Aristotle's reasoning for why he believed the Greek polis was superior to other forms of association can be found in Book 1.2 of his Teachings on Politics. It contains an analysis of the individual components that make up a polis, the household and the village, and why these associations alone are incapable of satisfying the needs of the individual. This has to do with Aristotle's concept of happiness; since all human beings aspire to happiness and the final goal of the polis is a “good life,” he considers the polis to be “the final and perfect association” (Aristotle 281). What is interesting, however, is that Aristotle teaches that all associations are based on unions between those that cannot exist without the other (Aristotle 280), but his idea of ​​a perfect association is self-sufficient. In this article I will argue that Politics Book 1.2 shows that the idea of ​​a polis was unique at the time, as it did not depend on kinship structure, but rather relied on the concepts of self-sufficiency and justice. It can also tell us about the main forms of government of the time, as well as the attitude of the Greeks towards barbarians and the importance of the family unit. To do this, I will examine why Aristotle rejects other forms of political associations that do not rely on the polis system. I will also examine why Aristotle believed that the polis was superior to the associations that compose it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The first form of political association that Aristotle rejects is one that has no naturally dominant element. At the beginning of this chapter, Aristotle states that “first of all, there must necessarily be a union or pairing of those which cannot exist without each other” (Aristotle 280). This “first of all” is important, because he tells us that this is what he considers to be the most fundamental principle of what constitutes a polis, in his attempt to break down and analyze its individual components. He also states that there must be a union between the naturally ruling element and the naturally governed element (Aristotle 280). We can therefore assume that the polis is composed of unions of these two types. Aristotle uses barbarians as an example of people incapable of forming these two unions. Since he claims that barbarians have no ruling order, this must mean that, at most, the only union they are capable of forming is the first kind. They can only follow the most basic principle of associations. We know that these barbarians must be able to achieve the first union, the most fundamental, because it has to do with marriage, about which Aristotle declares that "among barbarians... the marital union thus becomes the union of a woman who is a woman. slave with a male who is also a slave” (Aristotle 280). Therefore, the first method of political association that Aristotle rejects is barbarians who have no naturally ruling element because everyone would be considered slaves without some sort of ruling order. From this we can infer that the polis must be different from barbarian groups in that it has some sort of ruling order based on the formation of these two unions between male and female and between master and slave. Not only does Aristotle reject associations without a governing element, but he also rejects monarchies. To understand why he does this, it is important to examine what Aristotle considers to be the constituent elements of the polis: the home or family, and the village. He states that “households are always governedmonarchically… just as villages, when they are emanations of the house, are also governed by virtue of the kinship between their members” (Aristotle 281). He describes this kinship as "primitive", indicating his belief that the monarchical structures found in households and villages are not insufficient forms of association. Aristotle uses the example of barbarians again, this time asserting that the people of the barbarian world are always ruled by kings (Aristotle 281). Earlier in the chapter he wrote that barbarians have “no ruling element” (Aristotle 280), but that a king would certainly be considered a ruler. This shows that Aristotle considered associations without a governing order and those led by a centralized leader to be barbaric, even if their structure is very different. Based on this, we can learn that the polis needed to have some sort of ruling order without a monarchy, so that individuals living in the polis could avoid going the way of the barbarians. His use of barbarians as an example on two occasions can also tell us something about Greek cultural attitudes at this time. For Aristotle to argue that people should not do what barbarians do (e.g. have no ruling element or be ruled by a king), they must have some sort of negative connotation associated with barbarians. In this way, when Aristotle uses them as examples, they will force his audience not to follow the same path. We can also learn a lot about the Greek family structure from Aristotle's discussion of kinship and associations. He states that the polis is based on an association of villages and that villages are emanations of households (Aristotle 281). Since everything comes from the family and the family is necessary to satisfy “daily recurring needs” (Aristotle 280), we can infer that there was a strong family structure at the time. Regarding the village, Aristotle notes that some have referred to the members of the village as “nursing from the same milk” or “sons and sons of sons” (Aristotle 280). This proves that there were not only close ties between the family, but also within the village. Since the village is based on the interaction between different family kinship structures, we can see that the family was a political unit in its own right in ancient Greece and surrounding societies. The idea of ​​a polis is also very different from that of an empire. Aristotle held that individuals were meant to live in a polis. Without it, they cannot achieve self-sufficiency (Aristotle 281). He states that "the isolated man – who is unable to share in the benefits of political association, or has no need to share because he is already self-sufficient – ​​is not part of the polis and must therefore be " either a beast or a god” (Aristotle 282). It is interesting to note that many individuals associated with each other form a self-sufficient polis, whereas a single polis is isolated, just like the single individual. As Aristotle stated earlier, it is entirely natural for small household and village associations to form monarchical structures through kinship. Since isolated individuals naturally form kinship ties, we can assume that individual poleis, which are made up of these same individuals, would naturally want to form ties with other poleis. We know that Aristotle believes that human associations lead to the formation of poleis, but Aristotle never mentions what happens if different self-sufficient poleis attempt to associate with each other. Since Aristotle claims that these poleis are already self-sufficient, it would not be necessary for them to interactwith each other. This is contrary to the idea of ​​an empire with a single ruler, made up of several regions, all part of a whole, under a centralized system of government. Another concept that makes the idea of ​​a polis unique is that it is based on the idea of ​​what is just and unjust. According to Aristotle, humans are different from animals in that humans “alone possess a perception of good and evil, just and unjust, and other similar qualities; and it is the association in these things that makes a family and a polis” (Aristotle 282). He also states that “justice belongs to the polis” (Aristotle 282). This is significant because the word “belongs” indicates that justice is a crucial element of the polis – the two go hand in hand. Aristotle describes as barbarians those who live under a monarchical regime or under a monarchical regime. If everyone is under the rule of one king, the concept of justice may be skewed in favor of the king. If there were no governing element, there would be no concept of justice, because everyone is a slave. Aristotle's idea of ​​nature helps explain why he considered the polis superior to its constituent parts, the house and the village. He believed that “each polis exists by nature, itself having the same quality as previous associations,” which also exist by nature (Aristotle 281). It is important to note here exactly what Aristotle means by "nature", otherwise there will be a contradiction between the claim that prior associations exist by nature and a later claim that the polis is the nature of those same associations (Aristotle 281). This contradiction can be resolved by taking the word “nature” to convey two different meanings. When he says that all polis exists by nature, he means that the polis is formed through the natural association of humans in households, villages, and ultimately the polis. All of these associations exist by nature, so why does Aristotle consider the polis to be the best? This has to do with the second meaning of "nature", which he calls "nature of things". He defines this as “the end or consummation” of a thing (Aristotle 281). Although the polis arose from smaller associations of households and villages, Aristotle considered it to be the nature, or “end,” of all forms of association. He considers self-sufficiency as the ultimate goal of associations and it is the polis that achieves this goal. This is why Aristotle emphasizes the superiority of the polis over other forms of association. But his audience certainly needed to be convinced of the superiority of the polis. If they did not, Aristotle would not need to present arguments for the polis and against other types of associations. For example, he states that “while [the polis] grows for the mere pleasure of life, it exists for the sake of a good life” (Aristotle 281). By “growth,” Aristotle refers to growth from the basic elements of the polis, beginning with unions between individuals, moving through the household, the village, and finally the polis. This growth is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency, and it is the existence of the polis that achieves this. Self-sufficiency is “best” (Aristotle 281), and therefore so is the polis. Aristotle considers self-sufficiency to be crucial to living a good life and so this becomes his most important point about the polis. Not all of the public to whom his teachings were addressed must have understood the superiority of the polis, which is why he emphasized the distinction between life and a “good” life as well as the notion of self-sufficiency. to convince them. Keep in mind: This is just a sample. Get an item now..