Comparison of Aristotle's and Plato's Human Function

HUMAN FUNCTION: INTERPRETATION of LIFE

Since the dawn of time people have thought about how they came into existence and what their purpose in this hostile environment is. Plato and his successor Aristotle were the first to adhere a function to human life. Plato believed that a just soul and a just man would live well and therefore would be happy (Plato, 31). Aristotle claimed that human function is living accordance with reason and distinctive human virtue (Aristotle, 12). Both of these were attempts to interpret life. In this essay I will deal with whether there is a human function, whether we need to fulfill this function in order to be happy and whether being virtuous helps us become happy.

            

According to Plato function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else (Plato, 30). Aristotle would have agreed likewise in this definition. So, for example the function of a knife is sharpness or the function of a refrigerator is preserving food well. These kind of entities are made by people for other peoples' convenience. Therefore it is normal that the function of these kind of things are what they are designed for, because the creators are human. So a knife does not declare that the function of a knife is sharpness. Only a higher entity can determine its' function. Sheep are another good example. If there is a sheep somewhere around the world who is as wise as Plato or Aristotle, would probably say that the function of a sheep is living a just life. However, in the eyes of a human being the function of a sheep would be much more different and simple. It would probably be producing high amounts of milk and growing fat so it would have more meat when it is killed. This is again as a result of the fact that human are more advanced and more intelligent than sheep. So how come two mortal can determine the function of the human being in general? And if they can determine the human function, wouldn't it be something similar to the function the sheep attributed to themselves. For example, according to God the function of human beings is worshipping him and praising him. Or maybe human beings are just actors in a reality show that is videotaped to amuse other aliens. Then the function of humanity would be acting in a nice and cute way. Or maybe none of those creatures exist and "...Man is nothing else but that which makes of himself."(Sartre). In any case, it is easy to see that determining a human function that is valid for everyone is pretty hard. Also another question is why do both of the philosophers insisted on a function that seems to be something objectively good, such as justice? We have mentioned that function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else. Human being is the only creature that can build mass destruction weapons, so does that make the function of human beings as destruction? Only a person can cheat in an exam so, does that make the function of human beings deceit? The examples can go on and on. I think that while trying to determine the human function Plato and Aristotle are approaching the subject way too simplistic and are over generalizing by claiming that the function of human beings is living a just life or living according to reason. I believe that there is no human function that everyone can agree on.

            

We have mentioned that determining a human function that encompasses all humanity is impossible. Therefore everyone can reach happiness in different ways. According to Aristotle, there is a general agreement among everyone that happiness is sought for its' own sake only (Aristotle, 5). Therefore, happiness is the highest ranked good. From his work we can conclude that while seeking for happiness the end will justify the means. A person can become happy just by helping the poor. Another person can be happy by gambling in Las Vegas. It does not matter whether the appetitive part or rational part is in control during the process as long as happiness is achieved. This might sound immoral, but it is the reality. Any sane person would want to be happy. Knowing or without knowing, we always choose our actions depending on the happiness they will bring to us. As you can see there is no secret distinct function that needs to be fulfilled to reach happiness. Every person from birth, by choosing their actions determine what the outcome of their life will be. Based on their actions they grow different habits and choose different lifestyles. So some take joy from earning money, others become happy from deceiving. Because there is no distinct human function, there is no need to fulfill a specific function to be happy. An objection can be raised about the morality of how happiness is achieved. It turns out that because happiness is the highest good, there is no force to stop people from doing wicked things to pursuit happiness. This is where customs, regulations, laws, religious rules etc. come into play. They increase the penalty of doing bad things to reach happiness. For example, let's say that we offer 500,000 $ to a poor man to become a hitman. Even though he might find the idea of killing someone revolting and highly immoral, he would eventually weigh in the pros and cons of the offer. He would roughly calculate how many years he would be able to feed his family with the money he is offered, which would make him happy. He would also consider  what his conscience says. If the pros weigh more he would accept the deal. Now if we put laws, customs etc. into the equation we would see that the fear of punishment and the risk of being condemned by the society would make that person less reluctant to accept the deal and the amount of money offered would have to raise significantly. If we also take religious rules into account, fear of eternal punishment and burning would probably put off that person altogether from the deal. Therefore, there are external factors that stop from doing whatever they want to achieve happiness.

Being virtuous is one of the many ways to become happy. According to Plato the four must virtues are moderation, courage, wisdom and justice. It is highly probable that a person that has these traits is happier than a person who has the opposite of these. A coward person would let his fears control him. Therefore, he wouldn't be able to endure the path of happiness. For example, a courageous person, who is the master of his fears (Mark Twain) would be ready to fight with any force that comes to steal his happiness from him. A moderate person would be content with the things he has and thus will be reluctant to stay happy. A wise person would know what would make him happy. But does a person really have to have all these traits to be happy? For example a person who is moderate but is not wise can be happy. Since wisdom is present in only a few number of people in a society this is a common situation. A carpenter who only knows how to mould wood can still be happy if he doesn't meddle with other peoples' jobs. As the saying goes "Ignorance is bliss" a person who does not know much about the world would have less issues to get worried about and therefore would be happy. History is full of wise people who have committed suicide or lived miserable lives. But, nonetheless a person who is wise is more likely to be happy than a person who is unwise.

To conclude, there isn't a human function that everyone can agree on. Therefore, people do not need to fulfill a specific human function to be happy. Being virtuous is only one of the many ways to become happy.

WORKS CITED

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, translated and introduced by D. Ross, Oxford University

Press (1998)

Plato, The Republic, translated by G.M.A. Grube, revised by C.D.C. Reeve, 2nd edition,

Hackett (1992)

Comparison of Plato's "Republic" with Machiavellis' "Prince"

Machiavellis’ Prince: The Art Of Politics

Politics has been regarded by the people as corrupted and filthy since the dawn of man. Thus, it is normal for people to understand and get in touch with the writings of Machiavelli easier than Platos’. However, people tend to be inspired more from Palto, because his leadership theory is what people have idealized throughout time. Unfortunately the perfect is not always the best and I believe that for a leader being realistic and having a pragmatic approach towards life is much more important than living in an idealistic world.

Machiavelli

As I have stated in the introduction, realism is a strong attribute in Machiavellis’ Prince. He uses various examples from the history to clarify his opinions, which is a clear plus over Plato. For instance on being despised and hated the example of Roman emperors are given (Machiavelli, Chapter 19) and on liberality the example of Pope Julius the Second is given (Chapter 16). This argument can be challenged with the fact that Plato lived nearly 1700 years earlier than Machiavelli and could not witness or read enough about leaders. This defence has valid points However, it further proves that his ideas do not correspond to modern times and is not valid for our epoch. It should not be interpreted that I am whole-heartedly against Plato’s idealism. If successful leaders’ lives are observed, it can be seen that they had ideals and visions to start with. Without these, those leaders would have been susceptible to failure. For example, Lenin would have given up because of the civil war that started after 1917 Revolution (Lefebvre, 150) or Atatürk would have called quit after the loss of Mosul and Keokuk. Thus, some abstract thinking and vision is needed for a leader. However if this much idealism reaches the levels of Plato’s work it would be troublesome for the state, because the leader would lose contact with reality. For instance, Plato mentions that leader-philosophers will not own private property (Platon, 417a-b) or leader-philosophers will govern the country without the desire of private gains (520d). These are just few examples of his work that I think are too idealistic to adapt to life. Even in communist/socialist states[1] private property was allowed from time to time and ironically the Russian Communist Party members were the ones who had private property in forms of cottages etc. (Duvall 1992). It is also naive to think that without private property leaders will not desire private gain. Property is not the only thing people strive for. The feeling of power that comes from leadership is a private gain which the leader would not want to give up easily, because of simple human nature. As can be seen from my claims Platos’ leadership theory was too abstract and lacked the crucial element, realism.

Another strong aspect that exists in Machiavelli but lacks in Plato is practical use in other words, pragmatic approach. Before I start, I would like to indicate why I am mentioning pragmatism and realism in different paragraphs. Realism is the way how you see life. On the other hand pragmatism is the way you act towards life. As you can see there is a big difference between them. In his book Machiavelli takes a pragmatic approach towards life for leaders. In his book he states that a wise lord will not keep good faith if the reasons he pledged exist no longer or his good faith is exploited (Chapter 18). Here we can see his pragmatism more clearly. He shows us that for the sake of being idealistic and being honest a leader should not blindly stay behind his words. That kind of behavior can backfire easily and result in leader losing his throne. Another statement where we can see his pragmatic approach is in Chapter 19 where he advises the leader to please the class that has the most power. Hence, if the soldiers have more influence over the state, the king should advocate war. If the people have more influence over the state, the king should be tempted to peace. An important factor of Machiavelli’s pragmatism is his emphasis on modesty. In nearly all his chapters he suggests the leader to take a humble path. For instance, on being despised and hated he states that even if the most influential class is soldiers the leaders should not be too cruel and if the most influential class is ordinary people he should not be too kind. In both scenarios he would be overthrown either by the people for being cruel and by the soldiers for being too kind (Chapter 19). In Platos’ work it is nearly impossible to see any pragmatism and therefore practical use. He formulates everything and regards society as robots. He strictly divides the society to three classes which are soldiers, rulers and people (415a). He gives all of them different tasks and prohibits any vertical movement among classes. He supports censorship for some literary material, such as drama and poetry (395c). It seems like Plato is creating an ideology rather than a Utopia. I believe that ideologies are never adequate enough to rule a state, because by accepting ideologies you close all the doors to different ideas which might have better answers to some subjects. Therefore, for a leader pragmatism is an important quality to have in order to rule the country in a successful manner. I must express that the pragmatism Machiavelli is talking about is not selfishness. Machiavellis’ pragmatism is about the greater good (the state). Thus, the leaders actions’ utility measurement criteria should be the benefit it provides to his people in general.

The biggest objection to Machiavellis’ leadership theory is the lack of morality in “Prince”. The lack of morality is so notorious that the word “Machiavellian” is used as a synonym to deception and dishonesty. His main motto for leaders is “if a ruler wishes to reach his highest goals, he will not always find it rational to be moral (Lukes, 563). More clearly “end justifies the means”. Plato, is the opposite of Machiavelli. He held virtues over anything else. The social stratification he created represented three virtues: wisdom for rulers, courage for soldiers and moderation for subjects. Thus, does the value of morality emphasized on Plato make his leadership theory better than Machiavellis’? I have to disagree here. Virtues are definitely important for ordinary people and it is important for the leaders, too. However, it is not essential to possess them for a leader. The essential thing is to have the mindset to change if needed. Here, you can see that Machiavelli holds virtues important, but does not ennoble them like Plato. He knows that politics cannot be executed with solely good virtues, because you cannot expect rival states to have the same merits as yours. Thus, a leader should hold virtues important but must be careful and if needed should be able to act the opposite. In contemporary politics we can observe these qualities in a lot of leaders. For example, during the Independence War Grand National Assembly with orders from Ataturk trialed and executed rebels who were against the assembly. Even though some of them were provocateurs, an undeniable portion of them were civilians who had no guilt other than believing the provocateurs. If the National Assembly had taken this into account and did not execute them, the riots would have spread to the whole country. Another example is Lenin. After an unsuccessful assassination against him he started the Red Terror and killed many of his opposers (Lefebvre, 143). If he did not commit these crimes he probably would have been killed by his opposers and Soviets would have been in an anarchic state. It must be realized that “desperate times need desperate measures” and crisis management is an important ability in leadership. Therefore a naive humanistic approach would not suffice for a leader in ruling his country. He nearly always has to make a trade-off, because there are always two opposing fractions when he is giving decisions. In the Turkish case, if the National Assembly approached the problem in a humanistic way and let the riots spread, the Independence War would be lost and Turkey as we know would not exist. The ones executed would be pro-Revolution.

To conclude, being a leader is different from being an ordinary man, because you have two identities. One is his own identity, the other one is his embodiment to his country. Thus, a leader may have to contradict with his identity from time to time for the benefit of his country. He might have to make decisions that are the total opposite of his beliefs. Therefore, a modern leader cannot be as idealistic as Platos’ leadership theory states. As a result, I think that Machiavelli has a more convincing leadership theory than Platos’ and it reflects to modern times better.

Works Cited

Plato, Republic (Ed) M.G.A Grube, Hackett: London, 1992

Machiavelli, “The Prince”. Selected Political Writings (Ed) David Wootton. Hackett:     Indianapolis, 1994

Stalin. Directed by Ivan Passer. Performed by Rubert Duvall. 1992.

J. Lukes, Timothy. “Lionizing Machiavelli”. The American Political Science Review Vol.           95, No. 3. September 2001. Internet url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3118233 (Date accessed 5 March 2012)

---

[1] Even though Plato wanted the abolishment of private property for the leader class and the communist/socialist states wanted the abolishment of private property in all classes, these states were the closest ones that had a similar view on private property as Platon.

REPUBLIC: SUMMARY of BOOK 4

Here, I first summarize Book 4 of Republic and then argue whether human justice and justice of the city are two parallel concepts.

Adeimantus points out the fact that even though the guardians own the city, they cannot derive anything good from it, because it is forbidden for the guardians to own any kind of private wealth. Socrates’ responds to this objection by stating that the main goal of the city is not to make only a group of people outstandingly happy, the goal is to make everyone happy. If they give the guardians that kind of happiness, the guardians would not be guardians anymore. Therefore the guardians and leaders need to be persuaded to not to desire any wealth. Socrates also claims that because poverty and richness makes a craftsman and his products worse, the city needs to be protected from them. Adeimantus objects to this by stating that a city that has no wealth cannot protect itself from its’ enemies. Socrates reminds him that the guardians of their city will be the best in the world because of their education and therefore will defeat their enemies easily. Also, he points out that because the guardians cannot possess any kind of wealth, the loot of the war would be left to their allies and therefore the city would have a lot of allies.

Socrates and Plato discussing

Socrates limits the boundaries of the city, because if the city gets too big the guardians would not be able to control it. The guardians also need to protect their education well, because with good education the offsprings of the city would be better than their predecessors. If the good education is preserved than there would be no need for legislation, because it would be pointless to dictate something to people who are good, they’ll know what is good for them. The same is true for a wretched city as well. If the people of the city are wretched, it would be pointless to legislate as people would just find ways to avoid the laws.

Socrates declares the city complete and starts to define the four virtues the city possesses which are wisdom, courage, moderation and justice. The first virtue Socrates finds in the city is wisdom. The city is wise not because the carpenters’ are doing their job well, but because the rulers are wise. The courageous part of the city is its’ auxiliary guardians, because they are the ones who will protect the city from the enemies. Moderation is present in everyone. The agreement between who will rule and who will be ruled is called moderation. When the leaders, who are rational, rule over others the state is harmonious.

Finally we come to the last virtue which is justice. Just like moderation, justice is spread out throughout the city. Justice according to Socrates is everyone doing what they are best at and not meddling with others work. This meddling won’t cause much harm to the city if the exchange is between two people in the same class. However, an exchange between classes would be the worst thing that can happen to a city. So, the producers would continue performing their crafts, the soldiers would protect the city from the enemies and the leaders would rule over the city.

According to Socrates, this division of classes in the state is present in humans as well. However, they are not called classes, but parts of the soul. To prove that human justice is similar to the justice of the city, he states that just like the three classes in the city there are three parts of the soul. These are the rational part, spirited part and appetitive part. The rational part seeks for the truth. The appetitive part is composed of desires such as sex, eating, money. The spirited part is composed of our emotions, such as anger, honor etc. These three parts correspond to the three classes in the city. The rational part is present in the guardians, the spirited part is most prominent in the auxiliary guardians and the appetitive part is most prominent in the producers.

For a person to be just these three parts should be in harmony. The rational part has to rule the spirited and appetitive part. The spirited part, with proper education from birth, can help the rational part in controlling the appetitive part. However, if a person cannot tame his spirited part, the spirited part would help the appetitive part in controlling the rational part. If the appetitive part rules the other parts than that person would be the slave of his appetites.

Socrates finishes by stating that a man is just in the same way as a city and this justice is every part doing what they are best at. With proper education the rational and spirited part would rule the appetitive part, which is the biggest part. A just person would not let any part of him to meddle with the other parts. If this harmony is destroyed than that person becomes unjust. Socrates continuous his inquiry by looking into what injustice is. This inquiry continues in the proceeding books.

PARALLEL CONCEPTS: HUMAN JUSTICE and JUSTICE of the CITY

The city is composed of individuals and is not something independent. The city needs humans to exist and therefore without people it would be pointless to talk about it. As a result in order to find the human justice, Socrates started his inquiry by examining how a just city would be, which he rightly did so. Just like Socrates claims, I think that human justice and justice of the city are two parallel concepts.

Since humans started living as communities, there always have been social classes. This is a part of the human nature, because starting with childhood, people live in different environments. Also people have inherent inequalities as well; for example some people are better endowed from birth than others. There is no point in denying that. Even though some philosophers have argued for a classless society, this is more of a utopia then reality. Because denying the hierarchical structure of the society is illogical, the best thing that can be done is amending it to its best. By formulating three classes for the society Socrates wants to achieve the best system for an ideal city. According to him the well-endowed from birth, when equipped with a good education, will be successful leaders (Plato, 104). If individuals are investigated, it is not too difficult to find out which part of a person is/should be praised the most. Common sense leads us to the rational part of the soul. Therefore, it is obvious that the leaders should possess the most praised part. If incompetent people are the leaders, namely people who are ruled by their spirited or appetitive part, the city would perish. Because, both the spirited and appetitive part of the soul are inclined to making mistakes and forming obsessions. A person controlled by his appetite would do any harm to anyone to satisfy his needs. For example, a person who has cravings for chocolate might kill someone even though it is irrational. A person controlled by his spirited part would do bad things with good intentions. For instance, despite being outnumbered a rash person would charge into the enemy, kill numerous enemy soldiers and die in the process. However, a rational person would have waited for the reinforcements to arrive and then strike the enemy. It is easy to see that without the rational part both people and the city would be unjust. The examples demonstrated how the people would perish. So what about the city? In the introduction, I stated that the city is composed of individuals and without individuals there is no point in talking about a city. In other words, it is the qualities of the human beings that define the city. Therefore, if the citizens are unjust, the city automatically becomes unjust. No other entity in the city can make a city just. Good buildings or obedient dogs do not make a city just. As a result justice of the city and human justice are two parallel concepts.