WEBVTT

NOTE Aristotle

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.280
My lecture this afternoon is on Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC.

2
00:00:09.280 --> 00:00:14.480
Aristotle was not, unlike Plato, was not an Athenian.

3
00:00:14.480 --> 00:00:22.120
He was born in a small city state called Stagura, but he spent most of his early years were

4
00:00:22.120 --> 00:00:25.360
spent in Macedon.

5
00:00:25.360 --> 00:00:36.140
His father was the physician to the King of Macedon. As a young man, Aristotle went to

6
00:00:36.140 --> 00:00:43.800
Athens where he studied for a number of years with Plato. Plato founded his own school called

7
00:00:43.800 --> 00:00:56.440
of the Academy. Aristotle was a student there for quite a long time. Then, Aristotle later,

8
00:00:56.440 --> 00:01:01.680
at least according to most accounts, was a tutor to Alexander the Great, who was the

9
00:01:01.680 --> 00:01:09.280
son of King Philip of Macedon. When I was preparing for these lectures, I was surprised

10
00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:16.200
to Read. There are some writers such as Richard Kraut in his book on Aristotle who claimed

11
00:01:16.200 --> 00:01:25.940
that it may not be the case, it may be false that Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor.

12
00:01:25.940 --> 00:01:32.480
This may just be a legend, although he doesn't give any claims on this. But I've been assured

13
00:01:32.480 --> 00:01:39.880
by competent authority that most people, most scholars accept that he was the tutor of Alexander

14
00:01:39.880 --> 00:01:54.680
the Great. As you know, Philip of Macedon really became the dominant power in Greece.

15
00:01:54.680 --> 00:02:01.320
He was in a war against the various other city-states with Athens as one of his main

16
00:02:01.320 --> 00:02:09.400
and Opponents. In the famous battle in 338 BC, the Battle of Chironia, Philip of Macedon

17
00:02:09.400 --> 00:02:18.260
defeated the Athenians, and then there was a provincial governor who was appointed by

18
00:02:18.260 --> 00:02:27.520
the Macedonian government, I mean, Aenidus, I think, who was in control of Athens. Aristotle

19
00:02:27.520 --> 00:02:37.520
Resume Residence in Athens. Remember, he was not, as I say, he was not an Athenian, he was not a citizen of Athens.

20
00:02:37.520 --> 00:02:51.520
At that time, unlike today, people say couldn't, when they lived in a place for a number of years, you couldn't just take out naturalization papers and try to become a citizen.

21
00:02:51.520 --> 00:03:02.800
A citizen in Athens had to be, at least from 450 BC, had to have parents who were citizens.

22
00:03:02.800 --> 00:03:20.480
So Aristotle was a non-resident alien in Athens, a so-called medic, M-E-T-I-C, not to be confused

23
00:03:20.480 --> 00:03:24.840
with MEDIC, a different word.

24
00:03:24.840 --> 00:03:30.760
So although the reason I mention that is, as you'll see, Aristotle, when he was talking

25
00:03:30.760 --> 00:03:35.160
about the best form of government, various forms of government, had a good deal to say

26
00:03:35.160 --> 00:03:43.400
about citizens and citizenship, but he himself was not a citizen of Athens, even though he

27
00:03:43.400 --> 00:03:45.320
spent a lot of time there.

28
00:03:45.320 --> 00:03:58.760
Then in the, there was a, Philip of Macedon had been, was assassinated in 336 B.C., and

29
00:03:58.760 --> 00:04:05.360
then eventually Alexander, his son Alexander took over.

30
00:04:05.360 --> 00:04:15.180
But in the last years of Aristotle's residence in Athens, there was a revolt against the

31
00:04:15.180 --> 00:04:26.180
Macedonian government. There was an anti-Macedonian party headed by Demosthenes, the famous orator,

32
00:04:26.180 --> 00:04:33.980
famous speaker. For a while, in his last year, Aristotle had to get out of Athens. He left

33
00:04:33.980 --> 00:04:40.380
the city. I think there's a story he said he wanted to avoid having the city commit

34
00:04:40.380 --> 00:04:54.780
a crime against philosophy twice. So, in his last years, he left Athens. Now, at the time

35
00:04:54.780 --> 00:05:07.580
he wrote, as I mentioned, Athens had lost to the Macedonians after the Battle of Carinthia,

36
00:05:07.580 --> 00:05:13.820
But even before that, Athens wasn't as powerful as it had been in the previous centuries.

37
00:05:13.820 --> 00:05:19.140
The number of citizens declined to about 30,000 at one time.

38
00:05:19.140 --> 00:05:24.980
They had 60,000 to 70,000, now they just had about 30,000, so they weren't the power they

39
00:05:24.980 --> 00:05:36.540
once were at the time Aristotle was writing, even before their loss to the Macedonians.

40
00:05:36.540 --> 00:05:45.540
He also had two main works that are of interest to political philosophy.

41
00:05:45.540 --> 00:05:53.540
He wrote first the Nicomachean Ethics and also the Politics.

42
00:05:53.540 --> 00:06:01.540
He also wrote another book on Ethics, Eudemian Ethics, and some of the books of the two are identical,

43
00:06:01.540 --> 00:06:29.540
I won't be going into what the various views are of the relation between the two. Most scholars hold that Aristotle's views on ethics are really the best source for them is in the Comachean Ethics, although Sir Anthony Kenny has argued the reverse, that the Demian Ethics is the most important one.

44
00:06:29.540 --> 00:06:38.820
that's very much a minority view. In the last book of the Nicomachean Ethics,

45
00:06:38.820 --> 00:06:46.340
Aristotle indicates that ethics is really part of another discipline called

46
00:06:46.340 --> 00:06:52.580
politicae, or political science, that really, as I'll be explaining a bit

47
00:06:52.580 --> 00:07:03.180
The person, the individual really can only lead the good life in a polis, in a city-state,

48
00:07:03.180 --> 00:07:13.540
and so this really makes politics the supreme science, not ethics, meaning ethics of individual

49
00:07:13.540 --> 00:07:14.540
living.

50
00:07:14.540 --> 00:07:28.940
In the politics, he really takes up the themes of the ethics, explaining exactly what the nature of this supreme science is.

51
00:07:28.940 --> 00:07:35.340
I should say also, before I start on the main parts of Aristotle's argument,

52
00:07:35.340 --> 00:07:45.700
There are various theories on how these, both the Kilimankean Ethics and politics were composed.

53
00:07:45.700 --> 00:07:55.220
What we have now are lecture notes that students have transmitted of what Aristotle said.

54
00:07:55.220 --> 00:08:02.740
But there are various views on stages that the books might have gone through or how the

55
00:08:02.740 --> 00:08:19.300
The German philologist Werner Jaeger was one of the main people in the 1920s and 30s who

56
00:08:19.300 --> 00:08:24.460
argued that there were stages in Aristotle's development.

57
00:08:24.460 --> 00:08:32.460
He had very elaborate theories on how Aristotle had composed his books and how the book should

58
00:08:32.460 --> 00:08:37.700
be arranged, but that's an issue I won't be going into. I'll just be taking the books

59
00:08:37.700 --> 00:08:39.260
as we have them.

60
00:08:39.260 --> 00:08:45.980
Now, you remember when I was talking about Plato, I'm mentioning he attached supreme

61
00:08:45.980 --> 00:08:53.060
importance to the philosophers knowing the form of the good. This was what entitled them

62
00:08:53.060 --> 00:08:59.020
to their ruling position in the calypolis, the beautiful city of the Republic, but it

63
00:08:59.020 --> 00:09:06.680
It wasn't clear in reading Plato what exactly the idea of the good was or how we were supposed

64
00:09:06.680 --> 00:09:07.680
to know it.

65
00:09:07.680 --> 00:09:14.860
It was just people somehow, the philosophies after training had some contact with the idea.

66
00:09:14.860 --> 00:09:21.860
They grasped the idea, Plato has a famous metaphor where the people were in a cave and

67
00:09:21.860 --> 00:09:28.340
then some come out or some are freed and turn around and they see the sunlight, but it isn't

68
00:09:28.340 --> 00:09:58.340
The Theory of Money and Credit The Theory of Money and Credit

69
00:09:58.340 --> 00:10:08.700
He doesn't specify exactly what he means, he doesn't spell out in propositions that

70
00:10:08.700 --> 00:10:14.060
we can analyze and argue about what his contentions are.

71
00:10:14.060 --> 00:10:22.740
Aristotle, I think, was much more methodologically self-conscious than Plato.

72
00:10:22.740 --> 00:10:36.980
He was certainly, unlike Plato, he wasn't a great literary artist, but he was very much concerned with giving the exact structures of an argument.

73
00:10:36.980 --> 00:10:50.740
In the Nicomachean Ethics and also the politics, he follows a particular method of proceeding where it's a somewhat empirical method.

74
00:10:50.740 --> 00:11:03.060
He starts with views that are commonly accepted or believed, and then he tries to first make these

75
00:11:03.060 --> 00:11:10.100
more systematic and ask questions about them and try to, not necessarily accepting everything that

76
00:11:11.700 --> 00:11:17.860
con-belief holds, but he starts off from that basis. He says we have their certain

77
00:11:17.860 --> 00:11:47.860
commonly accepted beliefs. And so we start from that and don't just start, say, just trying to think of things on our own and just say, well, we want to ask what's the best life. So we just come up with some idea of our own. And then reason on that basis, we start with what's commonly accepted by especially he says, by ethics, what is accepted by well brought up people in political science,

78
00:11:47.860 --> 00:11:57.860
He and the members of his school he founded when he returned to Athens for his second visit.

79
00:11:57.860 --> 00:12:00.860
Remember, he'd been there the first time, he was a student of Plato.

80
00:12:00.860 --> 00:12:07.860
When he came back, he founded his own school, which was called the Lyceum.

81
00:12:07.860 --> 00:12:11.860
Plato's school, the Academy, was still in operation.

82
00:12:11.860 --> 00:12:25.860
The Academy continued. It was the longest-lived institution of education in antiquity. It lasted till it was closed by the Roman Emperor Justinian.

83
00:12:25.860 --> 00:12:33.180
but Plato had his own school called the Lyceum in competition with the Academy so

84
00:12:33.180 --> 00:12:43.780
Aristotle and his students collected, wrote accounts of the constitutions of

85
00:12:43.780 --> 00:12:51.340
the various of city-states in Greece and I think there were about 158 of these

86
00:13:21.340 --> 00:13:34.780
He was, in this way, an empiricist. As we'll see later, he didn't accept Plato's theory

87
00:13:34.780 --> 00:13:50.180
of forms. Now, there is an obvious objection to proceeding, by this way of saying, in ethics,

88
00:13:50.180 --> 00:13:58.820
But we start with saying, what are the beliefs that people well-brought-up would hold?

89
00:13:58.820 --> 00:14:02.500
How do we know which people are well-brought-up?

90
00:14:02.500 --> 00:14:10.980
Isn't that begging the question in a way that we're assuming that we say that the good ideas

91
00:14:10.980 --> 00:14:16.460
we should follow about the good are what the well-brought-up people have, but how do we

92
00:14:16.460 --> 00:14:18.940
know what the well-brought-up people have?

93
00:14:18.940 --> 00:14:25.940
Well, those are just the ones who have the ideas we think are good, so that the claim

94
00:14:25.940 --> 00:14:35.500
is that if we proceed in this way, if we try to make systematic the common beliefs people

95
00:14:35.500 --> 00:14:40.180
hold, if we say that we took, we're trying to come up with a contemporary ethics, he

96
00:14:40.180 --> 00:14:43.940
said, well, what do people today think is reasonable?

97
00:14:43.940 --> 00:14:44.940
I think it's reasonable.

98
00:14:44.940 --> 00:14:49.900
I'd say we say, well, a lot of people today think the government should provide various

99
00:14:49.900 --> 00:14:52.140
welfare services to people.

100
00:14:52.140 --> 00:15:00.260
So if other people deny this, but if those views aren't, say, a libertarian says, no,

101
00:15:00.260 --> 00:15:05.620
the government shouldn't do this, then we say, well, the libertarian is in conflict

102
00:15:05.620 --> 00:15:11.940
with what the well-brought-up people say, so we can just cut that view out.

103
00:15:11.940 --> 00:15:17.220
out. We should say this is an obviously absurd view so we can dismiss this. Now there's some

104
00:15:17.220 --> 00:15:23.760
people who actually adopt that style of argument. I remember the Hilary Putnam, who was a very

105
00:15:23.760 --> 00:15:29.260
influential Harvard philosopher, who once wrote an essay where he commented in passing on

106
00:15:29.260 --> 00:15:36.180
libertarianism. He said, well, look, libertarianism, he has great respect for Robert Nozick, who

107
00:15:36.180 --> 00:15:40.460
was at that time a colleague of his. He said, look, this is obviously a system we have to

108
00:15:40.460 --> 00:15:47.460
to Reject, because if libertarianism were correct, then we wouldn't have public education.

109
00:15:47.460 --> 00:15:54.340
Everybody knows we ought to have public education, so this shows that we can just reject the

110
00:15:54.340 --> 00:15:57.620
libertarian view out of hand.

111
00:15:57.620 --> 00:16:03.700
So the question would come up, is Aristotle involved in a similar failing?

112
00:16:03.700 --> 00:16:09.940
Not of course that he's discussing libertarianism, but is he saying something like, we want to

113
00:16:09.940 --> 00:16:16.900
figure out what the views are of the well-brought-up people, but he's just assuming that a certain

114
00:16:16.900 --> 00:16:24.220
class of people who were educated Greeks of his time have the correct opinions, so he's

115
00:16:24.220 --> 00:16:31.380
systematizing the beliefs that people actually hold, but he's not coming up with any truth

116
00:16:31.380 --> 00:16:32.380
of his own.

117
00:16:32.380 --> 00:16:40.220
This is actually a similar criticism of the Ronald Dworkin, who was an influential legal

118
00:16:40.220 --> 00:16:47.060
philosopher, raised this criticism against John Rawls, who was the most influential 20th

119
00:16:47.060 --> 00:16:48.980
century political philosopher.

120
00:16:48.980 --> 00:16:54.900
Rawls had a procedure which he calls reflective equilibrium, which is a very Aristotelian

121
00:17:54.900 --> 00:18:07.900
I was quite aware of this objection. He had a way of answering this, and there was a good discussion of this point in a book by Terence Irwin.

122
00:18:07.900 --> 00:18:15.900
Terence Irwin is one of the leading American scholars on classical Greek philosophy.

123
00:18:15.900 --> 00:18:20.900
He has a very long book called Aristotle's First Principles,

124
00:18:20.900 --> 00:18:30.180
And he says, Aristotle had, besides the procedure I've so far mentioned, where we try to systematize our common beliefs,

125
00:18:30.180 --> 00:18:34.180
in this he calls weak dialectic.

126
00:18:34.180 --> 00:18:41.380
Aristotle had a supplementary procedure called strong dialectic, where he tried,

127
00:18:41.380 --> 00:18:50.180
Aristotle tried to develop certain views just based on what he thought were correct, metaphysical principles.

128
00:18:50.180 --> 00:19:10.180
So he would then test the views that were systematizing what the well-brought-up people said against what the conclusions that he thought he could establish independently by this resort to metaphysical principles.

129
00:19:10.180 --> 00:19:40.180
and this procedure where you bring in not only the beliefs that we the common people have well brought up people back but also the philosophical beliefs this he called strong Erwin called strong dialectic so he said that Aristotle is really combining both weak dialectic and strong dialectic i think we could see also uh whether Aristotle is successful in this of course we'll something we'll have to look at but you see also there's a

130
00:19:40.180 --> 00:20:10.180
The response we could give, I think we could give, defending Aristotle's procedure starting from the beliefs we actually have about ethics, is we can't really do anything else, we really have to start with the beliefs we actually have, if we reject these beliefs, that can only be because we find them somehow in conflict with other beliefs we have that we're prepared to stick with, and

131
00:20:10.180 --> 00:20:13.580
I think are more justifiable than the first belief.

132
00:20:13.580 --> 00:20:20.500
We can't wipe the slate clean, as it were, and just start with nothing at all.

133
00:20:20.500 --> 00:20:24.100
Then we would not be able to proceed anywhere.

134
00:20:24.100 --> 00:20:31.140
We really have to, we really have no alternative to begin with the actual beliefs we have unless,

135
00:20:31.140 --> 00:20:35.660
I suppose one could say, well, somebody could just say, maybe we don't, can't have any

136
00:20:35.660 --> 00:20:40.060
knowledge of morality, but we have beliefs about other things, I suppose.

137
00:20:40.060 --> 00:20:46.540
If one could adopt that position, but that would be a rather nihilistic view.

138
00:20:46.540 --> 00:20:51.660
So if we want to avoid that, if we claim we can have moral knowledge at all, we pretty

139
00:20:51.660 --> 00:20:54.620
much do have to start with our own beliefs.

140
00:20:54.620 --> 00:21:02.700
Now this is in general, as is the method of proceeding, but now how did he actually carry

141
00:21:02.700 --> 00:21:06.060
this out in his work?

142
00:21:06.060 --> 00:21:17.340
Well, he says in the Nicomachean Ethics, he says, well, we want to start, he starts with

143
00:21:17.340 --> 00:21:23.020
this argument, he said, whenever, or he gives this argument, he said, whenever we act, whenever

144
00:21:23.020 --> 00:21:32.080
anybody does anything, there's an end or goal that he's aiming at, say, when you, whatever

145
00:21:32.080 --> 00:21:44.120
Now, he says, well, suppose you ask, given you have this purpose, why did you do that?

146
00:21:44.120 --> 00:21:48.360
What is the purpose of that?

147
00:21:48.360 --> 00:21:51.480
You could come up with some other end for that.

148
00:21:51.480 --> 00:21:59.440
You say, well, supposing I say, I'm giving these lectures because I'm going to be getting

149
00:21:59.440 --> 00:22:09.040
Giving some money in return for doing that, not that I could be motivated by so mercenary

150
00:22:09.040 --> 00:22:11.280
emotive, but just giving this hypothetically.

151
00:22:11.280 --> 00:22:15.680
All right, suppose I say, well, I'm going to get some money, then I say, well, what

152
00:22:15.680 --> 00:22:18.320
do I want the money for?

153
00:22:18.320 --> 00:22:20.880
Then I could give various other things.

154
00:22:20.880 --> 00:22:25.520
Maybe I want to spend it on various other things, then I say, well, what do I want them

155
00:22:25.520 --> 00:22:26.520
for?

156
00:22:26.520 --> 00:22:36.520
So, Aristotle said, well, we can't just keep going back infinite series that way.

157
00:22:36.520 --> 00:22:46.520
We can't say, my end for acting is doing A to get B, I'm doing B to get C, C to get D.

158
00:22:46.520 --> 00:22:54.520
We can't just keep going back in some infinite series because then I won't really have any

159
00:22:54.520 --> 00:23:01.080
real reason to do anything. I would have a reason to do anything only if I had an end

160
00:23:01.080 --> 00:23:11.360
that didn't require any further justification in terms of another end. So, Aristotle says,

161
00:23:11.360 --> 00:23:19.760
there must be then some ultimate end at which people aim. And then he raises the question,

162
00:23:19.760 --> 00:23:26.600
is that. Now, some people have objected, all sorts of people raise this objection. Robert

163
00:23:26.600 --> 00:23:36.560
Nozick is one of these. This involves a logical fallacy. Let me put this down here. What was

164
00:23:36.560 --> 00:23:38.560
As I say...

165
00:24:06.560 --> 00:24:34.560
So we have every action involved an end, then if one's avoiding infinite regress, or say we have a circular, sort of a loop where you have something is an end, and then that returns as a means to something else that we've already put in, or let's put this kind of circular loop.

166
00:25:04.560 --> 00:25:32.360
doesn't have any further end. So then he says therefore there is a final or highest end.

167
00:25:32.360 --> 00:25:42.120
Now, can anyone tell me what, the way I put the arguments over, what's the fallacy in

168
00:25:42.120 --> 00:25:45.120
this argument?

169
00:25:45.120 --> 00:25:56.520
Well, I see, I can see, as you see, I probably, it's too obvious, apparently it's too obvious

170
00:25:56.520 --> 00:25:59.720
to require statement.

171
00:25:59.720 --> 00:26:13.040
The fallacy is, supposing it's the case that for each action you have to have an end that

172
00:26:13.040 --> 00:26:18.360
is not justified by some further end.

173
00:26:18.360 --> 00:26:23.720
So for each action there is a stopping point to the series.

174
00:26:23.720 --> 00:26:30.760
Well, it doesn't follow from that that there has to be a single end that you're always aiming for.

175
00:26:30.760 --> 00:26:38.680
It's just in each case where you have an action, there's some final end. But how do we know that

176
00:26:39.320 --> 00:26:46.280
all these final ends have, why do they have to all be the same one? Maybe it's just people have a,

177
00:26:46.280 --> 00:26:54.080
There's a series, it just says that you have a series of chains in which there's a stopping

178
00:26:54.080 --> 00:26:59.080
point for each one, but why do they all have to stop at the same place?

179
00:26:59.080 --> 00:27:04.600
Perhaps you can see the fallacy a little more clearly if we say something like, we say,

180
00:27:04.600 --> 00:27:12.760
instead of saying every action has an end, suppose we just take a structurally similar

181
00:27:12.760 --> 00:27:19.720
The other statement we say, every person has a father, which is, I think, a true statement.

182
00:27:19.720 --> 00:27:34.520
Now then we, instead of saying, every action has an end, then we say, there's some end

183
00:27:34.520 --> 00:28:02.520
And that's the same, that's the goal of all action. We put in the, we substitute, we say someone is everybody's father. Just as we said, you know, instead of saying every, every, instead of saying every action has an end, we say every person has a father, and then we say, instead of saying there's some, therefore there's some end that's the goal of all action, we say therefore somebody's, someone is everyone's father.

184
00:28:04.520 --> 00:28:17.520
Well, that doesn't follow at all. In fact, that's a false proposition. Everyone has a father, but it doesn't follow that some particular person is everybody's father.

185
00:28:17.520 --> 00:28:23.520
That, I think, seems like an unlikely hypothesis.

186
00:28:23.520 --> 00:28:46.520
So, similarly, the claim is Aristotle has made a lot of simple fallacies here. He's thinking that because you have to terminate every chain of actions to be rational in some final end, there's a single final end that holds for all action.

187
00:28:46.520 --> 00:28:55.560
Well, I don't think really Aristotle was guilty of this fallacy. I think Jennifer Whiting,

188
00:28:55.560 --> 00:29:01.560
if I'm not mistaken, has a good article on this. What Aristotle was really suggesting,

189
00:29:01.560 --> 00:29:06.040
I think what he would say in response to this, he said, what if there are all sorts of different

190
00:29:06.040 --> 00:29:11.760
final ends that people have? He'd say, well, then you just have to, the question could

191
00:29:11.760 --> 00:29:24.760
How do these various final ends relate to each other if they're just kind of in some kind of half-hazard order?

192
00:29:24.760 --> 00:29:36.760
This is really not a rational way of proceeding that if we have claimed that there are multiple ends without any further questions to be asked about,

193
00:29:36.760 --> 00:29:46.760
We should kind of arrange these systematically in some way, and this is what would give us our notion of the good.

194
00:29:46.760 --> 00:29:52.760
We would want to know how are these various ends to be related.

195
00:29:52.760 --> 00:30:06.840
So, now, if then, in some sense, we're aiming at an end that doesn't require any justification

196
00:30:06.840 --> 00:30:14.920
in terms of further ends, then the question comes up, well, can we say anything about

197
00:30:14.920 --> 00:30:15.920
this?

198
00:30:15.920 --> 00:30:20.720
How do we know what that end is?

199
00:30:20.720 --> 00:30:32.040
Here is where Aristotle resorts to his general philosophy, engages in what I called earlier

200
00:30:32.040 --> 00:30:41.880
following Terence Irwin's Strong Dialectic. Aristotle has the view in metaphysics that

201
00:30:41.880 --> 00:30:47.160
every substance, a substance is sort of the independent thing that exists, something can

202
00:30:47.160 --> 00:30:59.280
can be the subject of predicates. Every substance has an essence or nature. Say, if I say, what

203
00:30:59.280 --> 00:31:07.880
is the essence of an oak tree, it would be sort of what is the structure of the tree,

204
00:31:07.880 --> 00:31:14.280
what are the essential properties of the tree. They say the tree would just have contingently,

205
00:31:14.280 --> 00:31:20.840
There's something that constitutes, say, an oak tree as an oak tree. What are the characteristics

206
00:31:20.840 --> 00:31:28.240
such that, without these characteristics, it wouldn't be a tree, an oak tree at all?

207
00:31:28.240 --> 00:31:36.240
And it's something we, in the Institute, in Scheme Things, we have for physical objects,

208
00:31:36.240 --> 00:31:41.440
we have kind of a, they're composed of matter, but there's a kind of a shape or structure

209
00:31:41.440 --> 00:31:48.440
for Money, Money and State, The Theory of Money, Money and State, The Theory of Money

210
00:32:11.440 --> 00:32:19.600
Everything, sometimes things don't realize, don't really achieve their nature all at once,

211
00:32:19.600 --> 00:32:27.200
but if something doesn't really achieve its nature all at once, there's a natural tendency in the

212
00:32:27.200 --> 00:32:34.960
thing to realize its nature. Say, just as we imagine, say, a tree starts off as a seed and

213
00:32:34.960 --> 00:32:47.800
grows into a tree. There is an internal process by which the nature really acts as the goal

214
00:32:47.800 --> 00:32:57.280
of the growth of the tree. To use the example I gave, the oak tree will grow in a certain

215
00:32:57.280 --> 00:33:10.040
in a way because that's its nature, its final end really is somehow determining the process

216
00:33:10.040 --> 00:33:11.040
of its growth.

217
00:33:11.040 --> 00:33:17.640
This doesn't, at the same time, this doesn't mean that there aren't things that are bringing

218
00:33:17.640 --> 00:33:24.240
about, external things that are bringing about the growth of the tree, but they go along

219
00:33:24.240 --> 00:33:31.080
Along with the final causation, there are four types of causings, there's the things

220
00:33:31.080 --> 00:33:36.080
that are sort of happening to bring about what is called the physical change.

221
00:33:36.080 --> 00:33:43.800
We imagine, say, somebody's planted a seed, he's watering the seed and so on, these are

222
00:33:43.800 --> 00:33:46.320
efficient causes, they're bringing something about.

223
00:33:46.320 --> 00:33:53.240
But the reason the tree develops in this way is not explained just by the efficient cause,

224
00:33:53.240 --> 00:34:04.740
It's the pattern that acts, the essence really acts as kind of a guide to the growth tree.

225
00:34:04.740 --> 00:34:08.000
This is called the final cause.

226
00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:22.920
So human beings are distinct from both physical inanimate matter and also non-human animals.

227
00:34:22.920 --> 00:34:35.160
In that human beings have free choice, we can decide whether we want to act in the way

228
00:34:35.160 --> 00:34:38.120
in accord with our natures or not.

229
00:34:38.120 --> 00:34:45.400
So human beings have free choice and this is what distinguishes us from other animals.

230
00:34:45.400 --> 00:34:51.240
So human beings have the question, are we going to act in accord with our nature or

231
00:34:51.240 --> 00:35:00.080
are not. As you see, this has somewhat of a Randian flavor to it. It sounds like Aristotle

232
00:35:00.080 --> 00:35:08.280
has been really reading Ayn Rand, although I think his lecture notes on Atlas shrugs

233
00:35:08.280 --> 00:35:14.760
haven't survived.

234
00:35:14.760 --> 00:35:22.360
So now we have a question, well, if human beings have the choice of whether to realize

235
00:35:22.360 --> 00:35:28.320
their nature, what is the nature of human beings?

236
00:35:28.320 --> 00:35:33.320
We've already got most of the answer, or really the answer, that Aristotle says, well, how

237
00:35:33.320 --> 00:35:34.520
would we answer this question?

238
00:35:34.520 --> 00:35:41.840
We have to ask, what would, how do we distinguish human beings from other entities?

239
00:35:41.840 --> 00:35:53.840
Well, there are vegetative matter, you know, that animate anything that's alive at all,

240
00:35:53.840 --> 00:35:57.840
has certain, we can say, has certain properties in common.

241
00:35:57.840 --> 00:36:05.320
Then we can distinguish further animals that have power of local motion, unlike plants.

242
00:36:05.320 --> 00:36:08.520
Animals can move from one place to another.

243
00:36:08.520 --> 00:36:13.520
And then we have, within the animals, there's a higher class that is able to reason.

244
00:36:13.520 --> 00:36:24.600
So reason is the distinguishing characteristic of human beings, so that if we want to achieve

245
00:36:24.600 --> 00:36:31.360
our natures, or want to act in accordance with our natures, then we'll do so by exercising

246
00:36:31.360 --> 00:36:33.400
our reason.

247
00:36:33.400 --> 00:37:03.400
Now, some people have objected to this argument. Robert Nozick, who's one who's raised this objection, he isn't the only one, they say what, Nozick said, well, what is so important about getting a unique characteristic of human beings to get the nature, I mean, supposing it turned out, couldn't we come up with all sorts of peculiar characteristics

248
00:37:03.400 --> 00:37:15.400
What do human beings have, for example, only it turned out that only human beings laugh, joke, should we say this is the essential characteristic of human beings.

249
00:37:15.400 --> 00:37:19.400
What's so important about a unique characteristic?

250
00:37:19.400 --> 00:37:25.400
And then similarly suppose it turned out that some of these science fiction stories are true

251
00:37:25.400 --> 00:37:33.900
This turns out to be some species on another planet who have completely different anatomy

252
00:37:33.900 --> 00:37:39.440
or structure from human beings, but it turns out they're rational also.

253
00:37:39.440 --> 00:37:46.520
Does this mean that rationality no longer gives the essence of human beings just because

254
00:37:46.520 --> 00:37:52.920
it turns out there's some other species that's also rational?

255
00:37:52.920 --> 00:37:54.640
So what's important about uniqueness?

256
00:37:54.640 --> 00:38:13.640
Again, I don't think this objection really penetrates the essence of Aristotle's views because I think his view isn't so much to come up with some way in which human beings are absolutely different from other species.

257
00:38:13.640 --> 00:38:20.360
So if you say, imagine a case, I think, for example, there's a big prize, I think it's

258
00:38:20.360 --> 00:38:27.200
a million dollars if someone can prove the Riemann hypothesis in mathematics.

259
00:38:27.200 --> 00:38:32.640
Suppose a dolphin reads about this and says, oh, I'm going to prove the Riemann, I've

260
00:38:32.640 --> 00:38:35.400
got the proof of the Riemann hypothesis, I want a million dollars.

261
00:38:35.400 --> 00:38:40.440
Suppose he does that, does that show, since he's rational, therefore Aristotle's wrong

262
00:38:40.440 --> 00:38:42.960
about the nature of the human species.

263
00:38:42.960 --> 00:38:47.760
I don't think so because what Aristotle is interested in is just saying, how do we characterize

264
00:38:47.760 --> 00:38:56.760
human beings? What property of human beings will best explain their characteristics? And

265
00:38:56.760 --> 00:39:03.920
he thinks the answer to this is rationality. So rather odd cases where other species are

266
00:39:03.920 --> 00:39:10.760
also rational in our imagination. Cases really don't strike at the heart of what Aristotle

267
00:39:10.760 --> 00:39:19.760
is doing. So, Aristotle then says, well, then if we want to answer our question, how should

268
00:39:19.760 --> 00:39:24.500
we live? It should be in accord with our nature, which is the use of reason, with the full

269
00:39:24.500 --> 00:39:31.400
exercise of our reason. So, Aristotle holds that in nature, it should be characterized

270
00:39:31.400 --> 00:39:38.920
by the full, any nature, the end is the full exercise of its nature. So, applied to human

271
00:39:38.920 --> 00:39:39.920
and Human Beings.

272
00:39:39.920 --> 00:39:43.000
It would be the full exercise of our reason.

273
00:39:43.000 --> 00:39:47.680
Now what does this involve?

274
00:39:47.680 --> 00:39:57.200
Say we're using our reason, what do we do if we're trying to find out what's the proper

275
00:39:57.200 --> 00:39:58.760
way to live?

276
00:39:58.760 --> 00:40:08.120
Well, Aristotle goes through various suggestions, here again he's returning to looking at common

277
00:40:08.120 --> 00:40:09.120
and Belief.

278
00:40:09.120 --> 00:40:17.040
Like he said, supposing somebody said that the aim of life is try to get as much pleasure

279
00:40:17.040 --> 00:40:18.040
as possible.

280
00:40:18.040 --> 00:40:24.920
Well, then he says, we do that, we'll find out we're just constantly at the mercy of

281
00:40:24.920 --> 00:40:26.600
outside forces.

282
00:40:26.600 --> 00:40:30.320
We never really know what's going to happen next.

283
00:40:30.320 --> 00:40:34.240
We won't be able to have any structure to our lives.

284
00:40:34.240 --> 00:40:36.240
The Theory of Money and Credit

285
00:41:04.240 --> 00:41:11.520
have actually come up with is the correct idea, how should we live rationally? Well, one way,

286
00:41:11.520 --> 00:41:17.280
I think, Bob, it's kind of a reflexive procedure, one way is we think rationally about just

287
00:41:17.280 --> 00:41:22.600
this very question, how to live rationally, another question, so it's somewhat, we're

288
00:41:22.600 --> 00:41:30.720
thinking somewhat reflexively, we're using our reason, we're trying to take what we think

289
00:41:30.720 --> 00:41:39.480
are the, whatever the ends are that we have and kind of arrange them in a systematic way.

290
00:41:39.480 --> 00:41:45.040
So we have, now this view that I'm giving, that we're kind of taking the ends we have

291
00:41:45.040 --> 00:41:51.080
and arranging them systematically, organizing, this is called, what I think is the best interpretation

292
00:41:51.080 --> 00:41:56.120
of it is called the inclusive end view, it's something that we're taking the various ends

293
00:41:56.120 --> 00:42:01.240
Studies that Survive Rational Scrutiny and arranging them systematically and having a

294
00:42:01.240 --> 00:42:03.760
large place for thinking about reason.

295
00:42:03.760 --> 00:42:11.720
Now there's another view that some scholars hold here, place a lot of emphasis on something

296
00:42:11.720 --> 00:42:21.600
Aristotle says in Book 10 of the Nicomachean Ethics, where Aristotle says there that contemplation

297
00:42:21.600 --> 00:42:27.320
and Philosophical Contemplation is really the highest activity.

298
00:42:27.320 --> 00:42:34.000
So it seems, according to this view, what Aristotle was really saying is that the supreme

299
00:42:34.000 --> 00:42:38.000
life is the life spent doing philosophy.

300
00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:40.640
This would be a life only very few people can achieve.

301
00:42:40.640 --> 00:42:47.560
So in this way, if you took him to be saying that, he'd be going back in a way to the view

302
00:42:47.560 --> 00:42:53.320
The view that Plato expressed in the Republic where it's the guardians, the philosophers

303
00:42:53.320 --> 00:42:56.160
are the only ones who really have wisdom.

304
00:42:56.160 --> 00:43:01.080
Everybody else really doesn't matter much, but if you adopt this inclusive end view,

305
00:43:01.080 --> 00:43:04.200
you wouldn't, it doesn't have that drastic consequence.

306
00:43:04.200 --> 00:43:10.520
You would just say contemplation is extremely important, but there are other things that

307
00:43:10.520 --> 00:43:17.040
are part of the good life also, including political activity.

308
00:43:17.040 --> 00:43:32.640
Now after he mentions that they, on how we're supposed to use reason, one thing Aristotle

309
00:43:32.640 --> 00:43:42.520
does is he gives particular, he gives a specification of particular virtues that people have, and

310
00:43:42.520 --> 00:43:50.720
Here he has theoretical virtues and also practical virtues, virtues of practical reasoning, which

311
00:43:50.720 --> 00:43:59.840
is reasoning about how we act, how to act in ethics or in our daily life, how we act.

312
00:43:59.840 --> 00:44:09.280
And here, there is division here, there's kind of a guiding virtue which is called practical

313
00:44:09.280 --> 00:44:14.880
Practical reason, fronasis, is kind of telling us how, this is the, what I've been talking

314
00:44:14.880 --> 00:44:23.000
about when I've talked about reason as organizing our ends, this is pretty much what I have

315
00:44:23.000 --> 00:44:30.120
in mind, sort of the practical reason is kind of a wisdom of how we live our lives, and

316
00:44:30.120 --> 00:44:38.720
then there are particular virtues of action that are involved in how we carry out the

317
00:44:38.720 --> 00:44:45.320
and the various actions that we want to do. And these are about such things as courage

318
00:44:45.320 --> 00:44:59.000
and temperance. Here's where Aracel gives the famous view that virtues are a mean between

319
00:44:59.000 --> 00:45:08.640
the extremes. What he means by this is that for each of the virtues, there are vices on

320
00:45:08.640 --> 00:45:16.880
both sides of the virtue. Say, we could imagine, say, courage, we could imagine courage is

321
00:45:16.880 --> 00:45:29.880
someone who meets the situations where he's in danger with the right amount of, the appropriate

322
00:45:29.880 --> 00:45:34.920
amount of valor.

323
00:45:34.920 --> 00:45:40.360
We could imagine somebody exposing someone, we could have a vice of excess, someone, let's

324
00:45:40.360 --> 00:45:47.740
say, let's imagine something like a penny rolls into the street and somebody rushes

325
00:45:47.740 --> 00:45:51.600
out into moving traffic to get it back.

326
00:45:51.600 --> 00:45:56.320
We could say, well, this person is very rash because he's risking his own life.

327
00:45:56.320 --> 00:46:02.120
Maybe we could say, well, wouldn't you think he's very brave because he doesn't care that

328
00:46:02.120 --> 00:46:07.680
he's able to do this even though he's not afraid?

329
00:46:07.680 --> 00:46:11.640
Most people wouldn't do such a thing because even if they tried it, they'd be too scared

330
00:46:11.640 --> 00:46:12.640
to do it.

331
00:46:12.640 --> 00:46:16.960
But this person is afraid, but Aristotle wouldn't say this person is being courageous, he's

332
00:46:16.960 --> 00:46:21.400
being foolhardy because he's risking his life to no purpose.

333
00:46:21.400 --> 00:46:43.400
And then we can imagine on the other side someone, say, refuses, there's a fire and he won't go in, say, to rescue his family, even though he has a good chance of doing so, because he's too afraid to do it, so this person is too, too timorous, he's too afraid.

334
00:46:43.400 --> 00:46:54.400
So, Aristotle says the virtue is the mean between the two vices.

335
00:46:54.400 --> 00:47:03.480
Now, there's one point about courage, I think perhaps one could raise an objection to what

336
00:47:03.480 --> 00:47:13.000
What Aristotle says here is that supposing someone always correctly judged that situations

337
00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:23.400
were too dangerous to be worth risking his life, imagine he's a soldier in battle and

338
00:47:23.400 --> 00:47:31.440
he always correctly judges that you want its best to retreat, it seems like it would be

339
00:47:31.440 --> 00:47:54.440
It would be odd to say that such a person would be using good judgment, but it would seem to be odd to say he's courageous, but perhaps Aristotle could just respond to that by saying, well then, we would have to ask, how would the person have acted in cases where his life or his other thing of value were at stake?

340
00:47:54.440 --> 00:47:57.800
How would he have acted in those cases?

341
00:47:57.800 --> 00:48:03.760
So perhaps we would have to bring in the counterfactual here to get to answer this, but I just give

342
00:48:03.760 --> 00:48:09.400
that as kind of a sideline that perhaps there's an objection there that someone who always

343
00:48:09.400 --> 00:48:16.760
thought prudence the better part of valor and always acted prudently and avoided risk

344
00:48:16.760 --> 00:48:21.240
could still count as courageous on Aristotle's definition.

345
00:48:21.240 --> 00:48:26.720
Now, one thing before I turn from this topic that I think is an important mistake to avoid

346
00:48:26.720 --> 00:48:36.140
is when Aristotle says that virtue is a mean between two vices, he doesn't mean by this

347
00:48:36.140 --> 00:48:45.300
that a virtuous person will always act in a half-hearted way, will never exert himself

348
00:48:45.300 --> 00:48:54.380
to the full. Let's say someone is extremely enthusiastic about his work. He pours everything

349
00:48:54.380 --> 00:49:03.380
he has into a project. This would not be acting in an un-Aristotelian way. It isn't that you're

350
00:49:03.380 --> 00:49:12.260
not supposed to give your all-out effort. The mean is just that it's their breach. Virtually

351
00:49:12.260 --> 00:49:19.860
We can identify two vices, one on each side of it. It isn't how much you're supposed to exert yourself.

352
00:49:19.860 --> 00:49:25.540
You're only supposed to exert yourself to a limited extent. That isn't what Aristotle is saying.

353
00:49:25.540 --> 00:49:35.620
I should say there's an exception to the Aristotle principle that every virtue is a mean between two vices.

354
00:49:35.620 --> 00:49:41.460
He thinks that justice isn't a mean between two vices.

355
00:49:41.460 --> 00:49:50.460
This point, this Aristotelian point, led to a famous incident in American political history.

356
00:49:50.460 --> 00:49:53.460
Some of you may be old enough to remember this.

357
00:49:53.460 --> 00:50:03.460
In the 1964 presidential campaign, Barry Goldwater, who was the conservative Republican candidate,

358
00:50:03.460 --> 00:50:08.460
said in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination,

359
00:50:08.460 --> 00:50:17.220
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue.

360
00:50:17.220 --> 00:50:29.940
Now, that part of the speech was written by Harry Jaffa, who was the father of Leo Strauss and has written a book on Aristotle, Thomism and Aristotelianism.

361
00:50:29.940 --> 00:50:37.460
So Jaffa was making a good Aristotelian point there in what he wrote for Goldwater State.

362
00:50:37.460 --> 00:50:53.460
Unfortunately, that wasn't the best time to be making points about Aristotle's politics and that statement cost Goldwater a good deal in the campaign because his enemies were then able to picture him as an extremist.

363
00:50:53.460 --> 00:51:02.420
Now, I've spent a good deal of time on, oh, I should say one point I haven't gone into.

364
00:51:02.420 --> 00:51:10.140
When I said that fractal wisdom from Mises involved really systematizing our ends, there's

365
00:51:10.140 --> 00:51:16.340
really something that goes against that that I don't think in a sense really does what

366
00:51:16.340 --> 00:51:17.340
he said.

367
00:51:17.340 --> 00:51:47.340
Deliberation is of means and not ends, but here what I think, I don't think there's a real contradiction, because what Aristotle means when he says that, the deliberation means, and he's just talking by deliberation, just has in mind what we're doing when we've settled a particular goal, and then we're asking how are we supposed to achieve that goal, so I don't think he's meaning by deliberation, he's not extending that goal.

368
00:51:47.340 --> 00:51:53.820
to all kind of rational activity. Quite the contrary, it's essential to his view that we can

369
00:51:54.460 --> 00:52:01.020
have some kind of structure to our ends and order them rationally by practical wisdom.

370
00:52:01.660 --> 00:52:08.220
So the reason I've spent a good deal of time talking about Aristotle's ethics is I think

371
00:52:08.220 --> 00:52:32.220
I think this gives an excellent basis for a classical liberal or libertarian perspective because we would then say, well, each person should try to achieve his end, his goals as a rational being, he should try to live a rational life.

372
00:52:32.220 --> 00:52:38.420
and we say well one of the constituent parts one of the constituents of good

373
00:52:38.420 --> 00:52:46.300
life is freedom Aristotle says is very critical of being a slave is a very bad

374
00:52:46.300 --> 00:52:52.020
state of affairs to be and we don't want to be slaves freedom is essential if we

375
00:52:52.020 --> 00:52:59.820
say that freedom is part of the good life so each person then would we want

376
00:52:59.820 --> 00:53:06.620
and work out his life, try to achieve a rational life without interference from other people,

377
00:53:06.620 --> 00:53:10.260
at least so long as he doesn't interfere with them.

378
00:53:10.260 --> 00:53:18.900
So we could get a libertarian theory fairly readily from this, and in fact, various, various

379
00:53:18.900 --> 00:53:27.180
philosophers have attempted to do this, one of whom is in the lecture room, Roderick Long.

380
00:53:27.180 --> 00:53:35.260
You see, perhaps the best book that's come out so far is a book by Douglas Denial and

381
00:53:35.260 --> 00:53:46.660
Doug Rasmussen called Norms of Liberty that argues on just this basis, there's, on Aristotelian

382
00:53:46.660 --> 00:53:53.820
theory of the good, it combined with the view that freedom, including freedom, is a good

383
00:53:53.820 --> 00:54:03.820
The problem that we can't coerce people into virtue, we get that, we get to libertarian conclusions very, very readily.

384
00:54:03.820 --> 00:54:12.820
They say this book is by Doug Rasmussen, Doug Denial. I don't know what happened to Doug Affirmation.

385
00:54:12.820 --> 00:54:16.820
Sorry, you'll have to laugh now.

386
00:54:16.820 --> 00:54:35.820
But there is one possible problem with this way. It certainly would be a very good way to go, at least in my opinion, but there's a problem with it, is that that at least doesn't appear to be the way Aristotle himself went with his moral theory.

387
00:54:35.820 --> 00:54:46.520
In fact, there's one way of looking at Aristotle's politics, in which it makes him out to be

388
00:54:46.520 --> 00:54:53.680
not an individualist at all, someone who's not, shouldn't be considered part of ancestral

389
00:54:53.680 --> 00:54:57.580
to the classical liberal tradition.

390
00:54:57.580 --> 00:55:09.460
Paul says in the politics, he says that he seems explicitly to mention a quasi-libertarian

391
00:55:09.460 --> 00:55:17.820
idea, which he mentions that Lycafron, who was one of the Greek thinkers, had said that

392
00:55:17.820 --> 00:55:27.860
He says that the policy exists just only for the purposes of securing justice and protecting

393
00:55:27.860 --> 00:55:28.860
people.

394
00:55:28.860 --> 00:55:31.100
Sounds like something like a minimal state.

395
00:55:31.100 --> 00:55:37.700
And he says, no, this is not the correct view, that the policy exists so that people can

396
00:55:37.700 --> 00:55:40.220
live well.

397
00:55:40.220 --> 00:55:45.860
And further, he says that the policy is prior to the individual.

398
00:55:45.860 --> 00:55:57.860
He says that individuals are parts of the policy. He compares this saying to it, saying that the hand is part of the human body.

399
00:55:57.860 --> 00:56:09.860
He says if the hand is detached from the body, then it isn't a hand anymore. It's just something that's just kind of some bones and flesh,

400
00:56:39.860 --> 00:56:47.700
in 1945 or so by Karl Popper, called The Open Society and Its Enemies. The first volume

401
00:56:47.700 --> 00:57:01.420
of this is a massive attack on Plato. Aristotle also comes in for attack in Popper's book.

402
00:57:01.420 --> 00:57:06.580
Popper particularly doesn't like Aristotle's notion of essences. He says something like,

403
00:57:06.580 --> 00:57:15.140
If you believe in fixed essences or things that are somehow totalitarian, if you think

404
00:57:15.140 --> 00:57:21.460
they're a fixed nature thing, this isn't such a – perhaps it's not as odd of you

405
00:57:21.460 --> 00:57:22.460
as it sounds.

406
00:57:22.460 --> 00:57:26.620
First, it's a bit like the view I mentioned in the first lecture, but if you think there's

407
00:57:26.620 --> 00:57:34.100
an objective truth in morality, then this will lead to totalitarianism or statism and

408
00:57:34.100 --> 00:57:40.940
and that the people know the truth will want to impose it on other people.

409
00:57:40.940 --> 00:57:49.340
So Hopper holds that Aristotle had this kind of organic or collectivist view of things

410
00:57:49.340 --> 00:57:58.900
and he mentions that in support of his view, he mentions that two great 19th century historians

411
00:57:58.900 --> 00:58:24.060
of Greek Philosophy, the German writer Edvard Seller, and also George Grote, who was an

412
00:58:24.060 --> 00:58:30.700
English historian, he wrote a multi-volume history of Greece, he was a great friend of

413
00:58:30.700 --> 00:58:41.100
John Stuart Milken. They held that Aristotle's politics was really very close, close in structure

414
00:58:41.100 --> 00:58:49.020
and views to Plato's laws, which as we've seen is not a very libertarian view, book.

415
00:58:49.020 --> 00:58:57.980
So on this you then, Aristotle might have a promising ethics for libertarianism, classical

416
00:58:57.980 --> 00:59:03.340
liberalism, but his own politics were completely the other way.

417
00:59:03.340 --> 00:59:05.380
He was a collectivist.

418
00:59:05.380 --> 00:59:15.020
Now I don't think we should accept this view, and here I've been influenced very much by

419
00:59:15.020 --> 00:59:23.220
There's a book on Aristotle called Nature, Justice and Rights in Aristotle's Politics

420
00:59:23.220 --> 00:59:32.660
by Fred Miller, which was published by Oxford in 1995, who argues that contrary to the very

421
00:59:32.660 --> 00:59:41.620
frequently expressed belief, Aristotle very much did have a notion of individual rights.

422
00:59:41.620 --> 00:59:46.620
Some people, like Alastair McIntyre, have said, rights are just a later invention that

423
00:59:46.620 --> 00:59:54.380
came in at some time fairly late with the, say, with the medieval nominalists or even

424
00:59:54.380 --> 01:00:01.900
later with Hobbes and Locke, we don't have, it would make no sense to talk about rights

425
01:00:01.900 --> 01:00:10.020
in antiquity, but Miller says he was an extremely good Greek scholar, but no, Aristotle did

426
01:00:10.020 --> 01:00:18.540
have a notion of rights. Now, unfortunately, Miller's views haven't been accepted by most

427
01:00:18.540 --> 01:00:22.480
scholars, but I think he makes a very good case for it. I should mention also there is

428
01:00:22.480 --> 01:00:28.620
an additional article that supports Miller and argues that he hasn't gone far enough

429
01:00:28.620 --> 01:00:37.980
in ascribing individualist views to Aristotle. This is by Roderick Long, it's called Aristotle's

430
01:00:37.980 --> 01:00:53.980
and Israel's Conception of Freedom, which came out in Review of Metaphysics, I think, June 1996, if I'm not mistaken, pages 775 to 802.

431
01:00:53.980 --> 01:01:00.980
Don't check that, please.

432
01:01:00.980 --> 01:01:16.980
So, why should we accept this particular view of Aristotle? He was sympathetic to individualism, aside from the reason it's convenient for our own purposes to do so.

433
01:01:16.980 --> 01:01:23.860
Well, one reason is, we can get, just from what I've said already, supposing Aristotle

434
01:01:23.860 --> 01:01:33.820
has the view, which clearly does, that each person is trying to achieve his own best life.

435
01:01:33.820 --> 01:01:38.860
He's asking, how can each individual live the best life?

436
01:01:38.860 --> 01:01:45.340
Well, it really wouldn't make sense then to say the individual should completely subordinate

437
01:01:45.340 --> 01:01:53.500
himself to the fullest and then possibly have to be in a situation where his own life is

438
01:01:53.500 --> 01:02:04.460
just completely a tool of whoever is in power. Say, he might have to give up his own good

439
01:02:04.460 --> 01:02:11.280
life because this would maximize the good life for other people or a good life for the majority

440
01:02:11.280 --> 01:02:20.840
of People. How could Aristotle possibly hold both this particular view of ethics that individuals

441
01:02:20.840 --> 01:02:27.100
should try to achieve their own best life and also hold that individuals are subordinate

442
01:02:27.100 --> 01:02:35.360
to the policy, just constituent parts of the policy, and so how could you have both views

443
01:02:35.360 --> 01:02:36.720
at the same time.

444
01:02:36.720 --> 01:02:43.340
Now, what Greg Miller has done is to look exactly at what Aristotle says.

445
01:02:43.340 --> 01:02:49.480
What does he mean when he says that individuals are parts of the policy?

446
01:02:49.480 --> 01:02:58.120
Well, it doesn't mean that really, although Aristotle does use this analogy of the body,

447
01:02:58.120 --> 01:03:04.800
that isn't really expressing, wasn't the best way really to grasp Aristotle's meaning.

448
01:03:04.800 --> 01:03:14.480
What he really means is that one of the goods we need for a good life, there are certain

449
01:03:14.480 --> 01:03:21.920
kinds of goods, they're called external goods, in order to lead a good life, we need not

450
01:03:21.920 --> 01:03:28.480
just certain qualities that we have internally like rationality, we need external goods also,

451
01:03:28.480 --> 01:03:44.660
One thing also we need is friends. We need people reasoned together. They require companionship.

452
01:03:44.660 --> 01:03:53.520
We don't just think as individuals in isolation. We require other people. A friend is what

453
01:03:53.520 --> 01:04:02.760
What he calls a second self, so we need a larger community than just individuals in

454
01:04:02.760 --> 01:04:05.560
which to lead a good life.

455
01:04:05.560 --> 01:04:10.600
Aristotle traces, he says, Paulus really is the complete community.

456
01:04:10.600 --> 01:04:13.920
We could have, we have stages we could imagine going through.

457
01:04:13.920 --> 01:04:21.260
We have individuals and families and combinations of households into villages, but we need,

458
01:04:21.260 --> 01:04:28.180
We have to have a larger association in order to lead a good life because this is what's

459
01:04:28.180 --> 01:04:35.420
needed so we could reason together and have political friendships.

460
01:04:35.420 --> 01:04:41.420
The political friendships aren't as close as, say, individual friends.

461
01:04:41.420 --> 01:04:48.460
A political friend wouldn't be a second self, but still we need to have these friendships

462
01:04:48.460 --> 01:04:58.540
as well as our families and households.

463
01:04:58.540 --> 01:05:08.580
So also one advantage of living in a city-state is sometimes we might be, we don't have always

464
01:05:08.580 --> 01:05:14.660
in our lives, have full control, we don't always exercise our reason fully, we sometimes

465
01:05:14.660 --> 01:05:22.660
are overcome by passions or desire. We act wrongly, even though we know what's the right

466
01:05:22.660 --> 01:05:29.820
thing to do. And being in a city-state, we're in a position where other people will be able

467
01:05:29.820 --> 01:05:35.940
to stop us from acting badly. This is not a particularly libertarian way of looking

468
01:05:35.940 --> 01:05:42.860
at things, but I mean, this is one thing Aristotle said why we would want to live in a, in a

469
01:05:42.860 --> 01:05:53.740
Paulist. So, in this way, it isn't that individuals are subordinate completely to the group, as

470
01:05:53.740 --> 01:05:59.060
this other view of you that Popper held and others, that individuals are just parts of

471
01:05:59.060 --> 01:06:08.340
the collective. It's that the Paulist, the community, is to the advantage of each individual.

472
01:06:08.340 --> 01:06:16.060
It isn't just that the policy is a benefit for the majority of people, it has to be benefit

473
01:06:16.060 --> 01:06:23.420
for everyone, every citizen in the group, it has to benefit.

474
01:06:23.420 --> 01:06:32.620
So the view that the policy is a complete community or prior to the individual doesn't

475
01:06:32.620 --> 01:06:41.100
rule out by any means an individualist way of looking at Aristotle.

476
01:06:41.100 --> 01:06:52.260
Now given that general point though, we can now ask what specifically does Aristotle say

477
01:06:52.260 --> 01:07:01.700
about how the good city-state should be organized.

478
01:07:01.700 --> 01:07:10.060
In the, he holds the view that there is a single constitution, but when the Greeks talk

479
01:07:10.060 --> 01:07:14.820
about constitution, like when I was mentioning the early, the collection constitution, constitution

480
01:07:14.820 --> 01:07:24.700
doesn't mean as it does in contemporary America, constitution kind of the written body of fundamental

481
01:07:24.700 --> 01:07:36.780
Constitution is the principles not necessarily written down, but giving the structure of

482
01:07:36.780 --> 01:07:45.060
the way the city-state is organized, these basic rules and customs by which it operates.

483
01:07:45.060 --> 01:07:53.540
The Straussians use the word regime, the Greek is politeia, so it's really the basic structure

484
01:07:53.540 --> 01:08:02.540
of the Society. So, Aristotle holds that there's a single best constitution that's true, that

485
01:08:02.540 --> 01:08:07.460
holds overall, and he also holds that there's a second best constitution, but he doesn't

486
01:08:07.460 --> 01:08:14.140
confine politics to discussing what the best constitution is. He also, he just classifies

487
01:08:14.140 --> 01:08:20.380
all sorts of other constitutions, and he asks what would be the best constitution given

488
01:08:20.380 --> 01:08:33.260
He has all sorts of questions that he raises, but I won't be going into the details of

489
01:08:33.260 --> 01:08:34.260
those.

490
01:08:34.260 --> 01:08:47.900
But to see what he means by the best constitution, he has a basic way of classifying constitution.

491
01:08:47.900 --> 01:08:59.540
First we divide the constitution of governments into two classes, ones that aim at the good

492
01:08:59.540 --> 01:09:08.980
of everyone in the city-state, and then ones that don't, ones in which they're just aiming

493
01:09:08.980 --> 01:09:17.340
at the good of some interest group within these, and the first group are the good constitutions,

494
01:09:17.340 --> 01:09:25.300
The others are the bad ones, so the good constitution, the one in which to the benefit of the benefit

495
01:09:25.300 --> 01:09:27.860
of all the citizens in them.

496
01:09:27.860 --> 01:09:37.980
And here there are three good types, there's kingship, aristocracy, and polity.

497
01:09:37.980 --> 01:09:46.000
The kingship is ruled by the one or the best, and aristocracy ruled by a group of the best

498
01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:59.360
and Policy is ruled by a larger group. It's similar in a way to democracy, but democracy

499
01:09:59.360 --> 01:10:08.040
is in the bad side because according to Aristotle, democracy is a system in which is run for the

500
01:10:08.040 --> 01:10:15.980
benefit of the poor people in society, the large class of poor people, not for the society

501
01:10:15.980 --> 01:10:21.980
as a Whole, City-State as a Whole. So the bad groups are corresponding to the three mentioned here,

502
01:10:21.980 --> 01:10:32.260
tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. These are the bad ones. In considering the good ones, there's

503
01:10:32.260 --> 01:10:43.540
a tie for first. Kingship, supposing we had a system where there's a single person who's superior

504
01:10:43.540 --> 01:10:50.540
If we're in virtue and knowledge to everybody else, then Aristotle holds that person should rule.

505
01:10:50.540 --> 01:10:52.540
That would be the best state of affairs.

506
01:10:52.540 --> 01:11:02.540
But that's something that's extremely unlikely to be realized, that a single person was the best overall.

507
01:11:02.540 --> 01:11:15.020
So, really, the best possible system is one where all the citizens are virtuous and they

508
01:11:15.020 --> 01:11:21.380
rule in turn over each other, say, some people hold office at one time, then others at another

509
01:11:21.380 --> 01:11:22.380
time.

510
01:11:22.380 --> 01:11:31.420
This is sort of an aristocracy, but it really consists of all the citizens in the city-state.

511
01:11:31.420 --> 01:11:38.220
Aristotle holds, there's a basic principle he holds when he's trying to explain what

512
01:11:38.220 --> 01:11:44.460
the best system is, which Fred Miller has called the principle of rulership.

513
01:11:44.460 --> 01:11:54.540
Aristotle holds that no one should be, in any circumstance, should be ruled by anyone

514
01:11:54.540 --> 01:12:02.460
inferior in moral merit to himself, and he should only be ruled by someone who is equal

515
01:12:02.460 --> 01:12:10.980
in moral merit to himself if this is based on a system of rotation, so that the equals

516
01:12:10.980 --> 01:12:15.700
would sometimes be ruling over each other, but no one would be in a permanently inferior

517
01:12:15.700 --> 01:12:16.700
position.

518
01:12:16.700 --> 01:12:27.920
So this is one of the extensions, when Aristotle talks about justice, he has what he calls

519
01:12:27.920 --> 01:12:30.800
particular justice.

520
01:12:30.800 --> 01:12:39.940
General justice just means that we're lawful in this, but in particular justice is distribution

521
01:12:39.940 --> 01:12:47.140
of Honours or other good things. And he holds that distribution of honours should always be in

522
01:12:47.140 --> 01:12:55.380
accord with the virtue of the people involved. So this view of political rule is somewhat like

523
01:12:55.380 --> 01:13:00.420
his view of particular justice. He says you should never have rule by someone who's

524
01:13:00.420 --> 01:13:08.900
is inferior in virtue, always the superiors in virtue should rule.

525
01:13:08.900 --> 01:13:21.340
So to see the question how libertarian is Aristotle, how individualistic is it, we have

526
01:13:21.340 --> 01:13:28.420
to say that let's look at this best constitution, this aristocratic government where all the

527
01:13:28.420 --> 01:13:35.620
and the Citizens Rule, and we could ask, is that at all an individualist system?

528
01:13:35.620 --> 01:13:44.620
Well, it has the individualist element in it that really everyone, all the citizens, are ruling.

529
01:13:44.620 --> 01:13:50.620
So in a way it's strange to call it aristocracy and contrast it with polity,

530
01:13:50.620 --> 01:14:00.020
because there are more people, more citizens, a greater proportion of the citizens are ruling in aristocracy.

531
01:14:00.020 --> 01:14:11.220
All the citizens are ruling than in the polity, which is kind of the good democracy, which is majority ruled by the majority.

532
01:14:11.220 --> 01:14:28.660
Here, everybody is ruling, not just a particular class of people in the polity, it's really middle class, especially stressing a certain military class that's the dominant ruling element.

533
01:14:28.660 --> 01:14:33.460
But in aristocracy, it's all the citizens are ruling.

534
01:14:33.460 --> 01:14:43.220
So, however, the society has some decidedly non-libertarian aspects to it.

535
01:14:43.220 --> 01:14:54.540
For example, Aristotle doesn't hold that as denial and Rasmussen and 20th century libertarian

536
01:14:54.540 --> 01:15:02.140
Aristotelian's Whole, that individuals can only develop habits of virtue if they're not coerced.

537
01:15:02.140 --> 01:15:11.460
He favors public education in which habits of virtue are inculcated by the government.

538
01:15:11.460 --> 01:15:20.740
He doesn't leave it up to the parents or families to develop virtue, and people have to have common meals.

539
01:15:20.740 --> 01:15:27.820
There are also regulations on governing reproduction.

540
01:15:27.820 --> 01:15:35.660
For example, deformed babies have to be exposed.

541
01:15:35.660 --> 01:15:44.900
Now, if abortion, though, is allowed only,

542
01:15:44.900 --> 01:15:46.860
I think abortion is allowed only, though,

543
01:15:46.860 --> 01:16:00.100
Aristotle doesn't think that only to the extent that the fetus isn't considered alive, isn't

544
01:16:00.100 --> 01:16:10.100
considered fully conscious, once it has, it could be considered at all rational, it would

545
01:16:10.100 --> 01:16:15.800
would have certain individual rights.

546
01:16:15.800 --> 01:16:22.900
So the state could, in theory, require, the city state could require, if the city were

547
01:16:22.900 --> 01:16:30.140
becoming too populated, they could require early abortions, but they couldn't, if a healthy

548
01:16:30.140 --> 01:16:37.220
child were delivered, they couldn't require, they couldn't expose the child.

549
01:16:37.220 --> 01:16:45.940
That would be violating individual rights to do that, but not early abortions would be

550
01:16:45.940 --> 01:16:46.940
allowed.

551
01:16:46.940 --> 01:16:58.260
Now, perhaps the most serious, though, non-libertarian aspect of the society is, we come to a notorious

552
01:16:58.260 --> 01:17:06.340
past part of the politics where Aristotle says that some men are slaves by nature, and

553
01:17:06.340 --> 01:17:12.900
What he means by slave by nature is someone who isn't controlled by reason, someone who

554
01:17:12.900 --> 01:17:22.540
is just not capable of reason in the way I tried to develop earlier, wouldn't be leading

555
01:17:22.540 --> 01:17:23.780
a rational life.

556
01:17:23.780 --> 01:17:34.220
So those people are better off, in his view, if they're ruled by other people.

557
01:17:34.220 --> 01:17:40.220
There are passages where Aristotle sometimes suggests a more beneficent view.

558
01:17:40.220 --> 01:17:50.220
For example, he thinks that it would be a good idea to hold out freedom as a prospect for slaves.

559
01:17:50.220 --> 01:17:59.220
So he raises the question, well, if slaves would benefit from freedom, maybe they aren't that irrational after all.

560
01:17:59.220 --> 01:18:07.100
Law. Why would you hold this out as something for the slaves to get if they're incapable

561
01:18:07.100 --> 01:18:14.740
of reason? And then also, he suggests in some places, you can't have a friendship with a

562
01:18:14.740 --> 01:18:20.420
slave to the extent he's just a slave, but you could to the extent he's a human being.

563
01:18:20.420 --> 01:18:30.200
So, there's some question as to how strongly Aristotle would insist on this point that some

564
01:18:30.200 --> 01:18:38.420
people were slaves by nature. However, in his plans for, in his description of the aristocracy,

565
01:18:38.420 --> 01:18:49.460
he clearly has slaves there and they don't have the, they are not part of the ruling

566
01:19:19.460 --> 01:19:30.460
Because most people, most slaves, say, slave have been acquired by conquest, say, one,

567
01:19:30.460 --> 01:19:34.740
polis would defeat another, and then they sell the inhabitants into slavery.

568
01:19:34.740 --> 01:19:45.060
They wouldn't be, in fear or incapable, being dominated by reason.

569
01:19:45.060 --> 01:19:49.180
They would just be slaves because they lost the battle.

570
01:19:49.180 --> 01:19:55.700
So they wouldn't qualify as slaves by nature, so in this view, Salerno would be really saying

571
01:19:55.700 --> 01:20:01.820
existing slavery is really pretty much all wrong, it's just in this odd case where maybe

572
01:20:01.820 --> 01:20:06.940
we have people who are mentally defective in some way, we could have justified slavery.

573
01:20:06.940 --> 01:20:14.320
But it seems hard to reconcile that interpretation with the fact that he does have large numbers

574
01:20:14.320 --> 01:20:33.360
of Slaves in his Description of the West State.

575
01:20:33.360 --> 01:20:44.320
One thing also is a very important aspect of the aristocracy that is very distinct in

576
01:20:44.320 --> 01:20:54.480
Aristotle is that ordinary workers, the people who do, say, labor, don't count, can't become

577
01:20:54.480 --> 01:21:03.760
Some citizens, because Aristotle holds that in order to be rational, we need leisure time.

578
01:21:03.760 --> 01:21:09.520
Say, if I didn't have any leisure time, I wouldn't be able to think about philosophy,

579
01:21:09.520 --> 01:21:16.800
I wouldn't be able to contemplate or even to, I wouldn't be able to consider how, what,

580
01:21:16.800 --> 01:21:22.680
how the best, what's the best life to live, say, lead if I had to work, say, in one of,

581
01:21:22.680 --> 01:21:33.680
One of the minds working, say, 18 hours a day, I wouldn't be able to be very, devote

582
01:21:33.680 --> 01:21:34.780
much time to reason.

583
01:21:34.780 --> 01:21:40.720
So those people don't have citizenship rights.

584
01:21:40.720 --> 01:21:48.600
Aristotle has the view, it's somehow, perhaps an unusual view, that production where we

585
01:21:48.600 --> 01:21:58.840
act and make something outside of ourselves is somehow inferior to action in which the

586
01:21:58.840 --> 01:22:07.080
thinking, where the product of our action isn't distinct from what we're, our activity

587
01:22:07.080 --> 01:22:15.280
in producing it, so the thought isn't something outside of us that we made like a tool, but

588
01:22:15.280 --> 01:22:23.680
The thought is, really, the action and the end are really the same thing just considered

589
01:22:23.680 --> 01:22:24.680
from other points of view.

590
01:22:24.680 --> 01:22:33.360
So this kind of view also, I think, was part of his denigration of manual labor, although

591
01:22:33.360 --> 01:22:40.160
now we have, in English you might be familiar with the word, just put this down, some of

592
01:22:40.160 --> 01:22:48.400
and you may know this word, benausic would be sort of, where it's a lower characteristic,

593
01:22:48.400 --> 01:22:55.200
especially of certain unintellectual, this is derived from a Greek term, Aristotle calls

594
01:22:55.200 --> 01:23:02.680
it, benausic activities, you don't get, you don't have full citizenship, you don't have

595
01:23:02.680 --> 01:23:07.440
rights of citizenship because they're on a lower level.

596
01:23:07.440 --> 01:23:26.440
I should say the one way perhaps one can reconcile some of these views with a more classical liberal approach is to say that Aristotle holds the view that consent is necessary for a good system.

597
01:23:26.440 --> 01:23:56.440
System. Otherwise, it's a despotism if you have a system established without people consent. That counts as despotism. So people would have, except of course for the slaves, would have voluntarily entered into this kind of arrangement. So similar way, it's something Hans Hoppe has written about where he says that people, he imagines people forming sort of societies within a libertarian order based on

598
01:24:26.440 --> 01:24:31.680
the article by Roderick that I've mentioned so inclusion I think we can see

599
01:24:31.680 --> 01:24:39.820
that Aristotle provides a very good basis I think for developing a classical

600
01:24:39.820 --> 01:24:46.480
liberal view even though he didn't fully achieve that in his in as he developed

601
01:24:46.480 --> 01:24:51.760
his system himself so I think we have a few minutes for questions objections

602
01:24:51.760 --> 01:25:00.760
In the t-shirt out there, Aristotle's name on it is private property. Can you say anything about what Aristotle said about private property?

603
01:25:21.760 --> 01:25:33.000
He says one reason each individual is entitled to property is because each individual has

604
01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:40.360
properly some self-love, and each individual wants to have property in which he can express

605
01:25:40.360 --> 01:25:41.360
himself.

606
01:25:41.360 --> 01:25:44.520
So you want property for that reason.

607
01:25:44.520 --> 01:25:50.760
Also people need property in order to live, and there's a third motive that people need

608
01:25:50.760 --> 01:26:02.040
In order to display the virtue of generosity, people want to be able to have things to give

609
01:26:02.040 --> 01:26:03.880
to others.

610
01:26:03.880 --> 01:26:08.980
People if, say, we had communal property, you couldn't be generous because how could

611
01:26:08.980 --> 01:26:13.080
you give something that you have to somebody else because you wouldn't have anything to

612
01:26:13.080 --> 01:26:14.080
give?

613
01:26:14.080 --> 01:26:26.480
Terrence Irwin, who I think is not very sympathetic to individualism and capitalism, in fact, he wrote in the Times Literary Supplement,

614
01:26:26.480 --> 01:26:36.880
he wrote an extremely negative review of Fred Miller's book, really suggesting that Fred Miller was a political propagandist for libertarians,

615
01:26:36.880 --> 01:26:45.000
In fact, which was odd because Irwin had been a participant in conferences at the Social

616
01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:50.120
Philosophy and Policy Center, that Fred Miller was one of the people who run that.

617
01:26:50.120 --> 01:26:57.000
So it was apparently all right for him to accept money from them, but that didn't stop

618
01:26:57.000 --> 01:26:59.840
him from calling Fred Miller a propagandist.

619
01:26:59.840 --> 01:27:14.840
Irwin said, well, Aristotle's wrong here because we don't, you know, we could be generous and have the state could just temporarily assign us some property, then we could give that out to others.

620
01:27:14.840 --> 01:27:25.840
But it really, that isn't, that's a rather pallid view of generosity. We really couldn't be very generous. It really was just ours on loan, as it were.

621
01:27:25.840 --> 01:27:54.840
I think Aristotle makes some extremely strong defenses of property, although in the people don't have in the best constitution, they can't amass as much property as they want to have property without restrictions you could have, they could be required to give property.

622
01:27:55.840 --> 01:28:01.040
other people under certain circumstances. Again, we have the point that raised in your article,

623
01:28:01.040 --> 01:28:07.360
people voluntarily agreeing to such a thing. Any other questions?

624
01:28:08.560 --> 01:28:16.240
You mentioned one of your goals was to look at the notion of objective truth leading to authoritarian

625
01:28:16.240 --> 01:28:35.240
in the system. And Aristotle, to me, he seems to have the notion that there is objective proof of it. He tends to be, you say, leading a foundation for libertarian thought. Would this indicate that maybe the search for objective proof doesn't necessarily lead one to the truth?

626
01:28:46.240 --> 01:28:57.240
The view that just what the objective truth is, is that people should be free to lead their own lives without interference from others so long as they don't violate other people's rights.

627
01:28:57.240 --> 01:29:07.560
The question of whether, I mean, I think if we want to support libertarianism, we want that view to be true.

628
01:29:07.560 --> 01:29:18.480
If that's just a particular preference that some people have and not others, then we don't really have a good basis for saying, for libertarianism,

629
01:29:18.480 --> 01:29:26.480
is just a preference particularly people have and others don't really lead us, get us very far.

630
01:29:29.520 --> 01:29:36.320
Dan. This perhaps speaks also to something that I've already long worked on, is the Aristotle

631
01:29:36.320 --> 01:29:42.800
Contra of microforms. Aristotle doesn't like people to know microforms idea of it, that might

632
01:29:42.800 --> 01:29:45.840
in Washington State, and that seems to be one of the challenges with that.

633
01:29:45.840 --> 01:29:51.360
People think Aristotle is not a pro-actual liberalist, but it seems to me that Aristotle's

634
01:29:51.360 --> 01:29:54.400
anthropology is one of the reasons why he disagrees with like-a-thon.

635
01:29:54.400 --> 01:29:59.760
It's not simply that the like-a-thon state isn't sadist enough for Aristotle, rather

636
01:29:59.760 --> 01:30:04.080
that Aristotle seeks the purpose of a human community, all this not just as a political

637
01:30:04.080 --> 01:30:09.600
unit, but also as a sociable community, as being the furtherance of these other goals.

638
01:30:09.600 --> 01:30:13.240
So like O'Connor basically, he's not going far enough back.

639
01:30:13.240 --> 01:30:16.520
Aristotle says, there's more than just security, obviously,

640
01:30:16.520 --> 01:30:18.840
that a person wants, even a night watchman's state

641
01:30:18.840 --> 01:30:20.680
ultimately has another purpose behind it.

642
01:30:20.680 --> 01:30:22.360
And that purpose, the reason that people come together

643
01:30:22.360 --> 01:30:26.320
to form a community, as well as a political or an organization,

644
01:30:26.320 --> 01:30:28.120
is for even better, higher goods,

645
01:30:28.120 --> 01:30:31.320
which I'll talk about virtually in this portion of life.

646
01:30:31.320 --> 01:30:33.040
I know that I think Roderick Long has said

647
01:30:33.040 --> 01:30:36.000
that he sees the fullest as a really being just

648
01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:37.960
in the worst of the political element.

649
01:30:37.960 --> 01:30:47.960
Is the policy a purely political thing, or is it also a kind of social political blend?

650
01:30:47.960 --> 01:30:53.960
Oh yes, I see. I neglected it. I was supposed to repeat the questions, which I didn't.

651
01:30:53.960 --> 01:31:03.960
And the question was on, about Aristotle's criticism of Lycafron, where he seems to be rejecting Lycafron's minimal state views.

652
01:31:03.960 --> 01:31:15.960
Was this because he thought that, like a friend, wrongly thought only the city-state is a coercive entity, but what about it?

653
01:31:15.960 --> 01:31:26.960
Couldn't we take it also as kind of a larger group involving certain social or civil activities, not just coercive ones?

654
01:31:26.960 --> 01:31:34.480
The question was, does Aristotle regard the polis only as a coercive entity or does he have this broader view?

655
01:31:34.480 --> 01:31:42.480
I think clearly he has the broader view because he calls polis living, is an association for living well, a complete community.

656
01:31:42.480 --> 01:31:50.880
It isn't only, he doesn't certainly think that not all aspects of living well involve coercion, not by any means.

657
01:31:50.880 --> 01:31:56.560
I think so he does very much have a combined view and I think in trying to develop Aristotle's views

658
01:31:59.440 --> 01:32:05.440
more classical liberal libertarian way, I think the thing to do would be kind of to separate out

659
01:32:06.080 --> 01:32:13.920
the purely coercive part from the larger social group and say we could have these larger social

660
01:32:13.920 --> 01:32:21.920
groups without having any coercion. That's what we're trying to do. Well, I think we're

661
01:32:21.920 --> 01:32:29.920
out of time now, so thanks very much. Tomorrow we have to go on. We're skipping to the Middle Ages.