Aristotle “He who is unable

to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.”

AristotleThe Father of Political Thought

All humanity was political by nature. A “constitution” was how humans were

organized politically That constitutions could be judged good or

bad by evaluating if politics took care of “parts” or “wholes”

384– 322 bce

Humans are naturally political

Because man is a social beast by nature, his lives in a community, and to live in a community you need rules.

This need for rules creates politics, either good or bad.

Aristotle’s view of wholeness If YOU’RE not whole then YOU’RE not fully

alive. You do not want to see the “members” of the body separated.

SOCIETY needs to be “whole” to be fully alive as well.

If you think you can stand alone outside of society, then you are as ridiculous as a “huge foot” all by itself.

Aristotle’s view of wholeness Aristotle measured goodness with wholeness.

Government is never perfect, but it can be

good if it concerned with the “whole” of society.

If government doesn’t care about the “whole” society, if it’s there only to benefit a “part” of society, then that government is perverted.

Making the “whole” through the “parts”a.k.a. Citizens vs. Subjects

If you are a citizen, you are engaged in the political process.

All citizens are equal, but they are not all the same. They need to do their part to contribute to the whole.

If you’re not responsible enough to be a citizen and do your part to contribute, than you are a subject and will be lorded over.

Aristotle on parts The parts (citizens), when are put together, will

build a life that maintains the spirit of the whole community. How would you define the “American Spirit?” How about the “Spirit of the Chinese?” How about “Iraqi Spirit?”

Could our Constitution work for the Chinese or the Iraqi? Why or why not?

The Spirit of the whole is its Constitution It’s important to note that Aristotle’s definition of

“constitution” is different from ours today. To Aristotle, a constitution is how a community

works . . . NOT a document that is the rule of law. He wanted to study constitutions/communities . . .

He wanted to see the “whole” very badly but couldn’t.

So he studied the parts/citizens to define the the spirit/constitution of the whole community.

Is a constitution good or bad?

Is a government set up with the common

interests of the “whole”, or merely only the ruling

“part” that has the power?

“Right” constitutions were directed to the

common interest of the whole.

“Perverted” constitutions were directed at the

selfish interest of the ruling body.

Aristotle on constitutions To Aristotle, there were only three natural ways to

rule. Rule by the one Rule by the few Rule by the many

But, if there were “right” and perverted” constitutions then these three ways to rule are doubled for the good and bad.

Aristotle on constitutions“Right” Constitutions

Considers the common interests of the whole.

1. Kingship--the rule by one.

2. Aristocracy--the rule by a few.

1. Constitutional Government--the military ruling as the mass (in Aristotle’s time).

“Perverted” ConstitutionsConsiders only selfish interests of

those ruling.

1. Tyrant--a perversion of Kingship.

2. Oligarchy--a perversion of Aristocracy

1. Democracy--a perversion of Constitutional Government, which is the rule. No one ruling the poor, uneducated masses . . . MOB RULE!

So given Aristotle’s views . . . Does our constitution match the animating spirit of

the American people?

Describe what our “animating spirit” would look like.

Could our constitution fit everyone in the world?

Would our constitution fit the spirit of the Iraqi

people? Considering the spirit of the Iraqi people, what you

think their constitution might look like?

Aristotle still has universal influence! The founder of constitutional

thinking. Saw the world in parts of

wholes. Believed you could recreate

a whole by merely observing a part.

Believed all wholes had constitutions.

To this day, no country considers creating a constitution without referring to his views!

384– 322 bce

Think like an Aristotelian . . . Get out a pen and paper Is our government run by one, a few, or the

many?

Does it focus on the well being of the “whole” or only the ruling “parts”? In other words, are we good or perverted?

Give three examples that would substantiate your opinion.