What should be the Size of the Ideal State? Which One would You Prefer: To Live a ‘The Big City Life’ or To Live Happily Ever After?

(by Ekinsu Çamur)

(i)

The sparkling and fascinating city lights of big cities could be attractive for most of the people. However, are they oversized to live in them happily? What criteria should be considered while determining the ideal size of a state?

According to Plato an ideal city should be composed of 5040 citizens (Aristotle 402). After some mathematical calculations he reaches this exact number. Conversely, Aristotle uses more abstract evaluations rather than emphasizing a particular number while determining the ideal size of a state (Aristotle 402).

Most of the people believe that the city will be better if more people live in it. However, everything has a capacity and whenever this capacity is exceeded, this thing will not function properly any more.

“One ought to look not at numbers but at capacity” (Aristotle 403

            (1)  As it is stated, a city has its own limits and capacity.

(2)  A state has its functions to perform.

(3)  A state is livable, as far as it performs it functions.

(4)  A state performs its functions if its size stays within the limits of its capacity.

(5)  Therefore, when a state performs its functions most efficiently, its size at that point equals to its ideal size.

This argument shows that being the most efficient state is a more crucial criteria than being the most populous state.

As the number of citizens increases it is more challenging to maintain the order in the city (Aristotle 404). Maintaining order in the city is another essential criteria while determining the ideal size of a state because without order there will be chaos in the city, which will cause destruction of the city somehow. In order to have calmness and order in a city, it should not be over populated.

Another criteria: Self-sufficiency!

(ii)

“If a state has too few people it cannot be self-sufficient, whereas a state is self-sufficient thing” (Aristotle 404).

As it is stated, a state should be self-sufficient and in order to provide this requirement it should have enough people in it. 

Lastly, size of state should allow its citizens to know each other. By doing so, people will be not only more familiar with each other but also they will easily collaborate with each other (Aristotle 405). As a result, they will take more beneficial decisions for their state and they will develop continuously. Also it will be easier to help each other and this cooperation creates stronger relations within the society and it will be harder to corrupt this city.

Having too many people prevents maintaining an order in the city. Moreover, it cannot perform its function effectively. Furthermore, people are not aware of each other’s needs. On the other hand if a state has too few people, it cannot be self-sufficient. Therefore, both ends, having too many or to few people than required number will cause corruption of the society and the state. The best option is to determine a ‘normal’ size that allows citizens to live happy together far away from chaos and self-sufficiently. 

These suggestions of Aristotle should be considered even today. They are not out of fashion suggestions. Especially today these suggestions are far more beneficial as people are lost under the sparkling lights of big and over populated cities. Most of the people have stressful lives and they are complaining about how unhappy they are. In order to have happy citizens governments should rearrange city sizes and while doing so they should not forget the valuable recommendations of Aristotle. 

References:

Aristotle. The Politics. London/England: Penguin Books, 1992. Print.

(ii) Hopfer, Heidi. “Self Sufficient”. Buyolympia. 2013. n.p. Web. 26 Dec. 2013. <

<http://www.buyolympia.com/q/sid=994665516/Item=heidi-hopfer-self-

sufficient-print>

(i) L. Joanna.“Big City Life”. Pinterest. n.d. n.p. Web. 26 Dec. 2013.

<http://www.pinterest.com/pin/566679565582790137/>

Do the laws of Plato’s ideal state destroy moral taboos: incest relationships!

(By Ekinsu Çamur) 

(i)

Vast majority in all cultures and societies perceive incest relationships as moral taboos. Today, most of the people avoid themselves even thinking about this topic and most of the countries accept incest relationships as crime in their codifications (Hughes 330). However how is incest regulated in the ideal state of Socrates? Is it legalized or is it accepted as crime?   

First of all the concept of ‘incest’ should be defined.

Incest: “Sexual relations between people classed as being too closely relate to marry each other.” (Oxford Dcitionary, 25 Dec. 2013)

                    “The crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or

            grandchild.” (Oxford Dcitionary, 25 Dec. 2013)

Is it possible to have incest in Socrates’ ideal state or not? 

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates creates a huge family, which is formed by guardians, namely the ruling class. In this ideal city of Socrates, family members have to share everything in common except their own bodies (Plato 464d). Thus, everyone has common mothers, fathers, siblings and other relatives. Additionally, no one is allowed to select his/her own husband and wife but one is forced to marry selected partners, which are determined by a lottery (Plato 460d).

This scheme leads us to an argument:

(1) It is accepted that everyone has common fathers and common mothers. That’s why everybody is sibling in the society.  

(2) One has to marry a selected partner who is his/her relative as everybody is sibling.

Therefore; there is a great possibility to have incest relationships in the ideal city of Socrates. 

Now it is clear that incest relationships exist in high ratios in Socrates’ ideal state, however is it allowed or banned?

Socrates realizes this situation and even he perceives incest as a threat for the society. That is why he wants to prohibit incest in the society: “we will leave them free to have sex with whomever they wish, with these exceptions: for a man- his daughter, his mother, his daughters’ children and his mother’s ancestors and same for the women” (Plato 461c).

What are the suggested solutions to prohibit the incest in the society?

Socrates determines groups in the society: a man and a women, who became bridegroom and bride, will call all children as their sons and daughters who born in the tenth or seventh month after their marriage (Plato 461d). As a result, groups of fathers, mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers will occur and relevant groups are not allowed to have sexual relations with each other (Plato 461e).  However these solutions are not enough to disallow incest relationships: “The law will allow brothers and sisters to have sex with one another if the lottery works out that way” (Plato 461e). Although his solution bans the sexual relations between mothers and children or fathers and children, it does not ban the incest between the brothers and sisters. Thus, his solution works partially but it still allows siblings to have sexual intercourse.

As a result, it can be said that incest is neither legalized nor decriminalized in Socrates’ ideal city. Although he remarks the possibility of incest in the society and he tries to solve this alleged problem, he could not find any system to totally solve it. Incest is accepted as a moral taboo. Acting against moral taboos in the society causes chaos and society will crumble. Incest is not allowed explicitly but it is nearly impossible to prohibit. Therefore, Socrates allows acting against moral taboos in his ‘ideal’ state. However, it is a vital problem which may even cause the destruction of his ideal state.   

   

References

(i) Unknown Artist. “Forbidden Kiss”. Deviantart. n.d. n.p. Web. 25 Dec. 2013

<http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/artists/80005071?view_mode=2>

Hughes, Graham. “The Crime of Incest”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

            55 (1964): 322-331. Web.

Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. N.d. Web. 12

Dec 2013. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com>

Plato. Republic. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992. Print.

Evolution and Aristotle’s “Natural” States

(by Ömer Faruk Yalçın)

The dual understanding of the emergence of the state is a significant subject of philosophy. According to Thomas Hobbes, people are equal by nature and have problematic principles which are competition, diffidence and glory. Thus, the use of violence for these principles to achieve gain, security and reputation results in a constant war which is called the state of nature (1). In order to end such war, people transferred their power to a single subject through a social contract with mutual consent (2). In sum, people were living in the state of nature at first, but then, to end the social conflict, people started living together and formed cities, according to Hobbes.

                                                                                                                                 (3)

On the other hand, Aristotle claims that “every state exists by nature” and since it provides self-sufficiency, it is the best association (4). This is what differentiates humans from animals according to him, since “man is a political animal” living in cities (5). Aristotle is called a political naturalist because of his ideas (6).

According to the theory of evolution which gives the most plausible explanation of the existence of human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens are evolved from sea creatures, i.e. fish. To give more details, the evouliton process occurred for 2100 million of years, chronologically in this order: Eukaryota, Animalia, Chordata, Vertebrates, Tetrapoda, Amniota, Mammalia, Theriiformes, Eutheria, Boreoeutheria, Euarchontoglires, Euarchonta, Primatomorpha, Primates, Haplorrhini, Simiiformes, Catarrhini, Hominoidea, Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, Hominina, Homo, (Archaic) Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens (7).

                                                                                                                                 (8)

Therefore, in order to believe Aristotle’s idea that the states are by nature, one must refuse the evolution theory. In other words, Hobbesian idea of the emergence of the state by the social contract fits more to the theory of evolution. To explain further, people were living in the nature before they were Homo sapiens sapiens and they did not form any cities. Instead, they were living in small communities like apes and they lacked a political order.

Thus, it can be said that the theory of evolution contradicts with Aristotle’s argument of natural states, and since there is no other theory that explains the existence of human kind better than evolution, it is hard to accept that the states are by nature.

References:

 (1) Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1588-1679. and Macpherson, Crawford Brough, 1911- ed. Leviathan; Penguin, 1985. p. 185.

  (2)   Ibid. p. 191, 194.

  (3)  Inglehart, Ronald. The State of Nature: Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?. 16 April 2011. Last access 20 December 2013. Image. URL = <http://lifeexaminations.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-state-of-nature-absence-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder/>.

  (4)   Aristotle. The Politics. Revised ed. London: Penguin Classics, 1981. Print. p. 59.

  (5)   Ibid. p. 60.

  (6) Miller, Fred. Aristotle's Political Theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition). Last access 20 December 2013. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/aristotle-politics/>.

  (7)  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Timeline of human evolution. Last access 20 December 2013. URL = <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution>.

(8) Tamura, N.. Evolution Project. Last access 20 December 2013. Image. URL = <http://ntamura.deviantart.com/art/Evolution-project-178230251>.

Assimilation Policies by Machiavelli

(by Ömer Faruk Yalçın)

In The Prince, Machiavelli advises rulers to either live in their new territories or to colonize the new occupied lands. Otherwise, it is not possible to secure those territories since the differences in language, customs, and institutions will eventually cause problems, according to him (1).

Machiavelli gives the example of the Ottomans making Constantinople the capital of the empire. By doing so, he claims, the Ottomans secured their position there and could interfere in any problems at the moment they arise (2).

                                                                                                                               (3)

This idea is that you have to be a close threat who aims to assimilate the people of the new occupied lands. Otherwise, there would either be revolts or an enemy state could invade there, thus you would lose the land.

Machiavelli mentions Constantinople as the positive example for his claim, though Ottomans had not settled in Belgrade, thus kept losing the city to their enemies. It would be wrong not to give his credits.

Though, if the rulers would settle in the foreign territory, they would either assimilate the citizens with the culture they bring from their homelands or the citizens would assimilate the rulers with their settled culture.

In the Ottoman case, it is not difficult to observe that the citizens of Constantinople assimilated the dynasty. Before, Turks were nomads riding horses without forming any cities; but with the role of the Byzantine culture, they started to live civic lives and built palaces, bath-houses, gardens, etc., with an Eastern perspective for sure (4).

However, the case could be the opposite, as well. Romanization or latinization of the British is an example for this. Before the Roman Empire expanded through the island of Britain, the Saxons were far away from the culture of an empire. With the expansion of the Romans, the British were assimilated by Romanization or latinization. Though, since no Caesar or emperor even thought of living in the cold island of Britain, even assimilation policies could not help their decline in the island (5).

In sum, Machiavelli’s ideas on settling in the new territories were applicable in the medieval times. Though, the cultural aspect of the situation must not be forgotten. Both the victorious and the defeated of the invasion may be subject to cultural assimilation. In other words, the culture of the new ruler may change when settled in the newly occupied lands. Whether there is anything wrong with this or not is a topic of another debate.

References:

  (1)   Machiavelli, Niccolò. Selected Political Writings. Edited by David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub Co, 1994. p. 9.

  (2)   Ibid. p. 9.

  (3)   Wikipédia, L’encylopédie libre. Chute de Constantinople. Last access 25 December 2013. Image. URL = <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chute_de_Constantinople>.

  (4)   Necipoğlu, Gülru. From Byzantine Constantinople to Ottoman Kstantiniyye: Creation of a Cosmopolitan Capital and Visual Culture under Sultan Mehmed II. Last access 24 December 2013. URL = <http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic570061.files/articles/From%20Byzantion%20to%20Istanbul.pdf>. p. 269.

  (5)   Millett, Martin. The Romanization of Britain: an Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Last access 24 December 2013. URL <http://www.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=l51aUiHfUKoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=romanization&ots=Q_XLUnloC5&sig=xDevSOJUfYiYlxhlHo7D5N9iZs4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=romanization&f=false>.