The Politics of Aristotle

by Aristotle

  Again, if there be posited an accident which has a contrary, look and see if that which admits of the accident will admit of its contrary as well; for the same thing admits of contraries. Thus (e.g.) if he has asserted that hatred follows anger, hatred [35] would in that case be in the spirited faculty; for that is where anger is. You should therefore look and see if its contrary is also in the spirited faculty; for if not—if [113b1] friendship is in the faculty of desire—then hatred will not follow anger. Likewise also if he has asserted that the faculty of desire is ignorant. For if it were capable of ignorance, it would be capable of knowledge as well: and this does not seem to be [5] so—I mean that the faculty of desire is capable of knowledge. For purposes, then, of overthrowing a view you should proceed as we have said; but for purposes of establishing one, though the rule will not help you to assert that the accident actually belongs, it will help you to assert that it may possibly belong. For having proved that the thing in question will not admit of the contrary, we shall have [10] proved that the accident neither belongs nor can possibly belong; while on the other hand, if we prove that the contrary belongs, or that the thing is capable of the contrary, we shall not indeed as yet have proved that the accident asserted does belong as well; our proof will merely have gone to this point, that it is possible for it to belong.

  8 · Seeing that the modes of opposition are four in number, you should look [15] among the contradictories of your terms, reversing the order of their sequence, both when demolishing and when establishing a view; and you should grasp this by means of induction. E.g. if man is an animal, what is not an animal is not a man; and likewise also in other instances of contradictories. For here the sequence is reversed; for animal follows upon man, but not-animal does not follow upon not-man, but the [20] reverse—not-man upon not-animal. In all cases, therefore, a claim of this sort should be made, (e.g.) that if the honourable is pleasant, what is not pleasant is not honourable, while if the latter is not so, neither is the former. Likewise, also, if what is not pleasant is not honourable, then what is honourable is pleasant. Clearly, then, reversing the sequence in the case of contradictories is a method convertible for both [25] purposes.

  Then look also at the case of the contraries, and see if the contrary of the one follows upon the contrary of the other, either directly or conversely, both when you are demolishing and when you are establishing a view; and grasp this too by means of induction. Now the sequence is direct in a case such as that of courage and [30] cowardice; for upon the one of them virtue follows, and vice upon the other; and upon the one it follows that it is desirable, while upon the other it follows that it is objectionable. The sequence in the latter case also is direct; for the desirable is the contrary of the objectionable. Likewise also in other cases. The sequence is converse in such a case as this: health follows upon vigour, but disease does not follow upon [114a1] debility; rather debility follows upon disease. In this case, then, clearly the sequence is converse. Converse sequence is, however, rare in the case of contraries; usually the sequence is direct. If, therefore, the contrary of the one term does not follow upon the contrary of the other either directly or conversely, clearly neither does the [5] one term follow upon the other in the statement made; whereas if the one follows the other in the case of the contraries, it must of necessity do so as well in the original statement.

  You should look also into cases of privation and possession in like manner to the case of contraries. Only, in the case of privations the converse sequence does not [10] occur: the sequence is always bound to be direct; e.g. as perception follows sight, while absence of perception follows blindness. For perception is opposed to absence of perception as possession and privation; for the one of them is a possession, and the other privation.

  The case of relative terms should also be studied in like manner to privation; [15] for the sequence of these as well is direct; e.g. if thrice is a multiple, then a third is a fraction; for thrice is relative to a third, and so is a multiple to a fraction. Again, if knowledge is a belief, then also the object of knowledge is an object of belief; and if sight is a perception, then also the object of sight is an object of perception. An [20] objection may be made that there is no necessity for the sequence to take place, in the case of relative terms, in the way described; for an object of perception is an object of knowledge, whereas perception is not knowledge. The objection, however, does not seem to be true; for many people deny that there is knowledge of objects of perception. Moreover, the principle stated is just as useful for the contrary purpose, [25] e.g. to show that the object of perception is not an object of knowledge, on the ground that neither is perception knowledge.

  9 · Again look at the co-ordinates and the inflexions, both in demolishing and in establishing. By co-ordinates are meant things such as the following: just deeds and the just man are co-ordinates of justice, and courageous deeds and the courageous man are co-ordinates of courage. Likewise also things that tend to [30] produce and to preserve anything are co-ordinates of that which they tend to produce and to preserve, as e.g. healthy habits are co-ordinates of health and vigorous habits of vigour—and so forth also in other cases. Such things, then, are usually called co-ordinates. Inflexions are such as the following: ‘justly’, ‘courageously’, ‘healthily’, and such as are formed in this way. It is usually held that [35] inflected forms as well are co-ordinates, as (e.g.) ‘justly’ in relation to justice, and ‘courageously’ to courage; and then all the members of the same series are co-ordinates, e.g. justice, just man, just deed, justly. Clearly, then, when any one [114b1] member, whatever its kind, of the same series is proved to be good or praiseworthy, then all the rest as well come to be proved to be so: e.g. if justice is something praiseworthy, then so will a just man, and a just deed, and ‘justly’ connote something praiseworthy. Then ‘justly’ will be rendered also ‘praiseworthily’, derived by the same inflexion from the praiseworthy as ‘justly’ is derived from justice. [5]

  Look not only in the case of the subject mentioned, but also in the case of its contrary, for the contrary predicate: e.g. argue that good is not necessarily pleasant; for neither is evil painful; or that, if the latter is the case, so is the former. Also, if justice is knowledge, then injustice is ignorance: and if ‘justly’ means ‘knowingly’ and ‘skilfully’, then ‘unjustly’ means ‘ignorantly’ and ‘unskilfully’; whereas if the [10] latter is not true, neither is the former, as in the instance given just now—for ‘unjustly’ is more likely to seem equivalent to ‘skilfully’ than to ‘unskilfully’. This commonplace rule has been stated before in dealing with the sequence of contraries; for all we are claiming now is that the contrary follows the contrary [15].

  Moreover, look at the modes of generation and destruction of a thing, and at the things which tend to produce or to destroy it, both in demolishing and in establishing a view. For those things whose modes of generation rank among good things, are themselves also good; and if they themselves are good, so also are their modes of generation. If, on the other hand, their modes of generation are evil, then they themselves also are evil. In regard to modes of destruction the converse is true; [20] for if the modes of destruction rank as good things, then they themselves rank as evil things; whereas if the modes of destruction count as evil, they themselves count as good. The same argument applies also to things tending to produce and destroy; for things whose productive causes are good, themselves also rank as good; whereas if causes destructive of them are good, they themselves rank as evil.

  10 · Again, look at things which are like the subject in question, and see if [25] they are in like case; e.g. if one branch of knowledge has more than one object, so also will one opinion; and if to possess sight is to see, then also to possess hearing will be to hear. Likewise also in the case of other things, both those which are and those which are held to be like. The rule in question is useful for both purposes; for if it is as stated in the case of some one like thing, it is so with the other like things as well, [
30] whereas if it is not so in the case of some one of them, neither is it so in the case of the others. Look and see also whether the cases are alike as regards a single thing and a number of things; for sometimes there is a discrepancy. Thus, if to know a thing is to think of it, then also to know many things is to be thinking of many things; whereas this is not true; for it is possible to know many things but not to be thinking of them. If, then, the latter is not true, neither was the former that dealt [35] with a single thing, viz. that to know a thing is to think of it.

  Moreover, argue from greater and less degrees. There are four commonplace rules. One is: see whether a greater degree of the predicate follows a greater degree of the subject: e.g. if pleasure is good, see whether also a greater pleasure is a greater good; and if to do a wrong is evil, see whether also to do a greater wrong is a [115a1] greater evil. Now this rule is of use for both purposes; for if an increase of the accident follows an increase of the subject, as we have said, clearly the accident belongs; while if it does not follow, the accident does not belong. You should [5] establish this by induction. Another rule is: if one predicate is attributed to two subjects, then supposing it does not belong to the subject to which it is the more likely to belong, neither does it belong where it is less likely to belong; while if it does belong where it is less likely to belong, then it belongs as well where it is more likely. Again: if two predicates are attributed to one subject, then if the one which is more generally thought to belong does not belong, neither does the one that is less [10] generally thought to belong; or, if the one that is less generally thought to belong does belong, so also does the other. Moreover: if two predicates are attributed to two subjects, then if the one which is more usually thought to belong to the one subject does not belong, neither does the remaining predicate belong to the remaining subject; or, if the one which is less usually thought to belong to the one subject does belong, so too does the remaining predicate to the remaining subject.

  [15] Moreover, you can argue from the fact that an attribute belongs, or is thought to belong, in a like degree, in three ways, viz. those described in the last three rules given in regard to a greater degree. For supposing that one predicate belongs, or is thought to belong, to two subjects in a like degree, then if it does not belong to the one, neither does it belong to the other; while if it belongs to the one, it belongs to the remaining one as well. Or, supposing two predicates to belong in a like degree to the [20] same subject, then, if the one does not belong, neither does the remaining one; while if the one does belong, the remaining one belongs as well. The case is the same also if two predicates belong in a like degree to two subjects; for if the one predicate does not belong to the one subject, neither does the remaining predicate belong to the remaining subject, while if the one predicate does belong to the one subject, the remaining predicate belongs to the remaining subject as well.

  [25] 11 · You can argue, then, from greater or less or like degrees in the aforesaid manner of ways. Moreover, you should argue from the addition of one thing to another. If the addition of one thing to another makes that other good or white, whereas formerly it was not white or good, then the thing added will be white or good—it will possess the character it imparts to the whole as well. Moreover, if an [30] addition of something to a given object intensifies the character which it had, then the thing added will itself as well be of that character. Likewise, also, in the case of other attributes. The rule is not applicable in all cases, but only in those in which an increased intensity is found to take place. The above rule is, however, not convertible for overthrowing a view. For if the thing added does not make the other good, it is not thereby made clear whether in itself it may not be good; for the [115b1] addition of good to evil does not necessarily make the whole good, any more than the addition of white to black makes the whole white.

  Again, any predicate of which we can speak of greater or less degrees belongs also without qualification; for greater or less degrees of good or of white will not be [5] attributed to what is not good or white; for a bad thing will never be said to have a greater or less degree of goodness, but always of badness. This rule is not convertible, either, for the purpose of overthrowing; for several predicates of which we cannot speak of a greater degree belong without qualification; for the term man [10] is not attributed in greater and less degrees, but a man is a man for all that.

  You should examine in the same way predicates attributed in a given respect, and at a given time and place; for if the predicate is possible in some respect, it is possible also without qualification. Likewise, also, what is predicated at a given time or place; for what is without qualification impossible is not possible either in any respect or at any place or time. An objection may be raised that in a given [15] respect people may be good by nature, e.g. they may be generous or temperately inclined, while they are not good by nature without qualification. Likewise, also, it is possible for a destructible thing to escape destruction at a given time, whereas it is not possible for it to escape without qualification. In the same way also it is a good thing at certain places to follow such and such a diet, e.g. in infected areas, though it [20] is not a good thing without qualification. Moreover, in certain places it is possible for there to be just one man, but without qualification it is not possible for there to be just one man. In the same way also it is in certain places honourable to sacrifice one’s father, e.g. among the Triballi, whereas, without qualification, it is not [25] honourable. Or possibly this may indicate a relativity not to places but to persons; for it makes no difference wherever they may be; for everywhere it will be honourable for them. Again, at certain times it is a good thing to take medicines, e.g. when one is ill, but it is not so without qualification. Or possibly this again may indicate a relativity not to a certain time, but to a certain state of health; for it makes no difference when it occurs, if only one is in that state. A thing is without qualification so which without any addition you are prepared to say is honourable or [30] the contrary. Thus (e.g.) you will deny that to sacrifice one’s father is honourable: it is honourable only to certain persons; it is not therefore honourable without qualification. On the other hand, to honour the gods you will declare to be honourable without adding anything; hence that is honourable without qualification. So that whatever without any addition is thought to be honourable or dishonourable or anything else of that kind, will be said to be so without [35] qualification.

  BOOK III

  1 · The question which is the more desirable, or the better, of two or more [116a1] things, should be examined upon the following lines; only first of all it must be clearly laid down that the inquiry we are making concerns not things that are widely divergent and that exhibit great differences from one another (for nobody raises any [5] doubt whether happiness or wealth is more desirable), but things that are nearly related and about which we discuss for which of the two we ought rather to vote, because we do not see any advantage on either side as compared with the other. Clearly, then, in such cases if we can prove a single advantage, or more than one [10], our judgement will record our assent that whichever side happens to have the advantage is the more desirable.

  First, then, that which is more lasting or secure is more desirable than that which is less so; and so is that which is more likely to be chosen by the prudent or by [15] the good man or by the right law, or by men who are good in any particular line, when they make their choice as such; i.e. either whatever most of them or what all of them would choose; e.g. in medicine (or in carpentry) those things are more desirable which most, or all, doctors would choose; or, in general, whatever most men or all men or all things would choose, e.g. the good; for everything aims at the good. You should direct the argument to whatever purpose you require. What is [20] absolutely better or more desirable is determined by the better science; what is relatively better, by the appropriate science.

  In the second place, that which is essentially so is more desirable than that which does not come within the ge
nus—e.g. justice than a just man; for the former falls within the genus, whereas the other does not, and the former is essentially [25] good, whereas the latter is not; for nothing which does not happen to belong to the genus is essentially the genus; e.g. a white man is not essentially a colour. Likewise also in other cases.

  Also, that which is desired for itself is more desirable than that which is desired [30] for something else; e.g. health is more desirable than gymnastics; for the former is desired for itself, the latter for something else. Also, that which is desirable in itself is more desirable than what is desirable per accidens; e.g. justice in our friends than justice in our enemies; for the former is desirable in itself, the latter per accidens; for we desire that our enemies should be just per accidens, in order that they may do [35] us no harm. This last principle is the same as the one that precedes it, with, however, a different turn of expression. For we desire justice in our friends for itself, even though it will make no difference to us, and even though they be in India; whereas in our enemies we desire it for something else, in order that they may do us no harm.