“One who asks law to rule, therefore, is held to be asking god and intellect alone to rule, while one who asks man adds the beast” (114). In The Politics, Aristotle addresses the issue of how difficult it is to implement good laws. This predicament, however, did not suddenly arise yesterday; rather, humans have always grappled with enacting the best laws conducive to a successful human experience. At the same time though, there are limits, especially because humans are only finite creatures. Therefore, after outlining Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s Republic, I argue that Aristotle hopes for cities and laws to achieve peace and work for the good of its citizens.
Aristotle first considers Plato’s Republic as a means of studying “the sort of political partnership that is superior to all” (55). He asserts that in order for a system to constitute as a regime, the citizens must be “partners either in everything, or in nothing, or in some things but not in others” (55). In the Republic, Plato
…show more content…
Ultimately, every type of “authoritative element appears to involve difficulties” (100). Out of this dilemma, an aspiration emerges from Aristotle. He contends that “the multitude should be the authoritative element rather than those who are best but few” (100). Aristotle reasons that quantity may indeed surpass quality in certain cases, particularly when considering the governing board of a city. He alludes to an example of a house, stating that a regime is a complex entity. As a result, there is a drastic need for various talented individuals to address specific problems. Just as “a pilot judges rudders better than a carpenter, and the diner, not the cook, is the better judge of a banquet,” so too does the regime need to find those individuals proficient in handling money, educating citizens, and training an army