PLATO

Plato was the first western philosopher who attempted a systematic study of society. Plato in
republic and Aristotle in Politics dealt systematically with social institutions. They accepted
state and society as synonymous and took the individual for granted. Plato could be said to
be the first exponent of the organic theory in society and Aristotle subscribed to it too. Thus
they accepted society as a unified system structured around division of labor and social
inequality.
They saw society in holistic terms and gave state the dominant role. Aristotle thought the
origin of societies lay in human nature and its structure consisted of social groups in function.
Their views presented the definition of society in terms of objective laws and historical
processes.
Works and Philosophy
Plato was a superb writer, and his works are part of the world's great literature. His extant
work is in the form of dialogues and epistles. Some of the dialogues and many of the epistles
attributed to him are known to be spurious, while others are doubtful. In the various dialogues
he touched upon almost every problem that has occupied subsequent philosophers. The
dialogues are divided into three groups according to the probable order of composition.
Early Works
The earliest group of dialogues, called Socratic, include chiefly the Apology, which presents
the defense of Socrates; the Meno, which asks whether virtue can be taught; and the Gorgias,
which concerns the absolute nature of right and wrong. These early dialogues present
Socrates in conversations that illustrate his main ideas—the unity of virtue and knowledge
and of virtue and happiness. Each dialogue treats a particular problem without necessarily
resolving the issues raised.
Philosophical Themes and Mature Works
Plato was always concerned with the fundamental philosophical problem of working out a
theory of the art of living and knowing. Like Socrates, Plato began convinced of the ultimately
harmonious structure of the universe, but he went further than his mentor in trying to
construct a comprehensive philosophical scheme. His goal was to show the rational
relationship between the soul, the state, and the cosmos. This is the general theme of the
great dialogues of his middle years: the Republic, Phaedo, Symposium, Phaedrus, Timaeus,
and Philebus. In the Republic he shows how the operation of justice within the individual can
best be understood through the analogy of the operation of justice within the state, which
Plato proceeds to set out in his conception of the ideal state. However, justice cannot be
understood fully unless seen in relation to the Idea of the Good, which is the supreme principle
of order and truth.
It is in these dialogues that the famous Platonic Ideas (see realism) are discussed. Plato
argued for the independent reality of Ideas as the only guarantee of ethical standards and of
objective scientific knowledge. In the Republic and the Phaedo he postulates his theory of
Forms. Ideas or Forms are the immutable archetypes of all temporal phenomena, and only
these Ideas are completely real; the physical world possesses only relative reality. The Forms
assure order and intelligence in a world that is in a state of constant flux. They provide the
pattern from which the world of sense derives its meaning.
The supreme Idea is the Idea of the Good, whose function and place in the world of Ideas is
analogous to that of the sun in the physical world. Plato saw his task as that of leading men
to a vision of the Forms and to some sense of the highest good. The principal path is suggested
in the famous metaphor of the cave in the Republic, in which man in his uninstructed state is
chained in a world of shadows. However, man can move up toward the sun, or highest good,
through the study of what Plato calls dialectic. The supreme science, dialectic, is a method of
inquiry that proceeds by a constant questioning of assumptions and by explaining a particular
idea in terms of a more general one until the ultimate ground of explanation is reached.
The Republic, the first Utopia in literature, asserts that the philosopher is the only one capable
of ruling the just state, since through his study of dialectic he understands the harmony of all
parts of the universe in their relation to the Idea of the Good. Each social class happily
performs the function for which it is suited; the philosopher rules, the warrior fights, and the
worker enjoys the fruits of his labor. In the Symposium, perhaps the most poetic of the
dialogues, the path to the highest good is described as the ascent by true lovers to eternal
beauty, and in the Phaedo the path is viewed as the pilgrimage of the philosopher through
death to the world of eternal truth.
Late Works
Many of the late dialogues are devoted to technical philosophic issues. The most important of
these are the Theaetetus; the Parmenides, which deals with the relation between the one and
the many; and the Sophist, which discusses the nature of nonbeing. Plato's longest work, the
Laws, written during his middle and late periods, discusses in practical terms the nature of
the state.

ARISTOTLE

Political science studies the tasks of the politician or statesman (politikos), in much the way
that medical science concerns the work of the physician (see Politics IV.1). It is, in fact, the
body of knowledge that such practitioners, if truly expert, will also wield in pursuing their
tasks. The most important task for the politician is, in the role of lawgiver (nomothetês), to
frame the appropriate constitution for the city-state. This involves enduring laws, customs,
and institutions (including a system of moral education) for the citizens. Once the constitution
is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate measures to maintain it, to introduce
reforms when he finds them necessary, and to prevent developments which might subvert
the political system. This is the province of legislative science, which Aristotle regards as more
important than politics as exercised in everyday political activity such as the passing of
decrees (see EN VI.8).
Aristotle frequently compares the politician to a craftsman. The analogy is imprecise because
politics, in the strict sense of legislative science, is a form of practical knowledge, while a craft
like architecture or medicine is a form of productive knowledge. However, the comparison is
valid to the extent that the politician produces, operates, maintains a legal system according
to universal principles (EN VI.8 and X.9). In order to appreciate this analogy it is helpful to
observe that Aristotle explains the production of an artifact in terms of four causes: the
material, formal, efficient, and final causes (Phys. II.3 and Met. A.2). For example, clay
(material cause) is molded into a vase shape (formal cause) by a potter (efficient or moving
cause) so that it can contain liquid (final cause). (For discussion of the four causes see the
entry on Aristotle's physics.)

Logic and Metaphysics

Aristotle placed great emphasis in his school on direct observation of nature, and in science
he taught that theory must follow fact. He considered philosophy to be the discerning of the
self-evident, changeless first principles that form the basis of all knowledge. Logic was for
Aristotle the necessary tool of any inquiry, and the syllogism was the sequence that all logical
thought follows. He introduced the notion of category into logic and taught that reality could
be classified according to several categories—substance (the primary category), quality,
quantity, relation, determination in time and space, action, passion or passivity, position, and
condition.
Aristotle also taught that knowledge of a thing, beyond its classification and description,
requires an explanation of causality, or why it is. He posited four causes or principles of
explanation: the material cause (the substance of which the thing is made); the formal cause
(its design); the efficient cause (its maker or builder); and the final cause (its purpose or
function). In modern thought the efficient cause is generally considered the central
explanation of a thing, but for Aristotle the final cause had primacy.
He used this account of causes to examine the relation of form to matter, and in his
conclusions differed sharply from those of his teacher, Plato. Aristotle believed that a form,
with the exception of the Prime Mover, or God, had no separate existence, but rather was
immanent in matter. Thus, in the Aristotelian system, form and matter together constitute
concrete individual realities; the Platonic system holds that a concrete reality partakes of a
form (the ideal) but does not embody it. Aristotle believed that form caused matter to move
and defined motion as the process by which the potentiality of matter (the thing itself) became
the actuality of form (motion itself). He held that the Prime Mover alone was pure form and
as the "unmoved mover" and final cause was the goal of all motion.
Ethics and Other Aspects
Aristotle's ethical theory reflects his metaphysics. Following Plato, he argued that the
goodness or virtue of a thing lay in the realization of its specific nature. The highest good for
humans is the complete and habitual exercise of the specifically human function—rationality.
Rationality is exercised through the practice of two kinds of virtue, moral and intellectual.
Aristotle emphasized the traditional Greek notion of moral virtue as the mean between
extremes. Well-being ( eudaemonia ) is the pursuit not of pleasure (hedonism) but rather of
the Good, a composite ideal, consisting of contemplation (the intellectual life) and,
subordinate to that, engagement in politics (the moral life). In the Politics, Aristotle holds
that, by nature, humans form political associations, and he explores the best forms these may
take.

CONFUCIUS

Confucius, or Kung fu-tse, envisioned a society that returned to its roots in order to better
prosper. People themselves should change and not just the ones that govern them. He insisted
on a return to old customs and traditions. An emphasis was placed on one’s etiquette, or
propriety. Additionally, in Analects, the teachings of Confucius describe the role of the
government. Three responsibilities, or requisites of government, are described with one in
particular being with utmost importance.
Confucius placed a lot of value on the traditions of past dynasties. The virtuous was one who
respected these traditions and continued their practice. Rectification, or self-governing, is
achieved through these traditions. He also associates intelligence with moderation and self-
control. Further, he suggests that one disconnect from society and return to harmony in
nature. But it is still vital that one knows their part in society and fulfill it to the best of their
ability.
“Li” was a system of how one should conduct themselves in society. These were used to teach
his students propriety. Daily rituals that one engages in regularly should be composed of
those that lead to the happiness of themselves and society. Each individual had a
responsibility to society, not just themselves. This system relied heavily on past traditions
and values. Filial Piety was a major aspect of this. It involved showing respect for the ways
of fathers and their fathers and so on. Ancestry was seen with much respect in the teachings
of Confucius.
As for government, the three requisites are: “sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military
equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler” (Analects). If only one is to be
foregone, the Master insists that it is the military equipment. Of the two remaining, if another
is to be foregone, the Master states that food should be the next to go. The most important
is the people’s faith in their rulers. This is the foundation of the state and it can not exist
without it. This is described in Chapter 7 of Analects in a conversation between the Master
and Tsze-kung.
Confucius taught of how one is to govern themselves, and how the state is to govern society.
The ways of governing can be seen in the traditions of forefathers. By returning to these,
society can be virtuous and harmonious. Government is seen as a tool to help bring out the
best of its people. Confucius saw it as responsible for the well being of its citizens but insists
that they not forget their individual roles themselves. In order to properly carry out its role,
government must be looked upon by its people for leadership and be respected. It must not
lose the faith of its people.

MARCHIAVELLI

In science, Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian realism philosopher, an oft-cited greatest

philosopher ever, historian, politician, and diplomat best known for his 1513 leadership advice
book The Prince, a type of political ethics discourse advocating an ‘ends outweigh the means’
(or "end justifies the means") philosophy, known in hmolscience for his influence on Italian
engineer turned socioeconomist Vilfredo Pareto.
Machiavelli, according to Russian-born American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, was the first
advance the idea of the cyclic development of societies.

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of
success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the new order, and only lukewarm defenders in all
those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly for fear of their
adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of men, who do
not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.”
— Niccolo Machiavelli (1513), The Prince

“The way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who
abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall.”
— Niccolo Machiavelli (1532), The Prince

THOMAS MORE

Because of his Humanist studies of classical philosophy, More had an ideal vision of morality
that contrasted with the realities of his world, and one of the major goals of the Humanist
movement was to integrate those ideals into real life. However, More knew that principles
alone don’t get anyone very far in politics. More’s father was a notable judge and raised him
amid politics and politicians, so he had seen how corrupt political life could be. A major theme
of an early work, The History of King Richard III, was the deception and ruthlessness of rulers.
The bloody War of the Roses, a vicious power struggle over the English throne that had thrown
the country into chaos for much of the previous century, remained potent in English memory.
In book I of Utopia, More accuses Hythloday of being too “academic” in his attitude toward
advising rulers. More seems to be saying that one cannot simply represent ideal principles
and then despair that corrupt leaders will never heed them. Instead, to gain influence, a
conscientious political advisor must learn to play the game and to accept the realities of a
world dominated by power and greed.
The Importance of Social Critique
In Utopia, More contends that thorough scrutiny of institutions is valuable and that conceiving
of ideal or imaginary alternatives to reality may yield important insights into how institutions
can improve. While some scholars have been tempted to read More’s Utopia as a set of
recommendations for the conduct of real-world affairs, an outright critique of contemporary
rulers and laws would not have been possible for More, who was a respected statesmen and
close advisor to Henry VIII. The narrator More criticizes the fantastical accounts of the
Utopians, effectively distancing the author More from Hythloday’s provocative
recommendations, which include the abolition of private property. However, the extent to
which the author More favors Utopian practices is unclear. In Utopia, More contrasts the
problems of the real world, such as poverty, crime, and political corruption, with the harmony,
equality, and prosperity of Utopian society, which suggests that More believes that at least
some of the principles underlying Utopian practices are noble, even if the practices themselves
are far fetched. In any case, in describing and critiquing Utopian society, More gives new
perspectives on the problems and strengths of his own society.
THOMAS HOBBES
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher whose conception of man was non-sociological -
the life of man is solitary, poor, rusty, brutish and short while the condition of man is a
condition of war against everyone. Thus he claimed that men were basically in conflict with
each other guided by their greatest motivation-lust for power. Consequently, order in society
is possible with the existence of a strong government the artificial leviathan-the state-which
is the product of human reason and social contract.
Parsons refutes this view on the basis of Weber and Durkheim's emphasis on normative
aspects of social life such as ideals, values etc.

JOHN LOCKE
Political Theory
Locke is most renowned for his political theory. Contradicting Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed
that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance. In that
state all people were equal and independent, and none had a right to harm another's "life,
health, liberty, or possessions." The state was formed by social contract because in the state
of nature each was his own judge, and there was no protection against those who lived outside
the law of nature. The state should be guided by natural law.
Rights of property are very important, because each person has a right to the product of his
or her labor. Locke forecast the labor theory of value. The policy of governmental checks and
balances, as delineated in the Constitution of the United States, was set down by Locke, as
was the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation.
At Shaftesbury's behest, he contributed to the Fundamental Constitutions for the Carolinas;
the colony's proprietors, however, never implemented the document.

Ethical Theory
Locke based his ethical theories upon belief in the natural goodness of humanity. The inevitable pursuit
of happiness and pleasure, when conducted rationally, leads to cooperation, and in the long run private
happiness and the general welfare coincide. Immediate pleasures must give way to a prudent regard for
ultimate good, including reward in the afterlife. He argued for broad religious freedom in three separate
essays on toleration but excepted atheism and Roman Catholicism, which he felt should be legislated
against as inimical to religion and the state. In his essay The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), he
emphasized the ethical aspect of Christianity against dogma.
John Stuart Mill
In his Principles of Political Economy John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) presents the concept of Value
roughly as follows:
(1) there are two kinds of value, use and exchange value, but these are commensurable. Use value is
what you would be prepared to pay for something, and exchange value is the average market value;
use-value can be less but never more than exchange value;
(2) use-value is not of concern to political economy;
(3) (exchange) value is a relative, not an absolute concept.
(4) value is distinguished from price because of the variable "purchasing power of money" and may be
measured against an overall general average of other commodities rather than just one (i.e. money);
(5) value fluctuates according to supply and demand around a "natural value".

He goes on to reduce the concept of value to a nothing, without actually dismissing it. It is a kind of
"proper price", since if price differs from value it is because someone has been "rooked" or there is a
temporary distortion in the market. Mill says in 1848: "There is nothing in the laws of value which
remains for the present or future writer to clear up".
Mill is very much a part of the traditional of classical political economy, and consistent with that
tradition. Mill adheres to an objective or "cost-of-production" conception of exchange value. Mill speaks
however, as an apologist for capital and has abandoned the project of scientifically accounting for the
wealth of nations. He rejects the labour theory of value, allowing all factors brought to the production
process a proportional share in the formation of a new value. Wages are what a capitalist is prepared to
pay for labour, and what the labourer deserves.