Glossary of Twenty Key Terms for a University Course in the History of Western Political Theory

     What follows is a set of twenty key terms in political theory, and their definitions. These definitions were written by the author of this blog, Joe Kopsick, but were based on the contents of a political theory course that was imparted to him at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the spring of 2009.
     The course was taught by Jimmy Casas Klausen, who assigned students works written by Western political theorists throughout history until the present day. These works included Plato's Republic, Sir Thomas More's Utopia, Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition, and famous works by Aristotle, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Action

     Hannah Arendt says that action is an end in itself and it is the highest mode of activity and creation. She says that freedom comes through action, that the freedom of action cannot be eliminated, and that we define and create ourselves through action.


Alexander [the Great]

     Alexander was a Macedonian ruler and a student of Aristotle. Aristotle says that the Athenian polis was brought to an end through self-corruption, and its goal changed from common interest to profit. Aristotle believes that Alexander's goodness saved Greece.


Amour Proprie

     Rousseau says that amour proprie, vain self-love, is unnatural, and that vanity arises only in civil society. In vanity, we empty ourselves of meaning, as meaning and love can only be given to us by other people. He says that vanity is the cause of dependence, domination, and inequality, and that man is naturally independent and unselfish.


Chrematistics

     Aristotle believes that chrematistics, the art of acquisition, trade, and exchange, is an unnatural form of acquisition for the household. He argues that chrematistics makes gains on the exploitation of others. He says that living well is self-limitation and self-sufficiency without conspicuous consumption.

Collective Deliberation

     Aristotle believes that reason that is agreed on by everyone is more valuable than orthodoxy. He believes that a group of citizens gathering to combine their competencies and positive qualities will make policies better than any one person could. Hannah Arendt believes in active citizenship, civic republicanism, and the value of political association to develop the power of action, deliberation, and efficacy.

Corpus Mysticum

     The corpus mysticum describes the body politic of the church. The church is the corpus mysticum of Christ, and the people are part of the mystical body. The church's spiritual head is Christ represented, and its second spiritual head is the spiritually-ordained king. This puts the state in a lower position of authority than the church. Hobbes says that the corpus mysticum is an artificial body, and this is why we are able to take it apart and study it.

Cynics

     The Cynics was a school of philosophy that questioned and rejected every social convention and claim to authority. Cicero believes they questioned shamelessly and called Cynicism an "anti-tradition." Cicero believes that indecency and shame can be justified.


Despotism

     Rousseau says that despotism is the unjust rule of one man. He, Aristotle, and Plato agree that despotism is the worst type of governance. Rousseau says that the farther away we move from the state of nature and from despotism, the closer we get to perfectibility. He says that between the state of nature and despotism, there is happiness in "a middle position between... our primitive state and... egocentrism...”.

Fortuna

     Machiavelli says that fortuna (fate, fortune, luck, or favor), has direct bearing on a ruler's success or failure to maintain power. He believes that with virtú, one may triumph over fortuna.

Liberality

     Liberality is generosity. Machiavelli warns that excessive generosity may turn government into a slave. Machiavelli says that generosity should be practiced virtuously, and not known about. Cicero believes that generosity helps to build a network of friends, and that a man should measure his actions by honorableness rather than by his own advantages.


Maieutics

     Maieutics is the belief that the truth is latent in the human mind. Plato says that Socratic maieutics resembles obstetrics. Thus, Socrates is the "midwife of reason," and his dialectical method is the obstetrics that gives birth to logos.

Matter in Motion

     "Matter in Motion" is an individual driven by a passion. For Hobbes, the individual is the principal unit of analysis, and thus the matter of political science. He says that the decay of sense is an obscuring of motion made in sense.

Nonsenso, Raphael

     Raphael Nonsenso is a character in Thomas More's Utopia. He is a philosopher whom has seen the world as a sailor. He describes Utopia as the happiest society. He is a representation of Thomas More and his opinions.

Oikos

     The oikos is the private realm of the household, and the polis is the public realm of the political community. Aristotle believes that wealth and trade are associated with the household economy, and that it is wise to make a distinction between expertise in household management and expertise in business management. Hannah Arendt agrees that matters of labor and economy belong to the oikos. She believes that the rise of the social has destroyed the political by subordinating the public realm of human freedom to the concerns of mere animal necessity.
     [Note: oikos is the root of the word "economy".]

 

Perfectibility

     Rousseau says that perfectibility is the characteristic of man that desires self improvement. Perfectibility and reason allow men to evolve, and modern day culture was brought about by perfectibility. Men improve upon themselves by having a capacity for change which allows them to be molded to fit their environment. Perfectibility becomes possible when people move away from the state of nature and from despotism.


Plurality

     Plurality is a condition that preserves unity without being detrimental to either liberty or uniqueness, Hannah Arendt wants the polis to be an artifact of uniqueness, She says that the rise of the social is bad. Aristotle agrees, and also says that the household must be distinct from the whole of society.

Sovereignty

     Sovereignty is political authority within a territory. Hobbes believes that sovereignty is unconditional, absolute, and irrevocable. He believes that the sovereign must be separate from the people in order to prevent civil war. Rousseau believes that the sovereign and the people should be one and the same, in order for there to be common happiness.



State of Nature

     The state of nature is a state of anarchy that existed before the rule of law, and before the state had a monopoly on force. The natural condition of mankind, according to Hobbes, is a state of war in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" because individuals are in a "war of all against all". Rousseau believes that natural man is gentle, timid, piteous, non-confrontational, and amoral.

Telos

     Teleology is the study of ends. It is the belief that the essence of something is found in the thing into which it grows. The telos is the purpose, goal, or end. Aristotle said that the telos of man is to be happy and to live well and live justly. He also says that living happily requires living a life of virtue.
     [Note: To read "The Squirrel and the Acorn", a short essay that I wrote in May 2009 about teleology and political science, please visit the following link:
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-squirrel-and-acorn.html]

Three Causes of Quarrel

     According to Hobbes, the three causes of quarrel are competition, diffidence, and glory. Men quarrel for gain, safety, and reputation. He says that in anarchy, these three quarrels lead to a state of war. Rousseau says that competition does not occur in a state of plenty. Aristotle says that diffidence occurs when people act out of fear of aggression and seek retribution. Hobbes believes that glory is exclusive pride for oneself, one's family, or one's homeland.

Author's Note:

     To read another glossary - or "encyclopedia" - of political theory terms, which I devised by myself, please visit the following link, and read my August 2018 article titled "Encyclopedia of Economic Systems and Key Terms in Political Theory":

     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/08/encyclopedia-of-economic-systems-and.html

Notes taken in May 2009

First published to this blog on August 3rd, 2021

Introduction and notes in brackets written on August 3rd, 2021

The Middle Class: Aristotle vs. American Society

     Aristotle believes that the middle-class is economically and morally moderate. The middle-class has property, and thus it is interested in politics, but those who have either excessive wealth or excessive poverty may become arrogant or malicious, and no longer able to obey reason or make wise decisions.

     Aristotle abhors polarization and extremism. He idealizes a constitutional government. He says, “Where the middle class outweighs in numbers both the other classes, or even one of them, it is possible for a constitution to be permanent.”

     He sees democracy as problematic, describing it as “rule by the many in their own interest.” He says that there should be direct participation of citizens in the affairs of the state rather than participation through representation. He believes that it is good for people to take turns governing, and that citizens should be willing to serve on juries.

     Aristotle's conception of the middle-class is different from the American middle class in that American citizens are not often willing to serve on juries. Also, direct citizen participation in American government is much less common than people exercising political power through representation.

Written in April 2008 for a course on political theory,

Edited in July 2014

The Origin of Political Association: Aristotle vs. Thomas Hobbes

     Both Aristotle and Hobbes believe that in order to understand the state, one must study its origins. Aristotle believes that the origin of the polis existed in relationships, whereas Hobbes sees the individual as the building block of political society.

     Aristotle says that “all associations come into being for the sake of some good”, and that “the most sovereign and inclusive association is the political association [polis].” He says that “...there must necessarily be a pairing of those who cannot exist without one another... [and] a union of the naturally ruling element with the element which is naturally ruled, for the preservation of both.”

     Aristotle says that “just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just.” He says that people whom have forethought by the virtue of intellect are naturally rulers, and that people whom have the bodily power to do physical work are naturally ruled.

     Hobbes believes that a person's desire for self-preservation may become egoism, and this causes individuals to seek protection from other individuals by placing constraints upon their egoistic natures. He believes that unbridled egoism prevents people from socializing with each other because of their fear and lack of trust.

     Although Aristotle explains man and woman's biological necessity to each other, he is not able to support the claim that a slave cannot exist without a master in the same way man and woman depend on one another. He assumes that slaves are unable to exercise forethought. Also, it would seem that all people have the power to do physical work, and Aristotle fails to explain whether a person whom has both power and intellect deserves to rule or be ruled.

     Hobbes' argument is more plausible because he doesn't make birth-based generalizations about rulers and the ruled; instead, he imagines the moment the rule of law came into existence, and explains the necessity of the rule of law as protection of the safety of individuals, and not strictly to keep necessary relationships intact. The relationship of man and woman is a social relationship that does not need political associations to survive. After all, that relationship existed sustainably even before the advent of the rule of law.

Written in April 2008 for a course on political theory,

edited in July 2014

Aristotle’s Criticisms of Plato’s Form of the Good

                  

Greek philosophers Plato (ca. 427 - 347 BC) and Aristotle (384 B.C.E. - 322 B.C.E.)

The categories are Aristotle’s attempt to place the senses of being into ten classifications. They are substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and affection.

Aristotle argues against the Platonists’ view that there is such a thing as the “form of the good.” Aristotle believes that good is not a single, common universal because what it is to be good is particular to the essence of the individual; that is, what makes something good varies depending on what the thing is.

Aristotle defines what goodness is with respect to each category of being. For example, he says the good place is the right situation, the good relative is the useful, and the good time is the opportune moment. He says that if good were a common and single universal, it would be spoken of in only one of the categories and not in them all.

To describe two different individuals as “good” is to assign them a homonymous quality. They are both called “good,” but what it is to be good is different for the two individuals. For example, what it is to be a good master is different from what it is to be a good slave because different properties define each individual and different properties define what makes each individual good. Were a slave to try to be a good slave by partaking in that which makes his master a good master, he would either cease to be good, cease to be a slave, or both.

Aristotle says that “good” is the same as “good itself” because they both have the same account of “good” in the same way that “the human being itself” and “human being” have the same account of “human being”. To argue this is to disagree with the Platonic idea that “good” and “human being” are individuals that partake of the forms “good itself” and “the human being itself.” To add the word “itself” to an idea is to suggest that the idea is a form that is dependent upon the things that partake of it.

Aristotle also says, “good itself will be no more of a good by being eternal; for a white thing is no whiter if it lasts a long time than if it lasts a day”. Aristotle means that just because some individual may have a quality that is thought of as a perfection, it does not mean that that individual is any more perfect with respect to what makes that individual what it is. In other words, if an individual (“f”) has a perfection (“p”), its “f-ness” is not affected.

Next, for the Platonist who would respond to his criticisms by distinguishing goods which are good in their own right from goods which are merely useful, Aristotle poses a dilemma. He asks, “is nothing except the Form good in its own right, so that the Form will be futile?” He then says that if practical wisdom, pleasures, and honors are goods in their own right, and if there is a Form of good, then the same account of good turns up in all of them. He says those three things have different and dissimilar accounts, so “the good is not something common corresponding to a single Form”.

When Aristotle says that good “is not like homonyms resulting from chance,” he means that it is not due to chance that one definition of “good” shares something with another. “Good” has many meanings depending on the nature of the individual to which it is applied. This is why the idea “good” can be represented in a single word; for each individual, there exists a property or a set of properties required for the individual to be called “good.”

Aristotle also asks whether good is spoken of by analogy. This may be so, as when two individuals each have the set of properties that respectively make them good, the goodness of one individual is analogous to the goodness of the other with respect to what the individuals are and what makes them good, even though the properties that make them good may be in completely different categories.

Aristotle says that in trying to determine whether there is a Form of the Good, we are looking for “the sort of good which a human being can possess or achieve in action.” He says, “If there is some one good predicated in common, or some separable good, itself in its own right,” that is not the sort of good that we can possess or achieve. He disagrees with the proposition that if we have a view to the Form of the Good “as a sort of pattern, we shall also know better about the goods that are goods for us, and if we know about them, we shall hit on them.”

Aristotle says it is useless for a craftsman to know good itself because the craftsman has nothing to gain by knowing it. What makes a doctor or a weaver or a carpenter useful is his understanding of the work he practices; not simply knowing good itself and thus being able to partake of it.

It may not be the case that the “possess and achieve in action” argument is an argument against Plato at all. What is probable is that it was not intended as an argument, but rather as a rationalization. In this section of the text, Aristotle is not using his statement about the uselessness of understanding the Form of the Good to mankind to argue against its existence, but  rationalizing the difficulty of determining, once and for all, the answer to the question of whether there exists a Form of the Good.

Aristotle’s weakest argument against Plato is the argument that “good itself will be no more of a good by being eternal, for a white thing is no whiter if it lasts a long time than if it lasts a day”. Aristotle is trying to say that if an individual “f” has a perfection “p”, the “f-ness” possessed by “f” is no greater. This statement seems true, as it does not contradict Aristotle’s assertion that for an individual to have a superfluous characteristic in a state of perfection does not make that individual any more “good.” However, the first statement makes it necessary to ask, What does Aristotle think is the property that allows for goodness itself to be good?

Aristotle’s strongest argument against Plato is the argument that good is spoken of as an analogy. If two individuals are described as good, a Platonist would take that to mean that both individuals partake of the same thing, goodness. Aristotle, on the other hand, understands that the individuals are good with respect to what it is for each individual to be good. He rejects the idea that their goodness is the same, but he also rejects the idea that they are both called good for no reason whatsoever. Instead, he sees goodness as something abstract and difficult to define, proposing that the goodness possessed by the individuals are analogous with respect to what makes the individuals what they are. This argument is fair to Plato in that it seems to reconcile that notion with Plato’s position that the Form of the Good exists as something that encompasses all different types of good.



Originally written in November or December 2007 as a college essay

For more entries on philosophy, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/aristotle-and-rousseau-on-natural.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/platonic-forms.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/socratess-defense.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/materialism-stirner-vs-marx.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/population-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-history-of-western-philosophy-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-squirrel-and-acorn.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/political-theory-flow-chart.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/max-stirner-images.html

Aristotle and Rousseau on the Natural Political Association of Men

    

Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

While Rousseau and Aristotle both understand that labor creates a need for self-sufficiency, the two authors’ views on what is natural, what relationships are natural, how to view natural skills, and the division of labor differ greatly. Rousseau’s arguments are supported better than Aristotle’s.

Aristotle claims that “man is by nature a political animal” “in a higher degree than… other… animals,” and that the political association “completes and fulfills the nature of man… and he is himself ‘naturally a polis-animal.”

Aristotle sees language as a method of signifying perceptions of pleasure and pain, good and evil, and the just and the unjust to one another, and to declare what is advantageous. He believes that associations between people communicating what things they think are advantageous is what “makes a family and a city.” He says that a “final and perfect association, formed from a number of villages” “may be said to have reached the height of full self-sufficiency,” coming into existence for the sake of life and “for the sake of a good life.”

Aristotle’s asserts that “master and slave have accordingly a common interest,” which he supports by saying that an intelligent person whom can exercise forethought “is naturally a ruling and master element” while a person whom can use his bodily power to do physical work “is a ruled element.”

Aristotle agrees with Rousseau that the master / slave relationship is, or at least should be, one that exists for the mutual benefit of both, although Rousseau would not consider such a relationship “natural.” Rousseau believes that our reciprocal dependence on each other is what makes it necessary for each of us to do some work for the benefit of all of society, and that to enslave someone is to create in him dependence on others.

Rousseau thinks that political inequality is established or authorized by the consent of men, whom afford each other different privileges. He believes that slavery did not exist in the state of nature. He says, “since the bonds of servitude are formed only from the mutual dependence of men and the reciprocal needs that unite them, it is impossible to enslave a man without first putting him in the position of being unable to do without another; a situation which, as it did not exist in the state of nature, leaves each man there free of the yoke, and renders vain the law of the stronger.”

We must take into consideration the way our authors think of nature. Aristotle says, “Nature… makes nothing in vain,” and “Nature… makes each separate thing for a separate end; and she does so because the instrument is most perfectly made when it serves a single purpose and not a variety of purposes.” He believes that "every city exists by nature; the ‘nature’ of things consists in their end or consummation.”

Rousseau believes that in the state of nature, “all things move in… a uniform manner… the face of the earth is not subject to those brusque and continual changes caused by the passions and inconstancy of united peoples.” He considers the moment  at which  humans  left the state of nature “the moment when, right taking the place of violence, nature was subjected to law; to explain by what sequence of marvels the strong could resolve to serve the weak, and the people to buy imaginary repose at the price of real felicity.”

People attempt to get out of the state of nature by seeing nature and subjecting it to law, according to Rousseau. He claims that the “first source of inequality among men” is the perfection and deterioration of some individuals whom acquire diverse qualities “which were not inherent in their nature.”

When Aristotle writes that an intelligent master whom can exercise forethought in order to enslave a person suited to physical work, he calls the master a “naturally… ruling… element.” Aristotle thinks the master/slave relationship is a natural one, while Rousseau disagrees. Since, according to Rousseau, we leave nature by subjecting it to law, he would be likely to say that we could end what Aristotle considers “natural” slavery (although Rousseau himself would not share in that designation) by incorporating a system of justice, law, and equality into slavery, and ensuring that neither slave nor master takes advantage of the other without willingly giving something of himself.

If Aristotle thinks that “the ‘nature of things consists in their end or consummation”, then it would be reasonable to expect him to think that the nature of human political society is one that is complete; a polis which is all the villages of the world united. On the contrary, Aristotle thinks that some people are naturally suited to rule, and some are naturally suited to work and be subject to rule. His view that “Nature…  makes each separate thing for… a single purpose and not a variety of purposes” seems problematic because this is to suggest that a person who is born a slave shall never become free or even a master. Aristotle’s view that a master will always be a master and a slave will always be a slave will certainly not bring about a polis of all united villages because there will always be those who claim they have authority over other people, and the master / slave relationship will often be subject to abuses.

Rousseau’s view that men leave the state of nature by observing it and imposing upon it a system of law is better supported than Aristotle’s argument. Rousseau believes that reciprocal dependence makes work necessary, but he does not use this to justify the taking of slaves. He understands that mutual dependence causes people to work together, performing different tasks at different times, so that all tasks may be accomplished simultaneously and the benefits accorded equally to all members of society.

Aristotle’s view of nature suggests that he would not want people to have diverse job training, as “Nature… makes each separate thing for… a single purpose and not a variety of purposes.” Believing in such a statement would seem likely to contribute to disorder and undermine the cause of societal self-sufficiency, because it would make a farmer idle in the winter, as he would have no crops to tend to.

Written in April or May 2008

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/thrasymachus-support-for-justice-being.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-social-libertarianism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/materialism-stirner-vs-marx.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/feudalism-and-class-war.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/population-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/defense-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/political-compound.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/two-competing-class-theories.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-market-anarchism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/02/agorism-and-mutualism-summaries-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-panarchy-without-adjectives.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-anarchism-economists-vs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/10/map-of-contiguous-united-states-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/twenty-five-reasons-why-political.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/monopoly-and-property-rights.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/statism-to-anarchy-staircase-model.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/political-theory-flow-chart.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/illustration-of-lange-model.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-partisans-in-us-federal-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-philosophy-of-taxation-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/viewing-legislation-through-economic.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-i-am-not-liberal.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/military-industrial-socialism-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/general-philosophy-on-government-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-social-corporatism-and-tripartism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-is-political-radicalism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-about-ayn-rand.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/using-profit-incentive-to-promote.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/thoughts-on-statism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/alliance-against-tripartism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-locke-roderick-long-and-voluntary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/summary-of-my-political-views.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-campaign-for-liberty.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-proper-role-of-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-general-welfare-clause.html