This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SOCRATES – GLAUCON AND so, Glaucon, we have arrived at the conclusion that in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common; and that all education and the pursuits of war and peace are also to be common, and the best philosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings? That, replied Glaucon, has been acknowledged. Yes, I said; and we have further acknowledged that the governors, when appointed themselves, will take their soldiers and place them in houses such as we were describing, which are common to all, and contain nothing private, or individual; and about their property, you remember what we agreed? Yes, I remember that no one was to have any of the ordinary possessions of mankind; they were to be warrior athletes and guardians, receiving from the other citizens, in lieu of annual payment, only their maintenance, and they were to take care of themselves and of the whole State. True, I said; and now that this division of our task is concluded, let us find the point at which we digressed, that we may return into the old path. There is no difficulty in returning; you implied, then as now, that you had finished the description of the State: you said that such a State was good, and that the man was good who answered to it, although, as now appears, you had more excellent things to relate both of State and man. And you said further, that if this was the true form, then the others were false; and of the false forms, you said, as I remember, that there were four principal ones, and that their defects, and the defects of the individuals corresponding to them, were worth examining. When we had seen all the individuals, and finally agreed as to who was the best and who was the worst of them, we were to consider whether the best was not also the happiest, and the worst the most miserable. I asked you what were the four forms of government of which you spoke, and then Polemarchus and Adeimantus put in their word; and you began again, and have found your way to the point at which we have now arrived. Your recollection, I said, is most exact. Then, like a wrestler, he replied, you must put yourself again in the same position; and let me ask the same questions, and do you give me the same answer which you were about to give me then. Yes, if I can, I will, I said. I shall particularly wish to hear what were the four constitutions of which you were speaking. That question, I said, is easily answered: the four governments of which I spoke, so far as they have distinct names, are, first, those of Crete and Sparta, which are generally applauded; what is termed oligarchy comes next; this is not equally approved, and is a form of government which teems with evils: thirdly, democracy, which naturally follows oligarchy, although very different: and lastly comes tyranny, great and famous, which differs from them all, and is the fourth and worst disorder of a State. I do not know, do you? of any other constitution which can be said to have a distinct character. There are lordships and principalities which are bought and sold, and some other intermediate forms of government. But these are nondescripts and may be found equally among Hellenes and among barbarians. Yes, he replied, we certainly hear of many curious forms of government which exist among them.
but wholly belongs to him. for example. the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them. The shuttle. separable from the possessor. poglavje Property is a part of the household. Here. "of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods. they grow out of human characters. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work. as Thrasymachus advises. 2 . is not only of use. in like manner. that governments vary as the dispositions of men vary. we have already described. and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household. the instruments which they employ must likewise differ in kind. The enquiry will then be completed. and when we see them we shall be able to compare the relative happiness or unhappiness of him who leads a life of pure justice or pure injustice. for in the arts the servant is a kind of instrument. and which in a figure turn the scale and draw other things after them? Yes. chief workmen would not want servants. in the arrangement of the family. And as in the arts which have a definite sphere the workers must have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work. and this is also true of a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action. too. a slave is a living possession. and property a number of such instruments. he does not belong to him. and therefore the slave is the minister of action. And we shall know whether we ought to pursue injustice. but something else is made by it. who answer to the Spartan polity. a possession is spoken of as a part is spoken of. or in accordance with the conclusions of the argument to prefer justice. I said. he said.knjiga. whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master. a possession is an instrument for maintaining life. And so. Then let us now proceed to describe the inferior sort of natures. and both require instruments. Now instruments are of various sorts. or the tripods of Hephaestus. so it is in the management of a household. and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments. the States are as the men are. The master is only the master of the slave. Then if the constitutions of States are five. But life is action and not production. 4. the dispositions of individual minds will also be five? Certainly. another distinction must be drawn. for no man can live well. or indeed live at all. in the look-out man. in the rudder. and whom we rightly call just and good. like the statues of Daedalus. whilst a possession is an instrument of action. obeying or anticipating the will of others. some are living. and tyrannical. being the contentious and ambitious. he who is by nature not his own but another's man. Again. being a human being. is by nature a slave. which. democratical. the instruments commonly so called are instruments of production. however. We have. says the poet." if. nor masters slaves. 1. but wholly belongs to it.' and not out of the human natures which are in them. Him who answers to aristocracy. unless he be provided with necessaries.Do you know. whereas of a garment or of a bed there is only the use. the pilot of a ship has a lifeless. is also a possession. and he may be said to be another's man who. as production and action are different in kind. Let us place the most just by the side of the most unjust. Further. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave. also the oligarchical. a living instrument. ARISTOTEL – Politika. and that there must be as many of the one as there are of the other? For we cannot suppose that States are made of 'oak and rock. for the part is not only a part of something else. Thus. others lifeless.
however. For the art which uses household stores can be no other than the art of household management. the tame for use and food. There is. for the one uses the material which the other provides. so much food as will last until they are able to supply themselves. 8. And so. for they are not instrumental in the same way. some are gregarious. for war of such a kind is naturally just.there is the shepherd. in one point of view. and when they are grown up. their flocks having to wander from place to place in search of pasture. which is of different kinds. and the care and provision of food in general. bronze of the statuary. after the birth of animals. and therefore there are many kinds of lives both of animals and men. the brigand. whether in the way that the art of making shuttles is instrumental to the art of weaving. and others live by the pursuit of birds or wild beasts. The first question is whether the art of getting wealth is the same with the art of managing a household or a part of it. In the lives of men too there is a great difference. 1. and the viviparous animals have up to a certain time a supply of food for their young in themselves. Such are the modes of subsistence which prevail among those whose industry springs up of itself. the hunter. plants exist for their sake. or in the way that the casting of bronze is instrumental to the art of the statuary. but there are many sorts of property and riches.knjiga. the fisherman. are brigands. Some. the wild. will not submit. in the sense of a bare livelihood. Some gain a comfortable maintenance out of two employments. and the differences in their food have made differences in their ways of life. the life of a farmer with that of a hunter. the art of war is a natural art of acquisition. Now it is easy to see that the art of household management is not identical with the art of getting wealth. they are compelled to follow them. they must all have food. thus wool is the material of the weaver. the husbandman. and therefore the lives of carnivorous or herbivorous animals further differ among themselves. But. who lead an idle life. seems to be given by nature herself to all. and against men who. and whose food is not acquired by exchange and retail trade. and by material I mean the substratum out of which any work is made. Other modes of life are similarly combined in any way which the needs of men may require. for the art of acquisition includes hunting. though intended by nature to be governed. if not all at least the greater part of them. others are solitary. eking out the deficiencies of one of them by another: thus the life of a shepherd may be combined with that of a brigand. cultivating a sort of living farm. and into the art of getting wealth. they live in the way which is best adapted to sustain them. both when they are first born. together with their offspring. in accordance with our usual method. The greater number obtain a living from the cultivated fruits of the soil. Property. the same things are not naturally pleasant to all of them. Now if nature makes nothing incomplete. for example. for a slave has been shown to be a part of property. For of beasts. or instrumental to it. poglavje Let us now inquire into property generally. and that the other animals exist for the sake of man. accordingly as they are carnivorous or herbivorous or omnivorous: and their habits are determined for them by nature in such a manner that they may obtain with greater facility the food of their choice. Others support themselves by hunting. and get their subsistence without trouble from tame animals. but the one provides tools and the other material. and for the provision of clothing and various instruments. If the getter of wealth has to consider whence wealth and property can be procured. and if the last. For some animals bring forth.ARISTOTEL – Politika. others. parts of the wealth-getting art or distinct arts? Again. as different species have different tastes. then are husbandry. and nothing in vain. 3 . are fishermen. a doubt whether the art of getting wealth is a part of household management or a distinct art. an art which we ought to practice against wild beasts. the inference must be that she has made all animals for the sake of man. who dwell near lakes or marshes or rivers or a sea in which there are fish. The laziest are shepherds. which is called milk. there are many sorts of food. of this the vermiparous or oviparous animals are an instance. for food. In like manner we may infer that.
giving and receiving wine. and different parts in different things. silver. When the use of coin had once been discovered. the parts shared in many things. when the family divided into parts. does indeed use the shoe as a shoe. Being nearly connected with the preceding. for example. and hence men agreed to employ in their dealings with each other something which was intrinsically useful and easily applicable to the purposes of life. which is the family. and it arises at first from what is natural. and useful for the community of the family or state. and riches may be defined as a number of instruments to be used in a household or in a state. men would have ceased to exchange when they had enough. and what is the reason of this. Let us begin our discussion of the question with the following considerations: Of everything which we possess there are two uses: both belong to the thing as such. retail trade. others too much. For the members of the family originally had all things in common. He who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to him who wants one. for the art of exchange extends to all of them. as might have been inferred. out of the simpler. and is used for exchange. such things necessary to life. and exported what they had too much of. The same may be said of all possessions. but not in the same manner. the art of getting wealth is generally thought to be chiefly concerned with it. as can be stored. this art is obviously of no use. and they imported what they needed. a shoe is used for wear. and the like. The kind already described is given by nature. For example. indeed. But though they are not very different. 1. neither are they the same. it is often identified with it. Originating in the use of coin. When the inhabitants of one country became more dependent on those of another. for example. iron. but this is not its proper or primary purpose. 4 . and the like. but is needed for the satisfaction of men's natural wants. in exchange for coin. for a shoe is not made to be an object of barter. or itself provide. out of the barter of necessary articles arose the other art of wealth getting. Of this the value was at first measured simply by size and weight. for the instruments of any art are never unlimited. either in number or size. ARISTOTEL – Politika. which they had to give in exchange for what they wanted. and has in fact suggested the notion that riches and property have no limit. The other or more complex form of exchange grew. 9. In the first community. later. although Solon in one of his poems says that "No bound to riches has been fixed for man. had it been so." But there is a boundary fixed. which was at first probably a simple matter. They are the elements of true riches. just as there is in the other arts. but became more complicated as soon as men learned by experience whence and by what exchanges the greatest profit might be made. but in process of time they put a stamp upon it. having to consider how they may be accumulated. Hence we may infer that retail trade is not a natural part of the art of getting wealth.knjiga. And so we see that there is a natural art of acquisition which is practiced by managers of households and by statesmen. For the various necessaries of life are not easily carried about. for one is the proper. from the circumstance that some have too little. for the amount of property which is needed for a good life is not unlimited. in so far as the art of household management must either find ready to hand. poglavje There is another variety of the art of acquisition which is commonly and rightly called an art of wealth-getting. to save the trouble of weighing and to mark the value. but it begins to be useful when the society increases. namely.Of the art of acquisition then there is one kind which by nature is a part of the management of a household. a kind of barter which is still practiced among barbarous nations who exchange with one another the necessaries of life and nothing more. and to be the art which produces riches and wealth. money necessarily came into use. the other is gained by experience and art. both are uses of the shoe. and the other the improper or secondary use of it. This sort of barter is not part of the wealth-getting art and is not contrary to nature.
however. and as in the other arts there is no limit to the pursuit of their several ends. they are absorbed in getting wealth: and so there arises the second species of wealth-getting. they try other arts. and. nevertheless. And. we find the opposite to be the case. a thing not natural. like Midas in the fable. if the users substitute another commodity for it. in their true form they are part of the management of a household. for each is a use of the same property. the instrument is the same. as their enjoyment is in excess. in one point of view. but to inspire confidence. The origin of this disposition in men is that they are intent upon living only. in either. whose insatiable prayer turned everything that was set before him into gold? Hence men seek after a better notion of riches and of the art of getting wealth than the mere acquisition of coin. has a limit. but the one aims at victory and the other at health. Thus. or at any rate not to lose it. neither is this the aim of the general's or of the physician's art. and also the necessary art of wealth-getting. For natural riches and the natural art of wealth-getting are a different thing. and to be a natural part of the art of managing a household. he who is rich in coin may often be in want of necessary food. is not intended to make wealth. Hence some persons are led to believe that getting wealth is the object of household management. which we have seen to be different from the other. not. As in the art of medicine there is no limit to the pursuit of health. for coin is the unit of exchange and the measure or limit of it. but there is a further end in the other.Indeed. on the other hand. they seek an art which produces the excess of enjoyment. so. and the acquisition of wealth. but having a limit. it is worthless. since the enjoyment of these appears to depend on property. for the end is always the limit). then. riches is assumed by many to be only a quantity of coin. and they are right. The source of the confusion is the near connection between the two kinds of wealth-getting. as a matter of fact. The quality of courage. although the use is different. like the former kind. but with a difference: accumulation is the end in the one case. therefore. the unlimited acquisition of wealth is not its business. but by exchange. in this art of wealth-getting there is no limit of the end. as their desires are unlimited they also desire that the means of gratifying them should be without limit. using in turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature. Nevertheless. concerned with the provision of food. we have considered the art of wealth-getting which is unnecessary. unlimited. too. all riches must have a limit. but conventional only. Those who do aim at a good life seek the means of obtaining bodily pleasures. and. and to the promotion of the end they think all things must contribute. and. and the whole idea of their lives is that they ought either to increase their money without limit. 5 . which is riches of the spurious kind. and so they pass into one another. for they aim at accomplishing their ends to the uttermost (but of the means there is a limit. But the art of wealth-getting which consists in household management. because. For. because the arts of getting wealth and retail trade are concerned with coin. whereas retail trade is the art of producing wealth. not in every way. for all getters of wealth increase their hoard of coin without limit. some men turn every quality or art into a means of getting wealth. indeed. But how can that be wealth of which a man may have a great abundance and yet perish with hunger. and because it is not useful as a means to any of the necessities of life. and not upon living well. and why men want it. if they are not able to supply their pleasures by the art of getting wealth. for example. And there is no bound to the riches which spring from this art of wealth getting. Others maintain that coined money is a mere sham. this they conceive to be the end. and. And it is thought to be concerned with coin.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.