Aristotle's Argument

In Politics, Aristotle sets out an argument to suggest that in order for humans to flourish and achieve Eudaimonia we must actualise our unique and distinctively human faculties, particularly our intellectual and moral faculties. Aristotle argues not only that it is impossible to achieve this outside the construct of a Polis but also that, given man’s nature as a political animal, even if it were possible this would not instinctively be the preferred path of humans. Many translators often interpret Aristotle’s claim as humans having an inclination to enter into cooperative relationships and therefore translate ‘political’ as ‘social’. In this essay I will argue that this natural interpretation, whilst not being entirely false, is not the best
It would seem this interpretation is mainly backed by Aristotle’s despondence towards solitude; “Surely it is strange, too, to make the supremely happy man a solitary” (Ethics 9.9). It can be argued that this opposition to isolation is not brought about by deliberation but rather by an innate desire to associate with others aside from any political intentions. However, as Kraut contends “this cannot be the whole content of the thesis” (2007) . If it were true that Aristotle only meant that man has a desire to be with others, then he would have conceded that this could be fulfilled within the household. However the polis, as viewed by Aristotle, stemmed was the natural end to households becoming part of tribes that grouped to form a village and associated with other villages to become a polis. Therefore, It can be seen that although man “desire[s] to live together” (Politics 3.6) this is not just a social relationship but one that ultimately and naturally progresses into a political
Rather than assuming that Aristotle is coming from a socio-biological stance in his use of the word ‘nature’, one can instead interpret it as suggesting that human beings thrive by living in political communities rather than living outside of them. Aristotle draws the conclusion that if a human being is brought up outside a polis, there nature will not be fully realised and they will not achieve Eudemonia. He even goes on to say “by nature there exists in everyone an impulse towards such a community [a polis]” (Politics 1.2) Aristotle is taking our political nature to be something that first began to operate after the household had already been formed. In other words, he is positing a drive to form social units larger than the household or village, and he calls that motive ‘political’ because it is a desire to conduct one’s life in a social organisation as complex as a Polis. Our nature as political animals, in this specific sense, is expressed when we are not content with merely social relationships or the limited range of aims that can be accomplished just as part of a household but wish for something that can only be achieved in a Polis. Therefore, Aristotle uses the claim that we are ‘by nature’ political animals to refer both to our general desire to be with others