The ideal polities of Plato and Aristotle
Disclaimer
The article below was originally written in the form of an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2006, during a period when the author's academic skills were still under development. Although the quality of this article does not match the quality of later examples of the same author's work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information to nowadays students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.
The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based on, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author's best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that for any unknown words or specialised vocabulary, the readers should refer to the web for additional information.
The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work in English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.
Introduction
This article discusses two widely-known political philosophies of Classical antiquity, which introduced the concept of the ideal polity for the first time in Western thought. On one hand, there is Plato’s psycho-centric approach, presented in his corpus Republic circa 375 BC, where he bases his ideal government system on knowledge (episteme). On the other hand, there is Aristotle’s teleological approach, presented in his corpus Politics circa 350 BC, where he introduces the correlation between natural and political hierarchy.
This paper analyses and compares the two ideal political systems presented by Plato in his Books V and VIII of the Republic, and by Aristotle in his Books I and III of the Politics. The discussion is structured in four sections. The first section focuses on the idea of natural succession in the government systems, as this is presented in Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics. The second section discusses the views of both philosophers in relation to their ideal polity, focusing on the similarities and differences of their approaches. The third section discusses the similarities and differences among the criteria of the two philosophers, which are supposed to define social stratification. The final section presents some brief conclusions in relation to the broader rationale followed by Plato and Aristotle respectively, and how each philosopher concludes to his ideal polity.
Natural succession in the government systems
In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, the philosopher examines the superior and inferior political systems, which existed during his time. In Plato’s view, the nature of a government system matches the nature of its citizens. More specifically, the ethos of each individual citizen defines the broader ethos of the society he lives in. As there are five types of different polities, there are five different categories of human psychological behaviours, defining the character of each political system (Plato, Republic VIII, 543A-545B).
In Plato’s theory, human actions are controlled by the nature of one’s soul, which can be translated as the deepest psychological mechanism of decision-making. The behaviour of one’s soul defines the motives of one’s actions (Dimas 2000, 130-1). Human behaviour has three basic psychological motives, which derive from the prevalence of one of the three constituents parts of the human soul. These are the desirable part (epithymeticon), the calculative part (logisticon) and the impulsive part (thymoeides) (Dimas 2000, 149). With this in mind, Plato suggests that the broader function of a polity depends on the part of the soul, which dominates the behaviour of the state’s citizens. In other words, the nature of the government depends on the psychological behaviour and the moral motives of the citizens comprising the state.
Plato’s five systems of government are subject to a linear succession model. Aristocracy is placed at the top of the ladder, which according to Plato, is the most suitable political system for kind and just citizens (Plato, Republic VIII, 545A). The dissolution of aristocracy occurs due to the physical law of growth and decay, which follows every living organism in nature and is subject to a successive and periodical recycling of the natural organisms. Plato uses Hesiod’s succession model for the human generations (gene), which is described in Theogony, and he introduces a similar succession model for his five types of human polities. In this model, the political decay of aristocracy produces moral decay to its citizens. At some point, a generation of corrupt rulers finds its way to the government and finally dissolves aristocracy (Plato, Republic VIII, 545E-546E).
Such unsuitable rulers do not care about virtue; instead, they focus on material wealth and personal profit, which are responsible for the rise of oligarchy. Plato notes that halfway into the transition from aristocracy to oligarchy, there is an intermediate government system, which he names timocracy. In fact, timocracy is explained as the political system of Sparta and the Dorian city-states of Crete during Plato’s era. In timocracy, there are beneficial institutions, such as a highly specialised group of warriors and a judicial system based on the application of virtue, which in theory functions well. In reality, however, the citizens of timocracy are corrupt, greedy, immoral, prone to hedonistic pleasures and extravagant. The desires of such people are controlled by the impulsive part of their souls (Plato, Republic VIII, 547A-548D).
In timocracy, the complete dissociation of virtue and wealth in favour of the latter, leads to the rise of oligarchy. In oligarchy, the government is controlled by an unworthy group of rulers, who base their status on wealth. Furthermore, there is discord among the rulers, who are constantly after more wealth; the non-ruling social groups suffer from poverty. In oligarchic societies, the citizens are controlled by the desirable part of their soul; therefore, they are after wealth, pleasures and comfortable living (Plato, Republic VIII, 550C-553A).
The immorality of oligarchy and the increasing profiteering of the rich against the poor leads the people to indignation. The reactions of the poor lead to civil conflict and oligarchy is overthrown by force. When the poor finally get rid of the rich, they dissolve the previous government system, which correlates power and wealth, and they replace it with a system that is based on equal voting (Plato, Republic VIII, 555B-557A). This ideal political system, where decision-making takes place by public vote, is not meant to be democracy (democratia), but what Plato describes as republic (politeia).
Plato is totally against democracy, at least as this was practised during his time. To him, democracy is a political system of “cute anarchy” (Plato, Republic VIII, 557B-557C), or in other words a parody of his real republic. In an attempt to mock democracy, Plato describes it as a pleasant and colourful system of anarchy, which delivers equality to those who are equal and unequal at the same time. Due to the prevalence of an uncontrolled form of liberty, the citizens in democracy become immoral, prodigal, and addicted to unnecessary spendings, pleasures and comfortable living. In this context, the citizens neglect and forget every form of virtue. Plato suggests that democracy is similar to republic, though without knowledge of real virtue in the society. Finally, the citizens in democracy are still controlled by the desirable part of their souls, which also prevails in timocracy and oligarchy (Plato, Republic VIII, 560C-561B).
At the end of this succession process, tyranny results due to the increasing greed and uncontrolled liberty amongst the citizens. The three social groups comprising democracy, end up fighting against each other for more power. A tyrant becomes the most favourable candidate of the largest and most popular social group, which is mainly formed by low-income citizens. In the name of the people, he asserts control over the government and neutralises all of his enemies, including those who could have been useful. At the end, the tyrant becomes the sole regulator of state politics. Although the tyrant is initially welcomed as a protector of the people, he finally becomes the ultimate monarch; he aims to satisfy his personal lust for profit and he acts without constraints against the state and his own people (Plato, Republic VIII, 562A-569C).
As opposed to Plato, Aristotle believes in the simultaneous coexistence of different political systems, which are not subject to any specific form of succession. Aristotle follows a scientific approach, where he collects information from 158 different types of government systems, which he presents in the first volume of his Politics (Ross 2001, 335). Aristotle examines human societies and their political systems through a methodology based on the observation of nature. This approach is likely to resemble the law of natural succession of political systems, which is suggested by Plato; however, the diversity in the forms of political power is taken for granted in Aristotle's approach, same as the diversity among human beings. In relation to the latter, Plato would have agreed that political diversity is the result of psychological diversity amongst humans; however, Plato only recognises three types of behavioural diversity.
According to Aristotle, the leaders and the followers are characters that are encountered in every living organism in nature; furthermore, their physical inequality is a given fact. In that sense, Aristotle agrees with the existence of inequality amongst men and women, or free citizens and slaves. To him inequality operates as a physical law, which mirrors the lack of equality in nature (Aristotle, Politics I, 1252A-1252B5). As opposed to Plato, Aristotle’s government systems do not depend on the psychological behaviours of their citizens; they depend on the motives of their rulers and the degree these motives are aligned with private or public interests.
In Aristotle, the natural succession of government systems is neither vertical nor mono-directional. Also, it does not correspond to the decline from a superior, to an intermediate, and finally to an inferior state of authority, which is suggested by Plato. Instead, the succession is spatial and relates to the social priorities of humans when living in a household, a citadel, or a big city. Aristotle suggests that life in the city not only provides all necessary material means for survival (self-sufficiency), but it also ensures the well-being (eu zein) of the inhabitants (Aristotle, Politics I, 1252B-1253A9). Aristotle’s well-being (eu zein) is also tied to his notion of human flourishing (eudaemonia).
In the cities, Aristotle sees a natural need for the establishment of a hierarchical structure and a controlling authority at the top; therefore, he produces a horizontal scheme to diversify his systems of government based on the types of authorities applied on them. In his scheme, there are three types of ‘correct’ government systems and three ‘false’ ones, which are the regressions of his original ‘correct’ three. The best form of single-ruler government is called monarchy, where the monarch minds for the common good of all of his subjects. By contrast, tyranny is the digression of monarchy, in which the tyrant aims in satisfying his personal interests. In a similar sense, when rulers are more that one, aristocracy is the ideal form of government. In aristocracy, it is only the worthy and moral men who decide for the community’s issues. By contrast, oligarchy is the digression of aristocracy. In oligarchy, political power is in the hands of few wealthy individuals, who rule with the sole purpose of becoming wealthier. The ideal political system by Aristotle is called republic (politeia). In republic, leaderships switches hands periodically by vote; power is shared among those who can offer full military service to the state. The republic is practically governed by a social group of warriors, who are regarded as the right people to pursue and protect public interest. By contrast, democracy is the digression of republic. According to Aristotle, the ruling fraction in democracy are the poor, who are only interested in securing their own material benefits (Aristotle, Politics I, 1279B7-8).
In their approaches, Aristotle and Plato are suspicious of democracy and offer their critique against it. Both philosophers see democracy as the digression of republic, which is an ideal yet theoretical government system, based on collective state management. Although Aristotle is milder in his critique, Plato’s comments against democracy are quarrelsome and deconstructive. This is most likely due to his bitterness after Socrates's unfair trial and execution in 399 BC, which followed the protocols of the Athenian democracy of that time.
The ideal polities by Plato and Aristotle
Plato and Aristotle visualise their own ideal polities based on their broader philosophical views; despite their different approaches, the ideal government systems of the two philosophers bear some similarities and some characteristic differences. Both philosophers agree that an ideal government system should consist of a range of political functions, which lead to human flourishing (eudaemonia). According to Plato, human flourishing is the ultimate goal in life, and is achieved though the cognition of morality (ethics) (Dimas 2000, 124). Plato’s ideal government system categorises its citizens into three groups according to their psychological characteristics. The same psychological parameters determine the tasks or the jobs that are given to the citizens, which are relevant to their esoteric qualifications. Such selected tasks or jobs are meant to allow the maximum of one’s productivity. Work is meant to satisfy the natural talents of the workers and to produce sufficient material resources, which secure the city-state’s needs (Dimas 2000, 150-1).
Following Plato, Aristotle agrees that the city-state’s role is to cover the basic material needs of its citizens, including their well-being (eu zein), which involves the practice of moral and spiritual activities. Within this social environment, every citizen can practise and develop his virtues. Furthermore, the correct assignment of intellectual and spiritual tasks to the citizens, offers them a different quality of life, which is not achieved through personal labour, but through the progress of the entire community. The city-state, which is a natural (physei = by nature) administrator of the community’s functions, aims in satisfying the citizens’ well-being and their moral perfection. This function of the city-state is described as teleological, which means that it aims in the satisfaction of a communal final goal (Ross 1993, 337-8).
Plato’s republic is divided in three social and professional groups, which are categorised according to which part of the human soul controls their actions. These groups are the rulers, the guardians and the producers. The rulers are dominated by the calculative (logistikon) part of their soul; the guardians are controlled by the impulsive (thymoeides) part of their soul; and finally, the producers and the other labourers are motivated by the desirable (epithymitikon) part of the soul. In Plato’s approach, the part of the soul that dominates one’s personality, defines the motives and the actions of each individual; therefore, the selection of the appropriate group for each citizen is decided according to the most suitable job one can be assigned, based on his psychological profile (Dima 2000, 151).
Given that Plato lived in the 5th century BC, his labour division system consists of an innovation in human thought that was revolutionary for his time. In Plato’s system, wealth, descent and gender play absolutely no part in defining one’s social position and profession. In theory, a slave can become a ruler, and the children of a ruler can become producers (labourers). It is highly likely that Plato’s scheme was seen as outrageous in 5th century BC Athens, particularly by the representatives of the elites. Again, the same scheme introduces ideas that nowadays would have been considered totalitarian, e.g. the lack of social mobility within the three divisions. For Plato, one’s position in a specific social group is due to his natural talents, which describe his real self; hence, switching social groups would have consisted of a natural anomaly (Dimas 2000, 151).
Aristotle would have probably agreed with Plato in the non-existence of social mobility within a structured political system, though for his own different reasons. According to Aristotle, nature is dominated by the inequality of the species, which also defines the relationship between masters and slaves, captives and free, rulers and subjects, etc. In nature, there is a continuous diversification and classification of humans according to their ethical and intellectual characteristics. This natural classification system automatically imposes a hierarchy that is based on subordination. For example, if a slave was given the opportunity to become a ruler in Plato’s republic, then Aristotle would have argued that this is an unacceptable violation of natural order. Although Aristotle’s approach on slavery has attracted several questions and doubts, one cannot overlook the existence of slaves-by-nature and their use as living-tools in his political scheme, which contrasts with Plato’s approach (Ross 1993, 341-3).
In Aristotle’s theoretical scheme, there are six social groups, which diversify according to nature. These are the farmers, the craftsmen, the warriors, the wealthy citizens, the priests and the judges. In a deeper analysis of this scheme, Aristotle simplifies his social divisions and concludes in three basic social groups. The first group consists of the wealthy citizens, who are initially warriors when they are young. When these warriors mature, they become rulers, and when they grow old, they become priests. The second social group consists of the farmers, who are directly responsible for the production of food. The third group consists of the craftsmen, who are individuals with various sets of technical skills, and are responsible for the production of non-edible commodities (Ross 1993, 381). In Aristotle’s scheme the social group of the wealthy citizens is the only one that can rule. Since the wealthy citizens begin their lives as warriors, it is evident that Aristotle’s republic is a society of soldiers.
A mutual problem of the two social models suggested by Plato and Aristotle is the lack of participation of the productive groups in the state’s political institutions and decision-making mechanisms. Plato recognises some political rights to his group of producers; however, he over-limits their political participation and sees them as a group of obedient followers, while the actual decisions are made by the ruling group. Aristotle takes this ‘obedience’ for granted as this is the way it happens in nature, and perhaps matches is with subordination; therefore, he grants no political rights to his farmers and craftsmen. In the theories by both philosophers, the workers are not seen as essential units of the state’s functions. By contrast, their social role is limited in securing the essential material resources, which guarantee the state’s survival (Ross 1993, 355). In both philosophies a certain ruling fraction of the society is provided the material means to live comfortably and govern the state. On the other hand, the providers of such material means are only meant to work in order to support the state and its leaders, without being allowed any form of political representation. Based on modern standards, one could argue that the approaches of both Plato and Aristotle promote social inequality.
In the ideal social stratification by Plato and Aristotle, there is a separate social group, which is tasked with the state’s defence and the protection of all its citizens. Plato names them guardians, while Aristotle names them warriors. Plato’s discussion in relation to the linear succession of government systems stresses the necessity of an independent fighting group of citizens, who act as professional full-time soldiers. This idea derives from the Spartan social organisation model, which matches Plato’s timocracy. In Sparta, there was a specialised group of professional soldiers, whose job was to exercise and train for battle. Although Plato supports the idea of a militarised section of the society, he also sees the disadvantages behind this idea: he notes that the soldiers are not properly educated, as they neglect music, dialectics and philosophy (Plato, Republic VIII, 547B-548C). It is likely that next to Plato, Aristotle’s warrior-group follows the same example of Spartan social organisation. His warriors are described as a fully combat-able section of the society, who are wealthy land owners and their only task is soldiering. One thing in common in both political philosophies is that the ruling group always derives from the warriors’ group.
Land ownership and wealth are two issues, on which Plato and Aristotle express different views. Plato notes the corruption and the obsession with material wealth promoted in timocracy; therefore, he proposes a radical solution to protect his rulers and guardians from those two threats. He visualises the two social groups without any private possessions, including land, mobile wealth, holdings and salaries. Instead, he suggests that the rulers and guardians can only be compensated their nutrition expenses for their services to the state (Plato, Republic VIII, 543A-543C). By contrast, Aristotle argues that the citizens with full political rights, who fight and rule at the same time, must definitely have some sort of personal holdings to sustain their lives (Ross 1993, 381). Of course, Aristotle is totally against excessive profit-making, particularly from the ruling groups. Such greedy behaviour would provoke the public, which would rebel and overthrow his ideal system of government (Ross 1993, 374).
The perfect scenario by Aristotle, which balances political power and wealth, is when authority is practised by a medium-income group. This approach also matches the broader Theory of Mediocrity suggested by the philosopher. To deal with the problem, Aristotle suggests that public offices are given to citizens who own some sort of material wealth, even though not excessively much; by contrast, citizens without income are completely excluded from exercising government duties. In relation to this point, Aristotle sees that democracy has a certain advantage compared to all other systems of government: it is based on a broad medium-income group, which Aristotle sees as the basis for his ideal polity (Ross 1993, 369-70). At the same time, Aristotle’s analysis aims to correct Plato’s approach. He suggests that ownership of any kind is compatible with nature, consisting of a natural extension of human desires. As opposed to the shared ownership scheme proposed by Plato, Aristotle offers a milder solution: an extended form of land ownership, where the income generated by its exploitation, is commonly re-distributed to the community (Ross 1993, 349-50).
In Plato’s system, shared ownership is not only restricted to resources securing the preservation of the rulers and guardians; instead, it is further extended into their family relations. In Plato’s ideal polity the two stronger social groups are obliged to commonly share their wives and children among them. This arrangement is set to allow further bonding among the members of the two groups, which will eventually lead to a compact body of active citizens. Aristotle, on the other hand, is totally against this idea. He argues that multiplicity is inherent in nature and that the harmonic function of any society is based on this multiplicity. Furthermore, Aristotle rejects Plato's view from a biological and pedagogical perspective. He argues that a child cannot be shared among different parents, as this child will never be nurtured with proper maternal affection (Ross 1993, 346-7).
The criteria of social stratification
The most complicated issue in both political theories is how citizens are distributed in relevant social groups. Plato suggests that the selection process, which defines the stratification of his ideal polity, is preformed by the public education system. This education system decides which social group is appropriate for each citizen. By contrast, Aristotle’s approach is more practical compared to Plato’s; although he sees the importance of education in the development of the citizens’ character, he realises that the division of social groups is a complicated process, which cannot be appointed to a single state institution.
In Plato’s Republic, there is an institutionalised education system, which not only aims in educating and training the citizens, but also operates as a social selection mechanism. The state education system psycho-analyses the citizens and discovers which part of their souls in the most dominant. This part of the soul is also the most productive; therefore, it defines the capabilities of each citizen and is used as a criterion of social grouping. Plato’s public education system has two levels. In the first level, which is compulsory to all citizens, the students are taught mathematics. At the end of this level, all students are tested for their knowledge. Those who fail the exams, become members of the productive groups; those who pass the exams, become members of the guardians’ group. In the second education level, the guardians are subject to continuous training in philosophy. At the end of this level, the guardians have to take another exam. Those who pass, become members of the ruling group; those who fail, remain in the guardians’ group. In this scheme, it is evident that the rulers of Plato’s ideal polity are eventually the philosophers (Dimas 2000, 151-2).
Plato’s approach is systematic; however, there are several problems, at least in comparison with modern public education systems. For example, one cannot be sure if mathematics can be the sole criterion of human evaluation, not only in terms of capabilities, but also in term of psychological characteristics. Furthermore, the evaluation of human characters within the education system may not always be correct. The psychological motives of human beings are complicated to understand, while these are subject to constant changes according to various circumstances. Any psychological evaluation system, particularly if applied in young age groups, is likely to be biased.
Based on the texts, it is unclear if Aristotle knows the problems of Plato’s approach and the broader problems of evaluating people based on psychological parameters. Whatever the case, Aristotle follows a practical approach on social stratification, which is likely to represent the popular perceptions of his time. According to Aristotle, a citizen is someone who participates in the political and judicial institutions of the city-state. This definition is most likely inspired by the Athenian democracy of the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Aristotle does not believe in a structured social group of ruling philosophers. In his polity, all lawful citizens take turns in various roles in the state’s institutions. In fact, the rulers and those who are ruled are the same people and constantly alternate; they participate in voting new laws and they make sure these laws are kept. Of course, the citizens’ body in Aristotle’s republic is significantly restrained, and as noted earlier, it matches the wealthiest stratum of the society. Farmers and workers are incapable of participating in the government; therefore, their role in only limited in production (Ross 1993, 350-2).
Aristotle believes that education is crucial in his ideal polity; however, his public education system is significantly different compared to Plato’s. Aristotle does not accept that education is meant to classify people in specific social groups; instead, it is meant to teach virtue and keep the citizens away from selfishness and wickedness. This way, the education system produces citizens that manage state affairs effectively, which is beneficial for the entire society (Ross 1993, 350-1)
In Aristotle’s ideal polity, justice is the practical application of his entire scheme. The aim of justice is to secure ideal conditions to the citizens, so that they can achieve their teleological focus: the conquest of well-being through the application of virtuous social living. As opposed to Aristotle, Plato sees justice as the result of his ideal polity’s flawless function, which is based on the psychological qualifications of its citizens. In Plato’s republic, rulers are not charged with voting laws and maintaining order, which is the case in Aristotle’s republic; instead, their role is to oversee and guide the society towards common good. Justice is one of many virtues, which is inherent in the nature of the ruling group. In Plato’s theory, the smooth function of the human soul is ideally combined by the collaboration of the three parts, which are the calculative, the desirable and the impulsive. Based on the same rationale, in Plato’s ideal polity justice is meant distribute the most appropriate tasks and jobs to its citizens, matching their psychological profiles. Furthermore, as the ‘ideal soul’ is controlled by its calculative part, the ideal polity is governed by the group with the strongest calculative characteristics, which ensure social justice (Dimas 2000, 152-4).
A modern critique on Plato’s approach would have suggested that a wise leader may not always be just. Perhaps there could have been an ideal combination, which might have included Plato’s psychological evaluation and Aristotle’s training in ethics. This combination might have secured an ideal group of leaders in the theoretical models of both philosopher.
Conclusions
The approaches presented by Plato and Aristotle in relation to the nature and succession of the government systems, bear several similarities and differences. Both philosophers agree that the ideal polity reflects a natural system of social inequality, which copies the inequality among the species in their natural environment. Furthermore, both philosophers agree that the state’s goal is to provide material sufficiency and good quality living to its citizens. The well-living (eu zein) and the well-being (eudaemonia) of the citizens are regulated by a judicial system based on ethics and the cognition of virtue.
Plato and Aristotle disagree in relation to the succession of the government systems as part of a linear evolution. Plato suggest a succession process, which is based on the natural law of growth and decay; this process leads from aristocracy to oligarchy, then to democracy and finally to tyranny. Aristotle rejects Plato’s linear succession model; instead, he proposes six government systems, which can co-exist simultaneously. Three of these, monarchy, aristocracy and republic, represent functional government models. Next to these three, there is an equal number of political digressions, which are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.
Following the same rationale, the ideal polities of both philosophers bear similarities and differences related to their structures. In Plato’s ideal polity, there is a public education system which decides on the social groups where the citizens are allocated. All citizens are psychologically evaluated and their appropriate social group and job are decided based on which part of their soul is the most dominant. By contrast, Aristotle accepts the social stratification models of his era. He suggests a teleological role for his ideal polity, which is defined according to the laws of nature. In Aristotle, the rulers and their subjects follow a natural selection process, which reflects the natural inequality amongst humans.
In both ideal polities by Plato and Aristotle there is a special group of professional warriors, which is connected with the ruling group. Furthermore, none of the productive groups are actively involved, or even represented, in the government.
Plato introduces some revolutionary ideas for the time. Firstly, in his ideal polity women and slaves have access to the government; secondly, the properties and the families of the ruling groups are mutually shared among their members. By contrast, Aristotle rejects joint ownership as this is against the laws of nature. Furthermore, he insists that the rulers must have some sort of material wealth, including property, in order to be sufficient enough to practise their ruling duties. Plato, on the other hand, rejects any form of personal holdings for his ruling group.
Both philosopher recognise the importance of education in their ideal polities, though for different reasons. In Plato’s polity, the public education system decides and imposes social stratification. In Aristotle’s polity, however, the education system teaches the citizens to be ethical/moral, which is of great importance to the broader flourishing (eudaemonia) of the society.
Finally, Aristotle sees that justice is the correct application of the polity’s principles by its rulers. By contrast, Plato sees that the correct function of his polity, which includes justice, is inherent in the nature of his polity's design. In other words, although Aristotle’s ideal polity is regulated by its governors, Plato’s polity is designed with such wisdom, that injustice is unnatural and unlikely to occur.
Bibliography
Dimas, P., 2000, ‘The philosophy of Plato’, in Virvidakis, S., Ierodiakonou, K. and Christianidis, G. (eds.), Greek Philosophy and Science: from Antiquity until the 20th Century, Volume 1, Greek Philosophy from Antiquity until the 20th century, Patra: Greek Open University, 121-59.
Kordatos, Y. (ed.), 1992, Aristotle: Politics, translated by P. Lekatsas, Athens: Zacharopoulos.
Papatheodorou, A. and Papa, Ph. (eds.), 1980, Plato: Republic, translated by A. Papatheodorou and Ph. Papa, Athens: Papyros.
Ross, W.D., 1993, Aristotle, translated by M. Mitsou, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Original Sources
Aristotle, Politics, Book I, 1252a-1253a, edited by Y. Kordatos and translated by P. Lekatsas (1992).
Aristotle, Politics, Book III, 1278b-1288b, Edited by Y. Kordatos and translated by P. Lekatsas (1992).
Plato, Republic, Book V, 427B-441E, edited and translated by A. Papatheodorou and Ph. Papa (1980).
Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 543A-569C, edited and translated by A. Papatheodorou and Ph. Papa (1980).