by Aristotle, Benjamin Jowett (Translator)

Troy Shu
Troy Shu
Updated at: April 24, 2024

Unpack Aristotle's insights on politics with this comprehensive summary. Explore leadership roles, slavery, wealth, citizenship, and more. Engage with thought-provoking questions to apply these timeless principles. Get the key takeaways in under 150 characters.

What are the big ideas?

Differentiating Leadership Roles

Aristotle highlights the distinctions between mastery, household management, and political rule, emphasizing that true political governance is only applicable to free and equal persons, unlike the mastery over slaves or the management of a household.

This distinction is crucial for understanding the unique roles and responsibilities assigned to individuals in different capacities within the polis.

Natural and Conventional Slavery

Aristotle introduces the concept of natural versus conventional slavery, arguing that natural slavery is beneficial for both master and slave, while conventional slavery arises from circumstance like war.

This notion challenges the modern view and provides a historical perspective on the justifications for different forms of slavery.

The Limits of Acquisition

Aristotle distinguishes between necessary household management and the boundless nature of money-making, presenting a critical view on the ethics of wealth accumulation.

This insight connects to contemporary debates on wealth, ethics, and the limits of personal and corporate accumulation.

Citizenship Defined by Participation

In Aristotle’s view, a citizen is defined not just by residence but by active participation in the polis’ decision-making and office-holding processes, which changes based on the regime.

This definition underlines the active role individuals must take in governance to be considered true citizens, a concept that resonates in modern discussions on civic engagement and responsibilities.

Balancing Democracy and Oligarchy

Aristotle advocates for a mixed regime that incorporates elements of both democracy and oligarchy, aiming for a balanced government that prevents the extremes of both forms.

This approach is reflected in many modern governmental structures, which strive to balance popular representation with protections against the tyranny of the majority or the elite.

Education for Virtue

Aristotle emphasizes the importance of a unified, public education system focused on cultivating virtue and practical engagement, rather than solely on private, individualistic goals.

This philosophy supports the idea of education as a communal responsibility and aligns with contemporary movements towards public education reforms that emphasize character and civic virtues.

Want to read ebooks, websites, and other text 3X faster?

From a SwiftRead user:
Feels like I just discovered the equivalent of fire but for reading text. WOW, WOW, WOW. A must have for me, forever.

Differentiating Leadership Roles

Aristotle draws crucial distinctions between different types of leadership roles.

Mastery refers to the rule of a master over a slave, which is primarily for the benefit of the master. Household management involves the rule of a father over his family, which should be for the good of the ruled, though it may also benefit the ruler.

In contrast, political rule is unique because it applies only to a community of free and equal persons. True political governance must consider the common good of all citizens, not just the ruler. This is the hallmark of a correct regime, as opposed to the flawed regimes that seek only the advantage of the rulers.

Aristotle emphasizes that the nature of political rule is fundamentally different from the hierarchical relationships of mastery or household management. Political leaders have a responsibility to govern justly and for the benefit of the entire community, not just themselves. This insight is crucial for understanding the distinct challenges and obligations of political leadership within the polis.

Here are specific examples from the context that support the key insight about Aristotle differentiating leadership roles:

  • Aristotle states that those who "suppose that the same person is expert in political rule, kingly rule, managing the household, and being a master of slaves do not argue finely." This highlights his view that these are distinct roles, not interchangeable.

  • He uses the analogy of "dividing a compound into its uncompounded elements" to explain how one must investigate the different "kinds of rulers" and how they "differ from one another."

  • Aristotle contrasts political/kingly rule, which involves "ruling and being ruled in turn," with the rule of a master over slaves, which is not based on this reciprocal relationship between ruler and ruled.

  • In discussing household management, Aristotle notes the different forms of rule - ruling a wife in a "political" manner, and ruling children in a "kingly" fashion, rather than the mastery exercised over slaves.

  • He emphasizes that the male rules the female based on being "by nature more expert at leading," whereas the rule over children is "kingly" based on the natural authority of the parent.

  • Aristotle contrasts this with political offices, where there is an "alternation of ruler and ruled" since they are "on an equal footing."

These examples illustrate Aristotle's key insight that true political governance, based on reciprocal rule between free and equal persons, is distinct from the hierarchical mastery exercised in the household or over slaves. He sees these as fundamentally different forms of leadership.

Natural and Conventional Slavery

Aristotle presents a complex view on slavery, distinguishing between natural and conventional slavery.

Natural slavery is when someone is inherently suited to be a slave - they lack the capacity for reason and are better off being ruled by a master. Aristotle argues this type of slavery benefits both the master and the slave. The slave gains guidance and provision, while the master gains productive labor.

In contrast, conventional slavery arises from circumstances like war, where the victors enslave the vanquished. Aristotle acknowledges this form of slavery is more contentious, as the enslaved may not truly deserve their fate. However, he still believes natural slavery is justified, even if conventional slavery is not.

This perspective challenges modern views on the morality of slavery. Aristotle provides a historical lens, showing how slavery was once seen as a natural and beneficial social arrangement. While we now reject such justifications, understanding Aristotle's reasoning gives insight into the complex history and debates around this practice.

Here are specific examples from the context that support the key insight on natural and conventional slavery:

  • Aristotle argues that there are two types of slavery - natural slavery and conventional slavery. Natural slavery is when someone "is capable of belonging to another" and "participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it." (1255b9-10)
  • Aristotle provides the example that "those who are as different from other men as the soul from the body or man from beast" are "slaves by nature" and "it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule." (1255b8)
  • In contrast, conventional slavery arises from "what is conquered in war" and is "said to belong to the conquerors." (1256a1-2) Aristotle notes that this form of slavery is challenged by many as "a terrible thing if what yields to force is to be enslaved and ruled by what is able to apply force and is superior in power." (1256a2-3)
  • Aristotle acknowledges that the "beginnings of wars are not always just, and no one would assert that someone not meriting enslavement ought ever to be a slave." (1256a5)
  • He states that those who justify conventional slavery based on conquest "are in search of nothing other than the slave by nature of which we spoke at the beginning." (1256a6)

These examples illustrate Aristotle's distinction between natural slavery, which he sees as beneficial, and conventional slavery, which he acknowledges has questionable moral foundations. The context provides historical perspective on the different justifications for slavery that were debated at the time.

The Limits of Acquisition

Aristotle draws a crucial distinction between necessary household management and the boundless pursuit of wealth. He presents a critical view on the ethics of wealth accumulation.

Necessary household management is the natural art of acquiring goods for sustenance and living well. This has a defined limit, as it is oriented towards meeting the household's basic needs. In contrast, the "art of getting goods" through commerce and money-making has no such limit. It is driven by an insatiable desire for excess and gratification, rather than the genuine needs of the household.

Aristotle warns that this unbounded pursuit of wealth is "contrary to nature." It leads to the absurd situation where one can be "wealthy in money" yet "go in want of necessary sustenance." Just as the medical art aims at health, not the accumulation of drugs, the true purpose of household management is living well, not the endless acquisition of money.

This insight challenges the common equation of wealth with money and the single-minded focus on profit-making. Aristotle suggests that there are ethical limits to acquisition, rooted in the natural needs and purposes of the household. His critique remains highly relevant to contemporary debates on the ethics of capitalism and the responsible stewardship of economic resources.

Here are examples from the context that support the key insight on the limits of acquisition:

  • Aristotle distinguishes between "the necessary sort" of household management, which has a "defining principle", and the "unnecessary sort of getting goods" through commerce, which is "without limit" (Chapters 9-10).

  • He uses the example of shoes - they have a "proper use" of being worn, but can also be traded, which is not their "proper use" (Chapter 9).

  • Aristotle critiques the view that "wealth" is simply defined as "a given amount of money", noting that this can lead to absurd situations where one is "wealthy in money" but "goes in want of necessary sustenance" (Chapter 9).

  • He compares the "art of getting goods" to other arts like medicine, noting that while those have a definite end, the "art of getting goods" has "no limit with respect to the end" and the "end is wealth of this sort and property in money" (Chapter 9).

  • Aristotle argues that the "cause" of this unlimited pursuit of wealth is that people are "serious about living, but not about living well" and seek to satisfy bodily gratifications through excess (Chapter 9).

  • He contrasts this with the "necessary sort" of household management, which is "according to nature" and "has a defining principle", in contrast to the "unnecessary sort of getting goods" (Chapters 9-10).

The key examples illustrate Aristotle's critical view on the ethics of unbounded wealth accumulation, in contrast to the more limited and natural pursuit of household management and sustenance.

Citizenship Defined by Participation

Aristotle defines a citizen as someone who actively participates in the decision-making and governance of the polis (city-state). This is a crucial distinction - citizenship is not merely about residency, but about taking an active role in the political process.

The specific rights and responsibilities of citizens vary depending on the regime (form of government) in place. In some regimes, only a select few hold political offices and make decisions. In others, a broader segment of the population is involved. But in all cases, Aristotle sees true citizenship as requiring direct engagement, not passive membership.

This emphasis on active civic participation is an important concept that resonates today. It suggests that being a citizen involves more than just living in a place - it requires taking responsibility for the governance of one's community. This notion of "civic duty" remains central to modern discussions around the rights and obligations of citizenship.

Here are specific examples from the context that support the key insight that citizenship is defined by participation in decision-making and office-holding, which varies based on the regime:

  • In Sparta, "different overseers try different cases involving agreements, the senators those involving murder, and another office perhaps others" - this shows how citizenship is defined by participation in specific offices and decision-making processes.

  • In Carthage, "certain offices try all cases" - again, citizenship is tied to participation in particular governing bodies.

  • Aristotle states that "Whoever is entitled to share in an office involving deliberation or decision is, we can now say, a citizen in this city" - directly defining citizenship by involvement in governance.

  • He notes that in some regimes, "it is not the indefinite ruler who is assemblyman or juror, but one whose office is definite" - citizenship is not just about residence, but about holding a defined political office.

  • Aristotle discusses how in some regimes, "all or some are assigned to deliberate and adjudicate, either concerning all matters or concerning some" - the scope of citizen participation varies based on the regime.

  • He examines the case of Athens, where Cleisthenes "enrolled in the tribes many foreigners and alien slaves" after expelling the tyrants - showing how the definition of citizenship can change with political upheaval.

  • Aristotle distinguishes between "unjust" and "false" citizens, noting that even "unjust rulers" must be considered citizens based on their participation in governance, even if it is unjust.

The key point is that for Aristotle, citizenship is not just about residence or ancestry, but about active engagement in the decision-making and office-holding processes of the polis, which varies significantly based on the particular regime in place.

Balancing Democracy and Oligarchy

Aristotle argues for a balanced government that combines elements of both democracy and oligarchy. This mixed regime aims to prevent the extremes of either system.

In a democracy, the poor majority holds power and can enact their will through majority rule. This can lead to the tyranny of the majority. In an oligarchy, power is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite, risking the tyranny of the few.

Aristotle's solution is a middle ground that incorporates democratic and oligarchic principles. For example, some offices could be elected, while others are chosen by lot. This allows for popular representation while still preserving the role of the elite.

The goal is a government that is neither purely democratic nor purely oligarchic, but rather a balanced system that draws on the strengths of both. This approach is reflected in many modern governments, which strive to balance popular will with protections against the excesses of either the majority or the elite.

Here are specific examples from the context that support the key insight that Aristotle advocates for a balanced mixed regime incorporating elements of both democracy and oligarchy:

  • Aristotle states that a well-mixed polity should be "possible for the same polity to be spoken of as either a democracy or an oligarchy" because "the mixture is a fine one." This suggests a balanced approach.

  • He cites the example of the Spartan regime, which has "many democratic elements" like equal rearing and education of the wealthy and poor, as well as "many oligarchic elements" like elected offices and harsh punishments. This shows Aristotle's appreciation for a mixed system.

  • Aristotle describes different ways to mix democratic and oligarchic elements, such as:

    • Taking elements from the legislation of each, like fines for the wealthy and pay for the poor in adjudication
    • Finding a "mean" between the extremes, like a moderate property assessment for office
    • Selecting some oligarchic and some democratic elements, like elected offices but no property assessment
  • He emphasizes that a well-mixed polity should be "preserved through itself, not from outside" because none of the city's factions would want another regime. This suggests a balanced system that prevents domination by any one group.

The key terms here are "mixed regime", "balanced government", and "preventing extremes". Aristotle provides these specific examples to illustrate his advocacy for a middle ground between pure democracy and pure oligarchy, in order to avoid the pitfalls of both.

Education for Virtue

Aristotle advocates for a public education system focused on cultivating virtue and practical engagement, rather than solely on private, individualistic goals. This philosophy supports the idea of education as a communal responsibility, aligning with contemporary movements towards public education reforms that emphasize character and civic virtues.

Aristotle believes the good of the individual cannot be separated from the good of the community. Political science, as the "master science of practice", establishes the framework within which all individual action takes place. Therefore, the study of individual character and virtues is an integral part of political science. Aristotle's Politics is incomplete without this broader consideration of ethics and the role of the individual within the community.

This emphasis on a unified, public education system aimed at developing virtuous citizens contrasts with the narrow, individualistic approaches Aristotle critiques in his time. He sees education as a communal responsibility, not just a private pursuit. By cultivating practical wisdom and civic engagement, this educational philosophy supports the flourishing of both the individual and the broader political community.

Here are specific examples from the context that support the key insight about Aristotle's emphasis on a unified, public education system focused on cultivating virtue and practical engagement:

  • Aristotle suggests that his ethical and political writings, including the Politics, were "addressed less to philosophers or students of philosophy than to educated and leisured men who are active in politics and actual or potential wielders of political power." This indicates his focus on educating those who will be engaged in practical politics, rather than just academic philosophers.

  • The context notes that Aristotle's "early interest in rhetoric reflected dissatisfaction not only with Isocrates but with the Plato's Academy as well, as he may have considered the Academy "insufficiently concerned with the presentation of political skill or knowledge in a form capable of being assimilated and used by political men." This shows Aristotle's desire for a more practically-oriented political education.

  • Aristotle distinguishes between "legislative" prudence and "active and deliberative" political prudence, suggesting the need for a political education that goes beyond just learning laws and instead focuses on the practical application of political knowledge.

  • The passage states that Aristotle saw a "great defect of the sophistic approach to 'legislation'" as being "its overconcentration on laws as such—that is, laws abstracted from the context of the regime." This indicates Aristotle's view that political education should be grounded in the realities of different political regimes, not just the study of laws in isolation.

  • Aristotle's criticism that contemporary Greece lacked "any genuine instruction in political or legislative expertise" further highlights his belief in the need for a more comprehensive, public-oriented system of political education focused on cultivating practical wisdom.

In summary, the context suggests Aristotle advocated for a unified, public education system aimed at developing the virtues and practical engagement of future political leaders, rather than just imparting abstract knowledge or serving private, individualistic goals. His dissatisfaction with the existing educational approaches of his time underscores this key insight.


Let's take a look at some key quotes from "Politics" that resonated with readers.

Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.

Humans are inherently designed to live among others, and those who reject this fundamental aspect of human nature are either subhuman or superhuman. A person who cannot coexist with others or has no need for societal interaction is an anomaly, deviating from the norm. This emphasizes the importance of community and interdependence in human existence.

Nature does nothing uselessly.

In the natural world, every element serves a purpose. Nothing exists without a reason or function. This concept implies that everything has been designed to fulfill a specific role, and its existence is justified by the contribution it makes.

It is of the nature of desire not to be satisfied, and most men live only for the gratification of it.

Human desires are inherently insatiable, and most people focus their lives on fulfilling these cravings. This relentless pursuit of satisfaction can lead to an endless cycle of longing, as each desire is temporarily satiated only to be replaced by a new one. Ultimately, this constant yearning can dominate one's existence, driving individuals to prioritize immediate gratification over more meaningful pursuits.

Comprehension Questions

0 / 26

How well do you understand the key insights in "Politics"? Find out by answering the questions below. Try to answer the question yourself before revealing the answer! Mark the questions as done once you've answered them.

1. What is the primary purpose of mastery in leadership according to Aristotle?
2. What distinguishes household management from mastery in terms of leadership goals?
3. How does Aristotle define political rule in comparison to mastery and household management?
4. Why does Aristotle believe political rulers have responsibilities different from other types of leaders?
5. How does the nature of rule differ between political and kingly roles in Aristotle’s view?
6. What is the primary defining trait of someone who is considered a natural slave according to the discussed philosophies?
7. How does natural slavery purportedly benefit both the master and the slave?
8. What is the main difference between natural and conventional slavery?
9. Why is conventional slavery considered more contentious than natural slavery?
10. What is the distinction between necessary household management and the boundless pursuit of wealth?
11. Why does Aristotle describe the unbounded pursuit of wealth as 'contrary to nature'?
12. How does the endless acquisition of goods relate to the living well principle?
13. What is the proper use of goods according to Aristotle, and how does it compare to their commercial use?
14. Explain the impact of equating wealth with just money according to Aristotle.
15. How did Aristotle define a citizen in terms of their role within the polis?
16. What does it mean to be a citizen according to Aristotle’s view on political engagement?
17. Why is the concept of citizenship, as defined by Aristotle, not confined merely to living in a geographical location?
18. How does the extent of a citizen’s participation in governance vary according to Aristotle?
19. What modern concept is reminiscent of Aristotle’s notion of citizenship through active participation?
20. What is a mixed regime and why does it seek to balance elements of two different government systems?
21. How can a government system implement both democratic and oligarchic principles without becoming purely one or the other?
22. What are the advantages of incorporating both democratic and oligarchic elements into a government’s structure?
23. What does it mean when education is described as a communal responsibility?
24. How does a focus on cultivating virtue and practical engagement in education influence the development of citizens?
25. Why is the integration of character and virtues important in the study of political science?
26. What are the limitations of focusing solely on laws in political education?

Action Questions

0 / 9

"Knowledge without application is useless," Bruce Lee said. Answer the questions below to practice applying the key insights from "Politics". Mark the questions as done once you've answered them.

1. How can you incorporate principles of political governance, such as the consideration for the common good, into your leadership roles at work or community groups?
2. How can you use Aristotle's distinction between natural and conventional slavery to evaluate the justifications for various forms of control and authority in modern society?
3. In what ways can understanding historical concepts of natural and conventional roles inform your approach to ethical leadership and governance?
4. In what ways can individuals or communities establish systems or practices that prioritize sustainability and wellbeing over profit maximization?
5. How can you increase your participation in your local government or community to strengthen your role as a citizen?
6. What actions can you take to educate others about the importance of active participation in governance for robust citizenship?
7. How can you contribute to achieving a balanced approach in decision-making within your community or organization?
8. What strategies can you employ to prevent the extremes of majority or minority rule in group settings, such as teams or committees?
9. How can you contribute to fostering a community-based educational system that emphasizes character development and civic responsibility in your own community?

Chapter Notes


  • Aristotle's Politics as a Pioneering Work of Political Science: The Politics represents the earliest attempt to elaborate a systematic science of politics, examining the affairs of the polis (the classical Greek city-state) in a philosophical-scientific manner.

  • The Polis as a Distinct Political Form: The polis was an independent state organized around an urban center and governed by formal laws and republican political institutions, distinct from both primitive tribes and the civilized monarchic states of the ancient East.

  • Aristotle's Involvement with Macedon: Aristotle had close ties to the Macedonian royal house, and his fortunes were likely more intertwined with Macedonian politics than is commonly assumed, though the extent of his influence and approval of Macedonian imperialism is debated.

  • Textual and Compositional Issues: The Politics likely underwent some editorial changes and potential interpolations over time, but is generally considered a coherent work, with the order of the books being the primary point of contention.

  • Aristotle's Conception of Practical Science: Aristotle distinguished practical science (including politics) from theoretical science, with practical science aiming to guide action rather than simply provide knowledge, and using a more dialectical method.

  • The Scope of Aristotle's Political Science: Aristotle's primary focus in the Politics is on "legislative expertise" and the analysis of different regime types, rather than the full range of political expertise covering areas like finance, defense, and foreign policy.

  • Aristotle's Critique of Predecessors: Aristotle was critical of the approaches of both the Sophists, who focused too narrowly on laws, and Plato, whose treatment of legislation in the Laws lacked a sufficient analysis of the varieties of regimes.

  • Aristotle's Defense of the Polis: While the polis was in decline during Aristotle's time, he provided a reasoned defense of it as a superior political form, critiquing both the narrow oligarchies and partisan democracies of contemporary Greece.

  • The Influence and Eclipse of the Politics: The Politics had a significant but intermittent influence in the history of Western political thought, being rediscovered and adapted at various points, before being eclipsed by the rise of modern political philosophy.

  • The Renewed Relevance of the Politics: The Politics has seen a resurgence of interest in recent decades, as a potential alternative to the perceived shortcomings of modern liberal political thought and a source of insights on issues of community, republicanism, and practical statesmanship.

Book 1

Here are the key takeaways from the Chapter:

  • The city is a community that aims at some good, and the most authoritative community is the political community or city.
  • Mastery, household management, and political rule are not the same thing, as some have argued. Mastery is over slaves, household management is over a household, and political rule is over free and equal persons.
  • Slavery and the slave are spoken of in a double sense - there is a natural slavery where some are slaves by nature, and a conventional slavery where those conquered in war are enslaved. Natural slavery is advantageous and just for both the master and slave.
  • There are two types of the art of acquisition - the necessary art of household management, which has a limit, and the unnecessary art of money-making, which has no limit.
  • The art of household management is distinct from the art of money-making, as the former is concerned with using what is necessary, while the latter is concerned with acquiring unlimited wealth.
  • The virtue of the ruler, the ruled, the free, and the slave differ in kind, not just in degree. The slave lacks the deliberative element, the female has it but it lacks authority, and the child has it but it is incomplete.
  • The virtues of a woman, man, child, and slave are not the same, but differ in relation to their respective functions. The ruler must have complete virtue, while the others must have as much as is required for their roles.

Book 2

Here are the key takeaways from the chapter:

  • Shared Property and Community: Aristotle examines the idea of shared property and community, as proposed by Plato in the Republic. He argues that making everything completely common is not beneficial for the city, as it would destroy the city's nature as a diverse community.

  • Unity vs. Diversity: Aristotle contends that the city should not be made into a complete unity, as that would make it more like a household or an individual rather than a city. He argues that the city needs a certain degree of diversity and reciprocal equality to function well.

  • Issues with Plato's Proposals: Aristotle identifies several problems with Plato's proposals regarding shared women and children, and shared property. He argues that these would lead to a lack of affection and care, as well as practical difficulties in implementation.

  • Phaleas' Proposal for Equality: Aristotle examines the proposal of Phaleas of Chalcedon to equalize property among citizens. He argues that this alone is not sufficient, and that the legislator must also consider the number of citizens and their desires.

  • Critique of the Spartan Regime: Aristotle provides a detailed critique of the Spartan regime, highlighting issues such as the treatment of the helots, the lax control over women, the unequal distribution of property, and problems with the selection and powers of the overseers.

  • Comparison of the Cretan and Spartan Regimes: Aristotle notes that the Cretan regime is similar to the Spartan regime in many ways, but also has some differences, such as a better arrangement for the common messes.

  • Analysis of the Carthaginian Regime: Aristotle praises certain aspects of the Carthaginian regime, such as the selection of kings and senators, but criticizes its tendency towards oligarchy, particularly in the election of officials based on wealth rather than merit.

  • Evaluation of Other Legislators: Aristotle briefly examines the contributions of other legislators, such as Solon, Zaleucus, Charondas, and Draco, noting both the strengths and weaknesses of their respective approaches.

Book 3

Here are the key takeaways from the Chapter:

  • Defining the Citizen: The definition of a citizen is one who partakes in decision-making and holding office, not just one who inhabits a place or is subject to the law. The definition of a citizen varies based on the type of regime.

  • Regimes and Justice: There are correct and deviant regimes, where the correct regimes (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) aim at the common advantage, while the deviant regimes (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy) aim at the private advantage of the rulers. The different regimes have different conceptions of justice.

  • Virtue of the Citizen vs. Virtue of the Good Man: The virtue of the excellent citizen may not be the same as the virtue of the good man, as the citizen's virtue is oriented towards the regime, while the good man's virtue is complete. The ruler's virtue may also differ from the citizen's virtue.

  • Types of Kingship: There are several types of kingship, including hereditary kingship, elective tyranny, and permanent generalship, which differ in the scope of the king's authority and how they came to power.

  • Rule of Law vs. Rule of the Best Man: There is a debate on whether it is better to be ruled by the best laws or the best man. The arguments for rule of law include its impartiality and ability to handle the universal, while the arguments for rule of the best man include their ability to handle particulars and lack of passions.

  • Conditions for Kingship: Kingship is only advantageous if there is a person or family that is vastly superior in virtue compared to the rest of the citizens. Otherwise, rule should be shared among equals or those similar in virtue.

  • Aristocracy vs. Kingship: The best regime is an aristocracy where the best persons rule, which is the same as a kingship where a vastly superior individual or family rules. The education and habits that make a good citizen are the same as those that make a good ruler.

Book 4

Here are the key takeaways from the chapter:

  • Varieties of Regimes: There are several types of regimes beyond the commonly discussed democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. These include aristocracy, polity, and various combinations and variations of these. The chapter discusses the defining features and characteristics of these different regimes.

  • Middling Element: The middling element, or the middle class, is crucial for a well-governed and stable regime. Regimes with a strong middling element are less prone to factional conflict and revolution compared to those dominated by the extremes of wealth or poverty.

  • Deliberative Element: The deliberative element of a regime, which decides on matters of war, peace, laws, and the selection of officials, can take different forms. These range from direct democracy where all citizens deliberate, to oligarchic systems where only a few deliberate.

  • Offices and Officials: The chapter discusses the various ways in which officials can be selected, including election, lot, or a combination. It also examines the different types of offices and their powers, and how these should be matched to the appropriate regime.

  • Adjudicative Element: The adjudicative element, or the courts, also varies across regimes. The chapter outlines eight different types of courts based on who serves as jurors and what matters they decide.

  • Mixing Elements: The best regimes often involve a mixing of elements from democracy and oligarchy, drawing on the strengths of each. The chapter provides guidance on how to effectively combine these elements.

  • Regime Suitability: The chapter emphasizes that the best regime for a city depends on its particular circumstances and composition. What works well for one city may not be suitable for another, and the legislator must tailor the regime accordingly.

Book 5

Here are the key takeaways from the Chapter:

  • Causes of Factional Conflicts and Revolutions: Factional conflicts and revolutions arise due to inequality, where some groups believe they deserve more or less than others based on factors like wealth, status, or virtue. This leads to groups engaging in factional conflict to try to transform the regime or gain control of it.

  • Types of Factional Conflicts: Factional conflicts can be over transforming the regime to a different type (e.g. democracy to oligarchy) or over gaining control of the existing regime without changing its type. They can also be over increasing or decreasing the power of the regime.

  • Numerical vs. Proportional Equality: There are two types of equality - numerical (equal in number/size) and proportional (equal in ratio). Regimes often err in their conception of which type of equality is just, leading to factional conflicts.

  • Stability of Different Regimes: Democracies are more stable and have less factional conflict than oligarchies. Regimes that mix elements of democracy and oligarchy (polities) are the most stable.

  • Causes of Factional Conflicts: The main causes of factional conflicts are profit, honor, preeminence, fear, contempt, disproportionate growth of a part of the city, and issues around elections, underestimation, small differences, and dissimilarity of stock.

  • Preservation of Regimes: Regimes can be preserved by ensuring equality and justice, preventing any group from becoming too preeminent, and providing education aligned with the regime. Monarchies can be preserved by moderating the king's power and making the rule more kingly.

  • Preservation of Tyrannies: Tyrannies can be preserved by suppressing the people, creating distrust and lack of capability among the ruled, and making the ruler appear more kingly and moderate, while still maintaining absolute power.

  • Longevity of Different Regimes: Oligarchies and tyrannies tend to be the most short-lived regimes, while well-blended regimes like the Spartan kingship can last a long time. The longest-lasting tyrannies were those of Orthagoras's family in Sicyon and the Cypselids in Corinth.

  • Critique of Socrates' Account of Revolutions: Socrates' account in the Republic is criticized for not accurately describing the causes and patterns of revolutions across different regime types.

Book 6

Here are the key takeaways from the chapter:

  • Types of Democracies and Oligarchies: The chapter discusses the different types of democracies and oligarchies, and how they can be combined to create mixed regimes like oligarchic aristocracies and polities with a more democratic character.

  • Defining Characteristics of Democracy: The key defining characteristics of democracy are freedom, equality based on number rather than merit, and the ability to live as one wants. These lead to characteristics like election of officials from all citizens, rule of all over each and each over all, and having all offices chosen by lot.

  • Best Type of Democracy: The best type of democracy is one with a farming population, as they lack leisure time and desire for others' property, and are satisfied with electing and auditing officials rather than holding office themselves.

  • Preserving Democracies: To preserve democracies, measures should be taken to avoid confiscations, limit public suits, and provide pay for the poor without depleting public funds. Accumulating surplus revenues to distribute to the poor is also recommended.

  • Instituting Oligarchies: Oligarchies should be instituted by combining elements opposite to the corresponding democracy, such as having a distinction in assessments for different offices.

  • Necessary Offices: The chapter outlines the necessary offices for a city, including those related to markets, public/private property, revenues, courts, and defense. It also discusses how these offices can be combined or separated.

  • Authoritative Offices: The most authoritative office is the one that presides over the final disposition of measures and convenes the authoritative element, such as a council or preliminary council.

  • Optional Offices: Beyond the necessary offices, there are optional offices related to religious matters, spectacles, and management of women and children, which are less suited to democracies.

Book 7

Here are the key takeaways from the Chapter:

  • Happiness and the Best Regime: Happiness is the actualization and complete practice of virtue, and this is the aim of the best regime. The best regime should be constituted to allow citizens to live the best and most virtuous life possible.

  • Citizenship and Ruling: Citizens should both rule and be ruled in turn, as this is just for those who are similar. The young should be ruled first and then rule later in life, as this reflects the natural distinction between the younger and older elements of the population.

  • Virtue and Education: Virtue is developed through a combination of nature, habit, and reason. Education should aim to cultivate virtue in both the rational and irrational parts of the soul, with a focus on the higher rational virtues.

  • Procreation and Child-Rearing: The legislator should regulate procreation to ensure the best possible offspring, including determining the appropriate ages for marriage and the duration of procreative activity. Child-rearing should focus on physical development, play, and moral habituation in the early years.

  • Censorship and Moral Education: The legislator should censor and restrict exposure of the young to immoral or base speech, stories, and performances, in order to cultivate virtue and prevent the development of bad habits and character.

  • Stages of Education: Education should be divided into distinct stages corresponding to the natural development of the individual, with different curricula and approaches appropriate for each stage.

Book 8

Here are the key takeaways from the chapter:

  • Education of the Young is Critical: The legislator must make the education of the young a top priority, as it is crucial for the stability and success of the regime.

  • Common and Unified Education: Education should be common and unified for all citizens, rather than left to individual parents to decide privately.

  • Debate on the Purpose of Education: There is ongoing debate about the purpose of education - whether it should focus on virtue, useful skills, or extraordinary accomplishments.

  • Distinguishing Liberal and Illiberal Education: Education should focus on "liberal" tasks and skills, and avoid "illiberal" or vulgar tasks that make the mind or body less capable of virtue.

  • Role of Music in Education: Music should be included in education, not just for pleasure, but also for its ability to shape character and provide noble leisure.

  • Appropriate Music for Different Ages: Different harmonies and rhythms in music are suited for different ages and educational purposes - the Dorian mode is best for the young, while more relaxed Lydian is appropriate for the elderly.

  • Moderation in Music Education: Music education should avoid extremes, whether overly technical/professional or overly relaxed, and instead aim for the middle ground that is possible and appropriate for each age.

  • Flutes Unsuitable for Education: Flutes and other instruments associated with frenzy and vulgarity should be excluded from music education, which should focus on harmonies and rhythms that cultivate virtue.

  • Importance of Practical Engagement: Actively participating in music-making, not just listening, is important for developing the ability to judge and appreciate noble music.

  • Music's Role in Purification and Leisure: Music can serve a purificatory function, calming the passions, as well as providing noble leisure and relaxation.


What do you think of "Politics"? Share your thoughts with the community below.