 Hi, my name is Monty Johnson. I teach philosophy at the University of California, San Diego And this is the first of two lectures on Aristotle's politics book seven this one on chapters one to seven Which is about the background considerations and material conditions of the perfect state to give an overall Outline of book seven and by the way, I'm using the translation of Benjamin Jowett Oxford 1921 Which is in the public domain The first three chapters are devoted to the background Considerations for the examination of the best political system in the first chapter Aristotle's concept of happiness in the second chapter how politics relates to happiness and in the third chapter how philosophy relates to both politics and happiness Then the rest of the chapters in the book are concerned with different causes of the perfect State chapters four to seven which will be the rest of this lecture with the Material causes or material conditions of the perfect state including what kind of population it must have what kind of territory It must have its markets and naval power and the climate its climate and the character of its people Then in the next four chapters eight to twelve Aristotle discusses the formal parts of the perfect state and he distinguishes Different ways that we conceive of those parts and how those parts are arranged Together for the sake of a certain end Chapters 13 to 17 then are on what those final ends and final cause of the perfect state are that is What Aristotle's final? Idea about happiness as an end of the state amounts to and here he makes a transition into his discussion of Education also discussing work and leisure marriage and procreation But the education of young children and looking forward to the full discussion of education in book eight So in the first chapter he discusses the best way of life for both Individuals and the state which he ultimately takes to be the same first one must Know what is the best kind of life in order to know what the best kind of state is? Quote he who would duly inquire about the best form of a state ought first to determine Which is the most eligible life while this remains uncertain the best form the state must also be uncertain for? In the natural order of things those may be expected to lead the best life who are governed in the best manner of Which their circumstances permit we ought therefore to ascertain first of all Which is the most generally eligible life and then whether the same life is or is not best for the state and individuals So how does Aristotle? Determine what is the generally most eligible life? Well, he refers to his popular works for a satisfactory treatment of the issues works that have been lost In fact, he seems to be making a reference specifically to his lost dialogue the protrepticus in which he argues that Happiness or prosperity eudaimonia requires three kinds of goods first Goods of the soul Virtues for example wisdom Moderation Justice courage and so forth second goods of the body for example health strength beauty and so on and finally External goods for example wealth status family and homeland Now Aristotle says here in the politics that these Distinctions between three kinds of goods are agreed upon by all Philosophers dispute however their proper rank ordering Here Aristotle is just concerned to show that those who downplay the importance of virtue and Emphasize the importance of external goods like wealth are in fact misguided External goods like wealth have a natural limit beyond which they are useless or harmful But no amount of wisdom or justice is excessive and we should always want more of it Now goods he says are also ranked relative to the things of which they are goods and since the soul is superior to the body Then the goods of the soul must be superior to the goods of the body And since the body is superior to inanimate and external things the goods of the body must be better than the external goods like wealth External goods and the goods of the body Basically exist in Aristotle's view for the sake of the virtues Virtues like wisdom and justice don't exist for the sake of health or strength But health or strength exists for the sake of wisdom and justice and similarly health and strength that don't exist for the sake of wealth and status But rather we should want wealth or status for the sake of health That this is so is clear from the fact that we characterize God as having the virtues like wisdom and justice But it would be ridiculous to characterize God is enjoying external goods like wealth or caring about reputation Again, one can obtain external goods By good luck, but one can't obtain virtues just by luck So the virtues are on all accounts more valuable and more important than external goods Now the life of virtue is the best life for both the individual and the state Aristotle asserts like the individual the happiness or prosperity of the state Depends on the flourishing of virtues both moral virtues like justice and intellectual virtues like wisdom He says that the happy state may be shown to be that which is best and which acts rightly And it cannot act rightly without doing right actions and neither an individual nor a state can do right actions without virtue and wisdom He also says Courage justice and wisdom of the state have the same form in nature as the qualities which give the individual who possesses them The name of just wise or temperate so we can predicate Exactly the same terms in the same way of both the individual agents Of the state and the their aggregation into an organizational arrangement into a state He says let us assume then that the best life both for individuals and states is the life of virtue When virtue has external goods enough for the performance of good actions So this is very important although he rank orders external goods beneath goods of the body And both of those beneath goods of the soul that doesn't mean by any means That he thinks that goods of the body or external goods are not goods or are not valuable It's just that we should have the right conception About how they are rank ordered, but we certainly would not want to deny that they are goods And in fact that they're necessary goods that we require those kinds of goods in order to Reach the goods of the soul Now in the second chapter Aristotle Inquires into whether the political or philosophical life is better So everyone agrees that the success of the individual and the state are the same as we've just said And we can show by example those who suppose that wealth is what makes a person good Suppose that what makes a state good is that it's very wealthy And those who suppose that it's virtue that makes an individual good Also suppose that virtues are what make a state good Now it's an ethical question what the best kind of life is for an individual The political question that we're concerned with is what is the best kind of constitution or form of government? Now Aristotle's answer is as follows He says it is obvious that the best political system is necessarily that arrangement By which anyone at all could act in the best way and live happily Now this is an extremely interesting sentence and especially the interpretation of anyone at all What does it mean that anyone at all could act in the best way and live happily? First of all, it seems to mean not anyone at all absolutely, but anyone among those who Can act in the best way will live happily So those who have the capability for example to act in the best way would live happily And that is one interpretation of what the passage means The question is to what extent Aristotle would allow that this includes All women all slaves menial laborers foreigners or non-citizens To what extent is the state obligated to Is the best state arranged to bring about That any of those people Could act in the best way and live happily Well, Aristotle really doesn't address that point But he returns to the ethical question of what produces happiness Now in the ethics we saw that It can't be wealth that produces happiness. It must be some kind of virtuous activity But even if we can eliminate the state devoted to wealth that is oligarchy The question still remains about what kind of virtuous activity should be promoted if it's not wealth But virtue what kind of virtue and there are many options here So some will think of military valor Others will think of just political causes within their own state Others will think of philosophical activities including philosophical speculation For its own sake Now Aristotle describes this as a dispute arising among people who agree That virtue is the key to the success of both the individual and the state They just disagree about which virtue So he says even those who agree in thinking that the life of virtue is the most eligible Raise a question whether the life of business and politics Is or is not more eligible than one which is wholly independent of external goods I mean more than a contemplative life Which is by some maintained to be the only one worthy of a philosopher Now that passage is extremely interesting because it raises the possibility that a philosopher who does not participate in politics For example, maybe because they're living as a foreigner in another State as Aristotle did when he went to school in Athens and then stayed on there And perhaps opened his own school practicing the life of a philosopher But not obligated really to participate in the business and politics Of the city and one might well think that that's a superior way of life than having to deal with business and politics So these two kinds of life He says the life of the philosopher and the life of the statesman Appeared to have been preferred by those who have been most keen in the pursuit of virtue Both in our own times and in other ages, which is the better Is a question of no small moment for the wise man like the wise state will necessarily regulate his life according to the best end So we've got to figure out what the approach to political power should be um And Aristotle distinguishes Here between three of them first we'll call the apolitical view There are some who think that while despotic rule over others is a great injustice to exercise Constitutional rule over them, even though not unjust is a great impediment to a man's individual well-being So again example of that could be foreigner philosophers who don't feel like participating In politics ruling and being ruled in turn, but they're kind of aloof from all that so that they can pursue the contemplative life Opposed to that a pro political view that says Uh that Aristotle describes as follows. He says others take an opposite view They maintain that the true life of man is the practical and the political and that every virtue admits of being practiced Quite as much by statesmen and rulers as by private individuals So an example of this would be Athenian democrats who think everybody needs to do their part and take Contribute to the political sphere And that the in that all of the virtues including wisdom can be practiced by engaging in politics This Aristotle distinguishes from another kind of pro political view the second pro political view under consideration He says others again are of the opinion that arbitrary and tyrannical Rule alone consists with happiness indeed in some states the Entire aim of both the laws and the constitution is to give men despotic power over their neighbors And the paradigm here is the Spartans whose entire constitution is organized for the sake of war and military valor now Here in the politics Aristotle does not try to justify A pro political view as over against an apolitical view Which in other works like the nicomachean ethics, especially nicomachean ethics book 10 chapter 9 Aristotle ranks as a decisively superior way of life that the contemplative life is actually better than the life devoted to political and noble activities Here he doesn't try to show why nevertheless you should participate in politics Instead he focuses on arguing that the first kind of pro political view is superior to the second kind of pro political view so the pursuit of constitutional rule is superior to this pursuit of despotic or tyrannical power And that provides a kind of justification for the pro political view It's a justifiable way of life even if it doesn't perhaps rank as the ultimate highest way of life So against this second pro political view Aristotle argues that war Conquest and in general despotic power cannot be the end of the state though the spartan and creten constitutions are given as examples of ones organized to aim at war And being aimed at war they aim to exercise tyrannical and despotic power He says although in most cities the laws may be said generally to be in a chaotic state Still if they aim at anything they aim at the maintenance of power thus in sparta and crete the system of education And the greater part of the laws are framed with the view to war and he gives several other examples schivvians persians thracians Celts Macedonians that's an interesting reference because That's Aristotle's homeland. He also mentions iberians Now despotism and tyranny cannot be the end of statesmanship. He argues Very vehemently quote to a reflecting mind It must appear very strange that the statesman should always be Considering how he can dominate and tyrannize over others whether they will or not How can that which is not even lawful be the business of the statesman or the legislator Unlawful it certainly is to rule without regard to justice for there may be might where there is no right The other arts and sciences offer no parallel a physician is not expected to persuade or coerce his patients Nor is a pilot expected to coerce or persuade the passengers in his ship So this isn't uh at all what statesmanship and politics Should be about forcing people to do things even if it's uh unjust The only justifications for domination Aristotle argues are natural slavery the theory of which he lays out in book one and cases of necessary predation in nature which is Essentially how he justifies natural slavery in book one. So here he says quote Such behavior is irrational Unless the one party is and the other is not born to serve in which case men have a right to command Not indeed all their fellows, but only those who are intended to be subjects Just as we ought not to hunt mankind Whether for food or sacrifice, but only the animals which may be hunted for food or sacrifice That is to say such wild animals as are edible or eatable So just as there's a natural fact of the matter about which animals are edible so there's a natural fact about which people are born to serve as slaves and over them alone is it just and uh, right to exercise empire and despotic Power the general pursuit of trying to enslave or tyrannize over the whole world or over a whole region is A perversion of justice a perversion of nature. It runs contrary to nature and contrary to the purposes of the state So happiness and the good life again are the end of the state not war and conquest War and conquest cannot be the end of the state because we could imagine a state To flourish without any war or conquest Aristotle says quote surely there may be a city happy in isolation Which we will assume to be well governed for it is quite possible that a city thus isolated might be well administered and have good laws But such a city would not be constituted with any view to war or the conquest of enemies All that sort of thing must be excluded Hence we see very plainly that warlike pursuits Although generally deemed to be honorable are not the supreme end of all things but only means now There are many interesting things about that, but one thing we'll need to compare that with is what Aristotle later says in Chapter six of this very book seven About the necessity of the ideal city having communication trade and warfare with foreign states Here at least he envisions the possibility that even without any trade or communication Much less warfare with external states a city could nevertheless be happy Assuming that it is well governed That theoretical possibility shows that there is another End and that the happiness of the state must reside elsewhere And Aristotle says that the good law givers should inquire how states and races of men And communities may participate in a good life and in the happiness, which is attainable by them His enactments will not always be the same and where there are neighbors He will have to see what sorts of studies should be practiced in relation to their several characters Or how the measure is appropriate in relation to each or to be adopted but In general the whole point of politics is to figure out how Given a certain state and certain constitution of its citizens how Its political system may be arranged and constituted so as to bring about the good life and happiness Now that the positive conception of what that good life or happiness is for Aristotle Is a life devoted to virtue and specifically an active life of virtue And so he next addresses people who while they agree that the life of virtue is the most eligible way of life Differ about the manner of practicing it for some renounced political power and think that the life of the freemen Is different from the life of the statesman and the best of all But others think that the life of the statesman is best So with that quotation he raises this question yet again of the apolitical way of life versus the political way of life But he says that both the life of the apolitical freeman For example a philosopher And the life of the statesman can be good and noble Certainly the life of the apolitical freeman is superior to the life of wielding despotic or tyrannical power The main focus is to show that The other way of life is also good and Is considered an active pursuit of virtue In fact those who embrace that way of life The argument that they make for the life of the statesman is that one who does nothing cannot do well And that virtuous activity is identical with happiness now uh, so if if you could describe philosophers as leading these these apolitical freemen is leading in active lives then Um, you could argue that since happiness is a kind of activity and work certainly requires activities then that life of the apolitical freeman cannot Be the best way of life Aristotle says it is equally a mistake to place inactivity above action for happiness is activity And the actions of the just and wise are the realization of much that is noble But he argues the active life can in fact be lived Without either pursuing tyrannical power or war But even in a state isolated from other states and even within a state in isolation From other individuals so here's a necessarily long quotation Not that a life of action must necessarily have relation to others as some persons think Nor are those ideas only to be regarded as practical which are pursued for the sake of practical results But much more the thoughts and contemplations which are independent and complete in themselves Since virtuous activity and therefore a certain kind of action Is an end and even in the case of external actions the directing mind is most truly said to act Neither again Is it necessary that states which are cut off from others and choose to live alone should be inactive for activity As well as other things may take place by sections There are many ways in which the sections of a state act upon one another Here he has in mind sections like the rich and the poor or the different occupations that make up the city or the different elements that correspond to each constitution But he says the same thing is equally true of every individual if this were otherwise god in the universe Which have no external relations over and above their own energies would be far enough from perfection So there's nothing outside the universe yet the universe is Perfect and so it has to be possible that you can be perfect even without being in relation to anything outside of you Same goes for god Hence it is evident that the same life is best for each individual and for states and for mankind collectively Now after that Heady discussion of what's the best way of life and the conclusion that it's an active life of virtue And that this even permits a kind of active life of philosophical contemplation Although it will certainly also include an active life devoted to the moral virtues and the social moral political activities within the state After discussing all of that he turns to discussing the material conditions of the perfect state He says in what has preceded i've discussed other forms of government In what remains the first point to be considered is what should be the conditions of the ideal or perfect state For the perfect state cannot exist without a due supply of the means of life So these chapters are very important because they specify what Aristotle considers to be Necessary conditions for his ideal state coming about these are things that he will suppose In the account and not show how they are to be provided. That is the object of some other kind of inquiry These are the things he will assume are in place a certain number as to population a certain size of territory A certain amount of communication with other cities especially by naval capabilities and access to trade and also and probably most importantly certain characteristics of the population that is ruled Certain character traits that they have and some of these are determined by the climate So first about the population very interesting topic Aristotle begins by saying that we should not confuse the amount of population with the greatness Of the state the greatness of the state in his view depends on how well it performs its function Which again is living well for the citizens. It doesn't really matter how many people it governs So long as it performs that function Further a city may include a large or even majority population that are not even citizens but are merely visitors or slaves Such people Aristotle argues should not be factored into the greatness of a city Even the quantity of citizens is not the most important thing a city that for example had many artisans But few warriors may be inferior to a city not as great as a city that has few artisans But many warriors for example Cities he argues that are too populace are impossible or difficult to govern well Here Aristotle appeals to empirical evidence and also to argument So he says a very great multitude either cannot be orderly or would require a superhuman Godlike power in order to order it All natural things he points out have natural Sizes and limits that are within certain bounds. This is true of plants animals humans so forth a state Is also a natural thing and so it must within exist within certain limits and certain bounds Even artifacts have natural limits or Boundaries or sizes so a ship for example that was smaller than a thumbnail Or larger than an entire continent would not actually be a ship because it wouldn't be able to perform the function of a ship In like manner a state when composed of too few people is not as a state ought to be self sufficient But when it's composed of too many people though self-sufficing in all mere Necessaries as a nation may be it is not a state being almost incapable of constitutional government For who could be the general of such a vast magnitude or who the herald unless you have the voice of a stent nor so One limit Aristotle points out on governing them Governing people is the limit of what can be heard. So the media of communication with the other citizens You could get a few thousand people into an amphitheater that's well designed But beyond that there is no technology for amplifying the voice to go Further now it's interesting to think about you know, what affects Something like telephones or television or the internet would have on this analysis Would Aristotle change his view because the new technologies make it possible to communicate with A much larger group of people now or would he think that still the natural size of a political System should be much smaller and that despite these technological advancements We haven't improved our politics at all. In fact, our perhaps our politics are worse And as a result of being of a scale that is just too big to be able to govern without some superhuman or godlike power So he takes a kind of pragmatic approach What should be the limit? He says will be easily ascertained by experience for both governors And the governed have duties to perform the special functions of a governor to command and to judge But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit Then they must know each other's characters Where they do not possess this knowledge both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong When the population is very large, they are manifestly settled at haphazard, which clearly ought not to be So very interesting Observation you can't really for example engage in true democratic politics unless you know The other citizens you have to know them speak to them Understand what kind of characters they have That enables you to deliberate with them and reach decisions With them If we don't really know each other's character then on what basis are we electing each other to offices perhaps elections Where we don't know the people's character But are based on something else like clever advertising or focusing on on irrelevant things The same problem could happen in lawsuits You just don't know the characters of the people involved as well Whereas if the citizens all actually know each other Then it They are more capable of judging of each other's characters for the sake of both lawsuits and elections So in Aristotle's considered view the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the purposes of life And he basically summarizes this by it should be able to be taken in in a single view So You want a pretty big city. You want it to be a fairly great magnitude But but limited enough that it can be taken in in one view and you could really Have all of the citizens know each other and be able to communicate with each other And be able to watch out for each other's character Now the second material condition of the perfect state is Territory of a certain size the territory should afford as much self-sufficiency or autarky as possible That that is the territory should be able to support A liberal character, but also temperate lifestyles So it has to be sufficiently large To support many citizens and the possibility of them being generous With their possessions towards each other in order to exercise this very important Virtue of generosity or liberality They have to have a certain amount of wealth and so that's going to require Households of a certain size a certain number of slaves a certain amount of livestock and all of that's going to require A certain amount of territory But Aristotle argues the territory should not be so large That it would support excessive consumerism and waste and that sort of thing So as always he's looking for the kind of You know mean between an extreme and Two extremes in excess and a deficiency. You don't want it deficient so that you can't support all of the Promotion of virtues and lifestyles that you want, but you don't want it So large that it actually is able to support Vices So the exact amount of the territory will actually depend on an investigation into The ethical virtues and vices of things like liberality Versus meanness and moderation Versus over indulgence Besides that there's some practical things to be considered Of course the territory should be easily defensible Along with the countryside, but also convenient for transportation Again, Aristotle repeats the benefit of being able to take in the whole city with a single view The third material conditions of the perfect state third set that he discusses access to trade So here he acknowledges that most cities cannot in fact be entirely Autarchic or materially Self-sufficient so they will have to engage in trade For one thing they will have too much of some things and not enough of other things And so in order to get those things they don't have enough of they will trade the things that they have too much Of and then that will supply the hypothetical requisites for them to be able to Engage in virtuous activities like generosity But if they are to engage in trade then there will arise questions about the interaction between the citizens and foreigners And some people make an argument for example against having easy C communication It's argued that trading by C in general is inimical to good government because it requires a Crowd of merchants coming and going and an increase in population of slaves traders and in general foreigners Who are brought up under other laws and so they aren't habituated to the laws of the state But an argument for having easy C communication Takes into account various military and market considerations like benefits of troop resupply Exporting what you have in excess importing what you're deficient in and so on And to some extent maritime power Aristotle says is not only advantageous But is indicative or even constitutive of a great state Now a possible solution to the problem caused by Having needing a fairly large naval presence would be to place the harbor and the trading markets outside of the city Proper so that you could sort of keep all of those foreign Elements that haven't been habituated into the proper laws of the state in a different region entirely Interesting that Aristotle does not hear mention or even seem to allow the possibility which was mentioned earlier in Chapter two of this book seven He there he mentioned a city isolated from all of its neighbors, but nevertheless being a perfect city He said surely there could be a city that's happy in isolation Which we will assume to be well governed for he said it's quite possible that a city thus isolated Might be well administered and have good laws Now the fourth set of material conditions of the perfect state climate and character So Aristotle engages in a kind of anthropology here that Divides the races of human beings on on the known world into Europeans Asians and Greeks Europeans by which he has in mind roughly the people's north and west of Greece Skithians Gauls etc About them he says those who live in a cold climate and in Europe are full of spirit But wanting an intelligence and skill and therefore they retain comparative freedom But have no political organization and are incapable of ruling over others On the other hand a kind of opposite Extreme are Asians By and he has in mind people's roughly to the south and east of Greece for example persians And egyptians about them he says quote whereas the natives of asia are intelligent and inventive They're wanting in spirit and therefore they are always in a state of subjection and slavery so actually Both of those europeans and asians are described as essentially being worthy of subjection and slavery the europeans because although They are courageous and spirited. They're unintelligent and kind of dumb and incapable of Ruling over other people. So the suggestion is they need to be ruled over by others Uh, the asians are said to directly Uh, they're just described as being in a state of perpetual subjection and slavery as this is inevitable Because unlike the europeans, they're actually intelligent and inventive But wanting in spirit and so not courageous enough to Assert their own freedom Now fortunately the greeks lie in the kind of Sweet middle spot between these two extremes Aristotle says quote But the Hellenic race which is situated between them is likewise intermediate in character being high spirited and also intelligent hence it continues free and is the best governed of any nation And if it could be formed into one state would be able to rule the world Now that is a very unusual passage for a lot of reasons first the idea of uniting greeks into one state Is a strange, uh fantasy, but it's part of this kind of pan-Hellenic Concept that was popular around the time that Aristotle was writing But the idea that Even if you could form it into one state, it would then be able to rule the world. It seems to foreshadow the ambitions of Alexander the Great or something like that, but Aristotle says nothing more about this and Again, he said that the purpose of the state is not um empire and despotic power and Subjecting everybody to slavery. So it seems Like a strange sort of comment Now he acknowledges that greek tribes also show differences of character among themselves and some greek tribes are more intelligent some are More courageous and there's every kind of Mixture again among them The perfect state under discussion here He says we'll be assumed to those to be those who are both intelligent and courageous and so this will be You know greeks like athenians intelligent and courageous at the same time now Be able to rule the world. I think does not necessarily envision something like world government But the idea is that they could set up Colonies in any area of the world and would be able to rule in those Parts of the world and this seems to reflect an actual realistic as opposed to a science fiction fantasy a realistic idea about the context of what he's writing about because there is colonization going on in both european and asian Regions as he describes them that is greeks setting up new cities And it's this context when you're setting up a new city Where it would actually be relevant to consider things like the character of the population That you are subjecting and ruling but also the territory the Town planning the position of the harbor things like that can no longer be changed in athens or sparta So why are they part of a political theory? Well, they're part of a theory of how you would put a good state together where you to establish another one It's not just an envisioning of a utopian political arrangement, but A concrete discussion perhaps of what should happen in colonization now as a kind of Coda at the end of chapter seven Aristotle Discusses a really interesting point whether you should be less critical towards Your own country than you are towards other countries or should you be more critical towards your own country? It seems a bit tangential to the main subject of the chapter But Aristotle criticizes Plato's argument that the ruling class the guardians should quote be friendly towards those they know But fierce towards those they don't know and he's referring referring to a famous passage in book two of the republic now Aristotle says That this is wrong on both counts first Quote the spirit within us is more stirred against our friends and acquaintances than against those who are Unknown to us because this kind of passion begets Friendship and enables us to love so we should be more angered For example, if our close friend does something wrong Then if a distant acquaintance does and also if our own country or city does something wrong We should be more upset and angered and passionate about it than if a foreign country does something wrong On the other hand one should not be more fierce towards those we don't know for quote We ought not to be out of temper with anyone and a lofty spirit is not fierce by nature But only when excited against evil doers and this as I was saying before is a feeling which men Show most strongly towards their friends if they think they have received a wrong at their hands and indeed it is reasonable For besides the actual injury, they seem to be deprived of a benefit by those who owe them one Now this is applicable to the modern world So to take an example just from a few years back during the cold war It was common to have americans for example denounce human rights abuses occurring in the soviet union But not as common for them to acknowledge their own abuses And I think this is exactly parallel to a situation in which soviet intellectuals were quicker to criticize american abuses And less often critical of soviet ones According to Aristotle, this should be exactly the opposite Americans should be criticizing american abuses more than soviet ones Americans should be criticizing where they fall short in human rights It's less to the point to criticize human rights abuses going on in china or in Russia than it is in your own country first of all the passion should be Fired up just like you'd be more fired up if your close friend did something wrong than if some distant foreigner and stranger Did and also you should let people in that country worry about Opposing the injustices that occur in there. And so that's an interesting theoretical discussion that Aristotle engages in here at the end of Both a very heady and abstract discussion of the presuppositions about happiness politics and philosophy that should govern the discussion Of the perfect state, but then also a sort of brass tax discussion of Material requirements of the perfect state. Thank you