Aristotle on the Nature of Community. Adriel M. Trott. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Adriel M. Trott’s Aristotle on the Nature of the Community examines Aristotle’s Politics by placing his understanding of nature (physis) at the center of political life. According to Trott, the human being and the
Lee, I think she is right when she says about Aristotle placing his understanding of nature (physis) at the center of his understanding of political life. But then what she does is fails to understand the very working of nature and how that understanding of nature leads to an understanding of the character and way of being of the political community.
Aristotle clearly rejects the position of the sophists who accept the radical divide between nature (physis) and law/custom (nomos), whom seem to argue for the take that the city and the law is wholly a product of human making. Aristotle also reject the Socratic and Platonic position, that somewhat different from the Sophist take but in ways similar--in that for them the city is not natural or by nature, but rather a social construct, that is a product of human making (poiesis) and an product of craft/artistry (teche)--yet it is done in imitation of the true form that exists at the level of theoria or intellection of the divine/eternal nature of things. Aristotle argues that while the polis is something that man needs to make, but the making is not merely a product of man's whims or fancies, but something fulfilling the natural needs and requirements of human beings.
This is why the politeia is so central to the polis, which permits the polis to become the perfection or fulfillment of human community (koinonia) But this community is not one of a unitary whole but a whole that emerges from discrete and separate parts who living together and trying to live such as to fulfill and satisfied their needs as human human being.
Yet this is not a smooth or simply process--nothing in nature is. While nature intends the best, in execution of its designs, things can and do go amiss. One see such defects and errors all the time. Sometimes these defects and errors can unintentionally produce benefit, but often they don't, they instead bring difficulty and even death and destruction. Thus nature makes a mess and life is messy.
The problem is most most liberals want things to be perfect and pristine. This is why they balk over Aristotle on women and slavery.
Lee, I think she is right when she says about Aristotle placing his understanding of nature (physis) at the center of his understanding of political life. But then what she does is fails to understand the very working of nature and how that understanding of nature leads to an understanding of the character and way of being of the political community.
Aristotle clearly rejects the position of the sophists who accept the radical divide between nature (physis) and law/custom (nomos), whom seem to argue for the take that the city and the law is wholly a product of human making. Aristotle also reject the Socratic and Platonic position, that somewhat different from the Sophist take but in ways similar--in that for them the city is not natural or by nature, but rather a social construct, that is a product of human making (poiesis) and an product of craft/artistry (teche)--yet it is done in imitation of the true form that exists at the level of theoria or intellection of the divine/eternal nature of things. Aristotle argues that while the polis is something that man needs to make, but the making is not merely a product of man's whims or fancies, but something fulfilling the natural needs and requirements of human beings.
This is why the politeia is so central to the polis, which permits the polis to become the perfection or fulfillment of human community (koinonia) But this community is not one of a unitary whole but a whole that emerges from discrete and separate parts who living together and trying to live such as to fulfill and satisfied their needs as human human being.
Yet this is not a smooth or simply process--nothing in nature is. While nature intends the best, in execution of its designs, things can and do go amiss. One see such defects and errors all the time. Sometimes these defects and errors can unintentionally produce benefit, but often they don't, they instead bring difficulty and even death and destruction. Thus nature makes a mess and life is messy.
The problem is most most liberals want things to be perfect and pristine. This is why they balk over Aristotle on women and slavery.