[x]

Good question. Aristotle was definitely a realist, and hence more conservative than the idealist Plato. But I'm not so sure that one can simply associate Plato and Aristotle directly with liberalism and conservatism.

In his day, Plato counted as a conservative and his Republic has been regarded as an attempt to give society a rigid, unchanging form. Of course, what counts as conservatism has changed over the years. I don't think most of us would find Sparta or the Republic a good model for our own society. Today, a state run by guardians from on high for the public good, looks very much like modern judicial-bureaucratic liberalism.

But liberals have also been able to build on Aristotle's view of human needs to justify the welfare state. Aristotle represents a common sense path that radicals have found too realistic and elitist. He accepts human nature and institutions too much to win over those who want to change them. But there may be some on the right who find Aristotle, the exponent of the mean between extremes, unappealing.

[ztiworoh]

I actually disagree, Plato's Republic offers much valued advice for the American people. Like it or not America is not a true democracy, it's an oligarchy with input from the citizenry, however, the oligarchy is not based only on money or lineage (though these still hold sway to some degree), the ruling class is based on a combination of cunning and inteligence.

Plato realized that although there are equal rights inherent to people, that does not mean all men are endowed with an equal chance. He resolved that some people are meant to be workers and some are meant to be thinkers. The workers maintain the economic level of the country while the intellectuals maintain policy, strategy, and law. Although Plato's ideal country does not mesh completely with American values, it does have much to offer in that it maintains the opportunity created in a freemarket economy while providing a structure which is missing in many libertarian/anarchist views of the nature of the state.

[GaConfed]

I think Plato's description of the perfect government in the Republic was just his way of letting you know that perfect anything on this earth is an impossibility. His perfect government was absurd, and I think he meant it to be that way. The philosopher king is a perfect man, and as you know, none of us are perfect. Only God is perfect. In Plato's train of thought the phiolosopher king and his government are in the relm of the Forms. It is just an Idea that we all reach for but never attain in its pure perfection. However, the saving grace for mankind is that even though perfection will never be attained, the more effort one puts into achieving perfection, the closer he will come to it. I gather from reading about everything he ever wrote that this is what Plato meant by "living the good life."

[Helms]

Nicely said!....Philosophy is a broad field and its hard to chose your timeline. Losts of passion in the 19th century-lots of ideologies we still carry around.