Introduction
The phenomenon of human nature has long been a source of continuous and quite heated philosophical discussions due to its multifaceted and remarkably complex structure and the necessity to approach it from several different perspectives. Additionally, numerous philosophers have pondered the concept of an ideal governmental structure, linking it to a variety of factors and shaping it according to their perception of the perceived ideal framework of interpersonal interactions. However, approaching the issue with an analytical scalpel, one will realize that the political views and, most importantly, the preferred form of government for famous philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli, was defined largely by their understanding of the human nature.
Analysis
Human Nature
To understand the connection between Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli’s concept of the human nature and their solution of the ideal political regime, one must first compare the former. Despite being divided by time and cultures, Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli share quite a number of ideas concerning the human nature and its intrinsic characteristics, as well as the factors on which its development hinges. Remarkably, Plato (375 B. C.) was the first one to bring the social aspect of the human nature into the limelight, emphasizing the dependence of one’s personal development on the social environment and the people surrounding one.
Specifically, in “Republic,” Plato postulates that copying established behavioral standards while interacting with others socially is what defines the subject matter: “[…] human nature, Adeimantus, seems to me to be minted in even smaller coins than this, so that an individual can neither imitate many things well nor perform well the actions themselves of which those imitations are likenesses” (Plato, 375 B.C., p. 76). The specified quote points to Plato’s understanding of the human nature as a sociocultural phenomenon.
In his works, Aristotle elaborates on the ideas developed by Plato, adding a certain layer of the individualist perspective into the framework. Specifically, Aristotle makes an additional step in connecting the human nature to the desirable form of government by insisting that the former entails the emergence of statesmanship (Aristotle, 350 B.C.). Therefore, while accepting the importance of external factors in shaping the human nature, the philosopher links it to human nature. Namely, the philosopher accentuates the role of ethics in amplifying the core constituents of the human nature (Aristotle, 350 B.C.). However, what makes Aristotle’s perspective on the human nature particularly prominent and distinguishable from others is the introduction of the notion of Eudaimonia (happiness). Postulating that the human nature is predicated on happiness, Aristotle, therefore, makes another step toward determining the form of government that allows satisfying the needs of individuals to the fullest extent possible.
Compared to Plato and Aristotle’s ideas of the human nature, the approach suggested by Machiavelli makes a noticeable detour. While Aristotle does introduce the ethical component into the subject matter, he does not go as far as making qualitative statements concerning the human nature from an ethical perspective, which Machiavelli does immediately. Specifically, according to Machiavelli, the human nature can be characterized as vile and despicable (Machiavelli, 1994). In the words of the philosopher himself, “Men are impatient, and
they cannot put off trying to satisfy their desires for year after year.” (Machiavelli, 1994, p. 198). Moreover, Machiavelli defines the human nature as “ambitious and suspicious,” therefore, delineating that control is a necessary measure for containing the negative potential of individual citizens (Machiavelli, 1994, p. 73). Overall, the specified concept of the human nature as interpreted by Machiavelli justifies the latter’s perspective on monarchy is the only possible means of governing the state. However, surprisingly, the philosopher introduces another component to his recipe for an ideal form of government.
Political Views and Governmental Power
The statements that Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli express in their works on the issue of the human nature can be connected to the political views of the thinkers. In fact, most of their ideas concerning the ideal form of government stem directly from their perceived concept of the human nature and the way in which it evolves. As a result, the authors’ speculations regarding the subject matter not only overlap, but represent a clear continuity, with their main concept of a perfect state with an impeccable structure and internal hierarchy being connected to their idea of the human nature.
Starting with Plato’s interpretation of an ideal governmental system, one must address Plato’s attitude toward laws as the foundation for building a healthy and orderly society. Specifically, being convinced that, for a state to function, a set of legal standards must be established as the only and unchangeable framework, Plato argues that aristocracy will be able to support the specified structure without disrupting it: “if one outstanding man emerges among the rulers, it is called a kingship; if more than one, it is called an aristocracy” (Plato, 375 B.C., p. 135). By likening the aristocratic community to an expansion of kingship, Plato emphasizes the inherent power that the specified structure contains.
The described perspective is tightly connected to Plato’s idea of the human nature as a product of social interactions. Specifically, by outlining that people develop their identity based on their social status and community specifics, Plato concludes that a certain tier of society can be entitled to govern the rest (Plato, 375 B.C.). Thus, Plato’s interpretation of the human nature entails his idea of a perfect state.
Plato’s emphasis on the social component as the foundation for the human nature and the resulting need to introduce the aristocratic rule into an ideal state is further expanded by Aristotle, who concludes that public and personal happiness should be prioritized. As emphasized above, Aristotle’s interpretation of the human nature involved the active promotion of happiness as a necessary condition for perfect society where the relationships between its members remain in complete harmony. One might expect that the happiness of all citizens would lead Aristotle to the idea of democracy as the fundamental principle that must constitute the basis for an impeccable government and a perfect state.
However, while some elements of democratic ideas echo in Aristotle’s theory of an ideal state, the philosopher still envisions the best form of government as a different structure. Namely, building upon Plato’s ideas, Aristotle concludes that oligarchy as the notion of power being focused in the hands of the few should be envisioned as the perfect form of government (Aristotle, 350 B. C.). Indeed, in his “Politics,” the philosopher declares oligarchy to be the solution that will advance the development of what he defined as the city-state (Aristotle, 350 B. C.). Specifically, in Aristotle’s understating, the ruling class should be provided with an opportunity to steer the process of social development toward the provision of education for all citizens (Aristotle, 350 B. C.). According to the philosopher, the specified method of encouraging community development will allow introducing citizens to the core democratic ideas and virtues (Aristotle, 350 B. C.). Therefore, balancing between the concepts of oligarchy and democracy, Aristotle approaches the current understanding of the nature of the state power and the way in which it must be exerted. Specifically, Aristotle concludes that “Oligarchy is really control by the wealthy; democracy is really control by the poor. It just so happens that the wealthy are always few in number, while the poor are always many” (Aristotle, 350 B. C., lxv). Therefore, Aristotle’s concept of an ideal state, where power is given to the few that are capable of exerting it in a useful manner, aligns both with his idea of longing for content as the basis of the human nature and the philosophical groundwork prepared by Plato.
Finally, Machiavelli’s perception of the ideal state as it stems from his interpretation of the human nature is worth being discussed. Remarkably, even though Machiavelli unambiguously promotes monarchy as the only viable form of government for an ideal state, his perspective on monarchy is comparable to that one of Aristotle on oligarchy. Namely, like Aristotle, Machiavelli incorporates certain democratic principles into his vision of an ideal state (Machiavelli, 1994). The specified representation of a perfect government is quite surprising given Machiavelli’s convictions concerning the human nature, namely, it being vile and overall despicable (Machiavelli, 1994). However, on closer scrutiny, Machiavelli’s description of an ideal government does make sense both when framed as an extension of his view on the human nature and as a natural evolution of the argument provided by Plato and Aristotle.
Namely, Machiavelli’s assumption, which condemns a range of aspects of the human nature, viewing it as intrinsically flawed, can be considered similar to that one of Aristotle, who insists on the necessity for a ruling class that could embrace the flaws of the human nature to exist. As a result, Machiavelli’s side a of monarchy being the saving grace of the humankind represents a logical continuation both to his own ideas of the humankind and the human nature, and the perceptions of the subject matter that Plato and Aristotle had. Namely, Machiavelli insists on the opportunity to prepare the grounds for citizens to develop a strong moral core once the people capable of promoting the specified qualities are at the helm (Machiavelli, 1994). For instance, Machiavelli claims that “This is the cycle through which all states revolve, and power is still passed, as it always has been, from hand to hand. But it rarely happens that the same people return to power” (Machiavelli, 1995, p. 90). Therefore, the importance of Monarchy as the process of keeping power over the state and its citizens within a specific group that is expected to build the required qualities and competencies is justified from Machiavelli’s perspective, which representing a continuum given the standpoints of Aristotle and Plat on the subject matter.
Conclusion
Since Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli each single out a particular characteristic of human nature, their idea of a perfect political regime is tethered to it accordingly. Despite the obvious differences in the perspectives of all three philosophers, the connection between their idea of the human nature and their suggested framework for the perfect state is obvious. Moreover, there are certain intersections between the stances that Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli take on the notion of a perfect state, each agreeing that some form of a ruling class, be it the aristocracy, the oligarchy, or the royal family, is necessary. Though contemporary philosophers might not necessarily agree with the stance that Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli take on the subject matter, the profound and grounded nature of their argumentation must be acknowledged.
References
Aristotle. (350 B.C.). Politics. (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Machiavelli, N. (1994). Selected political writings. (D. Wooton, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Plato. (375 B.C.). Republic. (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.