Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 PhD Candidate of Philosophy, University of Tabriz, Iran, Tabriz.
2 Assistant Prof. of Philosophy, University of Tabriz, Iran. Tabriz
Abstract
In this research, we are trying to explain how Niccolò Machiavelli Basically criticizes the foundations of classical political thought, and in breaking off those foundations, paves the way for a new vision of politics as well as the establishment of political science. In this essay, Aristotle's political philosophy is presented as the representative of the logic of classical political thinking and we interpret this thought on the basis of the three strategic terms of nature, luck and virtue, as well as the complex relationship between them and their relation to politics in Aristotle's perspective and we will show that politics follows the naturalist-ethical view of Aristotle. We also discuss simultaneously how Machiavelli works with three terms that set against the terms of Aristotle (Which include power, virtue , and the homeland) invalidate the foundations of Aristotle's political thought and, consequently, classical political thought. And opens the way for the creation of a new political thought that forms outside the field of gravity of nature power, of fortune power. Where man is only relying on his will and virtue and without the need for a force of nature and fortune, It changes the logic of political relations to its own advantage.
Highlights
Introduction
There are three basic elements in classical political philosophy, and in particular, in Aristotle's political philosophy, which explains how they think about political relations, those three words are nature, fortune, and virtue (such as justice and friendship). The author will examine those terms both separately and in relation to each other. It also describes how Machiavelli reacts to these three elements of Aristotle's political thought, Invalidates the meaning of Aristotle's credibility, creates a new meaning of those words, It establishes a different dialectic and eventually introduces political philosophy into a new field of attraction, Which is a foreign environment to what Aristotle and classical political philosophers considered political relations.
1- The ontological position of nature in Aristotle's politics and its denial by Machiavelli:
In the beginning, the authority of power was in the hands of tradition and ancestors, and the discovery of the concept of nature by Aristotle (and the Greeks) disrupted this authority. And philosophy, on this basis, transcends all things that belonged to the ancestors, in order to achieve "good things, good things in themselves, things that are good in nature." Aristotle breaks with his traditional foundations by discovering such a path. In other words, it creates philosophy based on the centrality of the complex concept of nature. Thus, nature determines the end, perfection, and culmination of the maturity of everything, and creates a criterion in which everything within that criterion determined by nature has an identity and must test itself on it. In the book of Politics, Aristotle quickly introduces the basis of nature and explains that the ontological concept of nature is also the basis for explaining the basics of politics. But Machiavelli never uses the word nature to explain political relations, nor to explain the ends of political relations (which are themselves based on nature), and he does not use the word in both Shahriar's books and Discourses. Machiavelli does not explain the universe in the order of nature, and consequently, in politics, he does not follow the will of nature, Rather, he believes that man can, at his own discretion, always change the status quo for the better, and align the good system with his own good.
2- The place of fortune and its content in the political thought of Aristotle and Machiavelli:
Fortune is not a specific thing to Aristotle, and "it must be indefinite by necessity," so he believes that "people consider fortune to be one of the indefinite things that the human intellect is incapable of researching. Aristotle in the seventh and eighth books of politics, which is about his ideal government and leaves its realization to chance. Therefore, according to Aristotle, apart from nature, which has its own laws and we are subject to its order and law, fortune also limits us to its limits, and its realization is not at our hand. Unlike Aristotle, however, Machiavelli knows that if he seeks to create political science, he cannot achieve such a goal with this word and the power it has, because if fortune has an effect on the relationship between political forces, this relation can no longer be explained. Because fortune does not follow the logic, it is based on luck and coincidence, and it cannot be rationally explained in the field of political forces.
Fortune in Machiavelli's system of thought loses its metaphysical power, and Machiavelli presents it in such a way that it can now be discussed theoretically and the logic of its function explained. But so far, only half of the world's work is in human hands, according to Machiavelli. The other half that was in the hands of fortune can also be achieved with men's art or men's virtue, then one hundred percent of things will be in our hands. And fortune alone does what we expect it to do.
3- Virtue and happiness as the end of Aristotle's political thought
After stating and proving that nature is fundamental in Aristotle's practical philosophy, we turn to another of his principles for understanding his political thought. Aristotle generally believes that "the end of all knowledge and technology, as well as every action and choice, must be good," and thus believes that "good is the end of everything." Therefore, it can be concluded that the end of ethics and politics necessarily, like all ends, naturally lead to good. Also, Aristotle, in his book Ethics, considers the end as the highest good and the best choice, and believes that "that end must be the subject of the most important and valid knowledge, and considers it the knowledge of politics." According to him, the end of political knowledge is happiness and prosperity. As it has become clear, virtue has a high place in Aristotle's moral and political thought. As can be said, the subject of morality is a virtue, and the subject of politics is the creation of the best government to realize as much virtue as possible in order to achieve happiness.
4- Niccolo Machiavelli and the Transformation of the Function of Virtue in Politics:
But Niccolo Machiavelli accepts the opposite of Aristotle, that is, he does not believe that we will establish a political community to create, maintain, and promote virtue, but that the establishment of the country and the defense of the homeland will be a priority. For this reason, its meaning changes from different conditions, because the criterion is no longer the virtue that everything needs to be tested, but the virtue itself must be tested to the situation and conditions of the homeland.
Thus Machiavelli creates a distinct character from the Aristotelian character. The protagonist of Aristotle's Book of Ethics and Politics, whether as an individual or as a class or ruler, is a virtuous person with moral qualities, while the character of the Machiavellian hero (either as an individual or as a class or ruler) has a virtuoso character. With his art, he disrupts his fortune and, in exceptional circumstances, has the power to make decisions, which can, in certain circumstances, prefer evil to the virtue of defending the homeland.
Conclusions
At the outset, we have shown that Aristotle believes in the ontological basis of nature. That nature has determined the form, the path, and the end of everything, and that everything is where it is good and inclined to good. This metaphysical view also permeates politics, and according to Aristotle, man and the city have a natural course as a living being, And politics was basically based on the naturalness of the city and the social nature of man, as well as the naturalness of virtuous relations for the realization of happiness, and it was natural for different governments to exist in different cities. But Machiavelli does not believe in the ontological concept of nature and its power, but all the materials and concepts with which he explains political relations are formed outside the attraction of nature and uses the logic of the formation of power and human virtue to explain relations. Through virtue (as a characteristic of new virtues: power and homeland), reject the Aristotle belief in fortune and its power over human will, and makes fortune subject to human action, and with the concept of power (which itself is the relation between nature and Different political forces are created), explains the political relations within the country, and in this way creates a rift with the two concepts of nature and fortune and their power in explaining political relations. In the following, Aristotle sees virtue and happiness as the goal of political thought as well as the relations of citizenship that are naturally created. And not only does he consider virtue as a criterion for determining which man, class, and the government is best, but he also considers the existence of the virtue of justice and friendship to be the cause of the continuity of the city. But Machiavelli transforms the logic of virtue and creates a new definition for it, in which the virtue under the salvation of the homeland and power is presented as the end of Machiavelli's political thought but Virtue must test itself on the conditions of the state or the country, so in certain circumstances, old and common virtues can be Evil. Also, unlike Aristotle, Machiavelli does not consider virtue to be a factor in the stability of a state or a country, rather, it identifies the institutions as well as the warfare that supports these institutions as a factor in the stability of a state.
Keywords
)
Send comment about this article