Aristotle posits that the city-state exists naturally [1125b: 30] and nature is an end [1125b: 31].
An end by logical imputation is something final as opposed to ‘means’, which is still in a process of attaining an end. As a corollary of the premise that nature is an end, nature is thus the character it has when its coming into being is completed [1125b: 33]. So the community has an end but it is not the end. The end of the community is the city-state [1125b: 30]. If the city-state is an end, i.e. the end of all communities, and nature is an end, then the city state is natural.
The general structure of the argument for the naturalness of the city-state starts when Aristotle claims that things develop naturally from the beginning [1252a: 25]. If there is a beginning, I deduce based on the argument by Aristotle in the above paragraph that there is an end since the city-state is an end [1125b: 30]. So, using Aristotle’s terminology, for him, there is a whole ‘natural progression’ from a household to a community, to a village and to city-state which is constituted by multiple villages [1252b: 27]. This natural course of aggregation originates from the need to live or “for the sake of living” [1252: 27-29]. Hence, males and females unite and become a couple because of the natural urge to procreate and leave something behind [1252a: 27]. This is similar for the ruler and ruled whereby Aristotle seems to proffer that the ruler with natural foresight cannot function optimally without the slave or the ruled [1252b 10-15]. The natural need to aggregate will form a primary unit Aristotle calls a household consisting of husband-wife; master-slave [1252b: 9-10]. Then, a community will emerge out of several households [1252b: 15]. A village will gradually take form as the community grows [1252b: 17]. A village emerges out of several households to satisfied higher needs beyond everyday needs. Then the constitution or congregation of several villages will form a city-state [1252b: 27]. Thus, the city-state is the end of a natural progression of congregation for the sake or need of living [1252b: 29].
If what is natural can be defined as what is needed, it is interesting that Aristotle makes a subsequent claim that all natural progressions up to the city-state is based on a primordial need but the city-state remains in existence for the sake of living well or the need to live well. and this is because Aristotle says, the human being is a political animal [1253a: 7]. This, he also attributes to nature that every function has a use and nature makes nothing pointlessly [1253: 8]. So in all brevity, if naturally animals posess voice, it is for a function of signifying pain and pleasantness, then humans possessing speech will allow humans to make clear and have a perception of what is good or bad, just or unjust, beneficial or harmful [1253: 1015]. Based on this, if the city-state exists for the need to live well, then to live well must mean that we know what are the good virtues to live by. i.e. what is good and just. This is clearly important to Aristotle because towards the end of Chapter 2, he states that the human being is best when perfected and the worst when separated from law and justice [1253: 32-34]. He will be the most unrestrained and savage of animals when he lacks virtues [1253: 35-36]. Hence, in order to live well, man naturally needs the city-state. This is because, living well requires virtues and virtues like justice is a political matter [1253b: 37]. Justice is a political matter because justice it seems has its origins in the organization of a political community which is the city-state[1253: 38]. In conclusion, for a political animal [1253a: 7] to live well, he must necessarily live in a political community [1253: 38] so that he knows how to live well i.e. by following good virtues. Hence, if naturalness is defined as what is needed to live well, then the city-state which is a political community, is natural because it is as Aristotle believes needed for humans to live well.
No comments:
Post a Comment