Question about Aristotle

[Reaper]

As you know, economics are very important in our capitalist societies. People talk about it in the media, businessmen are greatly admired, and parents want that their children would get good jobs when they grow up.

Many think that our political institutions should first of all serve the economy and favor its growth.

What would Aristotle have thought of this?

If he gave such great importance to politics, wouldn't he prefer the reverse situation?


Thanks for your help!

[turtle]

As you know, economics are very important in our capitalist societies. People talk about it in the media, businessmen are greatly admired, and parents want that their children would get good jobs when they grow up.

Many think that our political institutions should first of all serve the economy and favor its growth.

What would Aristotle have thought of this?

If he gave such great importance to politics, wouldn't he prefer the reverse situation?


Thanks for your help!

I dont think he would, because he would have rationalized the situation and confired that, if the economy served the government the economy would eventually fail due to the lack of individual quality and leadership. He would have probably looked at the political situation and then weighed it against the economic situation and how they influence each other and he would have most likely came to the logical (logic, one of his greatest works) conclusion that in order for the government and economy to remain stable they must serve each other, not one or the other.

[Reaper]

Thanks!

However, a country's economy can also succeed by dominating its policies in foreign relations (as in a country would choose more prosperous nations as allies), isn't that so? What would Aristotle have thought of that?

[turtle]

Thanks!

However, a country's economy can also succeed by dominating its policies in foreign relations (as in a country would choose more prosperous nations as allies), isn't that so? What would Aristotle have thought of that?

I think he would have agreed about the fact that an economy can flourish given a strong foreign trade policy. That's what your speaking of right, trade policies and how much one country can dominate the restrictions and policies of another and how well chosen the allies are.

But, again this is faulty, because of individuality and how the individuals running the government would ultimately ruin the economy. That is why our current economic and governmental plans are toward each other, not one or the other. If our economy served our government, we wouldn't be a democracy and our entire countrys system would break down very quickly. Well, I guess we aren't a true democracy anyways, but that's not the point. The point is that, if the countrys money is in the hands of the government for the government, things would not do well for long at all.

So, he would probably agree with you on that one, given the right circumstances... which are never the circumstances needed to execute such a plan. So, ultimately he would probably disagree that an economy can flourish with only a strong foreign policy, there would be much more needed to accomplish that.

[Bovril]

Aristotle came from an intellectual tradition so alien to our own that applying his own thought to current political and economic trends seems rather pointless. He supported an essentially aristocratic model of society based on the idea that certain classes of people are fit to rule, and others to serve. He was, in this analysis, supported by Plato and the other major intellectual figures of his time. This is at odds with our (ostensibly) meritocratic ideal of societal functioning. However, it seems to me that it is quite a good description of upper class attitudes, though the people who hold such opinions are slow to admit it, since democracy (which Aristotle was mainly opposed to) should, in an unconstricted form, serve the goal of equality, not that of the maintainance of heritable class division.

[turtle]

Aristotle came from an intellectual tradition so alien to our own that applying his own thought to current political and economic trends seems rather pointless. He supported an essentially aristocratic model of society based on the idea that certain classes of people are fit to rule, and others to serve. He was, in this analysis, supported by Plato and the other major intellectual figures of his time. This is at odds with our (ostensibly) meritocratic ideal of societal functioning. However, it seems to me that it is quite a good description of upper class attitudes, though the peopl;e who hold such opinions are slow to admit it, since democracy (which Aristotle was mainly opposed to) should, in an unconstricted form, serve the goal of equality, not that of the maintainance of heritable calss division.

Very true, but one can still theorize what he would think in today's situations. That doesn't mean that is exactly what he would say, do or think, just theory. And I don't see anything wrong with theorizing, he most likely wouldn't see a problem either, unless they were baseless theories.

[Reaper]

Is it possible to establish links between all of this, and his theories about:

- ontology
- the fact that people are autonomous
- the opposition between relative purposes and main purposes
- his thoughts about happiness ?

[Reaper]

If Aristotle thought that attaining happiness is the most important thing in life, and that social happiness is more important than individual happiness, so it would mean that politics are more important than economics, right?

I hope I'm not asking bad questions

[Bovril]

I think you are assuming a competitive (and probably capitalistic) model of economics, and a welfare based model of politics. It is probably fair to say that Aristotle was a utilitarian who would not have recognised either model. He would have assumed that society is best served by the hierachical organisation of its institutions in order to allow aristocrats to retain power and plebs to be governed by a ruling class, that Aristotle thought was inherantly superior.