REVERSAL POINT
  • Home
    • Your Support
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact
  • Monetary Paradox
    • Monetary Wonderland
    • Shirakawa's Monetary Policy Paradox 1
    • Shirakawa's Monetary Policy Paradox 2
    • Minsky's Non-Neutral Money
    • Monetary Policy Paradox
  • Secular Cycle
    • Blog >
      • Bond Wave >
        • Monetary Regime Cycle and BitCoin
        • Paradigm Shifts in Monetary Regime along Bond Wave
    • Supra-secular rhythm
    • Secular Rhythm of Bond Wave >
      • Bond Wave Mapping 1: Paradigm Transformation in Interntional Monetary Regime
      • Bond Wave Mapping 2: Price & Inflation Cycles
      • Bond Wave Mapping 3: Private Debt Cycle
      • Bond Wave Mapping 4: Fiscal Cycle & Negative Real Yield Cycle
      • Bond Wave Mapping X: Political Cycle
      • Limited Gold Supply was a perennial problem for the Gold Standard: in search for Elastic Money and Scalability
  • Political Philosophy
    • Zeitgeist Zero Hour: Intro
    • Socrates Constitutional Cycle >
      • Socrates' Constitutional Cycle
      • Intrinsic value of Socrates Cycle
      • Contrast between Socrates vs Aristotle
    • Can we preserve democracy? >
      • Terminal Symptom of Democracy in Ancient World, Theoretical Views
      • Paradox of Equality & Aristotelean Paradox Management
      • Aristotelean Preservation of Constitutions
      • Contemporary Liberal Representative Democracy?
    • Old Contents >
      • Socrates' 5 Political Regimes
      • Socrates-Homer Hypothesis
      • Crassus & Trump: Socrates-Homer Hypothesis in Modern Context
  • Others
    • Price Evolution >
      • Oligopoly Price Cycle
      • Deflation >
        • Zero Boundary
        • Anecdote 1874-97
        • Deflationary Innovation
    • Innovation >
      • Introduction AI & ML & DL >
        • Chap1 ML Paradigm
        • Chap2 Generalization of ML
        • Chap3 DL Connectionism
        • Chap4 DL Learning Mechanism: Optimization Paradigm
        • Chap5 DL Revolution
        • Chap6 DL Carbon Footprint
        • Chap7 DL Underspecification
        • Chap8 CNN & Sequence Models
      • Map Risk Clusters of Neighbourhoods in the time of Pandemic
      • Confusing Blockchain >
        • Chapter 1: Linguistic Ambiguity
        • Chapter 2: Limitations in Consensus Protocols
        • Chapter 3-1: Disintermedition Myth-conceptions
        • Chapter 3-2: Autonomous Self-regulating Governance Myth-Conceptions
    • Environmental Distress >
      • Model Risk and Tail Risk of Climate-related Risks
  • Socrates' Constitutional Cycle

Contrast between Socrates (Plato) and Aristotle

Originally published: June 24, 2019
Last edited: June 28, 2019

By Michio Suginoo

Picture

Introduction

While Socrates casted fatalistic and monolithic dispositions in his analysis and elaborated his thoughts in dialectic form, Aristotle, in contrast, embraced freedom of choice and diversity (pluralism) and articulated the importance of contingent particularity of historical experiences.

There are conspicuous differences in thoughts between Socrates and Aristotle. This reading lists up some illustrative differences between these two intellects in antiquity and goes over my personal interpretation on those differences.

As a footnote, whenever this reading refers to Socrates, it refers to Plato’s fictional Socrates in his masterpiece, the Republic. It is simply because Socrates did not leave us his own writing and we can only examine the reflections of Socrates in the writings of his disciples, Plato and Xenophon.

Section 1: Differences in thoughts between Socrates and Aristotle

Fatalism vs Choice of Actions:

While Plato, in his masterpiece of ‘the Republic,’ portrays a deterministic, or fatalistic, disposition of Socrates, Aristotle demonstrated his reservation for non-determinism to explore ‘freedom of choice’, ir not 'free will', for political actions in shaping the future.

As an illustrative anecdote, even in his real personal life, Socrates demonstrated his fatalistic disposition in accepting his fate of execution, which was sentenced by the irrational, and ironically democratic, judiciary ruling based on distorted fictional accusations against him.

In contrast, Aristotle, when the political situations in Athens turned hostile to him, simply fleed from the city-state to avoid falling prey to adverse political consequences: as if he refused to follow suit of Socrates legacy.

Unity (Monolithic doctrine) vs Diversity (Pluralism)

On one hand, Socrates saw that ‘unity’ among the citizens was essential for the preservation of a given constitution. In his argument, he promoted the creation of ‘the foundation myths’—often translated as ‘noble lies’—to craft a social consciousness of unity (Lee, 2007, p. 112) and further devised secret police, censorship and surveillance to fabricate the unity of his utopian kingship/aristocratic state.

On the other hand, Aristotle saw that ‘diversity’ and competitions among citizens were essential dynamisms of a city-state. He, while presenting several alternatives for best form of constitution, did not pick one specific form as the universally best constitution: a best form of constitution is conditions-specific for, thus particular to, a state. He further argued that a mixed form of constitution—in which kingship/aristocracy, oligarchy, and democracy co-exist—provides a viable ‘check and balance’ mechanism to prevent any extreme fundamentalism from arising from any of its constituent doctrines and stabilise a constitutional arrangement.

Simply put, while Socrates demonstrated monolithic disposition, Aristotle embraced pluralism.

Governance by Expert vs Participatory Governance (Freedom of Speech)

While Socrates articulated that the governance of a just society demands specialised examined knowledge that only those experts specialised in governance possess, Aristotle embraced a more liberal principle that a good (natural and just) state can be operated through institutional check and balance and promoted the participation of all classes of the society in deliberative and judicial functions (except for executive function).

Overall, Socrates perceived, non-expert, ordinary people were cognitively too impaired to govern a society. In a means-end frame, he articulated that the end of just society, social harmony or the common good, was realised through individual’s pursuit of specialised expertise, or occupational specialisation. He, interestingly, identified justice in the means—occupational specialisation—to realise a just society, rather than its’ end--‘social harmony’ or ‘the common good’.

On the other hand, Aristotle developed his relatively liberal discourse based on his fundamental principle that we, human kind, were a special specie that were by nature gifted with the ability of speech, thus, naturally a political animal.

“Nature
[…] does nothing without some purpose; and she has endowed man alone among the animals with the power of speech. Speech is something different from voice […] Speech on the other hand serves to indicate […] what is just and what is unjust. […] For as man is the best of all animals when he has reached his full development, so he is worst of all when divorced from law and justice.” (Aristotle, The politics, 1992, pp. 60-61: Book I ii: 1253a)

Nature, according to Aristotle, granted us with, on top of the ability of speech, the ability to distinguish between just and unjust as well. This draws a fundamental difference between Socrates and Aristotle in their views on who can participate in governance and who should be ruled. Nevertheless, that is not to say that Aristotle did not value expert knowledge. He highly regarded practical wisdom (phronesis).

Imperialism Expansionism vs Self-Preservation oriented Liberty & Prosperity

In his discourse on the development of a civilisation, Socrates regarded war as a means for its end, civilised life. He argued, a civilised society would demand more than bare necessities and pursue luxuries. The luxuries of civilisation would necessitate the society to seek resources abroad, and expand her territory; thus, she would inevitably invoke wars. (Plato, The Republic, 373 c-e) Simply put, Socrates promotes an expansionary imperialism.

On the contrary, Aristotle, in his discourse of a good society, rather aimed at liberty from foreign dominations and self-preservation-oriented prosperity and highly valued dividends from peace. Overall, he considered war as a means primarily for self-preservation and peace-making. (Aristotle, the Politics, Book VII ii & xiv: 1325a & 1333a)

These ends that these intellects were aiming at were not necessarily mutually exclusive, but their motives are very different, thus suggesting the difference in their dispositions.

Dialectic Knowledge vs Empirical Knowledge:

While Socrates had demonstrated his tendency to conduct dialectic discourse, Aristotle unfolded his arguments based extensively on his empirical knowledge (his broad survey of 158 constitutions of his time). That is not to say that Socrates did not engage any empirical discourse: he often referred to historical episodes to exemplify his deductive argument.

Discord over Political Regime Transformation

These two intellects shaped contrary views on constitutional changes. While Socrates, by presenting only one single path of constitutional transformations, casts fatalism, Aristotle upholds non-deterministic pluralism, or a contingent view, that there can be multiple paths that constitutional change can take.

Nevertheless, Socrates is not necessarily an absolute fatalist on this matter. We can find this fact in the way he presents his single path of constitutional change. Although he presents only one single path, he describes it as a hypothetical path, rather than the only necessary path, as a product of a series of conditional events: if such conditions are met, it would lead to such a consequence. Simply put, the path that he chose is a very special path in the sense that it is a manifestation of his version of a natural (uninterrupted endogenous) decay of social psyche, or social moral order that he calls the soul. Cur a long story short, he briliantly demonstrated that civilisation can disintegrate from within, without any interruption from exogeneous causes. In his discourse, he illustrated how its uninterrupted endogenous decay could express a chain of different souls—or Zeitgeists if you like—in five phases (generations or epochs) throughout the life of a civilisation (particularly Ancient Western Civilisation). And as a result, Western Civilisation started from just kingship/aristocracy, then travels through timocracy, oligarchy, and democracy, then finally degenerates into tyranny to complete its one life cycle. This is a notion of the constitutional (political regime) cycle formulated by Socrates—call it Socrates Cycle (for more details, please visit the following contents: Intrinsic value; Thus spoke Socrates.

Aristotle, on the contrary, embraced an open, non-deterministic, or contingent, view on constitutional changes. For him, one constitution can transform into any direction—for example, democracy can transform to either oligarchy, tyranny, or a mixed form of constitution. Furthermore, he articulated that we could preserve any existing constitution (political regime), if we managed it appropriately.

On one hand, Aristotle was right in conceiving a contingent view in the direction of constitutional change on regime-by-regime basis. On the other hand, Socrates was brilliant in portraying the natural decay of the soul, or Zeitgeist, that populated constitutional changes; as if it were the natural law of gravity. In a way, in order to compare Aristotle’s and Socrates’ views, we can use an analogy of rain running through different landscapes (rivers, lakes, caves)—rain can take different paths depending on the landscape that it runs through; but it will flow from the highest place to the lowest place dictated by the force of gravity. While Aristotle illuminated different possible paths of constitutional change analogous to different landscapes that rain runs through, Socrates presented a natural (uninterrupted endogenous) constitutional decay analogous to rain falling directly from the sky into the sea by the force of gravity.

This analogy suggests that these two intellectuals illuminate two different aspects of the same phenomena, constitutional transformation. In other words, their opposite views constitute the both sides of a same coin.

Last, not least, to be fair to Socrates, I don’t think that it is reasonable to assume that anyone could populate and describe multitudes of scenarios of constitutional change. Even Aristotle did not capture all the variety of the entire universe. In this respect, I would still see paramount intrinsic value in Socrates discourse: at least, he illustrated an imperative cause of constitutional decay.

Although there remain more differences between these two intellects, these comparisons paint a rough overall illustrative sketch of their contrasting differences.


Section 2: Differences on Best Constitution

Socrates’ Best Constitution

Socrates’ best constitution was his utopian kingship/aristocracy, which might appear to many of us merely a political neverland of his fantasy. He called it Kallipolis, literally meaning a beautiful city.

In brief, he divided Kallipolis into three classes: the Philosopher King, his auxiliaries, and the ordinary. Socrates demanded the ruling class, both the Philosopher King and his auxiliaries of the most stringent constraints: for example, they could have neither family nor any excess wealth beyond their basic necessities, while the ordinary were allowed to have family and enjoy commercial prosperity and leisure.

Overall, Socrates highly regarded expert knowledge and contemplated specialised expertise as an essential means to realise a just society. Every single member of Kallipolis, the just kingship, was required to pursue the excellence of own professional expertise and to maintain self-control not to interrupt others’ occupations.

To carry out his discourse, he proposed his Tripartite Doctrine of the Soul: three components—reason, appetite, and Thumos—constituted the soul. (Thumos is a blanket term to encompass the following multiple meanings: pugnacity, enterprise, passion, spirit, anger, indignation, ambition, and contentiousness.)

Especially, he demanded the Philosopher King to possess wisdom and specialised expertise in governance as well as a perfect soul, which enshrined reason on the top of its moral hierarchy to regulate appetite and Thumos. He perceived that the ordinary were cognitively too impaired to engage in governance and entrusts governance to the Philosopher King and his auxiliaries. In Kallipolis, king is not hereditary, instead is chosen through a series of strict screenings over educations and congenital dispositions. And for the selection of the auxiliaries, he included women with their merit. It has a liberal element from the perspective of ‘gender equality.’ And it is a strictly meritocratic society.

Up to this point of his argument, the Tibetan Society before the exile of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama in 1959 partly might appear reminiscent to Kallipolis. To begin with, Socrates argument, shaped based on the Western moral value, should contemplate primarily Western Civilisation. Tibetan case, if any resemblance to Kallipolis, might be merely a product of a historical accident, thus irrelevant. Or, does Kallipolis possess certain universal elements among ancient civilisations? I would leave it up to the readers for further imagination.

Or it might be hard to imagine such a state existing in our humanly world. As a matter of fact, Socrates himself makes a confession on this point in the following dialogue:

Glaucon: “You mean that [the philosopher king] will [enter politics only] in the society which […] we have theoretically founded; but I doubt if it will ever exist on earth.”

Socrates: “Perhaps, [the utopian society] is laid up as a pattern in heaven, where [the philosopher king] who wishes can see it and found it in his own heart. But it doesn’t matter whether it exists or even will exist; in it alone and in no other society, could he take part in public affairs.” (Lane, 2007, pp. 334: Book IX: 592a-b)

Moreover, Socrates articulated that unity was essential to realise Kallipolis. In order to craft unity, he proposed censorship, secret police, and Foundation Myths (often translated as ‘noble lies’). ‘Foundation Myths’ talks about the foundation of the people and the society and about heroes and heroines who saved the society from catastrophes. (Lee, 2007, p. 112).

Overall, Socrates’ Kallipolis casts a notion of a totalitarian state in the age of myth that consolidates the unity of society.

Although there are more about Kallipolis, this paints a rough sketch of his best constitution.

Aristotle’s Pluralism on the Best Constitution

To Aristotle, the worst villain was chaos, or a state of anarchy. In this light, he considered any form of political order would be better than chaos.

Nevertheless, he also presented his arguments on best constitution, what form of constitutional arrangement serves best to stabilise a political order. Aristotle embraced diversity even when he contemplated the best constitution. To him, interestingly, the best seems pluralistic: he proposes at least three distinct alternatives for his best constitution:

  1. Hypothetical utopian state: As his first best constitution, Aristotle made a conditional pick of a hypothetical utopian state: only when there were a man who possesses a pre-eminence in virtue, a natural decision would be to enthrone him as a permanent king of the state. (Aristotle, The politics, Book III xiii 1284b) Nevertheless, he also revealed that this would be a case in a rare auspicious occasion, but not a realistic one under ordinary circumstances: “we shall not assume a standard of excellence beyond the reach of ordinary men”. (Aristotle, Politics, 1961, p. 117: Book IV iii 1295a) In other words, it may be a theoretical fantasy.
  2. A mixed form of constitution: Aristotle, then, turned to our real mundane world and prescribed a mixed form of constitution as a pragmatically best available one (ranked after his hypothetical utopian fantasy). He presented as an example a triple-layer mixed form of constitution, in which aristocratic, oligarchic, and democratic principles co-existed and counterbalanced (check and balance) one another. He perceived that the principle of the balance of power, or the separation of power, among multiple social classes could render a prevention mechanism of an excess of any component in the triple mix. (Aristotle, Politics, 1961, p. 258: Book IV vii: 1293b)
  3. A middle state: Aristotle prescribed another alternative for the best constitution to the real mundane world, not a utopian one. He based his argument on the principle of ‘middle way’ concluding that a state with a substantial layer of the middle class, would “invariably be best” under normal circumstances. And he called it ‘a middle state’. (Aristotle, Politics, 1961, p. 117: Book IV iii 1295b)

How did he come up with these alternative conclusions? What principles did he base his arguments? What were his prescriptions for the preservation of constitution, particularly democracy? Please visit two other contents of mine--Paradox of Equality and Aristotelean Paradox Management; Aristotle's Principles and Guidelines for the Preservation of Constitutions—on his last two alternatives described above.

Concluding Remark

Despite the contrasting differences between these two intellects, I tend to see that their thoughts are in some respects complementary than confrontational. That is to say, while Aristotle raises our consciousness in capturing the contingent particular nature of our reality, Socrates unveils the imperative general nature of social moral decay. Of course, that is not to say, these two are absolutely complementary; in some respects, they disagree fundamentally and cannot reconcile each other.


Donation:
Please feel free to click the bottom below to donate and support
the activities of www.reversalpoint.com



References

  • Aristotle. (1961). Politics. In Aristotle, Politics and Athenian Constitution (J. Warrington, Trans.). London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd
  • Aristotle. (1992). The politics. (T. A. Sinclair, & T. J. Saunders, Trans.) London: Penguin Group.
  • Lane, M. (2007). Introduction. In Plato, Plato, the Republic (pp. xi-li). London: Penguin Books, Ltd.
  • Lee, D. (2007). the Republic (Opening Note). In Plato, Plato, the Republic. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.
  • Plato. (2007). the Republic. (D. Lee, & M. Lane, Trans.) London: Penguin Books, Ltd.

​Copyright © 2019 by Michio Suginoo. All rights reserved.
Proudly powered by Weebly