Plato values, above all else, unity. He defines the greatest evil as anything which splits his city into factions, and furthermore, the greatest good as anything that “binds it together” and makes it one. He also says that “all the citizens alike rejoice and are pained at the same comings into being and perishings”. Plato’s idea of a perfect city essentially revolves around the city behaving as one entity. The community he envisions is so tightly intertwined that they experience the same emotional response to events, as if they are one being. He cherishes unity so much that he weaves the idea into the very fibers of his city, through the creation myth he describes. The creation myth is one of the few sections of his text where Plato acknowledges a need for a variety of people within the city, in his case those …show more content…
This raises the question of what type of unity is beneficial for a city and what type is detrimental. It is clear Aristotle thinks that factions within a city often cause negative change and are destructive (1301b1). Aristotle then says “we think friendship to be the greatest of goods for cities, since in this way people are least likely to engage in faction,” (1262b1). It seems then that Aristotle wants his city to be united through friendship, not through an extremely binding regime like that of Plato. This is why Aristotle wants his city to “consist as much as possible of people who are equal and similar,” as people who are equal and similar are more likely to become friends than they are of splitting into factions and causing the city to splinter and fall. Aristotle views unity as vital, yes, but he does not mean it in the same way as Plato. The difference is that Plato wants all-encompassing unity, whereas Aristotle thinks that the city should have individuals within it who are united by friendship, not force. Although early in his Politics Aristotle argues that his city will be as far as possible from that of Plato’s The Republic, Aristotle actually argues for a city that is united much like Plato’s. The distinction between the two authors is the extent to which the citizens are linked. Plato wants citizens