Political Science

Aristotles idea of virtue dominated the middle ages, while the Renaissance saw the development of counter theories, specifically by Hobbes and Machiavelli. The latter two writers represent a massive overhaul of Aristotles view of the matter, while the three approaches to virtue as essential to understanding anything about their politics. In other words, to deal with these three writers together is not an easy task. The best way of dealing with them is to center on their conceptions of virtue, since it is at root of what they consider political right.
    Aristotle can easily be considered a conservative realist, seeing the middle classes as the most stable group to control the state (Aristotle, IV, 11). The only thing that informs Aristotles conception of politics is the extent to which a certain Constitution promotes the reason for the states existence virtue. Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy (within limits) can promote the world of virtue, but like Machiavelli, these depend on the nature of the people to be ruled. For Hobbes, the state exists for protection, and for Machiavelli at his worst, the state exists to serve itself. Machiavelli then represents a complete inversion of Aristotle, since the latter holds that the single variable that denotes a just state from an unjust one is whether it serves the common good or itself (Aristotle, III, 10). For Machiavelli, there is no common good, only power.
    In Book I of the Politics, Aristotle holds that the state ultimately springs from biological needs. Its immediate end is the sustenance of its members, though that is not the final end, which is virtue. Hobbes holds that the state exists through contract, a contract from exhausted parties in the state of nature. Aristotle has no concept of a state of nature, and neither does Machiavelli. The very idea that the state springs from intrinsic, biological needs automatically means that the state is natural, while in Hobbes, the state is the artificial creation of sick, fallen human beings (Hobbes, 93-96). Machiavelli and Aristotle agree in general about the nature of state power, in that it can be ruled by several types of state, but for Machiavelli, the type of state is merely a cover for the prince who actually controls it. Virtu for Machiavelli is the opposite of virtue in Aristotle. The primary definition of Virtu for Machiavelli is fortune, or, more accurately, the ability of a politician to dominate it through insuring his rule against rebellion. If this can be done in an oligarchy or monarchy, this is no importance to Machiavellis Prince, but circumstances of political expediency dictate the nature and form of state (cf. Esp Machiavelli, 66-68).
    For Aristotle, virtue, far from giving support to the passions of politicians, seeks to control them. Hobbes as well will countenance no other motive for action except passion   one being more powerful than another. Aristotle makes it clear that passion is a problem   desire can never be satisfied, it will always seeks to continually aggrandize itself. This is the main problem. Both the very rich and the very poor are too debased to rule the state, both are saturated with the passion for gain, the rich because they want more, and the poor because they seek to despoil the rich. Neither approach is just (Aristotle, IV, 11). For Aristotle, neither approach is just because the end of the state is virtue, the contemplation of truth, the highest motivation for a person to pursue. For Hobbes, regardless of other ends an individual might pursue (and he really doesnt care what these are), nothing can be accomplished without first securing people and property against each other (Hobbes, 132-135).
    Machiavelli and Hobbes are both concerned with the passions as the motive force of human beings. Hobbes takes it for granted that reason is the slave of passion with the human person really being embodied will. Machiavelli holds the same, except the end to which the two conceptions are put differ. Ultimately, Machiavelli holds that the passions of human beings should be used against them. This is the domination of virtu. Fortuna is really a whore, following whoever can capture her and tame her. But the only one who can do this is the politician who knows how to use passion to control his subjects (cf. esp Machiavelli, ch III, as well as XXI). For Hobbes, this passion is destructive, but irremovable   it is an intrinsic and dominant part of human nature. While Aristotle demands the control of passion (the very essence of virtue), Hobbes can not envisage it not being the dominant form of motivation. Hence, the Hobbesian solution famously is the creation of a near-absolute state that serves to control the constantly clashing passions of individuals and groups that in truth is Hobbes conception of civil society (Hobbes, 30-38).
    In Book III of the Politics, Aristotle holds that political science is the summation of all particular goods of a society. It is the science of the Good of goods, or the public manifestation of private goods. Put differently, it is the synthesis and balance of all particular, private goods. Hobbes does not necessarily disagree, except that there is only one good, the very foundation of all constructive, purposive action, that is personal security. Hobbes does not take class membership into account, since his state of nature theory exists long before there are any classes. There is no biological necessity for the state in Hobbes except to hold that human survival is a  biological necessity.  That being said, the state, however, does not spring from a biological imperative, as Aristotle holds.  As Aristotle argues this conception of state origin, it only later morphs into different forms such as monarchytyranny, democracymobocracy.
    What holds Aristotles argument together is the pursuit of virtue as an end. Machiavelli sees it as a means, while Hobbes sees it as an illusion. Aristotles final end of the state is the ability to see truth, to see beyond appearances and reach the inner essence of a thing. Nothing could be more classically Greek than that. But the cynical approach of both Hobbes and Machiavelli sheds light on the mentality of the Renaissance. If these two writers can be considered typical of the Renaissance, then this historical era is certainly not about resurrecting the ancient practices or Greece and Rome, but rather to ensure the domination of the state (newly centralizing in this era) regardless of consequences. Political right is swept away in the modern obsession with centralization and alchemy the obsession with mans domination over nature. Aristotle sought the political Constitution that conformed with human nature (relative to circumstances). The two Renaissance writers sought to alter human behavior through centralization and manipulation of passions. No appeal to reason can be found in either writer. It is no stretch to bring the cynical nature of modern politics and the massive, almost inhuman power of the state back to these two writers.
    The Renaissance is a diminution of the heritage of ancient Greece. Whether Plato or Aristotle, the main idea was the elimination of the destructive passions as hampering the ability to see Reality. Passions were irrational reactions to the world of appearance. They were intrinsically sunk in the world of cause and effect, rather than the truth, which is always immaterial. For Hobbes and Machiavelli, what could be seen and felt was real (cf. esp Hobbes, 47-48). But what can be seen and felt is all under the sway of cause and effect, of power relations and the world of appearance. This is the true nature of the Renaissance and it is destructive. Nature was to be dominated, legislated and controlled.
    Aristotle realized that the human person could not live with others while dominated by irrationality and self interest. Hence, the stress on the middle class in Book IV makes sense since this class, all other things being equal, could serve as the moderating principle, the virtuous principle, between the equally debased rich and poor (particularly at the extremes). Without the virtue of prudence and temperance (objectified in the middle class), the rich and poor would be at each others throats. Machiavelli realized this, and had the politician manipulate the ruled, to weave for them a world of illusion. Hobbes merely reduced everything to violent force to control this clash. Power must be centralized, human nature repressed. Machiavelli despaired of human nature, and saw it only as the raw material to be manipulated by the politician   the lead to be alchemically turned to gold.