LAUSR

Aristotle said [an opening phrase that is surely guaranteed to put off 75% of the Journal of Mental Health’s readers] that the end of all other forms of society is simply ‘‘life,’’ but the end of the polis is ‘‘good life.’’ [Politics 1252 b]. By the ‘‘end’’ Aristotle meant the perfect form, and by the polis he meant the organised urban community, hereinafter abbreviated to ‘‘the community.’’ It may seem odd quoting an ancient philosopher in a modern mental health journal, but when considered carefully it is ‘‘surprising how modern and progressive he was. . . discussing issues such as terrorism, inequality and the dangers of excessive greed in a small class of wealthy individuals. . . ideals that could arguably have been expressed by activists in the west today’’ Qvoretrup (2016). I would add that, in the Nichomachean Ethics, he gives us the basis of applied psychology – a discussion of how the individual can live a ‘‘good life’’ (i.e. a sane, happy and virtuous life) in a civil society. There have been three arguments against regarding Aristotle as a guide to modern life, [for an excellent lateVictorian summary see Fowler (1893): Firstly, Aristotle regarded a viable community as being small enough to be seen from a high point. Modern states are too large for his conception. This was true until recently, but now most of us carry in our pockets devices that allow us to see what our friends are doing from a distance – devices that were the stuff of wildest fantasy when Tolkein was writing about them in the days of my childhood. The modern community can be much larger than the classic polis. Secondly Aristotle was writing for a readership with no belief in an afterlife so the benefits of virtue had to be seen in this life. As Dr Johnson (1782) put it ‘‘When the thoughts are extended to a future state, the present life seems hardly worthy of all those principles of conduct. . .’’ Victorian critics may have firmly believed that they would be rewarded in an individual hell or heaven, but only a minority of modern westerners even pay lip service to such ideas, thus being much closer to the classic Greek attitude. Thirdly, and most tellingly, Aristotle was writing for a slave-owning society. Citizens could have time to serve the community because much of the routine work was being done for them. This has been a valid criticism, but we have now reached a position where it is reliably predicted that anywhere between 20% and 40% of jobs are likely to be taken over by robots in the near future, with little chance of replacement. In an equitable society, citizens should have plenty of time to serve the community. It is therefore arguable that Aristotle’s ideas of the sort of society we ought to be planning for are now much more relevant than they have been for millennia.