prelims

PRELIMINARY REVIEWER Political Theory – This is a set of specified relationships encompassing political matters that focus and organize inquiry to describe, explain and predict political events. Also, this is the entire body of doctrines relating to the origin, form, behavior, and purpose of the state. The difference between Political Theory and Political Philosophy – According to the political scientists who supported the traditional or normative view, political philosophy and political theory were synonymous. It was not until the 19th century that a distinction was made between the two. NO political theory can be understood without its philosophical basis. That is, no political theory is important without a prominent philosophical point of view. The difference between the two is that the main foal of political philosophy is to develop a universal and general theory of life that should be ideal in nature. While political theory on the other hand, seeks to find the cause of something happening. Modern behavioral statesmen can be taken as example. They want to build a theory through experimentation, analysis, conclusions, etc. Along with the discussion of facts. Ancient Greek Democracy Vs. Modern Democracy These are the categories that merit an exclusion from the political affairs of the Ancient Greek Democracy: 1. SLAVES – The Athenian definition of “citizens” was also different from modern-day citizens: “Only free men were considered citizens in Athens. Slaves were not considered citizens. 2. WOMEN – Ancient Greek society was heavily patriarchal. With a clear division between the public sphere (polis) and the private sphere (oikos). Men were expected to participate in public like, including politics, while women were relegated to the private sphere, focusing on household duties and raising children. 3. FOREIGN CITIZENS – Since Athenian democracy is centered around the concept of citizenship, which is limited to two categories: adult, free male citizens. Hence, Foreigners (metics) were not granted citizenship because it was limited to the natives of the polis. Plato’s Idea and Approach on Politics – The Ideology of Plato is centered around Rationalism and his focus is about the Philosopher-Kings. Plato’s Political View: 1. He did not favor democracy as a form of government. – “The multitude can never be philosophical it is bound to disapprove of all who pursue wisdom.” 2. Contended that men and women are equal – “We shall not have one education for men and other for women, precisely because the nature to be taken in hand is the same.” 3. The rulers of the state must be a philosopher-king – “The philosophers with his passion for wisdom, will be one who desires all wisdom…. Only the man who has a taste for every sort of knowledge and throws himself into acquiring it with an insatiable curiosity will deserve to be called a philosopher…. The genuine philosophers are those whose passion it is to see the truth… The traits that should be possessed by the Philosopher-King Wisdom – “The wisdom it possesses will be due to the knowledge residing in the smallest part, the one which takes the lead and governs the rest. Such knowledge is the only kind that serves the name of wisdom, and it appears to be ordained by nature that the class [privileged to possess it should be the smallest of all (philosopher kings). Courage – It is another quality to which a community owes a certain part of itself. And it’s being brave will mean that in this part, it possesses the power of preserving, in all circumstances, a conviction about the sort of things that it is the right to be afraid of the conviction implanted by the education which the lawgiver established. (Basically means, knowing when to fear, and knowing what to fear). Temperance – A kind of orderliness, a control of certain pleasures and appetites. People use the expression “The master of oneself”whatever the means, and various other phrases that point the same way. To be a master of oneself the better part rules the worse. Justice – Everyone ought to perform the one function in the community for which his nature best suited himI believe that that principle, or some form of it, is justice. Note: No great harm would be done to the community by a general interchange of most forms of work. For example: the carpenter and the cobbler exchanging their positions and their tools and taking on each other’s jobs, or even the same man undertaking both…. But another kind of interchange would be disastrous. Suppose for instance, someone whom nature designed to be an artisan, or a tradesman should be emboldened by some advantage, such as wealth, or command of votes or bodily strength to try and enter the order of fighting men; or some member of that order should aspire, beyond his merits, to a seat tin the councilchamber of the guardians. Such interference and exchange of social positions and tools or attempt to combine all these forms of work in the same person, would be fatal to the commonwealth. The last trait that should be possessed by the philosopher-king is having a constant passion for any knowledge that will reveal to them something of the reality which endures for ever and is not always passing into and out of existence…. And if a man is temperate, and free from the love of money, meanness, pretentiousness, and cowardice, he will not be hard to deal with or dishonest so as another indication of a philosophic temper. 4. Pushed for the right kind of Education - Plato’s philosophy on education is a profound aspect of his work, particularly detailed in his dialogue “The Republic.” He believed that education should be holistic, aiming not just to impart knowledge but also to shape the character and soul of individuals. According to Plato, the right kind of education involves a rigorous process that combines physical training, music, mathematics, and ultimately, philosophy. For Plato, education was about achieving the good life, or eudaimonia, which means a state of fulfillment or flourishing. He proposed that education should help individuals learn how to live well, which includes learning virtues like bravery, rationality, and temperance. This, in turn, would lead to the betterment of society. 5. Ethics and morality must prevail, absence of it is caused by ignorance - Plato’s assertion that the absence of ethics and morality is caused by ignorance is a central theme in his philosophy. He believed that all moral evil arises from ignorance, and that no one commits evil knowingly. To Plato, engaging in wrongdoing is not a deliberate choice but a result of mistaking evil for good. This view is consistent with the Socratic principle that knowledge is a virtue and that knowing the good naturally leads to doing the good. In Plato’s ethical framework, ignorance is not merely a lack of knowledge but a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of good and evil. It’s a condition where the soul is misled by false beliefs and fails to recognize the true form of the good. Therefore, education and the pursuit of knowledge are crucial in Plato’s philosophy because they enable individuals to discern right from wrong and to act in accordance with the good. By stating that “ignorance, the root and stem of all evil,” Plato emphasizes the importance of wisdom and understanding in leading a moral life. He suggests that ethical behavior is rooted in the intellectual grasp of virtues, and without this understanding, people are prone to make erroneous judgments and engage in immoral actions. Further… Plato makes a persuasive comparison to medicine: if you are ill, you would want to see a qualified doctor who had studied medicine for many years. You would not turn to a crowd and ask them to vote on the correct remedy. Hence, democracy is a dangerous idea for the simple reason that it gives the right to rule to those who are unqualified for it. Dangers of Democracy: - Since the premise of democracy is equality of all citizens in the body politic, it gives right to rule to those who are unqualified. - Rulers must sustain their population (they depend on popular vote so they will avoid unpopular decisions) - Morality or virtue of the leader is compromised to retain power and popularity among the people. - If people are allowed to decide on political matters, they will inevitably listen to those who look best, shot the loudest and promise the most. CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN A STATE ACCORDING TO PLATO: WORKERS – (a.k.a “appetites”) AUXILIARIES – (a.k.a “courage”) RULERS – (a.k.a intellect) Hence it is imperative that the guardians/kings would be philosophers in Plato’s sense of the word: individuals who are not interested in power, wealth or social status because for them happiness consists of knowing the truth. PLATOS IDEA OF JUSTICE The society is built on simple premise: individuals must adopt the role to which they are best suited. If a person deviates from his/her role and becomes corrupted, then it will be an injustice. Aristotle’s political view – The political ideology of Aristotle is polity. He also focuses on political virtue. Aristotle’s political view: 1. Women are subordinate to men in his view - Aristotle viewed women as incomplete or mutilated men, considering the male as the ultimate realization of humanity and the female as necessarily inferior. Although he acknowledged that both sexes had a soul capable of reason, he believed women were subservient to men because they lacked the ability to control themselves physically and psychologically through reason. Aristotle considered women fit only to be subjects of male rule, with the deliberative part of their soul not sovereign in nature. 2. He held the defense of slavery (as a natural thing) - Aristotle thought that some people were naturally suited to be slaves due to their inability to use reason to govern themselves. He argued that just as the soul rules the body and reason rules appetite, those with superior reasoning powers should rule over those who are inferior in reasoning Aristotle posited that slavery was beneficial for both masters and slaves. Masters gained the obvious economic and social advantages, while slaves could share in the virtues of the master and elevate themselves through association Note: there are 3 types of association: The master and the slave, Marital association, and Parental association. 3. Knowledge can be acquired through observation - He posited that we first encounter the world through our senses, which allows us to observe and gather information about our surroundings. This sensory data then serves as the foundation upon which we can build further understanding. 4. Classified the forms of government (good and evil) : 5. The meaning of “good life” - Aristotle’s concept of the good life refers to the highest aims of a human being, which is called eudaimonia, and it is often translated as “well-being” or human flourishing. The good life is considered pleasant to a man of virtue, and moderate behavior, with appropriate appetites, is pleasant. Aristotle argues that what separates human beings from the other animals is the human reason, and the good life is one in which a person cultivates and exercises their rational faculties. Ultimately, Aristotle thinks the good life boils down to achieving eudaimonia, which is variously translated from Greek as ‘well-being’, ‘happiness’, ‘blessedness’, and in the context of the virtue ethics Aristotle endorsed, ‘human flourishing’. “Man by nature is a political animal.” It means that: It implies that man is an animal like other non-human animals and therefor has a natural way of life that is optimal for the species. Human beings are animals who naturally seek to live together, but they are distinct from all other animals in the crucial respect that only they are political beings, capable of making moral distinctions between good, and evil and between just and unjust. For Aristotle, the best form of government is a polity, mixed government that combines elements from the institutions of democracy and aristocracy. Yet, it is important to observe that this is not the ideal government but only the ‘best in circumstances’ and practically achievable. The good life for Aristotle: The good life for Aristotle is the pursuit of virtues such as Justice, Goodness, and Beauty. What is justice for Aristotle? According to Aristotle, justice is a virtue that allows individuals to give each person their due. His theory of justice is divided into three categories: 1. Distributive justice- Concerned with the fair distribution of goods and benefits in society. 2. Corrective justice- Deals with rectifying wrongs or harms. 3. Legal justice- Relates to obedience to laws and the common good of the political community. What is goodness for Aristotle? For Aristotle, goodness is about fulfilling one’s purpose through virtuous activity, maintaining a balance of character, and ultimately achieving eudaimonia. Beauty for Aristotle: For Aristotle, beauty was a matter of order, symmetry, and definiteness. He believed that these qualities could be measured and demonstrated particularly in the mathematical sciences. This concept is often associated with the Golden Ratio, a set of proportions found in nature and applied to various forms of art and architecture. Aristotle’s view on beauty was rooted in objective qualities that could be quantified, unlike the more subjective interpretations of beauty that are common today. His ideas influenced the way the Greeks built their world, from the mathematical proportion of their architecture to the composition of their sculptures The difference of a good man to a good citizen - According to Aristotle, the goodness of a good man and the goodness of an upright citizen are not the same. The goodness of an upright citizen is relative to the city of which he is a citizen, whereas the goodness of a good man is absolute. The good citizen is measured in relation to ruling and being ruled, while the good man is so called in virtue of a single absolute excellence Note: Plato built the Academy. While Aristotle built the Lyceum. Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavelli was born in Florence, a prosperous Italian city state and one of the main centers of the Renaissance art and scholarship. It is when Europe was an unstable mix of principalities ruled by princes, counts and dukes. There were constant wars as well as uprisings, political intrigues, and assassination. This is the political context of Italy in Niccolo’s time. Influences on Machiavelli’s political thought- Machiavelli teaches that politics is not a debate club-it is a contest for power. In politics the only rule is that there are no rules because every political situation is different and its outcome unpredictable. For Machiavelli, he found corruption at every level of political and religious government and thus he advocated for a strong government. He believed that a monarchy or rule by a single person was the most preferable form of government People or personalities that influenced the writings of Machiavelli: Rodrigo Borgia – (a.k.a Pope Alexander VI) He was the pope from the year 1492- 1503 He is considered to be one of the most notorious pope of the renaissance period. Cesar Borgia – This personality was the basis of Machiavelli’s the prince. Lorenzo De Medici – The person whom Machiavelli had written the prince for. Niccolo Machiavelli’s Political Theory Types of Principalities: 1. Hereditary - A principality ruled by a prince whose family has controlled the principality for several generations. Hereditary principalities, according to Machiavelli, are generally easy to rule and maintain. 2. New Principalities - New principalities are either annexed to a ruler's existing territory or are completely new. New principalities are either used to being ruled by a prince or are used to being free. New principalities are acquired by luck or by strength. 3. Mixed Principalities - mixed principality is one that has previously existed but has been taken over, and a new principality is one that requires a new form of government. When ruling a mixed principality, Machiavelli highlights the importance of befriending the weak and destroying anyone who may become powerful enough to revolt 3. Ecclesiastical Principalities: Ecclesiastical principalities are governed by religious institutions (such as the Church) 1. The difference of mixed and new principalities: New Principality: o A new principality is one that is completely new and has not previously existed as an independent state. o It can be acquired through various means, such as conquest, inheritance, or colonization. o The ruler of a new principality faces unique challenges because the state lacks established traditions, institutions, and loyalty from its subjects. o The people in a new principality may not be accustomed to the ruler’s authority, leading to potential resistance. o The prince must establish control, gain the goodwill of the natives, and adapt to the specific circumstances of the newly acquired territory. 2. Mixed Principality: o A mixed principality is one that has previously existed but has been taken over or annexed by a new ruler. o It is often a part of a larger composite state. o The difficulties in maintaining a mixed principality arise from inherent challenges faced by all new principalities. o People in a mixed principality may initially hope for improvement under the new ruler, but they often find themselves worse off. o The prince must navigate the delicate balance of satisfying existing expectations while imposing his authority. o Louis XII of France’s rapid occupation and subsequent loss of Milan exemplify the complexities of ruling a mixed principality. Machiavelli also separated the real of politics from morality, ethics, religion, and metaphysics, thus he sets up the state as an autonomous system of values independent of any other source. With this in mind, he then developed the idea of reason of states, under which many acts are permissive, even obligatory that would be considered heinous crimes if judged in the court of morality. “Let the prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judge honorable and praised by everyone.” – The amorality of Machiavelli implies therefore, not the denial of moral values in all situations, but the affirmation that in specific situation of the statesman the rules of power have priority over ethics and morality. “THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS.” “A prince therefore who desires to maintain himself must learn to be not always good, but to be so or not as necessity requires.” While a ruler cannot avoid immoral acts, he must not appear to be cruel, dishonest, or immoral to his people. If his own subjects would hate him, then the ruler is on the surest route to lose his power and glory. It is necessary for him to be a hypocrite: he must appear to be something that he is not and cannot be, namely morally upright. Virtu for Machiavelli: 1. Boldness & Courage 2. Discipline 3. Organization The characteristics of a prince: The prince should be both a Lion and a Fox, here’s why: Lion – exemplifies courage and power. Fox – exemplifies quickness and being cunning. He obliged the prince to know well and how to act as a beast. The leader must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot defend himself from traps and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. VIRTU AND FORTUNA Fortuna – Machiavelli uses fortuna to refer all of those circumstances which human beings cannot control, and in particular to the character of time, which has direct bearing on a prince’s success or failure. Virtu - According to Machiavelli, virtu is wasted if there is no opportunity, and opportunity is waster if there is no virtu. It implies that there is some kind of cooperation between the two forces. They cannot operate independently. It may not be possible to completely cancel out the effects of changing fortune, but by decisive action, it is possible to prepare for changes and to mitigate their bad effects. REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT “TO BE FEARED OR LOVED?” “However, a question arises out of this, namely: is it better to be loved than feared or better to be feared than loved? Well, one would like to be both; but it is difficult for one person to be both feared and loved, and when a choice must be made it is safer to be feared.” The very reason for this thinking is a fact about men in general: They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, cowardly, and greedy. As long as you are doing them good, they are entirely yours: they’ll offer you their blood, their property, their lives, and their childrenas long as there is no immediate prospect of their having to make good on these offerings; but when that changes, they will turn against you. And a prince who relies on their promises and does not take other precautions is ruined.