Book · -350
Politics
by Aristotle
The foundational text on political regimes, slavery, and the good life — written in 350 BC and still making r/askphilosophy argue about what Plato got wrong.
What does Reddit think of Politics?
Three mentions across 7 years, all from r/askphilosophy, tells you something: this is a specialist's citation, not a casual recommendation. Nobody's posting "just finished this" threads. The book surfaces in comparative arguments — most notably as the counterpoint in Plato-vs-Aristotle debates, where r/askphilosophy commenters invoke it to push back on the Republic's status as a serious political blueprint. One top-upvoted comment (↑19) uses Aristotle's empirical approach to argue that the city-in-speech in the Republic may not be politically actionable at all. Another (↑12) recommends curating just the slavery passages, which is a genuinely useful piece of advice and also a signal that the full text carries significant ideological baggage. A third (↑10) cites it approvingly from an explicitly anarchist perspective, in a "know your enemy" framing. So: three people, three very different uses.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Constitutional theory and regime typology
- · Slavery and its ancient justifications
- · The relationship between ethics and politics
- · Critique of Platonic idealism
- · The good life and the role of the polis
Common praise
- + Gives you the vocabulary to dissect regime types that political science still uses today.
- + The empirical method — Aristotle actually studied 158 constitutions — makes it feel grounded compared to Plato's top-down idealism.
- + r/askphilosophy treats it as the corrective lens for reading the Republic more critically.
- + The slavery passages, however uncomfortable, are cited as essential for understanding ancient political economy on its own terms.
Common criticism
- − The full text carries enough ideological weight that even fans recommend reading it selectively.
- − Three mentions in 7 years is not a ringing endorsement of accessibility — this is a text people cite, not one they finish.
- − The defense of natural slavery reads as a serious obstacle for anyone who isn't already committed to working through it academically.
- − Lacks the narrative pull that gets Plato recommended to general readers — nobody's posting a first-time read thread.
Who it's for
If you're already in a Plato-vs-Aristotle argument and need the empirical counterweight, this is the book r/askphilosophy points to. Political philosophy students will encounter it whether they want to or not. The anarchist framing from the ↑10 comment — reading it to understand a tradition you oppose — is actually a reasonable entry strategy for left-leaning readers. If you're looking for an accessible intro to ancient political thought, the three-mention, zero-casual-read-thread track record suggests you should start somewhere else first.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for Politics?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
“So one thing is that it's not very clear that the Republic is about *a political regime* in any straightforward sense, and there is quite a bit of disagreement from my understanding about whether Plato thought the city-in-speech of the Republic was even politically possible as opposed to being a ske…
“Aristotle's Politics, but curate just the bits where he talks about slavery.
“I would like to preface this by saying that I am an anarchist/left-wing libertarian so I obviously do not agree with any of these authors, I just like to "know my enemy" and all that. That being said, there are definitely a ton of famous authoritarian philosophers out there. Well, both Plato and …
Convinced? Pick up Politics
What else does r/askphilosophy read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Critique of Pure Reason
Immanuel Kant
Kant's 1781 attempt to settle the limits of human knowledge — the book that split philosophy in two and still hasn't been fully digested.
The Myth of Sisyphus
Albert Camus
A 1942 essay that opens with the question of whether life is worth living and ends by insisting Sisyphus is happy.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein built a numbered ladder from logical atomism to the inexpressible, then said the ladder had to be discarded once you climbed it.
Being and Time
Martin Heidegger
Heidegger's argument that human existence only gets its meaning from death — 162 Reddit mentions, mostly from people explaining why it's so hard to read.
Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle
Aristotle's 2,400-year-old argument that living well depends on virtue, leisure, and the company you keep — still the canonical text for the field.
Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche dismantles the moral framework Western civilization built on, then refuses to tell you what to replace it with.
Politics — frequently asked
What does Reddit actually use Aristotle's Politics for?+
Mostly as a foil to Plato. All 3 mentions come from r/askphilosophy, where commenters invoke it to argue that the Republic's city-in-speech isn't a real political proposal. It functions as a citation in comparative debates, not as a standalone recommendation. Nobody's writing a 'just finished this and loved it' post.
Is Aristotle's Politics worth reading if I disagree with its conclusions?+
Depends on your tolerance for working through the source. The ↑10 comment on r/askphilosophy explicitly recommends it from an anarchist perspective — 'know your enemy' reasoning. The ↑12 comment suggests curating just the slavery sections if ideological friction is the concern. That selective approach seems to be how most Reddit readers engage with it.
How does Aristotle's Politics compare to the Republic on Reddit?+
The Republic dominates r/askphilosophy in volume and casual-read threads. Aristotle's Politics surfaces in contrast — commenters use it to argue Plato's ideal city may not be politically feasible in any real sense. The ↑19 comment frames Aristotle as the more empirically grounded option, but that hasn't translated into more recommendations or wider Reddit discussion.
Should I read Aristotle's Politics before or after the Republic?+
After, based on how r/askphilosophy actually uses it. The 3 mentions all appear in threads where someone already has the Republic as context. Aristotle's Politics lands harder as a corrective than as an entry point — you need something to push back against.