The Natural Order of Relationships: Aristotle on Hierarchy and Obligation
Table of contents
The Natural Order of Relationships: Aristotle on Hierarchy and Obligation
Overview Aristotle’s philosophical thoughts on relationships and obligations are rooted in his concept of the natural order. He argues that certain individuals have inherent authority over others due to their superior worth, and that this hierarchy is reflected in familial, marital, and social bonds. This essay explores Aristotle’s ideas on inequality in relationships, love, and obedience.
Context Aristotle’s philosophical work was influenced by his education in ancient Greece, where he studied under Plato at the Academy. He later tutored Alexander the Great and went on to establish his own school in Athens. Aristotle’s philosophy reflects a deep understanding of the social and cultural context of his time, as well as his observations on human nature.
Timeline
- 384 BCE: Aristotle is born in Stagira, Macedonia.
- 367 BCE: Aristotle begins studying at Plato’s Academy in Athens.
- 342 BCE: Aristotle becomes a tutor to Alexander the Great.
- 335 BCE: Aristotle establishes his own school in Athens.
- 323 BCE: Aristotle dies in Chalcis, Euboea.
- 350s BCE: The concept of eudaimonia (happiness or flourishing) emerges as a central idea in Aristotle’s philosophy.
- 300s BCE: Aristotle develops his theory of the four causes and the distinction between potentiality and actuality.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Hypokeimenon: The underlying substance or material that constitutes something.
- Dunamis: Potentiality, or the capacity to become something else.
- Energeia: Actualization, or the realization of potentiality.
- Ousia: Being, or the fundamental nature of something.
- Kosmos: Order, or the arrangement of things in a harmonious way.
Key Figures and Groups
- Aristotle: A Greek philosopher who founded his own school in Athens.
- Plato: Aristotle’s teacher at the Academy, known for his theory of forms.
- The Stagirites: The followers of Aristotle, including philosophers such as Theophrastus and Eudemus.
Mechanisms and Processes
Aristotle argues that relationships are characterized by inequality due to differences in worth. He claims that the inferior should love the superior more than the latter loves the former:
- If the father is wicked, he can repudiate his son (1163 b ).
- The son owes his existence to his father, and therefore has a greater obligation to him.
This hierarchical structure is reflected in various social relationships:
- Wives should have more love for their husbands than vice versa.
- Children should have more love for their parents than vice versa.
- Subjects should have more love for their monarchs than vice versa.
Deep Background Aristotle’s ideas on the natural order of relationships are rooted in his concept of eudaimonia, or happiness. He argues that individuals achieve eudaimonia by living a life of virtue and fulfilling their potential as human beings. This is closely tied to the idea of dunamis (potentiality) and energeia (actualization), which describes the process of realizing one’s potential.
Aristotle also draws on his observations of social institutions, such as family and marriage. He notes that in a good marriage, the man should rule according to his worth, but also acknowledge the sphere of authority of his wife:
- “The man rules in accordance with his worth, and in those matters in which a man should rule, but the matters that befit a woman he hands over to her” (1160 b ).
Explanation and Importance Aristotle’s ideas on relationships and obligations have significant implications for our understanding of social hierarchy. He argues that certain individuals have inherent authority due to their superior worth, and that this hierarchy is reflected in various social bonds. This has important consequences for our understanding of power dynamics and social responsibility.
However, Aristotle’s theory also raises questions about the nature of obligation and love. If the inferior owes more love to the superior, does this imply a one-way relationship? And what are the implications of this for our understanding of reciprocity and mutual respect?
Comparative Insight In contrast to Aristotle’s hierarchical view, Plato’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of equality in relationships. In his theory of forms, Plato argues that all individuals have an equal share in the divine, regardless of their social status.
Extended Analysis
The Role of Worth in Social Hierarchy
Aristotle’s concept of worth is central to his theory of social hierarchy. He argues that certain individuals have inherent authority due to their superior worth, but what exactly does he mean by “worth”? Is it based on moral character, intellectual abilities, or social status?
The Limits of Authority
Aristotle notes that the man should not rule in his wife’s province, and vice versa. What are the implications of this for our understanding of authority and responsibility? Can individuals ever truly be responsible for others, or is it a matter of degree?
Love and Obligation
Aristotle argues that the inferior owes more love to the superior due to their inherent hierarchy. But what does this say about the nature of love itself? Is it a one-way obligation, or can it be reciprocal?
Social Institutions and Human Nature
Aristotle draws on his observations of social institutions, such as family and marriage. What does he learn from these institutions, and how do they shape our understanding of human relationships?
Quiz
Open Thinking Questions
- How do Aristotle’s ideas on relationships and obligations reflect his broader philosophical concerns?
- What implications does Aristotle’s theory have for our understanding of power dynamics in social institutions?
- Can we reconcile Aristotle’s emphasis on hierarchical authority with modern ideals of equality and mutual respect?
Conclusion Aristotle’s philosophy provides a nuanced exploration of the natural order of relationships. He argues that certain individuals have inherent authority due to their superior worth, but also acknowledges the importance of mutual respect and reciprocity in social bonds.