Aristotle and the City State

Aristotle and the City State

One of the most important philosophical books in the history of humankind can be considered to be Aristotle's book Politics. Politeia, the original name refers to the city (polis). Right from the title we deduce that there is a strong direct connection between the city as a form or social organization and the state as a political instrument. The present paper has the purpose of analyzing the strong point as well as the weak ones of the city-state concept.

First and foremost, the philosopher discusses the origin of the state, trying to demonstrate why it is a necessary instrument. Since the available resources are limited and man has a natural instinct of accumulating things and trying to impose himself on the others, in the absence of an instrument that controls men, the only possible results would be a generalized state of chaos and conflict-generated by the fact that some would have a lot more than others who would be transformed into slaves (Introduction to Aristotle). From this point-of-view the city state is the means through which people are organized. In addition, the city -- state is the tool which imposes the principles of justice on men . But this is not the only reason for which the city-state must exist.

According to Aristotle people, by nature are not able to care for themselves. They need to be organized in a community. People living outside the community depend on it for their survival. It is the community which makes sure that everybody benefits from the available resources. But how does this happen? How does the mechanism of distribution work? Actually, there is no great authority which actually gives people something. The great authority invents and manages the rules that people must obey. And these rules make sure that the mechanism functions. The rules of justice are meant to tell people what is right and to let them know what punishment they will receive if they break them (Introduction to Aristotle).

Aristotle believes that human nature needs to be kept under control. This control is achieved through education. The educational process teaches man what morality is and why it is best to act according to its principles. In the philosopher's opinion, man reached the state of perfection when he realized his full potential. Outside the community, man is unable to do this because his wild instincts push him towards conflict and selfishness. Under these circumstances, the city-state can be viewed as the ideal catalyst which allows the human being to fulfil his potential (Presuppositions of Aristotle's Politics).

The question which arises here: why should man want to have his wild instincts control? Why should he obey to a principle of justice if this is not his nature? Why should one care about equality when he could get rich and turn the others into slaves? The answer is: because this type of living would not be functional from a long-term perspective. From this point-of-view the city-state is the instrument of education par excellence (Introduction to Aristotle).

We have seen that it is better off for people to love within a community. We have also seen that this community is under the leadership of authority as a regulating mechanism. According to Aristotle, the city-state is the best form of organization since it allows for both the people and it as a mechanism to reach a state of self sufficiency. One of the strong points of the city-state concept is that it takes people from a state of nature (in which man is bad in relation to the others and harmful for himself from a long-term perspective) and puts him in a context which allows him to live happily while fulfilling his potential (Introduction to Aristotle).

The city-state's functioning is based upon rules. According to Aristotle this is a principle which he notice din nature. When a multitude of entities are managed by a single principle this principle needs to be enforced by a set of rules. The necessity of rules is a strong point regarding the city-state concept. However, it must be underlined that according to the philosopher, different people need to be governed by different rules (Aristotle's Political Theory, 2002).

In other words, the aristocracy will be handled in a certain manner, while the salves in another. It is true that different situations need to be managed differently, but I believe this perspective to be one of the weak points of the city-state concept. People tend to develop themselves. They want to be free. They want to be able to express themselves. They want to have private property. Even Aristotle claims that perfection is reached through the achievement of one's potential (Presuppositions of Aristotle's Politics). One may be born as a slave, but this does not imply that his potential is limited to that. One may very well decide that he wishes to overcome this condition. The fact that the law treats him differently and prevents him from acing according to his own will is a limitation of individual freedom. Under these circumstances, it is safe to say that the differentiation of laws prevents the realization of people's potential and therefore prevents the realization of perfection at certain levels of society (Aristotle's Political Theory, 2002).

Aristotle claims that the rules are made in order to support justice. But different rules imply different conceptions of justice. Is this fair? In my opinion it is not. Furthermore, it is not just a matter of fairness and ethics, but also a more pragmatic issue. As history has proved, that was not the ideal form of organization for man. Neither were the other ones, since history was marked by so many conflicts.

This aspect is extremely important since the rule is a core concept of politics in the philosopher's work. However the philosopher is aware of the fact that in time, things change. The constitution is an important concept which refers to the manner in which people are organized. If the constitution changes then so might the rules which are necessary in order to allow the community to function properly (Introduction to Aristotle).

What is the supreme authority in this context? The person who creates the laws. The ruler is the law giver. From here one may deduce that the ruler has achieved this position because he created the laws (it is implied that he was wise enough to understand what the rightful rules are). The rules are included by the constitution. The mechanism is one which consists of a form, a body and a formal cause. The form is the city state, the body is represented by the citizens, the formal cause is the constitution (Aristotle's Political Theory, 2002). The engine which allows the present mechanism to function is represented by the goal of good life. So far everything seems to be perfect. Once again we may take into consideration the issue of slaves. Do they achieve good life in this community? The answer is obviously "no." This is a further weak point that we might attribute to the city-state concept.

Nevertheless we must keep in mind the fact that according to the philosopher, the existence of slaves was necessary. In his opinion, the very masters of the slaves provided them with the necessary means for a good life. Obviously the conceptions under discussion were not as liberal as today and the entire state was perceived in a different manner ( Presuppositions of Aristotle's Politics).

The main purpose of conceiving the city-state apparatus was that of finding an instrument which allowed people to have a decent and happy living. At an idealistic level the mechanism is perfect. In practice, reality has demonstrated that its efficient functioning is only limited on the time axis.

It is important to underline the fact that Aristotle believed all people should be treated equally. From this point-of-view, the role of the constitution was to provide equal conditions for everybody. The community was meant to be made of free people. The rules were supposed to follow the principle of justice, punishing those who would try to behave in an unjust manner (Aristotle's Political Theory, 2002)..