Philosophy Essay 代写:亚里士多德政治评估
不同类型的政治在当今世界的不同形式的行政管理中被广泛讨论、研究和实践。许多有影响力的哲学家和政治学家，现代世界的基础上，他们的政治知识的研究，书籍和思想写了受人尊敬的哲学学者的过去。亚里士多德，一位著名的希腊哲学家，在一系列题为“政治”的书籍中讨论政治。在政治上，亚里士多德确立了人类卓越的重要性，通过设置一个明确的认识的所有政治哲学的因果原则。[ 1 ]在他在政治中的书籍观察中，亚里士多德提出了一个完美的状态的条件，以满足最佳的生活方式。[ 2 ]他在书中指出，调查发现最好的政权是一个人的生活是必不可少的。他还强调保持美德的美德的重要性，作为政治的一个重要目标，保持自由，稳定和幸福。为了探讨政权亚里士多德的价值观，它是重要的是要联系亚里士多德的“生活方式”与一个政权的特点，他会更喜欢。[ 3 ]本文将突出亚里士多德在政治中所考察的六种不同类型的宪法，并将其与政体、政体和贵族政体的共同实践进行比较。对这两种政体、政体和贵族政体的分析，进一步揭示了亚里士多德政治体制、政体。
亚里士多德适应Plato的“六重分类图从他的书的政治家和对宪法的六种可能的类型分为两组；正确的宪法，和越轨。[ 4 ]“越轨”宪法包含专制、寡头政治和民主政治；在可能的“正确”的宪法，王权、贵族政治是。【5】亚里士多德创造了两种人类的概念，那些是“自然自由”和“自然奴隶”的个体的概念。[ 6 ]然后他将自然自由人分为两种类型；繁荣的寡头和民主党。[ 7 ]与宪法明显三“越轨”的类型，亚里士多德预计以错误制度的优良性状，找到一个最好的制度。
亚里士多德认为政体是宪法，以最正确的形式统治。政治是“寡头政治和民主的混合物。”[ 8 ]的寡头政治是少数的规则，一般由较富裕的公民。而民主，是人民的统治，它一般由统治阶级的穷人。[ 9 ]政体、寡头和民主党之间的权力是富人和穷人创造类的不同类型之间的权力平衡之间共享。政体被认为是亚里士多德最稳定和最实际的政体。它拿出最好的品质的寡头政治和民主政治创造一个政权，穷人和富人的利益平衡。例如，这两个构成的混合物包括某些特征通常与民主，如立法机构向所有公民开放，与其他素质一般与寡头如高局选举。[ 10 ]
Philosophy Essay 代写:亚里士多德政治评估
Different types of politics are widely discussed, studied, and practiced in different forms of administration all over the world today. Many influential philosophers and political scientists of the modern day world base their knowledge of politics on the studies, books and thoughts written by respectable philosophical scholars of the past. Aristotle, a renowned Greek philosopher, discusses politics in a sequence of books titled, Politics. In Politics, Aristotle establishes an importance of human excellence by setting out causal principles for a clear understanding of nature of all political philosophy. [1] Throughout his observation in the books in Politics, Aristotle sets out the conditions of a perfect state in order to fulfill the best way of life. [2] He states in Books VII of Politics that the investigation to find the best regime is essential to one's life. He also emphasizes the importance of preserving merits of virtue as an essential goal of politics to maintain freedom, stability and happiness. In order to investigate the regime Aristotle values, it is important to interrelate Aristotle's "way of life" with the characteristics of a regime that he would prefer most. [3] This essay will highlight the six different types of constitutions that Aristotle examines in Politics, and will also compare the common practices of the regimes polity and aristocracy. The analysis of the two regimes, polity and aristocracy will further reveal Aristotle's preference of the political system, polity.
Aristotle adapts Plato's "six-fold classification" chart from his book Statesmen and categorizes the six possible types of constitutions into two groups; the correct constitution, and the deviant. [4] The "deviant" constitution contains tyranny, oligarchy and democracy; and underneath the possible "correct" constitution, kingship, aristocracy and polity remains. [5] Aristotle creates the notion of two types of humans; individuals who are of "nature free" and of "nature slaves". [6] He then separates the naturally free persons into two types; the prosperous oligarchs and the democrats. [7] With the three "deviant" types of constitutions evident, Aristotle foresees to find a superlative regime by taking the good traits of the erroneous regimes.
Aristotle believes Polity to be the constitution that results in the most correct form of ruling. Polity is "a mixture of oligarchy and democracy." [8] Oligarchy is the rule of the few, generally consisting of the wealthier citizens. While democracy, is the rule of the people, which generally consists the ruling class of the poor. [9] In polity, power between the oligarchs and democrats is shared among the rich and the poor creating a balance of power among the different types of classes. Polity is viewed as the most stable and practical regime to Aristotle. It takes out the best qualities of oligarchy and democracy creating a regime in which the interests of the poor and the rich are balanced. For instance, the mixture of the two constitutions is made by including some of the characteristics usually related with democracy, such as a legislative body open to all citizens, with other qualities generally linked with oligarchy such as election to high bureaus. [10]