The nature of the first principle of animal life, and of all perception, intelli gence, and action, Aristotle, as well as all other philosophers, was at a loss to ex plain. Having no other way of judging concerning it than by observing its opera tions as far as they are subjects of expe rience, he could only define the mind to be that principle by which we live, per-. ceive, and understand. Whene he at.
tempted to form an abstract conception of this principle, he saw that there must be some substance which enjoys such per fection as to be capable of perfbrming this function ; but he was wholly ignorant of the nature of this substance, and there fore in defining it lie made use of a term expressive of the confused idea which he had formed to himself from observing its operations, and called it perfect energy ; that is,5f he had confessed the truth, some substance which is adapted to produce sensitive and rational life in certain or ganized bodies.
This term will afford the attentive reader a striking example of the manner in which Aristotle endeavoured to explain the principles of nature by vague notions and unmeaning words. But on other subjects he is sometimes remarkably clear, as in his discussion on " Politics" he states, in few words, the only legiti mate purpose of political establishments. "Every political society forms, it is plain, a sort of community or partnership, insti tuted for the benefit of the partners. Utility is the end and aim of every such institution ; and the greatest and most ex tensive utility is the aim of that great as sociation comprehending all the rest, and known by the name of the common wealth." Having stated and explained the grand purposes of society, he consi ders the best systems of means for at taining those purposes, and traces the distinction of ranks which arises from the inequalities of individual talents, virtue, and fortune. Political institutions are best fitted for promoting human happi ness, when they are most suitable to the opinions and sentiments of the people, and the circumstances of the times and country. No one political system will equally suit all situations, and scarcely any two. Government being an arrange ment, the best government must be the best arrangement, and the best arrange ment is that in which the materials to be arranged are the best fitted both to receive and to preserve. The materials of the statesman or legislator are the number and character of his peo ple, and the extent and quality of his country. The excellence of a common
wealth, however, is not to be estimated by its populousness or extent, but by its fitness for performing its proper func tions : the same energies and habits con stitute the happiness both of individuals and of nations. Men make governments, not governments them; nor by any sys tem of political arrangements can a hap py commonwealth be constituted front fools or cowards, profligates or knaves. The bricks must be first prepared before the edifice can be reared. The human character is a compound of good and evil ; the former arises from the balance of the affections, under the controul and guidance of reason, the latter results from passion operating without restraint. That government is the best which most powerfully stimulates the energies of the people to beneficial purposes, and re strains them from hurtful pursuits. That must be a system of freedom, in the first place tempered by order, and modera tion in the second. Mixed governments, wisely formed and balanced, best corres pond to the state of mankind. Democra cy, though apparently most agreeable to the rights of man, is not the best adapted to his wants ; the general will, unrestrain ed, is apt to run into excess; to be pre cipitate in deliberation, and tardy in exe cution. While simple democracy is inex pedient for the people themselves, sim ple aristocracy and simple monarchy are equally inexpedient ; and being the sub jection of the many to a few, or to one, are moreover unjust. For these reasons Aristotle recommends a constitution that combines and balances the three orders, as the most generally likely to promote the good of society.
To his " Treatise on Politics" Aris totle has added two books on " °econo mics," in which he has treated in a simi lar way on the management of domestic concerns.
Nothing is to be met with in the writ ings of Aristotle, which decisively deter mines whether he thought the soul of man mortal or immortal ; but the former appears most probable, from his notion of the nature and origin of the human soul, which he conceived to he an intellectual power, externally transmitted into the human body from an Eternal Intslli gence, the common source of rationality to human beings. Aristotle does not in form his readers what he conceived this universal principle to be ; but there is no proof that he supposed the union of this principle with any individual to continue after death.