In Politics, Aristotle addresses the question as to why human beings need a city. When answering such a question, it is important to know what a city is and its evidence of it being a natural being. Aristotle also points out humans being political animals as the reason behind the need for a city, as well as the connection that political animals and cities hold.
Cities are required due to them being the absolute best community, or an end-goal of the people. “For the end is sometimes an activity, sometimes a product beyond the activity; and when there is an end beyond the action, the product is by nature better than the activity” (Ethics, 1094a-1094b). In this case, it states that such a community forms from a number of villages, with the …show more content…
“Unlike the others, it has the full degree of practically every sort of self-sufficiency; it comes to be for the sake of living, but remains in being for the sake of living well” (Politics, 1252b-1253a). The city is the absolute final form of self-sufficiency, it has everything needed to attain happiness. “The same conclusion also appears to follow from self-sufficiency, since the complete good seems to be self-sufficient” (Ethics, 1097b). A city must precede the first step of human congregation abstractly, which comes naturally to the political animals who naturally work towards the city. This means that the desire to become or have a city precedes the first step of working towards one, so the whole (city) is prior to the part (human); the city provides the humans with happiness through good and just living with one another by following the shared views of one another, as established by the abilities possessed by the political animals, that being us. Due to a human’s final desire for happiness, and that it cannot be achieved without a city, a human without a city is thought to be very demoralized. “Hence without virtue he is the most savage and unscrupulous and savage of animals, the most excessive in pursuit of sex and food” (Politics, 1253a). Without a city, a human is unable to attain happiness, and so their existence becomes meaningless and downright frowned upon. A human’s inability to be self-sufficient (or without a city) in turn shows the parts-to-whole relationship they have with the city. A man with a healthy relationship to the city means that they are good at living with others, thereby expressing virtue. This is the criteria for the human end-goal of happiness. “Now what we count as self-sufficient is not what suffices for a solitary person by himself, living an isolated life, but what suffices also for parents, children, wife, and in general for friends and fellow citizens,
Cities are required due to them being the absolute best community, or an end-goal of the people. “For the end is sometimes an activity, sometimes a product beyond the activity; and when there is an end beyond the action, the product is by nature better than the activity” (Ethics, 1094a-1094b). In this case, it states that such a community forms from a number of villages, with the …show more content…
“Unlike the others, it has the full degree of practically every sort of self-sufficiency; it comes to be for the sake of living, but remains in being for the sake of living well” (Politics, 1252b-1253a). The city is the absolute final form of self-sufficiency, it has everything needed to attain happiness. “The same conclusion also appears to follow from self-sufficiency, since the complete good seems to be self-sufficient” (Ethics, 1097b). A city must precede the first step of human congregation abstractly, which comes naturally to the political animals who naturally work towards the city. This means that the desire to become or have a city precedes the first step of working towards one, so the whole (city) is prior to the part (human); the city provides the humans with happiness through good and just living with one another by following the shared views of one another, as established by the abilities possessed by the political animals, that being us. Due to a human’s final desire for happiness, and that it cannot be achieved without a city, a human without a city is thought to be very demoralized. “Hence without virtue he is the most savage and unscrupulous and savage of animals, the most excessive in pursuit of sex and food” (Politics, 1253a). Without a city, a human is unable to attain happiness, and so their existence becomes meaningless and downright frowned upon. A human’s inability to be self-sufficient (or without a city) in turn shows the parts-to-whole relationship they have with the city. A man with a healthy relationship to the city means that they are good at living with others, thereby expressing virtue. This is the criteria for the human end-goal of happiness. “Now what we count as self-sufficient is not what suffices for a solitary person by himself, living an isolated life, but what suffices also for parents, children, wife, and in general for friends and fellow citizens,