is the centering of community formation around the good of the individual. Fascism is, like Aristotle's concept of the good of the state being higher than the good of the individual, the effort to sacrifice the good of the individual to strengthen the power of the state.
*has a crush on Marx and will not let anyone talk smack about him*
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.