We must assume further, if this exercise is not to exceed the limits set by the space available to us, that we have narrowed the question to be considered here, with the help of these two texts, to a single inquiry, which can be stated as follows: Is the State a natural arrangement, with all that that implies of goodness and necessity—or is it merely a conventional or artificial arrangement?
That is our question. Now read the two texts carefully, taking as much time as you wish or need. Speed is never important in syntopical reading. Make notes if you want to, and underline or otherwise mark passages when that seems desirable. And return to the texts as often as you wish in considering the questions that follow.
From Book I of Aristotle’s Politics
p. 407 FROM CHAPTER 1
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view of some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. . . .
FROM CHAPTER 2
The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men’s everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas ‘companions of the cupboard’, and by Epimenides the Cretan, ‘companions of the manger’. But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be ‘suckled with the same milk’. And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. . . .
When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. . . .
Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and p. 408 pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.
Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.
From Book I of Rousseau’s The Social Contract
I mean to inquire if, in the civil order, there can be any sure and legitimate rule of administration, men being taken as they are and laws as they might be. . . .
FROM CHAPTER 1. SUBJECT OF THE FIRST BOOK
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer. . . .
FROM CHAPTER 2. THE FIRST SOCIETIES
The most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family: and even so the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. p. 409 As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention. . . .
The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. . . .
FROM CHAPTER 4. SLAVERY
Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men. . . .
FROM CHAPTER 6. THE SOCIAL COMPACT
I suppose men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.
But, as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance. These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert.
This sum of forces can arise only where several persons come together: but, as the force and liberty of each man are the chief instruments of his self-preservation, how can he pledge them without harming his own interests, and neglecting the care he owes to himself? This difficulty, in its bearing on my present subject, may be stated in the following terms:
“The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution. . . .
p. 410 If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms:
“Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”
At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons, formerly took the name of city (polis), and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who
are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.
We will ask you to entertain two sets of questions about these two texts, after which we will suggest some tentative conclusions that we believe can justifiably be drawn from the texts.
Test G:
Here is the first set of questions about Aristotle and Rousseau
1. Aristotle identifies three different types of human association. What are they?
2. These three types of association have certain things in common and also differ in significant respects. What do they have in common and how do they differ?
3. The three types of association differ in regard to their inclusiveness. Can you order them on a scale going from less to more inclusive?
4. All three types of association aim at fulfilling some p. 411 natural need—that is, they achieve some good. The good achieved by the family—that is, the security of its members and the perpetuation of the race—is also achieved by the village, but in a higher degree. Is the good aimed at or achieved by the state merely the same good in an even higher degree, or is it a different good altogether?
5. Another way to get at this difference is by still another question. Given that, for Aristotle, all three types of association are natural, are they natural in the same way?
6. Before turning to some questions about Rousseau in this first set of questions, we must mention the one remark of Aristotle’s that raises a difficulty. Aristotle praises highly the man who first founded the state. Would he speak similarly of the man who first founded the family or the village?
7. What is the main problem that Rousseau poses about the state?
8. Does Rousseau pose this same problem about the family?
9. What is the opposite of the natural for Rousseau?
10. What is the basic or founding convention that, for Rousseau, makes the state legitimate?
Turn to p. 416 for the answers to Test G.
After this first set of questions about the two texts, we appear to have arrived at an interpretation of the two texts that sees them in disagreement on the question we have been considering. That question is, as you will recall: Is the state natural, or is it conventional or artificial? Rousseau appears to say that the state is conventional or artificial; Aristotle appears to say that it is natural.
Now take a few moments to consider whether this interpretation is correct. Is there anything about the problematic remark of Aristotle’s we mentioned that calls the interpretation in doubt? Is there anything that Rousseau says that we have not discussed and that also must cause us to doubt this interpretation?
p. 412 If you see why this interpretation is not correct, you will probably already have anticipated the few remaining questions we want to ask.
Test H:
Here is the second set of questions
1. For Rousseau, is the state natural as well as conventional?
2. Does Aristotle agree in this?
3. Can this basic agreement between Aristotle and Rousseau be extended to further points?
4. In the answer to the last question, we spoke of the “good” that the state achieves which cannot be achieved without it. Is this “good” the same for Rousseau as for Aristotle?
5. One final question. Does the agreement we have found on our primary question mean that these two texts, short as they are, are in agreement on all points?
Turn to p. 418 for the answers to Test H.
We said at the beginning of this exercise that there are certain conclusions that can justifiably be drawn from the careful reading of these two important political texts. Among them are these: First, it is a basic truth about man that he is a political animal—you may use some other adjective if you wish—as contradistinguished from other social or gregarious animals: that is, that man is a rational social animal who constitutes a society to serve other than merely biological ends. It follows from this that the state is both natural and conventional—that it is both more and less natural than the family; and it follows also that the state must be formally constituted: other societies are not true states. Second, we may reasonably conclude that the state is a means, not an end. The end is the common human good: a good life. Hence man is not made for the state, but the state for man.
p. 413 These conclusions seem to us to be justified, and we also believe that the answers we have given to the questions are correct. But more than feeling or belief is required in a genuine project of syntopical reading. We noted, in our discussion of this level of reading, that it is always desirable to document one’s answers and conclusions from the texts of the authors themselves. We have not done that here. You might want to try to do it for yourself. If you are puzzled by any of our answers, see if you can find the passage or passages in the text, either by Aristotle or Rousseau, that must have formed the basis of the answer we give. And if you disagree with any of our answers or conclusions, see if you can document your disagreement by means of the words of the authors themselves.
Answers to Questions
TEST A (p. 370)
1. (c) 2. (b) If you said (a) and (b) you would not really be wrong. 3. (a) and (b) 4. (b) 5. (c) Is it pedantic to say that (b) is an incorrect answer? Would the situation be different if (c) were not available as an answer? 6. (b) 7. (a), (c), and (d) The text indicates that Bentham was the most influential. 8. (d) 9. (a) and (b) Likely; (c) and (d) Not Likely. 10. (a), (b), and (d)
TEST B (p. 376)
1. (c) 2. (c) 3. False 4. (b) 5. (a) and (b) 6. (b) 7. (b) The first answer (“Why apples fall”) might have been considered correct if it had been phrased “How apples fall,” although of course there is no mention of apples in the Principia. The point is that the work describes gravity and expounds its operation, but it does not say why it operates. 8. (a) 9. (b) and (c) 10. This striking statement has impressed generations of Newton idolaters. In commenting on it, you probably discussed the modesty of its author. Did you also make any mention of the metaphor that Newton employs? It is a memorable one.
p. 414 TEST C (p. 389)
1. (a) 2. (b) Dante’s own titles were the ones that appear in (c); if you gave that as your answer we would therefore have to count it as correct. 3. (a) 4. (a) and (b) 5. (b) This is no accident, of course. Each major division of the poem (called in Italian a cantiche) contains 33 cantos: the first canto of Hell introduces the whole work. 6. (a) Only the Eighth Circle is divided into pouches. 7. (b) Circles (a) is not really wrong. 8. (c) But (b) would also be correct, as in Dante’s cosmology the nine orders of angels correspond to the nine heavenly bodies. 9. (a); (b) 10. (a)
TEST D (p. 390)
1. (b) 2. (a) Beatrice acts for God, so (b) is not incorrect. 3. (b) 4. (b) and (c) Dante had not read Aristotle’s Poetics, though he had read a synopsis of it suggesting that Aristotle defined a comedy as any work that ends fortunately. Dante’s poem ends in Heaven, hence fortunately, and therefore he titled it The Comedy: but of course it is not a comic work. 5. (c) The poem is dependent on all three, but the Christian themes are the most important. 6. Yes. Dante felt that sloth had been one of his main sins, and he here symbolizes this by falling asleep. 7. In Dante’s cosmology, the earth is the center of the universe, and Hell is at the center of the earth. 8. The P’s stand for the Latin word peccata, sins: there are seven P’s because there are seven deadly sins, from each of which the souls are absolved in their ascent up the Mountain of Purgatory. 9. Virgil, in the poem, is the symbol of all human knowledge and virtue. But, as a pagan who died before the birth of Christ, he cannot accompany Dante into Paradise. 10. The Franciscans and the Dominicans were the two great monastic orders of the Middle Ages. The Franciscans were contemplatives, the Dominicans were scholars and teachers. Dante here symbolizes the heavenly resolution of all differences between t
he two orders by having St. Thomas, the greatest representative of the Dominicans, narrate the life of St. Francis, the founder of the Franciscans; p. 415 while St. Bonaventura, the representative of the Franciscans, narrates the life of St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominicans.
TEST E (p. 399)
1. False 2. (b) 3. False. In fact, the statement is meaningless. 4. (a) 5. False 6. False 7. False 8. Huxley defended Darwin. 9. (c) 10 (d) To lovers of Darwin, this is one of the most charming facts about the man.
TEST F (p. 400)
1. (b) 2. (a) 3. True. In fact, this comes close to being the definition of a species. 4. True. Members of a genus can interbreed and reproduce their kind only if they are also members of the same species. 5. (a), (b), and (c) all play major roles in natural selection. 6. Natural selection. Would Darwin change his mind if he were alive today, in the face of the evidence of man’s destructive effect on the environment? Perhaps. But he might still continue to insist that in the long run, nature is more powerful than man. And then, too, man is himself a part of nature. 7. The phrase can be translated “Nature makes no jumps”—that is, sudden, great and abrupt variations do not occur naturally, but only small and gradual ones. Even if you were not able to translate the Latin, was the sense of this statement clear from the table of contents? The idea is significant because Darwin, taking it as true, explains the fact that there is great differentiation between species by the hypothesis of gaps in the geological record—so-called missing links—instead of by the hypothesis of created differences between species. 8. According to Darwin, if two varieties of a single species are widely separated over a considerable period of time so that they are physically hindered from interbreeding, the varieties tend to become separate species—that is, become incapable of interbreeding. It was his discovery of quite distinct species of birds on the oceanic islands during his service on the Beagle that first led him to see this fundamental point. 9. There are probably many ways to state the problem, but one way to do it is to ask two apparently simple questions. p. 416 First, why are there many kinds of living things, instead of just one or a few? Second, how does a species come into existence, and how does it pass away—which, Darwin and his contemporaries knew from the geological record, had happened many times? It may be necessary to think about these questions for a while to realize why they are so very difficult and so very mysterious—but they are well worth thinking about. 10. We are not sure that an adequate answer to this question can be arrived at on the basis of a mere perusal, however intensive, of the table of contents of The Origin of Species. If you were able to state the theory in a hundred words without having read the book, you are an extraordinary reader. Indeed, the question is not easy to answer briefly even if one has read the book; you might refer to our attempt to summarize the theory in Chapter 7. In a short passage in his own Introduction to the work, Darwin may have done it himself, and we quote the passage in its entirety here for what it is worth:
How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading Page 42