Learning

Record
Pin-anong
5th January  2018

What  do  I  already  know? What  I  don’t  know?

Question: Question:
1) Who  he  is? • What  is  that  6  forms  he  set  up?
2) His  work  on  political  philosophy • Which  form  of  g overnment  he  preferred?
Summary: • Why?
I  already  know  that  he  was  the  student  of  Plato
Summary:
He  was  a  Greek  philosopher
1) One  r uler  for  all/  for  oneself=  Kingship  /Tyranny
He  was  a  teacher  of  Alexander  the  Great
2) Few  R ulers  for  all/  for  oneself=  Aristocracy/Oligarchy
On  political  philosophy,
3) Many  r ulers  for  all/  for  oneself=  Polity(Constitutional  r epublic/  
• He  set  up  6  forms  of  politics Democracy
• He  was  the  first  one  who  consider  the  definition  of  citizenship
He  believed  that  with  the  r ight  person  monarchy  is  the  best  form  of  
• He  believes  that  every  citizen  should  participate  in  the   government,  in  theoretically.  On  practical  g round,  he  believe  that  
meeting constitutional  r epublic  is  most  acceptable  and  possible,  as  it  ensure  
that  the  influence  of  majority  middle  class.  He  predicted  that  
democracy  would  be  the  most  used  form  of  g overnment
Analysis   and  Opinion  

With  Aristotle’s  preferences  of  the  government   forms.  I  agree  with  him  as  monarchy  is  efficient  but  it  
strongly  depends  on  the  leader.   With  the  subject  of  constitution  republic,   he  was  right  about   the  
common  form  of  government  today.  It  is  interesting  that  he  predicted  that  Democracy(which  is  the  
opposition   of  constitutional   republic  or  polity)  will  be  that  common  used  form.  Maybe  it  is  because  he  is  
influenced  by  Plato,  and   aware  that  people  normally  put  self  interest  first  and  that  affect  their  decisions  
regard  politic.

Sources

Internet  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.   (n.d.).   Aristotle  (384—322  B.C.E.).  Retrieved  January   5,  2018,  from  
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/#H8
Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.   (n.d.).   Aristotle's  Political  Theory.  Retrieved  January  5,  2018,  from  
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-­‐politics/
 8th January 2018
Summary
Questions -­‐ Plato  main  idea  is  the  world  of  form.  He  believed  that  there  
is  a  world  where  everything  is  idealistic.  Things  in  our  r eal  
• What  do  I  already  know  about  Plato? world  is  a  imperfect  copy  version  of  the  things  in  the  world  
of  forms.  When  we  die,  we  will  be  sent  there  as  well.  With  
• What  are  some  Plato’s  main  ideas? this  he  believe  that  the  way  to  learn  or  g et  close  to  this  
world  of  forms  and  knowledge  is  through  r easoning.
• What  are  Plato’s  political  ideas?
-­‐ For  his  political  ideas.  He  believed  that  the  king  should  be  
What  I  already  know? the  philosopher.  As  the  philosopher  is  the  person  who  will  
understand  the  world  of  form  best,  they  should  be  the  
king.  His  idealistic  state  consists  of  three  classes  of  people,  
Plato  is  a  student  of  Socrates.  He  lived  in  ancient  Greek  time   philosopher  king,  military,  and  producer.  In  his  ideal,  he  will  
period.  He  is  the  creator  of  Allegory  of  the  cave.  His  main   keep  people  following  and  accepting  their  classes  by  using  
philosophy  is  about  the  world  of  form,  he  believes  that   the  noble  lie.  The  Noble  lie  is  the  lie  that  say  people  are  
made  up  of  different  type  of  metals  such  as  g old  silver  and  
everything  has  its  perfect  form.  This  world  of  perfect  form  make   brass,  therefore  people’s  value  are  different    and  that  there  
we  know  that  a  table  is  a  table  and  the  horse  is  the  horse.  For  his   are  separated  classes.  
political  philosophy.  He  did  not  like  democracy  as  he  saw  it  fail  as  
-­‐ Another  r enowned  work  of  Plato  is  the  Allegory  of  the  
people  vote  for  themselves  not  the  g eneral  benefit  of  the   cave.  It  is  a  story  where  men  are  living  their  lives  inside  the  
society.  He  come  up  with  the  form  political  institution.  His  utopia   cave  seeing  only  the  shadow  of  the  object  from  the  light.  
is  created  of  three  classes  of  people  including,  the  philosopher   They  are  safe  and  worm  inside  the  cave.  However,  one  day,  
king,  the  warrior,  and  the  merchant.  In  Plato’s  ideal  state,  the   a  man  breaks  out  to  the  outside  world.  He  would  see  the  
whole  truth  about  object,  light  and  the  place  he  used  to  be.  
philosopher  king  earn  leisure  time  but  not  pride  and  wealth.  The   Regardless  of  him  knowing  the  truth,  if  he  g oes  back  and  
warrior  earn  pride  but  not  wealth  and  leisure  time.  And  the   tell  his  friends  he  would  be  considered  as  crazy.
merchant  earn  wealth  but  not  pride  and  leisure  time.
 Analysis and Opinion

I  believe   that  Plato’s  idealistic   believe   in  the  single(authoritarian-­‐like)   leader,   came  from   his  experience   of   the  failed   democracy.  However,  in  his  
time,  democracy   is  considered   the  best  form  of   government.  Disagreeing   to  the   social   trends  he  might  had  encountered  a  lot   of oppose  ideas  
and  criticism   on  him.  This   might  lead  to  his  allegory   of   cave,  where   everyone  is   stuck  to  the   shadow(could  be   interpreted  as  the fake   truth)   and  
the  only  person  knowing  the  truth  is   consider  crazy.  I  think  Plato  is  way  too  idealistic.   It  is  undeniable   that  his  idealistic   state  would  be  more  
efficient   than  democracy  because   the  ruler   know  what   to  do  and  there  will   be  no  worries   about  people   voting  for  their   own  interest.  However,  
his  form   will   be   ideal   only  if   the  philosopher  king  stays  responsible  to  his  people,  duty  and  state.  Responsible  in  this  case means  that  the   king  
must  do  his   duty  by  decide   or  ruling   by  his   best  intention  and  best  ability  for   the  state  and  the  people.   With  that  given,  the  philosopher  king  at  
least  need   to  be   consistent.  And  that  is  not  a  common  trait  for   human,  even  Plato  himself,   regarding  of   his  idea   about  female.   Also,  what   is  the  
‘best’  solution  for  everything  exactly?   It  is  true  that  philosopher  might  have  better  logic   or   idea  of   everything  than  other  people,   but  it   does  not  
mean  that  those  logic   is   correct   or  it   is  the  best  solution.  Being  human,  even  though  with   the  best  logic,   we   always  leave   some  room  for  
mistakes.  This  can  be   seen  from   the  evolution  of   philosophy,  as  it   gets  challenged   through  time.   In  addition  to  that,  philosopher,  always  wander  
with   their   thoughts  and  unsettle  down.  It  might  be   a  problem  for   a  ruler   who  change   his  mind  or  belief   from   time  to  time,   if   the policy   is  not  
stable,  then  how  would   the  state  run  smoothly  and  develop  without  being   interrupt.  The   last  point,  purely  my  view   of   an  ideal philosopher,  I  do  
not  think  that  a   philosopher  can   settle  their   mind  with   a  principle.   If   a  philosopher  really   settle  down   and  believe   in  a  single principle,   I  think  that  
person  is  loosing  the   essence   of  being   a  philosopher.  

[BBC  Radio   4].  ( 2015,  July  31).  Plato’s  Philosopher  Kings  [Video   File].   Retrieved   from  
Sources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXsaT6bqL0
[TED-­‐Ed].  ( 2016,  October  25).  Plato’s  best  ( and  worst)  ideas  – Wisecrack   [Video  File].   Retrieved   from  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLesc5lITvo
12th January 2018
Question Summary
-­‐ What  are  some  of  Aristotle’s  political   -­‐ Plato,  in  his  work,  discusses  how  politics  will  achieve  or  g et  closer  to  the  world  of  forms’  
ideas? state,  or  the  ideal  state  through  logic  and  r easoning.  On  the  contrary,  Aristotle  observed  
different  form  of  practical,  existing  political  form  and  compare  their  strengths  and  
-­‐ What  are  the  differences  between   weaknesses.
Plato’s  and  Aristotle’s  ideas?
-­‐ On  property,  Aristotle  thinks  that  if  everything  is  shared,  no  one  will  be  r esponsible,  
because  self-­‐interest  is  human  nature.  By  that  contrast  to  Plato,  he  thinks  that  property  
should  be  privatized.
-­‐ Avoid  Political  extreme,  he  compare  politics  to  a  nose,  if  it  is  hook  it  will  loose  it  shape  
and  unrecognizable.  Same  g oes  with  politics  Aristotle  believes  that  Politics  should  avoid  
from  being  too  extreme.  
-­‐ Middle  Class,  Aristotle  advocates  for  them.  He  seeks  for  the  equal  society.  M iddle  class  
should  be  the  majority.  If  the  r ich  control  the  society  it  will  be  overly  control.  If  the  poor  
control  the  country  there  will  be  not  enough  resources  and  do  not  know  how  to  
properly  r ule.  And  middle  class  can  compromise  the  r ich  and  the  poor.  
-­‐ Aristotle  believes  that  everyone  need  to  be  educated  to  understand  the  aim  of  political  
system.  If  the  people  ignore  society’s  principle,  g overnment  will  not  be  able  to  function  
properly.  He  sees  education  as  a  must  to  keep  society  functioning  and  it  must  fit  the  
ideals  of  political  system.  
 Analysis and Opinion
In  my  opinion,  Aristotle  is  more  practical  which  is  considered,  by  me,  both  good  and  bad  thing  compare  to  Plato.  On  a  g ood  
side,  if  society  is  to  change  according  to  one  of  their  idea,  it  will  be  Aristotle’s  because  his  philosophy  based  on  the  the  existed  
forms  and  thus  easier  to  r each  or  adapt  compare  to  Plato’s  idealistic  state  that  come  straight  r ight  out  of  his  logic.  On  the bad  
side,  I  think  that  it  is  very  possible  that  Aristotle  mostly  focus  on  how  to  improve  the  old  system  and  that  his  work  might  l ack of  
idealistic  side.  It  is  g ood  to  improve  the  practical  system  we  have,  but  I  also  believe  that  it  is  also  beneficial  to  try  portraying  
what  state  he  want  to  see.  However,  I  am  r eally  impressed  about  his  logic  and  how  he  view  the  society.  I  completely  agree  with  
him  about  property.  Aristotle  is  very  observing  about  human  nature  and  he  put  it  in  his    work  in  such  practical  way— that  state  
or  g overnment  can  make  policy  based  on  his  thoughts  and  perspective.  There  is  one  thing  I  disagree  with  him— virtue.  
Aristotle  seems  to  favor  something  in  the  middle  or  not  extreme.  He  compare  politics  to  body  part  that  we  should  not  push  It  
or  loose  it  too  much  as  it  will  lost  its  shape.  And  he  seems  to  apply  this  principle  to  many  things  on  his  work.  I  believe  that  it  is  
true  that  we  should  avoid  extreme  and  see  it  case  by  case.  However,  with  his  thought  based  on  this,  I  think  it  is  very  easy  that
he  might  had  made  logical  fallacy— middle  g round.  It  is  important  to  be  aware  that  just  because  something  is  in  the  middle  or  
not  extreme  does  not  mean  that  that  middle  thing  is  the  best  compare  to  others.  

Sources

Four  Important   lessons  from  Aristotle's  "The  Politics".  (2015,  October  2).  Retrieved  January   12,  2018,  from  
http://classicalwisdom.com/lessons-­‐the-­‐politics/
15th January 2018
Question What  are  the  differences   between  Hobbes’   and  Locke’s  ideas?

summary Premise about   human’s   nature

Locke Hobbes
Human   nature Man  is  social  animal Man  is  not  social  animal

State  of  nature Keep  promises,  honor   obligation solitary,  poor,   nasty,  brutish,  and   short

Knowledge  of   People  can  distinguish   right  and  wrong,   Morality  is  mostly  commanded   by  someone
Natural Law but sometimes  don’t   act  accordingly

Epistemology Categories  (good/evil) independently   exist   It  is  the  naming   that makes  it  exist.
in  the  world
Conflict Peace  is  the  norm Men  can  only  live  in  peace  by  subjection  to  
the  absolute   power
 Argument  about   politics
summary
Locke Hobbes

Social Contact We  give  our right  to  do  anything  freely  up,   Sovereign can  do  anything   and  any  act  of  it  
but  gaining   liberty  and   protection  of  our   does  not  violate  the  contract.  
property
Social  Contact   People  have  right  to  rebel or  overthrown   People  have  no  right  to  rebel
Violation tyranny  

Civil  Society As  it  creates  order.  Civil  Society  precedes State  created  civil  society
state.  

Rights Everyone  has  right  by  nature You  give up  your  right  to  the  government  

Role  of  the  state Ensure  justice Everything  state  does  is  just.  (As  society  is  
created  by  the  state)

Authorised used  of   Meaningless   without  reason If the  force  is  authorised,   its  use  is  just.
force
 Analysis and Opinion

I  think  it  is  remarkable  that  Hobbes  and  Locke  have  almost  completely  different  idea  on  politics.  One  factor  that  might  
contribute  to  that  difference  is  their  different  view  of  human  nature  and  knowledge.  On  knowledge  Locke  believes  that  some  
values  like  g ood  and  evil  are  existed  and  is  natural  law  which  human  can  know  or  learn  these  laws.  On  the  contrary,  Hobbes  
doesn’t  believe  so,  as  he  believes  that  these  values  are  created  and  command  by  the  state.  I  think  that  these  beliefs  are  
reflected  on  their  political  philosophy.  Locke,  believing  that  human  can  learn  natural  law,  became  a  person  who  trust  human  i n  
the  state  of  nature,  thus  he  believe  that  even  though  state  is  not  as  powerful,  humans  can  live  peacefully.  But  Hobbes,  who  
sees  that  morality,  g ood  or  evil,  are  created  by  the  state,  became  a  person  who  sees  that    state  should  be  there  powerfully  
control  its  people  so  that  people  know  what  to  do  and  live  together  in  peace.  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  agree  with  either  of  
them.  As  we  are  born  in  the  modern  day,  these  theories  are  unprovable,  even  though  we  were  born  in  their  time,  it  is  still  
unprovable.  That  is  because  we  were  born  in  a  developed  society  where  we  are  strongly  shaped  by  it.  We  might  believe  that  
we  have  the  sense  of  what  is  r ight  and  wrong  but  we  could  not  really  prove  that  we  know  it  because  we  learn  it  naturally  or  we  
know  it  because  the  state  and  society  shape  us  to  feel  so.  

Sources

Hobbes  &  Locke.  (n.d.).   Retrieved  January   15,  2018,  from  https://www.edmodo.com/file/view-­‐office-­‐
online?id=bcbf7f90d389882402865bdc5b114b2e
https://jim.com/hobbes.htm (I  cannot  reopen  the  link  L)
 18th January 2018
Question Summary

• Who  is  R ousseau? -­‐ Jean-­‐Jacques  R ousseau  is  a  philosopher  from  Geneva  who  later  on  live  in  Paris.
• What  are  his  main  idea? -­‐ His  main  idea  is  that  civilisation corrupted  people  who  were  born  g ood.  People  were  once  
good  in  pre-­‐social  state  but  as  they  join  the  society  they  became  corrupted.  He  believed  that  
• What  is  the  state  of  nature   civilisation make  people  love  themselves(so-­‐called  self-­‐love)  which  he  considers  it  artificial  
like  in  his  view?
-­‐ His  state  of  nature  is  when  men  and  women  live  in  the  nature.  There  primitive  people  
• What  are  his  thoughts  on   understand  their  own  mind  and  r eally  know  what  they  need  in  life:  love,  nature,  beauty,  
society? curiosity  and  entertainment.  And  live  together  with  sympathy.  
• What  impacts  did  his  ideas   -­‐ Civilisation revokes  self-­‐love  in  people(pride,  jealousy,  vanity).  As people  compare  themselves  
have  on  history? to  others  and  perceive  their  identity  according  to  that  r eference,  people  are  in  competition  
and  misunderstanding  of  what  they  r eally  want
-­‐ People  were  born  naturally  g ood,  we  should  prevent  them  from  being  corrupted  by  the  
society
-­‐ Noble  Savage  — morality  of  primitive  people
-­‐ On  history,  he  is  considered  a  father  of  the  r omantic  movement,  some  of  his  ideas  such  as  
breast  feeding,  Child-­‐centred  education  is  still  being  used    until  the  present  day.  
 Analysis and Opinion
I  think  his  philosophy  is  true  to  some  extent.  What  I  agree  with Jean-­‐Jacques  R ousseau  is  that  people  are  strongly  influenced  by  the  
society    and  usually  in  the  corrupted  way.  It  is  notable  that  R ousseau  lived  in  that  kind  of  corrupted  society  in  Paris  but  he  is  able  to  
point  out  the  different  perspective  of  the  society  that  it  is  bad.  R ousseau  himself  is  one  of  the  very  few  example  of  his  own theory.  
Living  in  this  kind  of  society,  he  was  still  able  to  stand  strong  on  his  thoughts  and  not  slipping  into  the  competition  of  luxury  and  self-­‐
love.  This  might  show  that  not  everyone  follow  the  social  trends  or  flow.  With  that  premise  complemented  by  his  believe  that  
humans  were  born  a  g ood  creature,  it  possibly  leads  to  the  idea  that  even  though  the  society  is  corrupted  if  a  person  is  r aised  up  
right,  he  will  not  be  affected  and  r uined  as  much.  This  possibly  lead  to  his  theory  on  children-­‐based  education.  With  the  r ight  
condition,  children  can  g row  up  into  a  g ood  and  valid  g rown-­‐ups  who  are  r eflective,  being  aware  and  not  strongly  affected  by  the
society.  I  like  his  foundation  theory  on  the  corrupted  society  and  educational  approach.  However,  I  disagree  with  him  on  human  
nature.  On  my  point  of  view  humans  born  neither  g ood  nor  evil.  I  believe  that  the  moral  concepts  are  learned  through  experience  on  
the  society.  R ousseau  might  say  that  humans  in  the  state  of  nature(primitive  ancestor)  are  naturally  peaceful,  g ood  and  they  know  
what  they  want  (love,  nature,  beauty,  curiosity  and  entertainment).  I  would  argue  that  first  of  all,  he  wasn’t  there,  it  is  very  possible  
that  they  just  seems  to  be  less  chaotic  because  they  were  less  people  and  they  were  struggling  to  survive  which  r equire(not  that
they  are)  them  to  be  harmonious.  

Sources
[World  Library  Foundation].  (2016,  November  28).  "The  Social  Contract"  by  Jean  Jacques  R ousseau [Video  File].  R etrieved  from  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsV3pZnDeXU
[The  School  of  Life].  (2015,  August  14).  POLITICAL  THEORY  – Jean-­‐Jacques  R ousseau  [Video  File].  R etrieved  from  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81KfDXTTtXE
 22th January 2018
Question Summary

-­‐ Who  is  Machiavelli? -­‐ Good  politician  is  not  the  one  who  honest  but  one  who  know  how  to  r ule  over  
-­‐ What  is  a  g ood  leader  like  in   state.  (defend,  enrich,  bring  honor)
Machiavelli’s  point  of  view? -­‐ Effectiveness,  darker  art.
-­‐ Why  does  he  think  it  is  impossible   -­‐ His  works:  The  prince,  the  discourses
to  be  a  g ood  person  and  a  g ood   -­‐ It  is  impossible  to  be  a  g ood  politician  and  g ood  person
ruler  at  the  same  time? -­‐ Good  price=  defend  the  state,  know  how  to  fight,  management,  strict  but  
-­‐ What  virtues  does  Machiavelli   reasonable
believe  that  leaders  should  have? -­‐ Both  Love  and  fear,  but  if  there  is  only  one  choice,  fear  is  more  important  as  it  
-­‐ What  are  criminal  virtues?   keeps  people  in  checked
-­‐ Impossible  to  be  a  g ood  Christian  and  a  g ood  leader
-­‐ Failed  state-­‐ based  on  weakness  and  pretend  to  be  g ood
-­‐ Wisdom  strategy  strength  bravery  r uthlessness
-­‐ “Criminal  Virtue”  — He  values  effectiveness,  sometimes  it  is  necessary  to  do  
something  immoral  to  r ule  the  state  (not  too  often  people  will  see  the  leader  
as  brutal,  tough  but  not  too  tough)
-­‐ Ethical  trade-­‐offs
 Analysis and Opinion
Machiavelli’s  work  is  remarkable  to  me  as  he  challenges  the  church  and  the  norm  of  morality.  It  is  logical  to  say  that  the  leader  should  be  a  
good  person  according  to  the  social  norm  of  his  own  state.  M achiavelli  brings  another  aspect  of  the  “practical”  leader  to  the field  of  
politic.  Theoretically,  his  idea  (the  prince  who  has  criminal  virtue)  is  logical  to  me,  as  the  head  of  state’s  duty  is  to  protect  the  state’s  
sovereignty.  It  seems  to  be  justified  that  sometimes,  cruel  action  might  need  to  be  committed  in  order  to  successfully  r ule  over  the  state. It
might  be  easier  to  see  the  head  of  state  in  term  of  a  “position,”  instead  of  a  “person”.    In  the  name  of  the  state,  the  leader  should  aim  to  
protect  its  sovereignty  regardless  of  the  ethical  trade-­‐offs.  However,  on  the  practical  g round,  it  is  impossible.  I  think  it  is  almost  impossible  
for  a  person  to  balance  of  the  cruelty  and  admirable  side  of  oneself.  And  also,  in  my  view,  as  a  human,  our  experiences  are  bonded  to  us  
and  create  bias.  According  to  that  logic,  it  is  not  possible  that  a  person  will  act  fully  as  a  head  of  state  without  any  biases  from  his  personal  
life  or  believe.  It  might  be  argued  that  logic  can  dictate  everything  and  thus  the  r easonable  decision  can  be  make  every  time if the  leader  is  
being  aware  enough.  However,  I  would  still  say  that  r easoning  and  logic  are  also  affected  by  personal  experience.  For  example,  if  a  leader  
have  to  decide  whether  to  provide  social  welfare  or  not,  if  the  leader  is  personally  a  capitalist,  he  would  see  that  by  allowing people  to  
compete  freely  and  not  help  the  poor  is  a  r easonable  choice  as  it  create  competition  which  lead  to  better  quality  of  g oods  and  innovation.    
And  by  g iving  people  welfare  it  discourage  the  people  who  work  hard  and  earn  their  success.  With  this  logic  it  seems  to  be  very  logical  to  
not  provide  welfare  and  enforce  laisse-­‐faire  economy.  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  leader  is  a  socialist,  then  equality  is  the  thing  that  
would  drive  the  society  to  progression  not  competition  and  it  very  r easonable  to  provide  welfare.  Both  stances  are  r easonable to people  
with  different  ideology,  therefore  it  is  quite  impossible  for  the  leader,  alone,  to  r eally  tell  what  is  the  “right”  decision.

Sources
[The  School  of  Life].  (2015,  June  19).  POLITICAL  THEORY  -­‐ Niccolò Machiavelli  [Video  File].  R etrieved  from  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOXl0Ll_t9s&t=1s
23th January 2018
Question Summary

-­‐ Who  is  John  Stuart  Mill? -­‐ British  philosopher   :  Utilitarianism— Most  moral  
-­‐ What  is  utilitarianism? action  is  the  one  that  gain  the  greatest  happiness  of  
-­‐ What  is  deontology?   the  greatest  number  of  people.
-­‐ Consequentialist:  Judge  morality  in  term  of  its  
outcome.
-­‐ Individual   pursue  the  cost  to  provide  happiness  for  
the  greater  number.
-­‐ Deontology  judges  morality  of  an  action  due  to  its  
process  rather  than  its  consequences.  (as  opposed  to  
Utilitarianism)  
 Analysis and Opinion

On  John  Stuart  Mill’s  Utilitarianism,  I  think  it  strongly  depends  on  the  situation.  R egarding  the  video  (where  the  small  g roup  of  
soldier  r isk  their  lives  to  save  the  city),  I  think  that  it  is  a  very  bias  example.  It  is  the  soldiers’  duty  to  safe  their  city  and  that  it  is  very  
clear  in  that  case  on  how  the  decision  should  be  made.  However  when  it  comes  to  other  aspect  of  g overning  utilitarianism  is  more
unclear  and  vague.  For  example,  if  Wights spread  to  Thailand,  the  only  way  to  save  the  world  is  to  bomb  Thailand  and  kill  every  
single  person  in  the  area.  It  will  be  more  controversial  whether  it  is  justify  to  kill  “innocent”  people  to  save  the  world.  It  always  
comes  down  to  the  question  that  should  we  force  innocent  people  to  sacrifice  something(it  could  be  their  r esources/  health  /   life)  
in  order  to  preserve  the  g reater  g ood.  With  this  it  is  strongly  depends  by  case  and  determined  by  many  factors  such  as  the  
confidential  of  the  outcome,  the  quantity  of  the  g reater  g ood  compare  to  people  who  are  forced  to  sacrifice,  etc.  I  think  that  
Utilitarianism  and  Consequentialist  have    an  issue  that  the  outcome  might  not  be  as  expected  and  the  term  “greater  g ood”  could  
be  twisted  to  convey  politics  to  one’s  own  benefits.  However,  Deontology  is  not  always  the  r ight  solution  as  well.  M orality  might  
contribute  to  politics  as  a  constraint  that  prevent  the  leader  to  r each  the  best  solution  at  the  time,  but  that  does  not  mean that  it  
should  not  be  taken  into  account  while  the  decision  is  made.  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  a  concrete  answer  because  both  
consequentialist  and  deontology  contain  some  flaws  and  that  it  would  be  better  to  judge  the  case  and  make  decisions  depending
on  the  situation.

Sources
Deontology.  (n.d.).  R etrieved  January  23,  2018,  from  https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html
[MAcat].  (2015,  October  13).  An  Introduction  to  John  Stuart  Mill's  Utilitarianism  -­‐ A  M acat Politics  Analysis  [Video  File].  R etrieved  from  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOXl0Ll_t9s&t=1s
26th January 2018
Summary
Question
-­‐ Herbert  Spencer  was  a  philosopher  in  19th century  whose  idea  was  influenced  by  Charles  
-­‐ Who  is  Herbert  Spencer? Darwin’s  “theories  of  evolution”.
-­‐ What  were  his  ideas? -­‐ His  idea  based  on  his  own  modified  version  of  Darwin’s  theory  “survival  of  the  fittest”  
-­‐ What  is  Social  Darwinism? (originally  “survival  of  the  fit”).  He  believes  that  the  strong  will  succeed  and  the  weak  will  
-­‐ How  is  it  different  than  evolution? fail.  And  those  who  succeed  are  superior  than  those  who  fail.
-­‐ What  does  Social  Darwinism  have  in   -­‐ The  normal  evolution  happens  randomly,  the  species  that  fit  the  situation  and  time  
common  with  Darwin’s  theories  of   survive,  not  the  best  one.  On  the  contrary,  Social  Darwinism  believes  that  the  g roup  of  
evolution? people  that  survive(or  thrive)  in  the  society  is  the  best  one.
-­‐ Where  did  Survival  of  the  Fittest   -­‐ Theories  of  evolution  and  Social  Darwinism  have  the  similar  view  of  the  non-­‐fit  g roup.  In  
come  from,  and  what  does  it  mean? theories  of  evolution,  the  non-­‐fit  g roup  dies.  In  Social  Darwinism,  they  g et  cut  off  the  
competition(i.e.  g et  low  wage  from  the  capitalist)
-­‐ The  phrase  “Survival  of  the  Fittest”  is  the  modified  phrase  by  Herbert  Spencer,  originally  
belong  to  Charles  Darwin  (“Survival  of  the  fit”).  It  means  that  the  strong  will  prosper  and  
the  weak  will  fall.  
-­‐ This  political  approach  has  been  used  as  a  support  of  free-­‐market  capitalism.  As  it  justifies  
the  inequalities  in  the  society.
-­‐ Justice  in  Herbert  Spencer’s  mind  is  that  when  everyone  had  equal  liberty,  those  who  
succeed  is  superior.
 Analysis and Opinion
I  agree  with  only  part  of  his  theory  that  when  everyone  is  equal,  those  who  succeed  are  superior  in  some  way.  However,  that  i s  a simple  
rationale  of  the  world  and  it  just  the  paradigm  he  creates  up  that  “if”  everyone  has  equal  liberty.  What  is  notable  about  the Social  
Darwinism  theory  is  that  its  influence  on  the  society  is  completely  opposite  to  what  Herbert  Spencer  want.  His  theory  on  Social  Darwinism  
is  more  like  an  observing  aspect  but  people  take  it  as  a  fact.  And  that,  it  is  being  used  as  excused.  On  the  faux  belief  that to survive  is  to  be  
the  fittest,  it  leads  to  strongly  competitive  sense,  strong  enough  to  ignore  other  aspects  such  as  morality  and  humanity.  People,  most  likely  
capitalist,  interpret  survive  as  “thrive”  and  that  is  the  problem.  They  believe  that  to  survive  is  to  be  the  best  and  that  they  have  to  g ain  
advantage  from  every  situation,  and  everyone  to  survive(thrive).  This  mindset  justify  immoral  action  as  the  capitalist  or  politician  would  see  
these  actions  as  necessary(although  in  fact  it  does  not,  they  do  it  to  thrive  not  actually  survive).  This  false  justification leads  to  people,  land,  
resources  being  exploited  by  colonials,  enterprises,  etc.  As  this  g roup  of  people(capitalist  or  politician)  g ain  these  advantages  they  use  them  
to  keep  themselves  in  the  position  of  the  “fittest”.  By  doing  so,  it  lessen  the  ability  of  the  poor,  lower  class  or  minorities  to  thrive  in  the  
society,  they  barely  survive.  R eflecting  on  this  practical  world  we  are  living  in,  it  is  contradict  to  Herbert  Spencer’s  paradigm(where  people  
have  equal  liberty)  by  everything.  And  it  is  very  least  possible  to  r eally  see  who  is  naturally  superior  as  Herbert  Spencer  claim,  because  as  
the  capitalists  exploit  more  people,  they  become  more  powerful  and  we  are  constantly  moving  further  from  the  equality  in  liberty.  Liberty  
means  that  a  person  entertains  his  freedom  as  it  does  not  hurt  others.  It  does  not  exist  in  our  world  anymore,  as  everything  we  buy,  value  
of  the  currency,  the  laws  we  follow,  are  all  strongly  influenced  by  the  capitalists  and  politicians.  And  it  is  happening  and  justified  because  of  
the  false  interpretation  of  Herbert  Spencer’s  theory  of  Social  Darwinism.

Sources
The  Editors  of  Encyclopaedia Britannica.  (2017,  July  27).  Social  Darwinism.  R etrieved  January  26,  2018,  from  
https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-­‐Darwinism
(n.d.).  R etrieved  January  26,  2018,  from  https://www.edmodo.com/file/view-­‐office-­‐
online?id=3f56627724d0135ea511e37a0242eac3
 29th January 2018
Question Summary
-­‐ Who  is  M ontesquieu? -­‐ Born  in  M edieval  France  noticed  that  society  divided  to  three  sections:  M onarchy,  
-­‐ What  are  his  political  idea? Aristocrats,  commons.
-­‐ How  should  the  g overnment  be   -­‐ There  are  two  types  of  power(with  the  monarchy):  Sovereign  power(highest  power)  and  
organised according  to   Administrative  power  
Montesquieu?   -­‐ Administrative  power  is  separated  into  three  parts:  Executive(enforcer  of  the  law)/  
Legislative(creator  of  the  law)/  Judicial(judge)
-­‐ Montesquieu  r ealised that  these  power  were  with  the  monarchy
-­‐ He  believed  that  three  powers  should  be  separated,  equal  to  each  other,  and  able  to  check  
and  balance  each  other.
-­‐ Check  and  balance:  M ake  sure  that  people  do  not  use  power  in  the  wrong,  abusive  way.    
-­‐ “The  separation  of  powers”
-­‐ On  laws,  he  believes  that  laws  should  be  adapted  accordingly  to  each  state  and  its  
conditions  because  they  are  all  r elated.  “to  the  people  for  whom  they  are  framed...,  to  the  
nature  and  principle  of  each  g overnment,  […]  In  fine,  they  have  r elations  to  each  other,  as  
also  to  their  origin,  to  the  intent  of  the  legislator,  and  to  the  order  of  things  on  which  they  
are  established;  in  all  of  which  different  lights  they  ought  to  be   considered”  With  these  
relationship,  he  believes  that  if  we  consider  g overnment  and  laws  carefully,  we  will  see  its  
reasons  and  logic  behind  as  well  as  what  need  to  be  r eformed.
 Analysis and Opinion

I  believe  that  Montesquieu  saw  human  nature  in  a  very  practical  way.  That  humans  are  unpredictable.  I  think  his  philosophy  of
separating  powers  is  quite  clever.  From  my  perspective,  I  think  M ontesquieu  did  not  come  to  conclusion  whether  human  
nature  is  g ood  or  bad.  Without  the  conclusion,  he  decided  to  create  the  system  that  prevent  humans  from  wild,  stupid  things  
instead.  I  think  in  some  sense,  even  though  his  thoughts   are  not  explicitly  concluded  he  inclined  towards  Hobbes.  Because  by  
creating  check  and  balance  system,  it  implies  that  he  does  not  trust  human  in  some  level.  He  would  disagree  with  Plato,  
Hobbes,  Machiavelli,  as  most  of  them  have  a  leader  that  entertain  absolute  power.  Hobbes,  specially,  even  though  
Montesquieu  agree  with  Hobbes  on  human  nature,  he  sees  g overnment  in  the  more  practical  way.  As  Hobbes  says  that  
government  have  absolute  power  as  humans  are  born  bad,  he  leaves  a  paradox  in  his  statement.  Assuming  that  it  is  true  that  
humans  are  born  bad,  and  g overnment  are  established  to  control  humans,  the  problem  would  be  the  paradox  that  practically,  
government  is  run  by  humans.  M ontesquieu  fix  this  hole  by  creating  the  check  and  balance  system.  His  idea  affects  the  society
a  lot  as  it  becomes  the  political  platform  for  some  countries  such  as  the  U.S.  and  Thailand  to  separate  powers  into  three  
different  g roup  and  ensure  that  no  one  has  absolute  power  which  lead  to  the  more  transparency  society.

Sources

Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.  (2003,  July  18).  Baron  de  M ontesquieu,  Charles-­‐Louis  de  Secondat.  R etrieved  
January  29,  2018,  from  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/#4
Montesquieu.  (n.d.).  R etrieved  January  29,  2018,  from  https://www.edmodo.com/file/view-­‐office-­‐
online?id=d022e13e0ce388a389c6bbf30fc4708e
2nd/ 12th February/ 12th March 2018
Question Summary

-­‐ How  many  books  he  wrote  and   -­‐ He  wrote  about  200  
what  are  they  about? treatise(“a formal and systematic exposition in writing of the  
-­‐ Besides  from  book,  were  there   principles of a subject”)
anyway  else  that  Philosopher   -­‐ Only  31  survive
discusses  their  thoughts? -­‐ His  work  used  to  be  hidden  in  the  vault,  it  was  found  in  
approximately  100  BCE
-­‐ It  can  be  classified  to:
-­‐ Dialogues   and  other  works
-­‐ Facts  and  recordings  of  scientific  treatment
-­‐ Systematic  work
 Analysis and Opinion

From  general  information   about   Aristotle’s  written  work,  it  is  illustrated  that  he  was  a  scholars  in  that  time  that  is  
quite  original,   very  philosophical   yet  also  very  realistic.  The  large  number  of  Aristotle’s  treatises  can  be  seen  as  an  
indicator  that  he  is  very  knowledgeable   and  passionate   in  his  area(although   it  covers  science,  philosophy,   logic,  
poetry  which  is  almost  everything).   Not  even  half   of  his  work  survived  through   time,  however  only  with  the  works  
that  do,  it  is  astonishing   to  see  how  much  only  15%  of  all  of  his  works  contributes  its  knowledge  and   shape  the  world  
of  today.  Aristotle,  as  a  philosopher,   however  is  shown  to  be  realistic  as  well—which  is  kind  of  contradictory  to  
idealistic  Plato,  his  teacher— as  there  are  some  written  work  of  Aristotle’s  recoding  facts  and  science  treatment.  It  
can  be  interpreted  or  guessed  that  Aristotle  was  somewhat  scientific  as  he  seems  to  be  believing  in  experiment  for  
facts  and  truth  as  well,  not  only  logic  and  assumption.

Sources

Internet  Encyclopaedia of  Philosophy.  (n.d.).   Aristotle  (384—322   B.C.E.).  Retrieved  March  23,  2018,  from  
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/#H2
Treatise.  (2018,  February/March).   Retrieved  March  23,  2018,  from  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/treatise?s=t
19th -20th February2018
Question Summary

-­‐ What  is  Aristotle’s   -­‐ Aristotle  used  to  be  a  tutor.  He  taught   Alexander  the  Great.  He  has  his  
occupation own  school  namely  the  Lyceum.  He  usually  walked  as  he  taught,  his  
-­‐ What  is  his  work  in   students  are  called  “people   who  are  talk  about  ”.
general? -­‐ He  own  approximately  200  works.
-­‐ What  is  his  work  in   -­‐ His  works  regard:  Metaphysics,  Logic,  Philosophy   of  Nature,   Soul  and  
politics  about? Psychology,  Ethics,  Art  and  Poetics  and  Politics
-­‐ On  his  books,  “Politics”,  there  are  8  books.
-­‐ In  his  book    IV  to  VI,  Aristotle  shifts  his  focus  from  theory  to  the  
more  practical  view  on  politics  of  Greek  world.  With  his  
observant  of  inequality,   he  advocates  for  strong  middle  class
-­‐ In  book  VI  and  VIII,   Aristotle  portrays  his  ideal  state:  ensure  
happiness,   and   theoretical  life    
 Analysis and Opinion

Judging   from  the  areas  of  Aristotle’s  works,  it  can  be  seen  that  he  is  a  very  world-­‐ rounded  person.   This  assumption  
comes  from  the  fact  that  his  areas  of  study  or  writing  are  very  diverse.  Aristotle  is  shown  to  be  a  very  philosophical  
person  in  almost  every  aspects  to  me,  because  his  area  not  only  include  how  the  world  work(Philosophy   of  nature  and  
Metaphysics)  he  was  also  interested  in  his  consciousness  or  how  his  mind  work(Logic,  Soul  and  Psychology),  how  
humans   behave,  fit  in  the  society  and  society  itself(Ethics  and  Politics)  and   lastly  he  was  also  shown  to  be  interested  in  
beauty  of  the  expressions(Poetry  and  Art).  I  was  convinced  that  people  can  only  be  good   in  a  specific  area  and  we  
should   focus  only  on  the  area  we  are  good   at.  With  Aristotle’s  work  and  reputation,   it  changed   my  mind  that  it  is  
possible  that  people  are  good   in  many  area  and   that  we  should  not  limit  our  passion   to  learn  subjects  in  diverse  areas.  
On  Politics,  

Sources

Aristotle  Biography.  (2017,  November  16).  R etrieved  February  12,  2018,  from   https://www.biography.com/people/aristotle-­‐9188415
Internet  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.  (n.d.).  Aristotle  (384—322  B.C.E.).  R etrieved  February  12,  2018,  from  
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/#H8
T.  (2013,  March  16).  Aristotle:  Politics  Summary.  R etrieved  February  19-­‐20,  2018,  from  https://www.the-­‐philosophy.com/aristotle-­‐
politics-­‐summary
I  and  Aom Switch  topics  
I  changed  from  Work  and  Impact  
to  Work  and  Idea
12th February 2018
Question Summary

-­‐ What  is  Aristotle’s  idea   -­‐ Humans  are  social  being  with  r ational  speech  which  lead  to  the  social  union.
on  Politics  and  ideal   -­‐ State  is  a  moral  organisation for  human  development
state? -­‐ There  are  three  major  forms  of  g overnment
-­‐ Monarchy  (perverted  form  is  tyranny)
-­‐ Aristocracy  (perverted  form  is  oligarchy)
-­‐ Constitutional  r epublic  (perverted  form  is  democracy)                                                                                                        
-­‐ Aristotle’s  preference:  M onarchy  considered  the  best  and  tyranny  is  the  worst.  Practically,  
constitutional  r epublic  is  the  most  attainable  for  Aristotle.    
-­‐ The  abstractly  best  state  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is  under  the  present  
circumstances,  which  form  of  g overnment  suit  the  society  the  most.  
-­‐ State  should  be  “self-­‐sufficient”,  enable  everyone  to  be  in  their  happiest  manner
-­‐ Law  is  the  expression  of  moral  ideal
-­‐ Legislations  g uide  education.  
-­‐ Pupils  should  study  to  become  “true  freemen”  
 Analysis and Opinion

I  like  the  way  Aristotle  approach  political  philosophy,  the  way  he  observed  and  compare  different  types  of  existed  state  
rationally.  Ideally,  I  somewhat  agree  with  Aristotle  that  in  the  ideal  situation  where  a  leader  is  perfect  or  good,  monarchy  is  
the  best  form.  As  the  form  itself  would  allow  that  good  leader  to  rule  effectively  and  without  any  obstacles.  However,  a  
leader  is  a  human  being,  impermanent  and  unpredictable.  And  that  fact  must  be  taken  into  account.  With  that,  in  the  
practical  paradigm,  monarchy  would  not  work  as  there  is  a  possibility  that  even  if  the  leader  is  good,  eventually  that  person
will  die  and  corrupt  leader  will  eventually  rise— Aristotle  referred  to  this  type  of  government  as  tyranny.  Monarchy  with  the  
unpredictable  human  become  unpredictable  and  risky  form  of  government.  If  a  human  is  too  unpredictable,  a  group  of  
diverse  people,  perhaps  the  whole  society  might  be  the  better  party  to  make   decision.  With  that  Aristotle  said  that  
Constitutional  republic(people  participate  in  politics  and  make  decision  based  on  what  is  the  best  interest  for  the  state.)  is  
the  most  attainable,  however  he  predicted  that  democracy  will  rise.  I  think  Aristotle  sees  the  fact  that  for  each  forms  there
are  good  and  bad  sides.  And  with  that  he  knows  that  with  different  circumstances  it  might  fit  differently  with  good  or  bad  
points  of  each  forms.  In  his  idea,  he  also  value  education  a  lot,  by  teaching  children  to  be  “free  men”  ,  it  will  allow  them  to  
think  rationally  and  be  collectively,  be  the  perfect  party  to  make   decision  for  the  state.

Sources

Internet  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.   (n.d.).   Aristotle  (384—322  B.C.E.).  Retrieved  February   12,  2018,  from  
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/#H8
5th March 2018 Summary
-­‐ His  idea  of  city-­‐state  and  its  from  arise  from  his  view  point  of  how  it  is  existed  in  the  first  place.  
-­‐ He  said  that  there  are  four  causes  of  production  including(in   the  parenthesis   would  be  the  example  of  
Question clay  vase  making)  material(clay),  formal  cause(being  molded),   efficient(potter  who  molded   it)  and  final  
causes(contain   water).
-­‐ In  the  case  of  the  city-­‐state,  
-­‐ Why  Aristotle  has  such  perspective   -­‐ citizens  and  natural  resources  =  material
on  Politics? -­‐ formal  cause  =  constitution(not   written  document  but  the  way  of  life)
-­‐ Presuppositions   of  Aristotle’s   politics -­‐ efficient  cause  =  ruler
-­‐ His  idea  of  citizenship  (next  record) -­‐ Final  cause  =    sake  of  good  life.
-­‐ Presuppositions   of  Aristotle’s   politics  
-­‐ Principle   of  teleology
-­‐ He  saw  that  plants  and  animals   become  being  and  behave  in  such  ways  due  to  the  nature  
they  have.  With  this,   he  believed   that  humans  are  naturally  political  or  they  have  changed  to  
be  fit  to  the  city-­‐state’s  life.
-­‐ Principle   of  perfection
-­‐ Through  Teleology  aspect,  Aristotle  sees   that  the  natural  end  is  good  for  the  living   thing.
-­‐ Good  and  Evil  is  independent   and  not  relate  to  human’s   wish.  
-­‐ It  is  impossible   to  be  perfect,  however  trying  to  be  perfect  is  better  as  one  will  be  closer  to  
the  one’s   perfect  end.  
-­‐ Principle   of  community
-­‐ He  believes   that,  in  order  to  have  good  life,  human  must  subject  to  the  state.
-­‐ Principle   of  rulership
-­‐ There  must  be  ruling  element.
-­‐ Different  forms  for  different  systems.
-­‐ Principle   of  the  rule  of  reason  
-­‐ Rational  element  should   rule  as  it  know  what  is  best  for  all.
 Analysis and Opinion

Aristotle’s  perception  about   state  reflects  on  his  idea  on  political  philosophy.   He  dissected  the  state  out  into  4  
elements:      Citizens  and  resources,  Way  of  living,  ruler,   which  with  the  combinations   of  these  will  lead  to  the  purpose  
or  the  4th element  which  is  the  sake  of  good  life.    Seeing  so,  it  is  plausible   to  assume  that  in  Aristotle  view  people  
must  have  a  ruler  and   that  ruler  must  rule  accordingly  to  the  way  of  living  in  order  to  achieve  good   life.  This  
assumption   from  Aristotle’s  perspective  of  how  the  state  exist  can  be  seen  correlated  to  his  presuppositions   in  
politics:  the  concepts  of  community  and   rulership.  On  the  concept  of  reasoning,   this  might  possibly  be  the  influence  
of  Plato.  As  Plato  believes  that  the  ruler,   philosopher   king,  should   be  knowledgeable   as  he  will  be  able  to  lead  the  
society  in  the  right  direction.  With  that,  combines  with  his  expertise  in  the  field  of  logic,    might  influence  Aristotle  to  
prioritize  reasoning   as  one  main   characteristic  of  how  the  state  should   be  run.   On  teleology  and  perfection,  
contradicting  to  Plato—who   believe  that  there  is  a  perfect  from  of  state  and   we  should   follow  that  form,  Aristotle  
believes  that  the  natural  end  of  anything  is  the  best  for  them.  With  that,  instead  of  trying  to  change  everything  at  
once,  Aristotle  sees  the  development  of  state  as  a  process  that  can  make  the  state  more  and   more  suitable  to  its  
people  and  circumstances  which  are  also  constantly  changing.  

Sources
Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.  (2017,  November  7).  Aristotle's  View  of  Politics.  R etrieved  M arch  5,  2018,  from  
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-­‐politics/#PolView
Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.  (n.d.).  Presuppositions  of  Aristotle's  Politics.  R etrieved  M arch  5,  2018,  from  
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-­‐politics/supplement2.html
5th-12th March 2018

Question Summary

-­‐ What  is  his  idea  on   -­‐ He  defines  city-­‐state  as  a  assembly  of  citizens  
citizenship? -­‐ Citizens  is  different  from  inhabitants  as  the  term  “citizens”  r efers  to  those  who  
-­‐ What  is  his  idea  on   has  r ight  to  participate  in  politics  (exclude  slaves,  women,  foreigners,  and  others)
-­‐ In  the  time  of  Aristotle,  citizens  are  more  directly  participate  in  politics  comparing  
the  middle  class?
to  today.
-­‐ With  three  classes  in  the  society(rich/  middle/  poor)
-­‐ The  middle  classes  are  the  best  r ulers  as  the  r ich  and  the  poor  are  found  to  
fail  following  the  r ational  principle.
-­‐ The  r ich  tends  to  be  an  oppressive  leader,  as  they  do  not  r espect  
others
-­‐ The  poor  tends  to  not  know  how  to  r ule  others
-­‐ With  this  r easoning,  it  is  the  best  for  the  state  to  have  strong  and  big    
middle  class  as:
-­‐ It  will  prevent  neither  of  the  extremes  to  dominate  the  state
-­‐ With  extreme  poor  or  r ich:  state  will  either  be  extreme  
democracy  of  the  poor  or  extreme  oligarchy  of  the  r ich
 Analysis and Opinion
Even  though   I  disagree  with  Aristotle’s  definition  of  citizens,  I  think  Aristotle’s  concept  of  citizen  is  right  in  the  context  
of  his  time  and  society.  Aristotle  believes  that  those  who  made  decision  should   be  reasonable.   Being  born   in  the  
ancient  time,  it  is  common  to  see  women,  elders,  kids,  disabled  and   minorities  as  “incapable”   and  “unreasonable”.   I  
think  these  two  facts  influence  Aristotle’s  thought   and  definition   of  citizen.  I  like  Aristotle’s  reasoning   about  the  
middle  class,  that  the  rich  would  be  taking  advantage   of  others  while  the  poor   lack  of  resources  to  rule.  Even  though   I  
think  that  it  might  likely  to  be  true,  his  middle  class  concepts,  to  me,  is  still  just  an  assumption.   A  leader  or  group  of  
people  that  have  authority   to  make  decisions  requires  a  lot  of  good   characteristic,  and  the  middle  class  seem  to  be  
so.  However  there  is  no  valid  guarantee   that  the  middle  class  will  not  want  more  wealth  or  power,  or  having   enough  
knowledge  and  resources  to  rule  the  state  effectively.  Therefore,  I  think  that  by  seeing  people  by  class  and  assuming  
that  the  middle  class  is  the  most  appropriate   group   is  not  quite  accurate  in  term  of  practice.  It  is  true  that  extremes  
are  normally  not  the  good   way  to  approach   the  world  or  the  right  form  of  governing.   However,  I  think  one  thing  that  
should   be  brought   into  account  regarding   Aristotle’s  philosophy   is  “the  middle  ground   fallacy”.      Middle  is  good   as  it  is  
the  compromise,   however  compromise  or  the  middle  might  not  always  be  the  “right”  spot.  

Sources
Aristotle  on  the  Middle  Class.  (n.d.).   Retrieved  March  5-­‐12,  2018,  from  http://www.hank-­‐ edmondson.com/tolkien/aristotle-­‐
on-­‐the-­‐middle.html
Stanford  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy.   (1998,  July  1).  Aristotle's  Political  Theory.  Retrieved  March  5-­‐12,  2018,  from  
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-­‐politics/index.html#ConCi