Aristotle

Aristotle’s Life and influence

Born in 384 B.C.E. in the Macedonian region of north eastern Greece in the small city of Stagira,
unlike Plato, Aristotle was not an Athenian by birth Aristotle was sent to Athens at about the age of
seventeen to study in Plato’s Academy, then a pre-eminent place of learning in the Greek world.
Once in Athens, Aristotle remained associated with the Academy until Plato’s death in 347. Later, he
established his own institution Lyceum, for about twelve years or so, between 335 and 323 BC. He
died a year later in Chaleis while in exile, following fears of being executed by the Athenians for his
pro-Macedonian sympathies: "I will not allow the Athenian to commit another sin (first being the
execution of Socrates in 399 BC)", he had said.

Aristotle and the Lyceum

Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 B.C. As an alien, he couldn’t own property, so he rented space in
the Lyceum, a former wrestling school outside the city. Like Plato’s Academy, the Lyceum attracted
students from throughout the Greek world and developed a curriculum centered on its founder’s
teachings. In accordance with Aristotle’s principle of surveying the writings of others as part of the
philosophical process, the Lyceum assembled a collection of manuscripts that comprised one of the
world’s first great libraries.

Association with men of the ruling classes

Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle has kept his association with men of the ruling classes. In 343, upon
the request of Philip, the king of Macedon, Aristotle left Lesbos for Pella, the Macedonian capital, in
order to tutor the king’s thirteen-year-old son, Alexander—the boy who was eventually to become
Alexander the Great.

● Hermias between 347-344 BC, with Alexander between 342 and 323 BC and with Antipater
after Alexander's death in 323 BC.
● Such an association with rulers helped Aristotle's penetrating eyes to see the public affairs
governed more closely.

Family
His father, Nicomachus was a physician at the court of Amyntas II. A longer part of his boyhood was
spent at Pella, the royal seat of Macedonia. Because of his descent from a medical family, it can well
be imagined that Aristotle must have read medicine, and must have developed his interest in
physical sciences, particularly biology.

Importance of Aristotle’s Political Philosophy

Everyone is born either a Platoilist or an Aristotelian
Aristotle's relationship to Plato was similar to J.S. Mill's relationship to Bentham as both Aristotle
and Mill repudiated major portions of the teachings of their master-Plato and Bentham respectively.

● This fundamental difference between Plato and Aristotle led them to initiate two great
streams of thought which constitute what is known as the Western Political Theory, From
Plato comes political idealism; and from Aristotle comes political realism.
 ● On this basis, it is easy to understand the comment by Coleridge, the poet, that everyone is
born either a Platoilist or an Aristotelian.

Father of Political Science

The difference between Plato and Aristotle is the difference between philosophy and science. Plato
was the father of Political Philosophy; Aristotle, the father of Political Science.

● Plato portrays an unrealisable utopia-the ideal state whereas Aristotle's concern was with
the best possible state.
● Professor Maxey rightly (Political Philosophies, 1461) says: "All who believe in new worlds
for old are the disciples of Plato; all those who believe in old worlds made new by the
tedious and toilsome use of science are disciples of Aristotle."

'The Master of Them That Know'

Aristotle, like Plato, wrote voluminously. Aristotle has written on many subjects, His admirer claimed
for him the title of 'The Master of Them That Know'. For about thousand years, according to Maxey:
"Aristotle on logic, Aristotle on mechanics, Aristotle on physics, Aristotle on physiology, Aristotle on
astronomy, Aristotle on economics, and Aristotle on politics was almost the last word.

Whatever subject he treated, he treated it well; whatever work he wrote, he made it a

master piece. His legacy, like that of his teacher Plato, was so rich that all those who claim
themselves as realists, scientists, pragmatists and utilitarian look to him as teacher, guide and
philosopher.

“Aristotle's was a flowing river of gold”

Aristotle's surviving works were likely meant as lecture notes rather than literature, and his now-lost
writings were apparently of much better quality. The Roman philosopher Cicero said that "If Plato's
prose was silver, Aristotle's was a flowing river of gold."

Perspective of Aristotle as a thinker:

More important to be worldly wise rather than wise in the world of ideas
Unlike Plato, who believed that ruling class require a specific knowledge. Aristotle believed that
ruling class requires common sense. According to him, it is more important to be worldly wise rather
than wise in the world of ideas.

Aristotle does not reject the world of matter.

According to Aristotle the world of ideas is not independent of matter rather ideas are inherent in
matter. We cannot out rightly reject the knowledge of this world which we gain through the use of
sensory organs.

Aristotle believes in middle path

According to him, Golden mean is the Golden Rule. It means the life of moderation is the best life.
According to him for good life we require both knowledge as well as property but in moderation. If
Aristotle is for moderation, Plato is for perfection, if Plato idealist, Aristotle is Practical (pragmatic), if
Plato thinks about the best, Aristotle talks about the best Practicable.
Aristotle is functionalist
Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of
a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or
the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part. This doctrine is rooted in Aristotle's conception of
the soul, and has antecedents in Hobbes's conception of the mind as a “calculating machine”, but it
has become fully articulated (and popularly endorsed) only in the last third of the 20th century.

Aristotle belongs to the school of teleology

Teleology means destiny. According to teleology nature has specific design for every and every
person moves towards its natural destination.

Comparison between Plato and Aristotle

Maxey writes: "Where Plato let his imaginations take flight, Aristotle is factual arid dull; where Plato
is eloquent, Aristotle is terse; where Plato leaps from general concepts of logical conclusions,
Aristotle slowly works from a multitude of facts to conclusions that are logical but not final; where
Plato gives us an ideal - commonwealth that is the best his mind can conceive, Aristotle gives us the
material requisites out of which, by adapting them to circumstances a model state may be
constituted."

Aristotle was Plato's disciple but he was his critic as well. It is, therefore, common to project Aristotle
against Plato as Andrew Hacker (Political Theory, 1961) really does.

Plato is utopian, whereas Aristotle is practical.

Plato's Republic is a utopian work depends on what one means by “utopia”. It shall simply stipulate
that by “utopia” It means a description of an imagined society put forward by Plato as better than
any existing society, past or present. The limiting case (relevant to the Republic) is the portrayal not
just of a better society but of the best society. He call a “mere utopia” a description of an ideal
society meant or recognised - a society in some sense better than any historical society, but which
could never actually exist.

On the other side, Aristotle has a practical approach his, phronēsis, the excellence of the practical
intellect, is two-fold, consisting of a true conception of the end to be achieved by action and correct
deliberation about the means to achieve that end.

Three accounts have been given as to how that true conception of the end is acquired:

i) by virtue of character,
ii) by dialectic, i.e. critical reasoning concerning authoritative beliefs, and
iii) by induction from data of experience.

Virtue of character is the proper responsiveness of the appetitive element in the soul to reason; it is
itself a rational state, presupposing a prior grasp of the end by the intellect. Dialectic and experience
are each required for the attainment of that grasp, the role of the former being apparently to
formulate more or less indeterminate principles that it is the task of moral experience to make
determinate.
Plato is extremist, Aristotle believes in Golden mean.
Plato was an extremist whether he was talking about justice, state or the idea of philosopher king or
any other notion his approach seems to an extremist whereas Aristotle believe in the idea of Golden
mean or the middle path, Aristotle says that  golden middle way is the desirable middle between
two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency.

Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic
philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or
concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analysed on its own. This
viewpoint leads to Aristotelian Empiricism. For Plato, thought experiments and reasoning would be
enough to "prove" a concept or establish the qualities of an object, but Aristotle dismissed this in
favour of direct observation and experience.

Plato believes in perfection, whereas Aristotle believes in moderation.

Aristotle did not approve of the three classes of Plato's ideal state, especially the guardians having
the political power with them. He disagreed with the idea of one class (guardians consisting of the
rulers and the auxiliaries) enjoying all power of the state. The failure to allow circulation, says David
Young, "between classes excludes those men who may be ambitious, and wise, but are not in the
right class of society to hold any type of political power." Aristotle, he continues, looks upon this
ruling class system as an ill conceived political structure.

Plato, in his Republic did not consider laws as important. He was of the opinion that where the rulers
were virtuous, there was no need of laws, and where they are not, there the laws were useless.
Aristotle realised the significance of laws and held the view that rule of law was any day better than
the rule of men, howsoever wise those rulers might be. Even Plato realised the utility of laws and
revised his position in his Laws.

Plato is radical, Aristotle is conservative.

Aristotle differs from Plato in being, in addition, much more of a “situational” conservative. A
situational conservative will tend to reject the belief in human reason to recast reality in the mould
of its ideals or of the laws it discovers. He will stress the superior wisdom of history and tradition in
slowly working out the best institutions and practices. A situational conservative need not
necessarily be a substantive conservative. A situational conservative will focus on the necessity not
to depart too much in action from what past experience and history have so far given us. For him,
the main political danger lies in the arrogance of not recognizing that human life is a tremendously
complex affair that cannot be mastered once and for all by theoretical reason. Change must be slow
and incremental, when it takes place at all. Past experience is a better guide to truth than theory
understood as pure abstract reasoning.

Prominent ideas of Aristotle

Theory of State
For Aristotle, as with Plato, the state (Polis) is all-important. Both, Plato and Aristotle, see in the polis
more than a state. The polis is, for both, a community as well as a state, state as well as a
government; government as well as a school; school well as a religion. The characteristic features of
Aristotle's theory of state call be, briefly, stated as under:

Man is by nature a political animal

In his Politics, Aristotle believed man was a "Political animal" because he is a social creature with the
power of speech and moral reasoning.

Humans have speech, which can be used to communicate their ideas about what is right or wrong as
well as just and unjust. If the nature of man is not revealed then the man itself is an animal without
any potential. Speech serves man as a weapon to protect himself from what is just or unjust.

● Aristotle believes that man by nature must live in the community because he was a political
creature or zoon politikon.
● A man naturally belongs to the city because that is where he can exercise his sociability and
can debate with others upon his virtue.
● Virtues are habits of the soul by which one acts well. Virtuous actions express correct, high
reasoning, which are acquired through practice and habituation.
● The city is prior to the individual because the individual apart from the city is not self-
sufficient and therefore, he has to be something else rather than a human being.
● A man has potential to do good, but if he is not capable to use his virtue and is without any
boundaries, he can be worse than any animal.
● In Aristotle's point of view the city is self-sufficient because it contains all the necessities for
humans to lead a good life.
● The city provides humans with partnership with others, which plays a big role in the sake of
basic survival, but it exists for the wellbeing of human kind.

Man is naturally sociable and that they are naturally drawn to various political associations in order
to satisfy their social needs and the process is impossible if human doesn’t have a power of speech

State is the highest of all Associations

Aristotle State provides a safe and sound environment to enable its people to use their capabilities
and potentials for the common good and welfare.

State is a self sufficient entity not the family or village, they further depends. Its only state who can
fulfil all the needs of a man and provide a better environment for his well being.

State deserve the highest attention and obligation of man because it played a key role in his life by
maintaining a law and order and such and environment so that man can grow and make his life more
happy.
Those who live alone are either God or Beast
Aristotle believes that man by nature must live in the community because he was a political creature
or zoon politikon. Those who can`t live in the community is either God or the beast.

● Aristotle even approaches the psychological analysis of the man who is socially
accomplished and mentions his psychological pathology. He talks about the need for
another being, which is central issue in his teaching
● In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other;
namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this is a union which is formed,
not of deliberate purpose,
● But because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire
to leave behind them an image of themselves, and of natural ruler and subject, that both
may be preserved.
● For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and
master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by
nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest.
● Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly,
she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for
one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women
and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves,
male and females.
● Man as a civilized individual cannot survive without State and if he claims, then it means
from human beings, he is nation-less, lawless, and homeless. He is either above or below
humanity.

State is the union of family and village

● Man prefers to live with the others to get various basic needs that cannot be achieved
lonely. To get the very basic needs, man and women, roaster and slaves came together and
as a result, the first institution of human civilization, family, was formed.
● When families increased, they made villages and tribes to solve some greater needs which
they are unable to do. Due to some other greater problems and needs, the tribes and
villages united in a single and greater institution, the state.
● Hence it can be said that these all institutions have different purposes,

Aristotle’s Theory of Constitution

Aristotle treats constitution, government and state inter-changeably. Aristotle is known as father of
constitutionalism because he does not permit the deviation between constitution and manner of
government.

● Polity is the best practicable form of government.

● Do you think Aristotle’s theory of constitution is based on his principle that the golden mean
is the golden rule? Aristotle has studied 158 constitutions on the basis of his study he have
given 6 basic forms of constitution. He have classified constitution on two parameters:

⎯ Objective of governance.

⎯ Number of persons ruling.

● In his classification monarchy or the rule of philosopher king is the best but not the best
practicable. The practical form of monarchy will be tyranny. Tyranny is the worst form of
government and hence it will not be stable. Polity is the rule of middle class in the interest of
the people. According to Aristotle it is the best practicable form of government. It represents
the golden mean of oligarchy and democracy.

● Polity is a rule of many but not too many.

⎯ Democracy is extreme because it is a rule of too many which means rile of ignorance
and poor. Democracy is the second worst form of government. Democracy will get
replaced by tyranny.

⎯ Oligarchy is a rule of rich but it will also not be stable because poor will be conspiring
against the rich. Similarly in Democracy the rich will be conspiring against poor.

⎯ Aristotle gives following arguments to support the polity is the best practicable form
of government.

i. Rich do not trust poor, poor do not trust rich, but both will trust the middle
class.

ii. Poor suffers from ignorance and rich from arrogance. Neither poor nor rich
are in the habit of obedience to the law.

iii. Middle class have reason and moderate wealth. There have been many
examples of great law givers like salon belonging to middle class.

⎯ Thus polity avoids the two extremes. The extreme of richness and extreme of
poverty. The extreme of arrogance and ignorance and it is based on the principle of
golden mean.

⎯ From Aristotle’s theory we should take the inherent message that though societies
where huge disparity exists are not stable will be more prone to conspiracy and
societies where more number of person are in middle class are stable.

● Rule of law: “Law is a reason without passion”.

⎯ Aristotle has compared rule of law with rule of philosopher king/person and has
established the superiority of rule of law.

⎯ The context of Aristotle’s theory is the criticism of the institution of the philosopher
king. Plato has given absolute powers to the philosopher king. In the words of Plato,
“For no law or ordinance is mightier than knowledge”.

⎯ Aristotle is the greatest critic of Plato besides being greatest disciple of Plato. If Plato
talks about the best, Aristotle talks about the best practicable.

⎯ According to Aristotle, it is utopian to think that we can find a philosopher king. Even
when we find philosopher king, there is no guarantee that he will not act with
passion.

⎯ According to him, law and reason is same. They are two sides of two coins. The
purpose of both is to guide man about right and wrong.
 ⎯ Law is the outward manifestation of reason. If reason is in soul, law is in the book of
law. Not only law and reason is same rule of law comes with additional security and
benefits.

● Law is a reason minus passion. Law does not change according to the person. It is
impersonal. Law has additional benefits.

⎯ Law represents collective wisdom which is preferable to the wisdom of one person.

⎯ Law represents the wisdom of ages and it would not be wise to challenge the
collective wisdom of ages in the name of ultimate knowledge.

● Aristotle suggest that we should not sacrifice well for the sake of best because best is
unachievable.

Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of State:

Totalitarian in character.
● His concept of the state is all- embracing. The individuals in his state have no separate
status. They are completely merged with the state. Its organic nature reveals the totalitarian
feature.

● If the individuals are separated from the state they will lose their importance as the
separated parts of human or animal body lose their activity. Critics are of view that this
contention of Aristotle about the relationship between the state and individuals is
unacceptable.

Associations or communities have no separate importance or position.

● The state or polis embraces all other communities. They owe their existence to the state. It
means that all the communities are merged in the body of the state.

● It implies that the polis has absolute control over all communities. He observes—”all forms
of community are like parts of political community”. It is now quite obvious that both the
individuals and the community are integral parts of the polis. This view of state is anti-
democratic. We do not regard individuals or associations as mere appendix parts of the
state. In modern times, the community plays the important part in the field of developing
the personality of individuals.

State or polis is not the greatest manifestation of supreme good.

● It aims at some good no doubt but not the supreme good. By supreme good he means
complete human good, the good life of all members of the polis as distinct from the lesser
goods or partial welfare of the individuals.

● In real life, the state in no capacity can mould or determine the character of individuals in an
absolute way. The state has a role, but it shares with numerous other communities. By
denying giving importance to the community he has done injustice to it.

● When he says that the polis is the manifestation of supreme good he wants to assert that it
is an institution of supreme authority. The state, in practical life, is never the holder of
supreme authority.
 ● Although Aristotle does not talk about sovereignty in its absolute sense, his analysis
indicates that he had developed a fascination about absolute nature of sovereignty. The
absolutist character of a state is always inimical to the balanced development of human
personality.

In spite of these criticisms something need to be said in support of his concept. According to
Aristotle the state is not the product of any contract. It is natural. This does not mean that man has
no role behind the creation of the state. The evolution of man’s consciousness and intelligence has
helped the creation of state.

● It has not been made by certain individuals all on a sudden. Efforts of centuries lie behind
the creation of a state. This is the evolutionary theory of state. It is also called the scientific
theory.
● Family, community and state—all are perfectly natural. We all agree with this contention of
Aristotle. Even modern thinkers are of opinion that the state is the final form as a political
organization.

Aristotle’s Theory of Justice

Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed that justice the very essence of the state and that no polity
can endure for a long time unless it is founded on a right scheme of justice. It is with this
consideration in view that Aristotle seeks to set forth his theory of justice. He held the view that
justice provides an aim to the state, and an object to the individual. “When perfected, man is the
best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.”

Aristotle regarded justice as the very breadth of the state/polity. According to him, justice is virtue,
complete virtue, and the embodiment of all goodness. It is not the same thing as virtue, but it is
virtue, and virtue in action.

Justice is virtue, but it is more than virtue; it is virtue in action, i.e., virtue in practice. Reason is, for
example, a virtue, but the reasonable/rational conduct is justice; truth is a virtue, but to be truthful
is justice. What makes a virtue justice is the very practice of that virtue. So Aristotle says: “The good
in the sphere of politics is justice, and justice contains what tends to promote the common interest.”

COMMUTATIVE
JUSTIC
PARTICULAR
JUSTIC
THEORY OF DISTRIBUTIVE
JUSTIC JUSTIC
UNIVERSAL
JUSTIC
As far as particular justice is concerned, it is again of two types, distributive justice and remedial or
corrective justice.

● Distributive justice implies that the state should divide or distribute goods and wealth
among citizens according to the merit.
● The corrective justice is divided into two, dealing with voluntary transactions (civil law) and
the dealing with involuntary transaction (criminal law).

Further, Aristotle added commercial and cumulative justice to the above-mentioned types of justice.

Justice

Distributive Rectificatory (Redressal of grievances)

Performed by legislature Proportion

Public policy (distribution of resources/justice)

Honour, rewards, positions, resources

Principles

Need Desert/Merit

Distributive Justice:
● Aristotle was of the opinion that this form of justice is the most powerful law to prevent any
revolution, as this justice believes in proper and proportionate allocation of offices, honours,
goods and services as per their requirement being a citizen of the state.
● This justice is mostly concerned with political privileges. Aristotle advocated that every
political organization must have its own distributive justice.
● He, however, rejected democratic as well as oligarchic criteria of justice and permitted the
allocation of offices to the virtuous only owing to their highest contributions to the society,
because the virtuous people are few.
● Aristotle believed that most of the offices should be allocated to those few only.

Corrective Justice:
● All laws related to commercial transactions are dealt within the remedial and corrective
actions.
 ● It aims to restore what an individual had lost due to the injustice of the society. This justice
prevents from encroachments of one right over the other.
● Aristotle opined that corrective justice relates to voluntary and commercial activities such as
hire, sale and furnishing security. These actions involve aggression on life, property, honor
and freedom.

In brief, this justice aims at virtue and moral excellence of character and it is for this reason, it is
called corrective justice.

“It is unjust to treat equals, unequally; it is equally unjust to treat unequals, equally.”
Above statement explains Aristotle’s theory of justice. Theory of justice is linked to the
theory of equality/idea of equality. According to Aristotle, justice demands that the persons who are
equal, posse’s equal merit ought to be treated equally. If a state goes for discrimination against the
person who deserved to be treated equally, such person will be tempted to go against a state. He
commonest cause of resolution is the feeling of inequality, real or imagined.

Aristotle does not support absolute equality. Absolute equality will be injustice with the
person who is more talented or meritorious. If state will give equal treatment to more meritorious
and less meritorious. It will give rise to the feeling of injustice. Feeling of injustice will also lead to
revolutions and seditions. We can see the linkage between Aristotle’s theory of justice and his
theory of slavery. It will be injustice if state will treat masters and slaves equally. Aristotle was
supporter of meritocratic society.

Merit can be one of the criteria of the justice, but it cannot be the sole criteria of justice.
According to John Rawls, Justice is fairness. Constitution of India reflects the idea of justice based on
the concept of fairness in India because level playing field does not exist, merit alone cannot be
criteria of justice.

Theory of revolution.
In Book V of the Politics, Aristotle discussed one of the most important problems, which
made it a handbook for all the statesmen for all times to come. The problem, which he took UP, was
one that related to political instability or the causes and cures of revolutions. The analytical and the
empirical mind of Aristotle gives numerous causes, which would affect the life of the state. As a
physician examines his patient and suggests remedies, so does Aristotle, the son

Of a medical petitioner, Nicomachus, ascertains the causes of what aids the states and thereafter
suggests remedies. Gettel says: “Politics is not a systematic study of political philosophy, but rather is
a treatise on the art of government. In it, Aristotle analyses the evils that were prevalent in the
Greek cities and the defects in the political systems and gives practical suggestions as to die best way
to avoid threatening dangers.” Dunning writes the same thing: “In Book V of the Politics, Aristotle
follows up his elaborate array of the causes that produce revolutions by an equally impressive array
of means of preventing them.”

Revolution means, according to Aristotle, a change in the constitution, a change in the rulers, a
change—big or small. For him, the change from monarchy to aristocracy, an example of a big
change, is a revolution; when democracy becomes less democratic, it is also a revolution, though it is
a small change. In Aristotle’s views, political change is a revolution; big or small, total or partial.
So to sum Aristotle’s meaning of revolution, one may say revolution implies:

1. A change in the set of rulers;

2. A change, political in nature;
3. A palace revolution;
4. Political instability or political transformation;
5. A change followed by violence, destruction and bloodshed.

Aristotle was an advocate of status quo and did not want political changes, for they brought with
them catastrophic and violent changes. That why he devoted a lot of space in the Politics explaining
the general and particular causes of revolutions followed with his suggestions to avoid them.

General causes of revolutions

Professor Maxey identities the general causes of revolutions as stated by Aristotle in his –

1. that universal passion for privilege and prerogative which causes men to resent and rebel
against condition which (unfairly in their opinion) place other man’s or on a level with them
in rank or wealth;
2. The overreaching insolence or avarice of rulers or ruling classes which causes men to react
against them;
3. The possession by one or more individuals of power such as to excite fears that they design
to act up a monarchy or an oligarchy;
4. The endeavors of men guilty of wrong doing to foment n revolution as a smokescreen to
conceal their own misdeeds or of men freeing the aggressions of others to start a revolution
in order to anticipate their enemies;
5. The disproportionate increase of any part (territorial, social, economic or otherwise) of the
state, causing other parts to resort to violent means of offsetting this preponderance
6. The dissension and rivalries of people of different races;
7. The dynamics and family feuds and quarrels and
8. struggles for office and political power between rival classes and political factions or
parties.”

Particular causes of revolution

To the general causes of revolutions, Aristotle adds the particular ones peculiar to the various types.

● In democracy the most important cause of revolution is the unprincipled character of the
popular leaders. Demagogues attack the rich, individually or collectively, so as to provide
them to forcibly resist and provide the emergence of oligarchy, that causes of overthrow of
oligarchies can be internal as when a group within the class in power becomes more
influential or rich at the expense of this rest, or external, by the mistreatment of the masses
by the governing class.
● In aristocracies, few people share in honour. When the number of people benefiting
becomes smaller or when disparity between rich and poor becomes wider, revolution is
caused.
● Monarch, Kingship and tyranny are bad forms of constitution to begin with and are very
prone to dissensions.
Means and solution to avoid Revolution
To these causes of revolutions, Aristotle suggested means to avoid them. Maxey, in this connection,
says:

● “The first essential, he (Aristotle) says jealously to maintain the spirit of obedience to law,
for transgression creeps in unperceived, and at last reins state.
● The second thing is not to maltreat any classes of people excluded from the government, but
to give due recognition to the leading spirits among them.
● “The third device for preventing revolution, according to Aristotle, is to keep patriotism at
fever pitch.’ The ruler who has a care of the state should invent terrors, and bring distant
dangers near, in order that the citizens may be on their guard, and like sentinels in a night-
watch, never relax their attention”.
● ‘The Forth expedient is to counteract the discontent that arise from inequality of position as
condition by arrangements which will prevent the magistrates for, making money out of
their positions limiting the tenure of office and regulating the distribution of honours so that
one person or group of persons will become disproportionately powerful..”.
● Fifth and finally, this of all the things which I have mentioned, that which most contributes
to the permanence of constitutions is the adaptation of education to die from of
government. The young, in other words, must be trained in the spirit of the constitution
whatever constitution may be; must be disciplined to social habits consonant with the
maintenance of the constitution; mist learn to think and act as integral parts of a particular
form of political society.

Profound and realistic analysis of the general and particular causes of revolution together with
the suggestion to cure the ailing system as is of Aristotle, the whole treatment of the subject of
revolution is not without serious weakness. He has given a very narrow meaning of revolution ... a
political change only, forgetting that revolution is always a comprehensive social change m die fabric
of die whole system. He also has a negative role for the revolution, i.e., brings with its destruction,
violence and bloodshed, without recognizing the fact that revolutions, as Marx had said, are
locomotives of history, violence only a non-significant attending characteristic of that wholesome
change. With Aristotle, revolutions should be kept away, making him the status-quoist of his times.