Ancient to Modern socio-political-anthropological thinking

             Plato said that the good life is possible only in and through society (State), society is a natural institution, man is essentially a social and political animal, the State exists for the sake of the good life. And according to him, the state neither aim for freedom nor economic well being but justice.  Justice is an object of knowledge, that is, it is one of the forms.That is why the Statesman must be a Philosopher.  If not, he will only lead the state downwards toward self-destruction. Which for me is wrong because not all philosophers can bring justice to a state just because they are educated and meditate on and practice the Good Life. This makes his theory less supportive.Then,we have Aristotle who offers a distinct view of the end of man in the society. Aristotle's State concept shows that he believed in evolutionary or historical theory of the origin state Therefore, his approach in this connection is correct for it also true that man as a civilized individual cannot survive without state and if he claims, then it means from human beings, he is nation-less, lawless or homeless. He (man) is either above or below humanity. The best thing in his concept is that he believes in balanced collectivism and dislikes state powers and gives certain rights to the citizens and in this way, citizens can lead into the good life. St. Thomas Aquinas who stands at the crossroads between the Christian Gospel and the Aristotelian politics doctrine. He shows that God governs the world. This idea, in God, for the governance of things is the eternal law. There is still a part of Aristotle's concept but changing State to God. Man can't live a good life without God. I disagree about "we need to be madly inlove with the same God." Not all of us have the same religion and that doesn't mean that it ruins the divine justification as the basis of authority State and government because there is totally no connection of being only with one God to strengthen a society. As for Niccolo Machiavelli,  he disagrees with conventional theory and so he made his own theory called "The Prince". During his time, his country was being invaded by powerful nations which are Spain and France. And so he learned that all a government or a man need is power. For Renaissance period, when Niccolo was born, countries were all about power and control. What is a State when there is no power and a successful ruler? I understand his theory as a normal concept for it is how they lived and since in our time today, we can't truly relate to it. But still, Niccolo is correct for power can protect a state and unleash fear. Thomas Hobbes, says that "It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law." Anarchy makes a society cruel and violent. How can peace happen when there is crime? Hobbes says that someone must arbitrate in the making of agreement in order to prevent the endless war. He refers this arbitrator as Leviathan or State. Every society needs a peace maker, morality and justice to ensure the State from disorder. Peace Treaty Parties are not helpful at all because all they can do is talk and not fully convince man to stop crime. So for me, peace cannot be without punishment. But it's also quite ironic that we punish for peace. Lastly, Baron De Montesquieu, his theory was adopted by states for it is also remarkably impact to subsequent social scientists. In his theory, it states that a State is ruled by 3 independent yet inseparable powers :executive, legislative and judicial. His thought is actually helpful because it contains contents of what a State needs to be called a "State".

by: Zaylee Jacalan