Aristotle, Marx and a classical education

Many educators ask about the value of a classical education these days. With the high costs of a university degree, why read dead Greek and Roman authors when a student could study something practical like accounting or Chinese?

These are good questions to ask when students soon will be competing for jobs in a tight labor market. However, if university students were aware of some of the books that come down to us from ancient Greece and Rome, they might look kindly upon those who spend their time contemplating ancient texts. They might learn that the classics have a practical value. Among the ancient text we value today, is Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (c. 325 BC). This book, compiled from notes of Aristotle’s lectures, offers insight into the political crisis we face. It was also one of the books the framers of the U. S. Constitution were familiar with. Aristotle’s views are complex and not easily summarized. In the Nicomachean Ethics he distinguishes between types of knowledge; theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge and productive knowledge. After making these distinctions, he maintains that politics and ethics are a type of practical knowledge, not a type of theoretical knowledge like mathematics. “An inquiry into ethics (and politics) should not be expected to have the same sort of precision as a mathematical inquiry, because the nature of the subject-matter is different.”

---

In this regard, Aristotle claims, “It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs (I.1094b24).” It is Aristotle’s insistence that politics is not a theoretical science but a practical one that shows us why Marxists views of society and politics are mistaken. Contrary to Aristotle, those who hold to Marxism believe that Marx discovered the scientific laws of society and development. Although Aristotle understood that an empirical view of man and his actions was important, there was no theoretical truth from which societies or economies could be ordered. The realm of politics was simply the place where the best politicians exercised practical wisdom. When Marx and Engels wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” they were looking at social relationships from a theoretical perspective. They imagined an exact science of society, something Aristotle knew to be impossible. A belief in a science of society would not be dangerous except for the fact that after Marxists gain power, they impose their scientific materialism, and rule from the top down. Marxists believe that the Communist Party has hold of the absolute truth about social development. This hold on truth, in their view, gives them the authority to rule as experts. There is bound to be trouble at home and abroad when a government is inspired by a belief in an ideology that looks upon the source of authority in a theory. When a government sees the world through the lens of a theory like Marxism, it will also enslave its citizens. On the other hand, for Aristotle, “The basis of a democratic state is liberty.” The view that policies could be deduced from a grand theory of scientific materialism would dismay Aristotle. He would probably agree that the point of turning Hegel on his head by Marx was not to help the poor by charity but to impose a theory on the world by violence. More than a thousand years after Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas would use a translation of Aristotle’s works to argue for the foundations of a Christian society. Aristotle’s influence may even be seen in Madison’s Federalists Paper No. 10. Cam Riley maintains that, “Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotelian notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.” In our own time, Ayn Rand admits that Aristotle was her teacher. Edward W. Younkins says, “She intellectually stood on Aristotle’s shoulders.” Reading Aristotle makes us aware that political struggles to gain control of the state are not new. Looking back, we see in the political struggles of ancient Rome, a civilization that inherited much of classical Greek culture, many of the issues discussed by Aristotle. The conflict between Caesar and Pompey is a good example. Yet, neither Caesar nor Pompey wanted to diminish the power of Rome, but to expand it. They were practical men who were not motivated by a grand theory of human society and development. Furthermore, even though political corruption runs through the history of Rome, witness the career of Metellus Scipio, the idea of Roman exceptionalism was never a question for most Roman politicians. What would seem unusual today in US politics for Aristotle, is that our political struggles are fought over what politician can best diminish the power of the United States. Beyond that, a belief in manmade climate change, the need for the workers of the world to unite in unions, or being on the wrong side of history, are all beliefs derived from an ideology that sees policy coming only from the theoretically wise. Aristotle would also question the practical usefulness of these policies. Aristotle would be dismayed that a ruler of an empire would embarrass its allies, bow to foreign potentates, reduce its military forces and further policies that would not protect the empire’s borders and lessen its power in the world. From Aristotle’s perspective, none of these actions are practically wise decisions for a ruler to make. Aristotle argued, too, that no politics makes men perfect. Furthermore, it is not the aim of the state to turn equality into sameness. He wrote, “Men... are easily induced to believe that in some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody's friend, especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now existing in states, suits about contracts, convictions for perjury, flatteries of rich men and the like, which are said to arise out of the possession of private property. These evils, however, are due to a very different cause--the wickedness of human nature (II.1263b15).” Because Aristotle often sought the “golden mean” in ethical deliberation, the extremes of Marxism would be repulsive to him. When Marx wrote, “The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property,” Aristotle knew such a program would be against human nature. Aristotle argues in Book II of Politics, “...as a general rule, (property should be) private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business.” Even the simple fact that Marxists are busybodies should turn anyone with common sense against them. Aristotle did have his shortcomings, his support of slavery being one of them. Nevertheless, it was not the Marxists who abolished slavery, but the Republicans and Christians, the latter being a group Marxists detest. Abolitionist soon came to see that the great irony of Marxism is that in the name of freedom it makes everyone a slave of the state. If you want to know what’s wrong with the policies of the Democrat Party today, what is wrong with the Nanny State, then you should read Aristotle. If you want to know why a political party, influenced by Marxism, is a structure of evil, then you should read Aristotle and the authors influenced by his writings. The most important political lesson to learn in our time is to know why Karl Marx’s theory of history and society is wrong. Marx’s theory is not just wrong because it has suffered a few setbacks with the murder of twenty million people, but the theory is wrong from the beginning. Reading Aristotle and other classical authors will help students understand that lesson. A classical education remains important because it could give us the practical knowledge of how to save our Republic.