Aristotle’s “Natural” City

“For just as man is the best of the animals when completed, when separated from law and adjudication he is the worst of all” (1253a32). Aristotle believes that humans are the best animals when they are being ruled and following a set of laws. For this reason, Aristotle chooses to describe cities as being “natural.” The nature of the city arises from Aristotle’s belief that cities came “…into being for the sake of living, it exists for the sake of living well” (1252b29).

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Since the city exists for the sake of man living and living well, the city and nature are ends because it is natural for people to want to live and the city allows for humans to live to their highest ability. Aristotle uses “natural” to describe a city because humans want to live comfortably, they are naturally political, and the city is necessary for human self-sufficiency.

Aristotle makes the claim that cities were created “…for the sake of living, it exists for the sake of living well” (1252b29). For people to live well in a city, the city needs to be created. Aristotle describes the creation of the city with two pairs, male and female and man and slave. The male and female pair is self-explanatory. Reproduction is necessary for there to be a population and then the population contributes to the city. This pair ties into the idea of the “natural” city. Reproduction is a natural part of life to create the population, but it also fulfills “… a natural striving to leave behind another that is like oneself…” (1252a29).

Without men and women doing their natural job, the city would not have been created.

Not only is the pair of the male and female natural, but so is the second pair, the pair of man and slave. The man and slave pair is controversial and today would be considered wrong, but Aristotle saw it as a necessary and mutually beneficial part of the city in his time, however that does not justify slavery. Aristotle describes the relationship between man and slave as “the naturally ruling and ruled, on account of preservation” (1252a30). Aristotle saw this relationship as being mutually beneficial because the man of the household will have time for leisure, while also giving a better life to the slave. Most importantly though, this pair allows for preservation. The preservation that Aristotle is speaking of ties directly into the “natural” city. Aristotle says that “From these two communities, then, the household first arose…” (1252b10). With the creation of the household, a group of households can become villages, and finally, a group of villages will transform into a city of households. “The complete community, arising from several villages, is the city” (1252b28). Referring back to Aristotle’s preservation argument, the city exists for “…for the sake of living” (1252b29). To Aristotle, this is what he means by the city being “natural.” The city became the end of the people because they wanted to survive and live better lives, without the city this would not have been possible (1252b32). In conclusion, the city is natural because it was created by the natural want of humans for reproduction and preservation. Without those two wants, the household would not have been created, therefore the city would not have been created.

Not only is the city natural to Aristotle in the way that it was created, but also for the way humans act within the city because humans are “…by nature political animals” (1253a2). Aristotle observes that “…nature does nothing in vain; and man alone among the animals has speech” (1253a9). Aristotle is explaining how nature created everything for a reason and that humans have the distinct ability compared to other animals in the way that we communicate with speech. Man’s speaking ability “…serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful, and hence also the just and the unjust” (1253a14). Due to man’s ability to communicate with speech, man is able to think about and discuss political issues and topics, such as justice, war, and economics to help their city. Nature created humans with a distinct ability that translates directly into the creation and need for cities to have environments in which man can discuss these higher problems (1253a17). A city is a natural place because humans are using their distinct ability given to them by nature for higher-level thinking.

Man was given a distinct trait that allows for political discussion, which is necessary to city life, however, the city would not work without the people within it and vice versa. Aristotle puts a premium on things you have to do, not just things you want to do. To explain this, Aristotle uses the analogy of the household to the city and the hand to the body. The city is prior to the household and the individual as the hand is to the body. A city without humans is like a dismembered hand to a body. Without people, the city cannot function and without the city, people are not self-sufficient (1253a26). The city allows people to be self-sufficient because they are able to use their political innateness, pro-create, and survive, without the city man does not get the most out of its existence. Aristotle states that “One who is incapable of sharing or who is in need of nothing through being self-sufficient is no part of a city” (1253a28). Those who do not partake in city life and add to the community are not part of a city because they are acting unnaturally. A city is a natural place where man can get the most out of life and share in a community. To Aristotle, a city is a natural place where people can excel and live their best lives because we yearn for community.

Overall, Aristotle’s argument that a city is a natural place is strong. Aristotle logically plans out his argument by starting with how the city forms, how people act in the city, and then the benefits of living in the city. First, he begins with the formation of the household, the village, and then the city. By beginning the argument for the natural city like this, it helps to create an understanding of the building blocks of the city. Next, Aristotle discusses the nature of humans and how they are drawn to politics. Aristotle began with the formation of the city and then went into depth about how people act within a city. Due to Aristotle’s description of the way humans act when in a city, it shows why humans would be drawn to the city. Lastly, Aristotle’s argument goes into depth about how the city is natural because it allows people to be self-sufficient, therefore live their lives to the best of their abilities. Humans want to start families, live in communities, engage in political discussion, and live the best life they can possible. Aristotle’s argument is set up in a logical manner that shows the various ways cities are natural.

While Aristotle’s argument is set up well, which leads it to be strong, a weakness of the argument is that Aristotle refers to humans as “political animals.” While there are people who do like politics, enjoy being informed and being a part the of political discussion, there are many people who have no interest in the subject. Aristotle is making a generalization about the nature of all humans, which does not lend itself to a strong argument.

Aristotle’s “natural” city can be seen in the modern world. Today, there are very few, if any people who do not live in some sort of city or community. Aristotle’s arguments that households are the building blocks of the city, humans are naturally political, and cities allow for human self-sufficiency can be seen in the modern world. Today, cities are made of communities, of towns, that are made of households. Likewise, people through the use of technology and the current world we live in seem to be incredibly in-tune and opinionated with their political beliefs. Finally, with the advancement of civilization, our society has progressed greatly and allowed humans to live more comfortably and safer than ever. Aristotle may have written Politics a long time ago, but his ideas about cities being a natural place were correct and can still be seen and proven today.