politics

Chapter 27 Volume (Γ) Three (7)
The masses (majority) are often more correct in criticizing music and the works of poets than the few specialists, because some appreciate one part, others are moved by another, and all feelings combined are completely It clarifies the gains and losses of the whole article. Aristotle attaches great importance to the principle of mass collectives in politics and literature, which is in line with the fashion of Athens.The tradition of Athens is that not only the military and political matters of the city-state are deliberated by the citizens' assembly, but also the selection of public building plans, the evaluation of music performances or drama competitions are also decided by referendum.Plato often uses art as a metaphor when discussing politics, but his purpose is the opposite.He hated to listen to the civilian collective, and preferred to listen to the opinions of experts. He once called the democratic regime in which citizens deliberated as a "theater (audience) regime" (θεαροκραα) ("Law" 700E-701A).Aristophanes also despises the masses, and in Equites 752 he taunts the plebeians led by the plebeian leaders in the civic assemblies as fools. .The reason why a good man with high moral character is different from any individual in the crowd is that he has gathered the qualities of many people in one body; 10 the reason why a beautiful woman is different from ordinary appearance, and the reason why a work of art is different from ordinary things is also in this reason.Because it integrates the scattered beauties into a whole in the appearance or works of people.

The whole here fits our current definition of beauty.Maybe if you take the whole portrait apart and examine it, 15 will say that his eyes are not as good as those of a certain ordinary person, and other parts are not as good as the corresponding parts of another person.But whether this principle that the disadvantages of the many outweigh the advantages of the few is applicable to all plebeian governments, and to all human associations, cannot be determined here with certainty. "God's Appreciation", perhaps some people's groups here refer to artisans and servants in the common government. These occupations are called servile trades in this volume iv. as close to domesticated animals.See "Niron" Volume 1277 Chapter 37 1254b24; Plato: "Utopia" 1095C.Heraclitus admired the virtuous few and despised the masses. He once thought that the masses were similar to beasts (Bywater edited "Heraclitus Fragments" III).Most of the famous Greek scholars advocate virtue in politics, and Aristotle, in accordance with the political tradition of Athens, had many twists and turns when defending the majority principle of civilian government.does not apply to this principle.It would be absurd to say that this theory can be used as a general rule, and it can also be applied to beasts. How is a group of some people different from a herd?But despite these objections, 19 our principle is always right when applied to certain public bodies.

After the above arguments, it may be possible to answer the aforementioned question "Who should control the supreme government?" and the next question: "Free men or ordinary citizens in the citizen group, who have neither wealth nor talent. Virtue, what abilities and roles can such a person develop and play in the supreme governance?" Chapter 1281a11, the question of "Who will control the supreme governance" can be said to have been answered so far in the debate: in the original five items Among the characters, the "mass" should be selected as the supreme ruler, that is, a "civilian regime" should be adopted.The following sections move on to the second question.The apologist may make this point: 25 If such men were allowed to take part in the highest offices, they would be less just or less prudent, and would be liable to sin and error.

But here we can also raise a negative question from another point of view: if they are not allowed to share some rights, serious harm will occur, because if a large group of poor people in a city-state do not have the right to participate in public office, it is tantamount to retaining Many enemies. 30 To find a way out of this dilemma, that is to let them participate in the function of deliberation and trial, such civic functions see Chapter 1275 16b17-35.The gist of Solon’s law mentioned in the next sentence is that ([-]) election conforms to the deliberative function, and ([-]) reviewing administrative merits and demerits conforms to the trial (judicial) function. .Therefore, Solon and some other legislators regarded the common people as a collective and gave them two powers: first, to elect the executive officers; second, to review the achievements or merits of the executive officers when their terms expired .However, according to their individual abilities, they cannot be appointed to official positions.When the masses of the common people are assembled, their feeling and the function of censorship are good, and this function cooperates with the higher level administrators to be beneficial to the city. [-] This is like mixing impure coarse grains with fine grains and eating them together, and they will be more nutritious than a little fine grains.But if each of them examines separately, the effect is not good enough.

However, there are certain difficulties in a political system that arranges the common people to participate in deliberation and judicial functions in this way.First, people can say that a person must have medical skills to treat a certain type of disease, 40ɑ that is, a doctor can judge the gains and losses of medical events, and it should be the same for all other industries and technologies.Just as the merits of physicians should be reviewed by an assembly of physicians, so should the merits and demerits of practitioners in other professions.The so-called doctors can be divided into three categories: (1282) general medical staff who perform medical work, (5) senior doctors who are specialized in their profession and can take on leading positions, and (14) laypersons who understand general medical technology.The above-mentioned lay people can be found in almost every industry. 22 These people’s ability to judge is no worse than the practitioners and experts we have listed. Here Aristotle mentioned that they do not practice medicine but have medical knowledge and People with medical judgment ability can be compared to citizens who do not perform political affairs but also have the ability to review administrative work.But the following turns to another argument; it is not until lines [-]-[-] that this analogy is extended. .The same principle can be advanced when passing from the examination of merit to the next question, that of elections.

The apologists may say that only experts in the trade can elect a true man, only those who are good at geometry can accurately choose a surveyor, and only those who have sailed frequently can choose a helmsman. 10 Although in certain industries and certain technologies, some outsiders are also very good at identifying the skills of practitioners, but they are not as familiar as experts in the industry.According to this principle, the defenders believe that whether it is electing to govern or reviewing administrative merits and demerits, it should not be decided by the common people, and the highest governance power should not be in the hands of the masses.However, we can see that the reasons for these objections are actually insufficient.The collective alien argument 1281a40-b21 we mentioned earlier. , can actually be used to answer this query. 15 If the masses were not very base and slavish people, individual individuals would not be able to judge as well as experts, but collectively they might be better than or at least as good as experts.Moreover, in some technologies, the creator is not necessarily the best critic, certainly not the only one.These technical works can also be identified and judged by people who have not studied this technology. 20 For example, a house is something that non-builders can understand.The owners of a home, the occupants, are sometimes better judges of a home than the architect.Similarly, a helm is better judged by the helmsman than a ship carpenter, and a dish is best judged not by the cook but by the diner.

After the above debates, the question of the common people's deliberation and judicial power has been fully answered.But in connection with it, 25 can also raise another question.It is absurd that the power of deliberation given to the lesser people (the common people) is actually higher than the administrative duties of the noble people (the virtuous). 30 Electing the rulers and reviewing their merits and demerits after their term of office is complete are the great affairs of the city-state.But we see that some city-state regimes leave these important matters to mass groups, so that the citizens' assembly wields the highest power in these matters.Moreover, the financial officers or generals of the city-state, or any high-ranking officials, generally have higher family property and seniority conditions, which override these functions, while the members of the citizen assembly who are in charge of discussing and judging are all people with meager family property. 35 and no age requirement.However, we can also answer such a query as we answered the previous one, and reaffirm that the arrangement is feasible.

Because according to the current system, power is actually controlled by the public trial court or council. Athens and other civilian regimes use the "citizens' assembly" (κκλησα) as the election and deliberation body, and the "public trial court" (δικασριον) as the highest judicial body.The "council" (Buli) is also mentioned here.The constitution and powers of the state councils are not all the same.The Athens council conducts pre-trial work for various cases proposed to the citizens' assembly. It has 500 councilors, and those who are over 30 years old among the citizens take turns to serve.In addition, "Buli" as mentioned in Volume 1317, Chapter 31, 40b1282, belongs to the administrative organization.or the mass as a whole, and is not entrusted to any individual "assertor of the mass" or "senator" or "member of the assembly," each of whom is but one of the whole of the tribunal or assembly or assembly [cannot Independent] section. [-] So it is fitting, and just (lawful), [-]b, to place the power of the plebs, who make up the assemblies, councils, and courts, above those virtuous offices.The collective performance of all those who participate in these deliberative bodies will be greater than the supreme executive body composed of a few virtuous people, and naturally greater than their individual performance.If you fully understand these principles, you will no longer have the above doubts.

Chapter 10 of this volume when we discuss the first question. , which has been extended to this gist, the final control of the power of adjudication should be the formally enacted law.It's just that all the statutes can't summarize the complicated changes in the world. See "Niron" Volume 1137 19b[-]. , only when the law is insufficient, the power of individuals or the power of several people united to issue orders, as a subsidy Athenian politics has always attached importance to ancient codes and conventions.Citizens' assemblies mainly deliberate on political affairs. If there are bills to change into laws, they must be reviewed and revised by the judicial committee before they can be promulgated. In fact, citizens' assemblies rarely enact new laws.Some people use the citizens' assembly to pass "government orders" that violate the old code, and are often accused of trespassing.

If the ruler takes measures that violate the established law, any citizen can sue him in the public trial court for the "crime of violation" (γραφ παρανóυον).Aristotle's advocacy of the rule of law here is in line with the Athenian tradition (see Vinogradoff: "Vinogradoff, Historical Jurisprudence" [Vinogradoff, Historical Jurisprudence] Volume II Chapter VI 2, "Rule of Law"). . 5 But what kind of law can become authentic law is still not clear.The difficulty that the law may be biased remains as stated cf. 1281a36. .Just as there are good and bad city-states, there are also good and bad laws. If they are not in line with justice, they are not in line with justice. 10 The only certainty here is that laws are necessarily made according to the regime (constitution).In this way, we can deduce that the laws enacted by the orthodox regime must be just, while the laws enacted by the perverted or perverted regime are not just.

Chapter 11, Chapters 12 to [-] use different arguments to examine the distribution of civic obligations and rights in the city-state, that is, how to achieve fairness between citizens and the things (names) they should bear.The essence of justice and the essence of law is to keep the relationship between people and things in a balanced state. The debate in Chapter [-] has obviously recognized that the civilian "mass" should have the highest political rights, while Chapter [-] has changed the way of debate. The free status of civilians is no longer a particularly important condition in politics, and "wealth" and "moral character" are also different. got status.

The ultimate goal of all learning (knowledge) and technology in the world is to pursue a kind of beauty; political science is the most important of all academics, and its ultimate goal is the virtue that is most valued by everyone, 15 that is, human For perfection, refer to Chapter 1094 of Volume 1: "Niron" Volume 1280 7a22. .The good in politics is "justice" and it aims at "public interest".According to the general understanding, justice is the concept of "equality" of certain things. Please refer to Chapter 20, [-]a[-]-[-] of this volume; .And this is just the same as the conclusion we get when we do philosophical research in ethics. Aristotle believed that "worldly views" are common concepts, and there is truth in them, which should be analyzed, revised and improved. (See "Niron" volume ten chapter two). [-] In short, justice consists of both the thing and the person who should receive it, and those who are considered equal deserve equal things.But the question is, what are the so-called "equal" and "unequal", what are they equal to and not equal to?The difficulties involved in this question deserve an intelligent (philosophical) examination in political science.

Some might say that the functions and honors of the 25 city-states should be divided (unequally) at different levels according to the principle of merit, among citizens who are superior in any way-even if they are not as good as others in some respects. As long as they have a little advantage, this advantage should be respected, and the distribution of rights should be in line with the size of their respective advantages.But if people follow this principle, then whoever looks better or who has a taller body can claim a greater share of political rights.This reasoning is obviously wrong. 30 We can illustrate this error by analogy with other academic disciplines.For example, if there is a team of flute masters, if everyone's ability to play flute is equal, you will not use their family background as the criterion for assigning flute pipes.

No one can play better just because they are born higher.Therefore, talents with higher flute skills should be allocated to better or more flutes. 35 If this metaphor seems vague, we can make it clearer.For example, there is a person here who is better than others in flute but comes from a humble background and looks ugly.As far as the goodness of life is concerned, birth and appearance may be more important than flute skills.Now compare the people with these virtues, there are more people who are better in birth and appearance than those who are good at the flute, but the better or more pipes should still be allocated to the person who is better at the flute.For some arts,40 we should perhaps consider whether birth, or wealth connected with it, is beneficial to the art, but in the case of the flute, neither actually helps the playing. 1283ɑ
(End of this chapter)