In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Aristotle’s Politics: Living Well and Living Together by Eugene Garver
  • Jamie Muir
Eugene Garver. Aristotle’s Politics: Living Well and Living Together. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Pp. xii + 300. Cloth, $40.00.

This excellent book concludes Garver’s trilogy of interpretations of Aristotle’s practical philosophy. The unifying intention of the trilogy is captured by the word ‘confronting’ in the title of the second volume: to provide an interpretation of Aristotle’s practical philosophy, but also to argue that Aristotle offers compelling practical solutions to contemporary moral and political problems.

The trilogy articulates the structure of ethical and political philosophy, and the relation between them. Garver argues that moral philosophy is concerned with how an individual lives the best human life. Moral philosophy answers this question with a deductive structure of normative reasoning: (1) the ethical philosopher articulates the principles of the best life; (2) the virtuous person converts these principles into effective courses of action; and (3) these courses of action are carried out in practice. Political philosophy is not concerned with the best human life, but with how we can live well together. Political thought also answers this question with a tripartite structure: (1) the political philosopher articulates the principles of political life; (2) the wise statesman converts these principles into effective courses of action for particular regimes; and (3) these courses of action are carried out in practice. Understood in these terms, philosophy plays a greater role in politics than it does in ethics: there are many more people who demand justice than those who seek a virtuous life and, more fundamentally, no conception of the good regime can be articulated with the universality of the conception of the best human life. Consequently, the central theme of the book is the question: In what ways do the practices of living well together promote and hinder the practices of living the best human life?

Garver’s argument is organized into six chapters. It begins with a question: if human beings are political animals, why do so few of them participate in politics? To answer this question, we first recognize that human nature has opposed components: human beings are capable of seeking the common interest, but also of seeking individual interest through economic mastery of others. The practical problem of politics, then, is defined by the relation of economics and politics: how can we form a community seeking a common good out of persons who seek satisfaction of the material desires of themselves and their families? The second chapter explains the methods used to answer this question. Garver follows Aristotle in seeking agreement about common interests using two methods. The first is to determine which alternative constitutions already exist by examining as many political constitutions as possible. The second is to identify what it is that people must have in common in order to live together in a political community. Aristotle concludes that living well together depends on an understanding of which property is private and which property is held in common. The third, fourth, and fifth chapters examine the relation between philosophy and political action. Garver argues that there is a single, universal best human life, but that knowledge of this life cannot lead us to knowledge of the best political life. Indeed, Aristotle argues that all men believe that political justice is some species of equality, while a conception of the best human life implies some inequality between those who seek such a life and those who do not. The task of the statesman, then, is to construct a constitution that enables virtuous citizens to live a diversity of inferior lives together while also enabling some to live the [End Page 371] best human life. The statesman, then, must construct a constitution that is superior to the citizens, providing political stability against the divisive pressures of economic self-interest.

Garver’s argument ends with the somber observation that the history of politics shows that philosophical praxis is either impossible or unnecessary in politics. I think this conclusion is too pessimistic, for reasons Aristotle can help us understand. Garver develops a subtle argument concerning the necessity of understanding the relation between ethics...

pdf

Share