The World Explored, the World Suffered Science and tech Issue Nr. 12 November 2018(clone) - Page 18

communications  with  each  other  as  inhabitants  of  a  naturally  developed  polis.  We  praise   friendships  of  all  kinds,  but  one  kind  more  than  others.  There  are  friendships  of  pleasure   which  relate  to  a  basic  form  of  pleasure  which  is  transitory,  comes  and  goes  in  relation   to  change  in  one's  situation  or  changes  in  one's  momentary  whims  appetites  and   desires.  There  are  also  friendships  of  utility  or  convenience  which  probably  last   somewhat  longer  but  only  as  long  as  the  "friend"  is  useful  to  us.  Both  are  subject  to   hypothetical  imperatives  and  the  rules  for  the  use  of  the  language  we  use  in  these   situations.  And  then  there  is  "true"  friendship,  categorical  friendship,  which  appears  to   obey  the  rules  of  the  Kantian  categorical  imperative(the  second  formulation  relating  to   treating  humanity  as  an  end  in  itself).In  this  form  we  treat  the  person  as  an  end  in   themselves.     Smith  does  go  on  to  argue  that  Aristotle  believes  that  only  a  small  city-­‐state  can  house   the  kind  of  trust  involved  in  the  political  form  of  friendships  required  for  the  polis  to   fulfill  its  political  functions.  He  asks  specifically  and  rhetorically  :     "Does  this  mean  that  the  city  can  never  be  a  universal  cosmopolitan  state?"     The  implied  answer  is  in  the  negative.  He  goes  on  to  confirm  this  position:     "It  appears  that  Aristotle's  polis  must  be  small  enough  to  be  governed  by  a  common   language,  common  memories,  and  common  customs.  This  may  imply  a  criticism  of  our   modern  societies,  this  may  be  a  suggestion  that  our  cities  and  nations  are  not  healthy."     I  am  not  sure  that  Aristotle  would  not  believe  that  a  form  of  rule  in  accordance  with  the   principles  of  his  Politics  could  not  be  universalized  into  a  cosmopolitan  form  of  life.  A   cosmopolitan  state  with  a  world  government  is  something  Kant  certainly  felt  would   inevitably  be  tyrannical.  Much  of  what  we  read  about  the  formal  conditions  of  the   regime  lead  us  to  sense  a  similarity  between  these  two  positions.  We  should  also   remember  that  both  Aristotle  and  Kant  used  the  concepts  of  matter  and  form  and  that   Aristotle  is  referring  above  to  the  purely  material  conditions  for  the  regime  to  exist  as  a   regime.  Amongst  the  formal  conditions,  we  find  reflections  on  the  structure  of   institutions  and  classes  of  the  regime.  Amongst  these  reflections  we  find  references  to   the  size  of  the  middle  class.  Aristotle  sees  the  middle  class  as  embodying  the  virtues  or   excellences  required  for  the  correct  rule  of  the  regime  and  as  far  as  I  know  there  is  no   reference  to  the  maximum  size  of  the  regime  or  whether  the  requisite  trust  would  be   able  to  exist  between  the  classes  if  they  were  too  large.  Modern  political  science  has   been  tracking  this  particular  claim  by  Aristotle  and  there  is  a  sense  that  the  aim  of   Politics  should  be  Aristotelian,  that  is  many  commentators  have  observed  that  the   political  process  aims  at  pulling  the  parties  of  the  extreme  right  and  left  into  the  middle.   That  this  is  an  observation  of  importance  has  clearly  resulted  in  a  strategy  amongst  a   number  of  contemporary  politicians  to  court  what  they  call  the  middle-­‐class  vote.   Perhaps  if  the  material  condition  of  trust  between  larger  human  associations  cannot   exist,  this  may  be  an  underlying  flaw  in  such  strategies.  Whichever  of  these  alternatives   is  the  case,  it  would  seem  as  if  an  Aristotelian  political  analysis  is  still  very  relevant  to   the  contemporary  political  scene.  My  view  is  that  the  categorical  form  of  friendship   demands  a  form  of  love  which  Kant  calls  respect  and  there  is  certainly  no  recognition  by   Kant  that  this  is  limited  so  small  associations.  Kant  clearly  thinks  that  respect  for  the