30 September 2008

aristotle:: a pompous jerk?

Aristotle believed that leadership was necessary to run a community, no matter the size. Humans need, according to their human nature, rules or laws and people to implement them. Although this may be true, I took Roselle Chartock's Utopian Visions class, and we studied Utopian communities who went against this social norm. They were able to flourish without leadership, all sharing responsibility. This just may be an exception to the rule, or do humans really need rules? Although those utopian nations ultimately failed, it worked for a while. Despite this fact, I still agree with Aristotle in that regardless of how much faith someone can put into the human nature of humans, laws and leaders are necessary to organize chaos.

Now should these leaders be the elitists? Is it unfair to believe that the labor class or women are unfit to lead? Back in the day, it was absurd to think that a woman could run a nation. ACTUALLY in some ways, in this day and age, it still is an issue, especially with this 08 election. Voters are doubting Palin and they obviously doubted Clinton in favor of Obama. Regardless of the times, Aristotle came off as a pompous sexist with his views. The term Elitist has become associated with a negative connotation and to try to say that human nature only allows a certain class of people to rule was a ridiculous idea to me, and made Aristotle's theory less legit.

1 comment:

David Kenneth Johnson said...

See Matt Silliman's "skeptiblog" post on elitism (linked on my blog). I think he does a good job clarifying the term.