Book 10 / Chapter 9
Paragraph 11 - The Limitations of Sophists in Political Wisdom
Explanation - Part By Part
"But those of the sophists who profess the art seem to be very far from teaching it. For, to put the matter generally, they do not even know what kind of thing it is nor what kinds of things it is about; otherwise they would not have classed it as identical with rhetoric or even inferior to it."
Aristotle is criticizing the sophists—teachers who claimed to educate people in various intellectual disciplines, including politics—for misunderstanding what the art of politics truly is. According to Aristotle, the sophists treat politics as if it were simply rhetoric (the skill of persuasive speaking), or even something less important than rhetoric, which shows that they don’t actually grasp the essence of politics. Politics, in Aristotle's view, is about much more than just persuasion; it's about understanding and shaping what is good for a community through laws, governance, and moral judgment. This deeper purpose of politics has been entirely overlooked by the sophists, which makes their teachings inadequate or even misguided.
"Nor have thought it easy to legislate by collecting the laws that are thought well of; they say it is possible to select the best laws, as though even the selection did not demand intelligence and as though right judgement were not the greatest thing, as in matters of music."
Here, Aristotle critiques the sophists—or people who claim to teach politics or the art of legislation—because they oversimplify what it takes to be a good legislator. These sophists believe that creating good laws is merely a matter of collecting the laws that other people have praised or thought to be good, as if curating a list is enough. Aristotle disagrees strongly with this idea. He points out that even the process of selecting which laws are the best requires a significant amount of intelligence and right judgment. He emphasizes that making these kinds of decisions is not trivial; it's as complex and demanding as making proper judgments in an artistic field like music. In music, simply knowing about notes or melodies isn’t enough—you need a deep understanding of how things work together harmoniously. Similarly, in politics, you can’t just borrow rules from elsewhere without the ability to discern what actually fits and works well in a particular situation.
This reflects Aristotle’s broader point that political skill isn’t something you can approach without depth, wisdom, and experience—it requires more than superficial learning or copying what others have done.
"For while people experienced in any department judge rightly the works produced in it, and understand by what means or how they are achieved, and what harmonizes with what, the inexperienced must be content if they do not fail to see whether the work has been well or ill made—as in the case of painting."
Aristotle is making the point that experience is critical for properly evaluating and understanding any skill or craft. Take painting, for example: someone with experience in art can assess a painting with deeper insight—they can recognize the techniques used, understand how the elements work together (like color harmony or composition), and appreciate the intention behind the work. In contrast, someone without experience can only make a broad judgment, like whether the painting looks "good" or "bad," without grasping the underlying details that make it so.
This idea underscores the broader argument: in any field, including politics or lawmaking, expertise and practice are essential to truly judge or create high-quality work. Without experience, one’s evaluation remains shallow and basic.
"Now laws are as it were the 'works' of the political art; how then can one learn from them to be a legislator, or judge which are best?"
Here, Aristotle is drawing a comparison between laws and the "works" or creations produced by other crafts or arts. Just as a skill in painting or music is not developed simply by looking at finished paintings or listening to songs, the skill of a legislator cannot be fully developed merely by reviewing laws. He’s questioning how someone could truly learn to be a good legislator or judge which laws are best without understanding the deeper principles, context, or reasoning behind them. Essentially, he’s emphasizing that simply observing the outcomes (laws) is not sufficient; one needs the expertise and insight of the craft of politics to truly evaluate or create them intelligently.
"Even medical men do not seem to be made by a study of text-books. Yet people try, at any rate, to state not only the treatments, but also how particular classes of people can be cured and should be treated—distinguishing the various habits of body; but while this seems useful to experienced people, to the inexperienced it is valueless."
Aristotle is drawing a comparison between becoming a good legislator and becoming a good doctor. He's pointing out that just reading about medicine in textbooks doesn't make someone a skilled doctor. While medical texts may outline treatments and describe how to address specific cases depending on different bodily conditions, such knowledge is only truly valuable to people who already have practical experience in the field. In contrast, for someone without that hands-on experience, this information is essentially useless—they won't know how to apply it effectively.
Aristotle's broader point is that expertise in any field, whether medicine or lawmaking, isn't just about memorizing theories or collecting information. It's about acquiring real-world experience so you can interpret, adapt, and apply that knowledge in meaningful and practical ways. This idea underscores his view that wisdom and judgment come from a combination of study and experience, rather than theoretical understanding alone.
"Surely, then, while collections of laws, and of constitutions also, may be serviceable to those who can study them and judge what is good or bad and what enactments suit what circumstances, those who go through such collections without a practised faculty will not have right judgement (unless it be as a spontaneous gift of nature), though they may perhaps become more intelligent in such matters."
Aristotle is making an important point here: while compiling collections of laws and constitutions can be helpful for those who already have expertise and the ability to analyze and judge, they are of limited value to someone without the necessary practical experience or trained judgment. In other words, just reading about laws or studying them in a theoretical sense doesn’t automatically make someone capable of understanding which laws are good, which are bad, or how to properly apply them to various real-life situations.
He compares this process to other arts and skills, like medicine or music, where theoretical knowledge (like studying a medical textbook or a musical composition) is useful only if the person already has some level of practical expertise or guided training. For the untrained, such information might make them slightly more aware of the subject but won't necessarily enable them to act wisely or skillfully—it might even leave them clueless about making the right decisions unless they possess a rare natural talent for understanding such matters.
The takeaway is that experience and judgment are critical in the field of politics (and other disciplines), and mere theoretical knowledge or instruction isn’t enough to make someone a proficient legislator or policymaker. Knowing which laws are appropriate to enact requires both study and the ability to contextualize and evaluate them in light of the unique circumstances of a particular society or situation.