7 Answers

  1. It depends on the society in which the elections will be held.

    But perhaps in most cases Plato would have won. There are several reasons for this:

    First, Aristotle is a more intellectual scribe in his image, which, alas, confuses many voters. Plato could easily act as an intelligent person, but also as a strong, determined, strong-willed person (he was engaged in wrestling, risked his life for the sake of ideas).

    Secondly, Platonic idealism could in principle offer simple, clear and mobilizational forms (who is for what, against whom, what is the goal of a person and society, etc.). Stagirite's reasoning is full of clarifications and references to the relevance of circumstances, which rather confuses simpler people.

    Imagine that a candidate is asked which form of government is better – with a single leader, a group of elected people, or with broad popular participation? Plato would have answered unequivocally, some people would not have liked the answer, but the position would have been clear. Aristotle, on the other hand, would spend the rest of the day telling us that all three of them have good and bad versions of embodiment. This may be more realistic, but it's a bit difficult for those who want simple answers.

  2. Is this a trick question? Because I don't see any alternative here at all. If we talk specifically about elections, then Aristotle could have had all 100% of the vote, since Plato probably would not have even run for office.

    According to Aristotle, there are three correct (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) and three incorrect (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy) forms of government. Of the first three, he considered polity (republic) to be the best. Accordingly, I had (almost) nothing against the elections.

    Plato's theory of the state is based on the natural division of labor. The latter is understood as a thesis that follows from Plato's teaching about the human soul, which is divided into three parts: rational (its predominance is characteristic of philosophers), affective (predominant among warriors) and lustful (predominant among artisans and farmers). Hence the whole human race is naturally divided into three classes, each of which must do what it is ordained to do, i.e., philosophers must rule, warriors must fight, and artisans and farmers must feed the state. If everyone does what they want, but according to Plato, they don't know how to do, then social life will turn into chaos. This natural division of labor implies a complete rejection of democratic forms of government, since only philosophers should rule, because they know how to do it. You can't put someone at the helm of a ship who doesn't know how to fly it, can you? If, of course, you want the ship to stay afloat.

    In short, Plato would be horrified that you decided to resort to the election of a manager. So he would either not participate at all, or he would compromise the other candidates and then establish something like a philosophical monarchy.

  3. Definitely Plato. According to sources, he was very unscrupulous. But since the sources also raise doubts – two mowers with a tail of time has passed, I like his image, oddly enough.

  4. Everyone opposes Plato and Aristotle !Allegedly, everything is returned to Plato!But even Plato has a spiral a, not a circle !And then people don't change themselves , so it's not even a spiral, it's still a straight line, just a curve, because it doesn't change in itself or in itself .And most importantly, the world is changing globally the Internet, the ISS, the colonization of planets in the next 20 years is not the forces of one city of Queens and Star City.12 Apple, Biden.And then new technologies are becoming obsolete in recent years, apparently, the press and print media, and they, like the telegraph, should no longer be captured and there is no great power of them, and so on .And some repetitions cause only the wrong karelation and artificial isolation and brake .

  5. This is a sad question for, especially for us. Because we didn't have thinkers, or even just rational people, at the top for a long time. But in fact, to bring the country out of its state, a smart person will no longer be enough. We already need a brilliant philosopher and a good practitioner. And such people are born infrequently.

  6. Judging by the works, I would vote for Plato, he seems to me more politically oriented and socially interested, while I see Aristotle as a scientist and philosopher who would definitely hold an important position, but I don't think he would want to be in the status of a chief executive.

  7. Putin would have won, since at least 80% of the population would have voted for him. The second place would be taken by Lukashenka. Third, as always with the Communists. Plato and Aristotle would most likely have been removed from the election for violations.

Leave a Reply