The State is a creation of nature and man is by nature, a political animal." (Aristotle)

Aristotle’s Conception of the State

For Aristotle, the State (polis) wasn’t simply a means to secure life, as Hobbes later argued, but a means to achieve the ‘good life’. He believed that humans are ‘zoon politikon’ – political animals – meaning that their full potential can only be realized within a political community. This isn’t merely about governance; it’s about the development of virtue and the pursuit of ethical living, which are inherently social and political activities.

The Natural Progression to the State

Aristotle viewed the State as a natural progression. He argued that humans, driven by a natural desire for association, first form families, then villages, and finally, the polis. Each stage represents a higher level of self-sufficiency and a greater capacity for achieving the good life. The family caters to basic needs, the village provides economic and security benefits, but only the polis allows for the development of moral and intellectual virtues through participation in political life. This progression isn’t accidental; it’s dictated by human nature.

The Political Animal: Innate Capacity for Reason and Deliberation

The assertion that man is a ‘political animal’ rests on Aristotle’s belief in the unique human capacity for ‘logos’ – reason and speech. Unlike other animals, humans can deliberate, debate, and make judgments about justice and injustice. This capacity necessitates a political community where these skills can be exercised and refined. The ability to distinguish between good and bad, just and unjust, is what elevates humans and makes political participation essential for their flourishing.

Counterarguments and Criticisms

Aristotle’s view has faced criticism. Modern liberal thought, for instance, emphasizes individual rights and autonomy, often viewing the State as a potential threat to individual liberty. Thinkers like John Locke argued for a social contract where individuals voluntarily surrender certain rights to the State in exchange for protection, a stark contrast to Aristotle’s notion of the State as a natural and necessary institution. Furthermore, the historical reality of oppressive states challenges the idea that all States inherently promote the ‘good life’. The rise of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, for example, demonstrated the State’s capacity for injustice and the suppression of individual flourishing.

Relevance in Contemporary Political Thought

Despite these criticisms, Aristotle’s ideas remain relevant. His emphasis on civic virtue and the importance of political participation continues to resonate in contemporary debates about democratic citizenship and the role of the State in fostering a just and flourishing society. The concept of the ‘common good’ – central to Aristotle’s political philosophy – is increasingly invoked in discussions about social justice and sustainable development.

Aristotle's View	Modern Liberal View
State is natural and necessary for human flourishing.	State is a social contract, potentially limiting individual liberty.
Humans are inherently political animals.	Individuals possess inherent rights prior to the State.
Emphasis on civic virtue and the common good.	Emphasis on individual rights and freedoms.