politics

Chapter 9 Volume (B) II (1)
Chapter One
Now, what we want to clarify is, after the political group has certain material conditions, which form is the best and can realize the good life that people imagine. The ideal system of political organization can be divided into two categories: (30) ) the highest ideal that can be realized in the real society of human beings; (35) the highest ideal that can only be realized in an ideal society.For the first category, see Volumes [-] to [-]; the second half of Volume [-] covers more.The second category can be found in volume seven volume eight.The first half of this volume describes the political ideals of each school. .We must therefore examine other forms of government than our ideal ones.We should study thoroughly the various institutions which are known to have worked out in well-governed cities,[-] and the ideal forms of thinkers of high repute.Our kind of research hopes that whether it is realistic or ideal, the beneficial aspects of various regimes can benefit the world, and we also hope that the world will know our original intention, not to show our talents and show off our wisdom, but our understanding of the history and present of each country. The situation and certain assertions have found the fallacy in it, [-] it has to be identified.

We should start from the very beginning of this topic.When people form political associations, what things should they put in the commons of the community?The combination of political associations must be in the following three ways: (1) All citizens must fully own everything;Since it is a political combination, it is of course impossible that there are no public things at all: 2 Every city-state is established, and its political system must combine certain things, at least everyone's residence should be within the common realm of everyone.Since they are "citizens of the same state", they belong to the same city-state, and 3ɑ belonged to the same city-state, that is, they lived in the same area.But we still have to choose between the first and third ways.

As a good city-state, should everything be communalized as much as possible?Or public things should be restricted, and some things should not be public?If the first method is followed, then citizens can put their children in public education, their wives in public ownership, 5 property in public management, and everything in public.The title of Plato's dialogue in "Utopia" is "πολιεα", which refers generally to "city-state regime" or specifically to "republican regime".The ideal city-state proposed by Plato is governed by philosopher kings and gentry-based. It is not an authentic republic.The translated name "Utopia" from the old Chinese translation is used here.The claim of Socrates mentioned is that these must be attributed to Plato: "Utopia" volume 423 457E, volume 462 [-]C, [-]B. .So, should we maintain the status quo of family and private property, or should we conform to the new statutes advocated in the Republic?
Chapter Two
There will naturally be many disputes in the establishment of a public wife society, of which there are two main sticking points.Socrates believed that the purpose of establishing this kind of society was to eliminate selfishness and ensure the unity of the city-state, but the reasons he relied on were actually insufficient.Furthermore, the means he adopted to achieve this goal, although seemingly necessary in the city-state he envisioned, are actually impossible to implement. There are two cruxes in the Plato public wife system mentioned by Aristotle here. : First, Plato's purpose is to make the city-state a completely public whole, but it has not been proved to be true; second, it is actually impossible for Plato to use the means of "public wives" to achieve his goal.The rest of this chapter is a debate on the first point, and Chapter 10 is a debate on the second point. .Nor did he elaborate on the basis of his argument or how these ideals could be realized.The premise that Socrates emphasized in politics,3 can be summarized as: "Everything in the whole city-state should be as uniform as possible, and the more consistent the better." However, a city-state that tends to be as uniform as possible cannot eventually become a real city-state.The essence of a city-state is a collection of many molecules. If it tends to be "single", that is to say, the city-state will first become a family and then an individual; in terms of unity, a family is obviously better than a city-state, and 15 people are better than a family.From this point of view, such a uniformity is actually the death of the essence of the city-state, so even if it may be feasible, we should not realize it.

Moreover, a city-state is not only a combination of many people in terms of numbers, but the people in it should also be of different types. It is impossible for completely similar people to form a city-state.City-states are different from military alliances.In order to support each other, the alliances formed by the city-states due to the needs of the situation are won by numbers.The joined states were similar in nature,25 but adding one city-state to another was like adding another weight to one side of the scale, which would of course overwhelm the other.The many people who make up a city-state must be people of different categories, each with their abilities and income, division of labor and cooperation, and exchange of what they need, so that the people of the whole state can transition to a higher level of living standards.In this respect, too, city-states differ from nations.A nation that does not disperse its people but only unites, as in Acadia, is like a fighting group "nation" (θνο), explained in Vol. VII. IV, note 1326b3.Aristotle said that a nation is just a general term for many natural villages, while a nation-state or tribe is a group fighting together, which is different from a high-level political and economic group such as a city-state.

Arcadia was originally an economically backward agricultural and pastoral area in Greece, but it was later established as a city-state after the establishment of Megalopolis.During the time of Aristotle, various tribes in the Acadian region formed an alliance centered on Megalopuri.Strengthened by the increase in numbers.Just because the city-state is organized by different categories,30 it becomes the metaphorical meaning of "one" which is different from the whole "one" of national or military alliances. 1016b15 Metaphor: Different small pieces of leather and other parts are stitched together to form a new "whole", called "one" shoe. .

Different categories of people do their best to contribute to society, and at the same time get corresponding compensation from others' contributions to society. I once described this kind of "equal compensation for labor" in "Ethics". It is said that farmers exchange grain for leather shoes, which must be exchanged in equal value.Different types of people in the city-state are engaged in different jobs so that they can benefit from each other.See "Niron" volume 1132 32b35.This is the principle on which the city-state increases its welfare.This principle can be seen even in groups of citizens of the same kind, as between free men and free men.They cannot be rulers at the same time, and they must alternately be in power according to the year or other certain periods,[-] or according to other rotation procedures.In this way, if we take trades as an analogy, citizens are like shoemakers and carpenters who have exchanged jobs, and the same person cannot be shoemaker or carpenter all the time.

As far as technology is concerned, it is natural that sticking to one's own behavior is more expensive, but if the desire to persevere in one's work is also applicable to politics, then some people can live their lives like a shoemaker, and like a carpenter, never leave their axes. Served as a ruler for life and engaged in the work of governing the city-state. 1261b However, all citizens have a natural and equal status, so this kind of permanent career in politics cannot be implemented, and according to the principle of justice, whether politics is a good thing or a bad thing. See Plato: "Utopia" Volume 345 6-1259. , all citizens should be allowed to participate in politics, and the rotation and retirement of those in power should be arranged. See Volume 4 1288b12 and Volume 5 [-]a[-]. , and let him be in the same position as other free men after retirement, this is a reasonable way.During the same period, some people are in the dominant position, and the other part is in the dominated position. After the two sides have been rotated, the same person is like changing a category.Moreover, people in power during the same period handled government affairs differently. [-] This situation also proves that a city-state must be composed of different kinds of people.

From the above examples, it can be seen that the thinkers seek completeness with uniformity, which actually does not conform to the essence of the city-state. The highest achievement of their ideal city-state is actually the demise of the city-state.Yet everything wishes to live and not to die.We can also use another point of view. Aristotle’s arguments against the city-state’s “uniformity” in this chapter are as follows: (1261) 15a21-1261 believes that the city-state should embrace everything and accommodate everyone. Uniformity will lose everyone, and it will not succeed For the city-state. (22) In 7a1261-b10, it is proposed that the city-state aggregates different types of elements to form different functions, political functions should not be uniform, and citizens do not need to be uniform. (15) 10b1252-27 believed that the more complex the group is, the easier it is for everyone to work and do things, and the city-state can become increasingly self-sufficient.Social evolution is becoming more and more complicated, and simplicity and uniformity run counter to each other.To illustrate, the excessive uniformity of the 33 city-states is by no means a good system.The family, as a small group, can achieve a higher degree of self-sufficiency than the individual, and the city-state can do the same with the family.However, this city-state can only be called a real city-state if it is organized large enough and achieves a high degree of self-sufficiency. Refer to Volume [-], Chapter [-], [-]b[-]-[-]. .If we only regard a higher degree of self-sufficiency as a sign of a more progressive society, then we would rather the city-states become more complicated day by day and gradually lose their uniformity.

Chapter three
Socrates regards all people as a symbol of the uniformity of drawing up a complete city-state. At the same time, the formula for saying "mine" or "not mine" to the same thing is seen in Plato: "Utopia" Volume 462 5C.Plato said that words such as "mine" and "not mine" are signs of human selfishness, while property and family are entrusted by selfishness and private things, so he advocates public ownership of property and public education of wives and children.Aristotle criticizes him for destroying the family in this chapter and the next chapter, and then discusses the property issue in Chapter 20. .Even if a political group regards unity as the highest good, it is not appropriate to regard a formula like Socrates as a unified symbol of the city-state as a whole."All" here can have two meanings. [-] It can be a total sum added up individually, or it can be collectively regardless of each other.Rather than saying that Socrates is seeking the uniformity of the city-state, it is better to say that he wants everyone to say the same.Let each say separately to the same person that this is "my wife" or "my son," and each separately to the same thing as "my property."That is, let all the people say so.

In fact, "whole" should have another meaning, take "whole" as an "I", and then that wife or child can be collectively called "mine"; There is no "I" and there is no "mine".The same is true with property. Everyone says that this property is "mine", but what it expresses is the collective public self, not the individual private selves.Obviously, it is wrong to use the word "full" here.Similar to it, there are three characters "two", "odd" and "even", which can be a collective two, or the addition of two separate ones. "Odd" can be a group of odd numbers or a patchwork of odd and even odd numbers. "Even" can be a group of even numbers or a combination of two odd numbers. , any pun in its meaning may cause logical doubts.Here, we can come to the following conclusion, "all people say 'this is mine' to the same thing", it is true that 25 is a good thing if they say this individually, but this is not in line with the actual situation. On the other hand, if the collective Statements may not necessarily lead to the harmony of the entire city-state.

Far from bringing harmony to the city-state, such an initiative might actually cause damage.Those public things that are most people are usually the things that are least cared for by people. People tend to care more about what they own and ignore the public things.For everything in the public, even if he pays attention, he only notices those things that are more or less related to him personally.As soon as a man thinks that a thing has been managed by someone else, he pays no attention to it, 35 because in his own opinion he is not particularly neglectful of that thing.As is the case in the family, a few servants are often more effective than a host of servants.According to the system of Socrates as described by Plato, each citizen will have a thousand sons, but these sons are not the individual sons of each citizen, each citizen should be the father of any son, and in the same way, each son should also be the father of any son. It should be the son of any father, and the final result is that any father does not care about any son. 1262ɑ
For another example, every citizen, when he says you are "my" son to a beautiful child or an ugly baby, is actually just a word on a certain score, which is calculated by the total number of all citizens. here.This does not mean that the child is all "mine."When he says "mine", other "some" citizens can also say to the child that you are "mine", this "I" or "some", 5 may be a thousand or other numbers in numbers, At that time, the sum of the citizens of the entire city-state was not unknown to him.In fact, he still has doubts about this score.In Plato's system, he is not sure who ever bore a baby for him, nor does he know whether the baby survived. , Marriage and childcare are managed by a special person, and it is done in secret, so that men and women are not allowed to know each other, and newborn babies are not allowed to know their parents.

The deacon of the nursery examines the baby, and those who pass are raised and trained to make him a citizen of future generations; . 2000 people or 1 people say that this child is "mine" in the sense of one in two thousandth or one in ten thousandth, or still follow the current custom of various city-states, that is, each of them calls his own child according to his original intention. "My". Which of these two systems is better? 10 According to the rule, for the same person, if he is one person's son, he is another person's brother or cousin, and another person's Cousins ​​or relatives, such a relationship of relatives or marriages, or relatives by marriage, the farther the blood is, the less the relationship will be, and in the end he will become the same clan or clan of some people. People would rather be the direct cousin of a certain person under this system Brother, 15 is also unwilling to be a Platonic son. In fact, in Plato's system, it is not impossible for some citizens to know who is his brother or son or father and who is his mother.

(End of this chapter)