ARISTOTLE AND STATE: AN ANALYSIS

Political Science – II

submitted by

Paritosh Awasthi

SM0116028

1ST Year- 2nd Semester

National Law University, Assam

1
 CONTENTS
1. Introduction

1.1 Research Problem

1.2 Literature Review

1.3 Scope And Objectives

1.4 Research Methodology

2. Aristotle’s View On State.

3. Aristotle On The Purpose Of State.

4. Modern Idea On State.

5. An Analysis On Aristotle’s View On State And Contemporary View On State.

6. Conclusion

7. Bibliography

2
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

According to Aristotle, life manifests through several forms—vegetation, animals and men. The
vegetative soul performs only two functions, viz., nutrition and growth. As regards the animal, it
can walk, resist and fight; while man can think. This division is evolutionary in nature.

The animal soul is vegetative soul and passion; the human soul, on the other hand, is vegetative
soul (appetite) coupled with the animal soul (passion) and reason. These principles are followed
even in the society. The vegetative soul mani-fests in the family, the animal soul in the village
and the human soul in the state. Just as the human soul retains the attributes of the vegetative as
well as the animal soul; the state retains family and villages. Thus, family expands into villages
and villages into state. Further, as life becomes good with the emergence of the human soul, the
state continues to grow from family through the village for the sake of good life. Thus, according
to Aristotle, state comes into existence for the sake of life, it continues for the sake of good life.1

The state, according to him, is an organism. The following example explains the concept of state
as an organism. Hand is a part of the human body, and if the body is destroyed, there is nothing
called a hand. A hand, so to say, is recognized by its functions or end or purpose, that is, to grasp
things. This function can be performed only if it is a part of the human body. Similarly,
individuals in the state are like hands of the body. The purpose of these individuals is to lead a
good life and this is not possible unless they are a part of the state. To make the state healthy,
individuals must also be healthy. It is for this reason that Aristotle looks upon state as the
supreme manifestation of man’s essential nature. He once stated that, he who is unable to live in
a society, or who has no need because he is self-sufficient must be either a beast or God.

Aristotle also believed that a man when perfected is the best of animals, but when separated from
law and justice, he is the worst of all. Thus, a man in a state without law and justice, according to
Aristotle, is the worst of all animals. Law is the breath of the state and the courts of justice are
the lungs and nostrils. The state according to Aristotle is not a mere society of exchange of goods

1
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p12.

3
and prevention of crime, but the one that ensures a happy and honorable life to individuals in the
state.

In the end, state, according to Aristotle, is a perfect community that has reached a stage of self-
sufficiency. It is also economically self-sufficient. He used the term ‘autarkeia’, which means
self-sufficiency. This term, in a broader sense, refers to all- round independence in both ethical
and psychic terms.

This means that the individuals involvement in public affairs, a sense of participation that
prevents alienation. The concept of self-sufficiency is against the thesis of alienated man. It is by
participating in the affairs of the state or the polis that a man can become self-sufficient and this
is the end of the state.2

1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM

 What is the view of Aristotle on the state?

 What is the purpose of state as per Aristotle?

 What is the modern idea on state?

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

 Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan

UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-349-20876-0.
Chapter 3 and chapter 8 of this book explains the Aristotle’s View on state , his
theory of state and the purpose of state according to him.
This appreciation of Aristotle's "Politics" argues that its first question is "what is
the state?", and that everything else in the treatise is dependent on the answer to
this question. It examines Aristotle's two levels of logical priority and the
structure of the work as a whole. The author disentangles the theoretical from the

2
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p13.

4
 practical, the ideal from the empirical and that which is "according to nature"
from that which is "against nature".

 Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1st edition,
ISBN 9780415329323.
This book deals with the question like Is the nation state dying? Is world
government possible? Can government control the economy? The modern state is
hugely important in our everyday lives. It takes nearly half our income in taxes. It
registers our births, marriages and deaths. It educates our children and pays our
pensions. It has a unique power to compel, in some cases exercising the ultimate
sanction of preserving life or ordering death. Yet most of us would struggle to say
exactly what the state is. The new edition of this well-established and highly
regarded textbook continues to provide the clearest and most comprehensive
introduction to the modern state. It examines the state from its historical origins at
the birth of modernity to its current jeopardized position in the globalized politics
of the 21st century. Subjects covered include: the nation-state in its historical
context state and economy states and societies states and citizens states within the
international system 'rogue' and failed states

1.3 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE

SCOPE

The scope of this project is limited to the study of state as per Aristotle and the idea of modern
state and the analysis of the both.

OBJECTIVES

 To know the Aristotle’s view on state.

 To know the purpose of state as per Aristotle.

5
  To know the idea of modern state.

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

APPROACH TO RESEARCH

In this project doctrinal research was involved. Doctrinal Research is a research in which
secondary sources are used and materials are collected from libraries, archives, etc. Books,
journals, articles were used while making this project.

TYPE OF RESEARCH

Explanatory type of research was used in this project, because the project topic was not relatively
new and unheard of and also because various concepts were needed to be explained.

SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

Secondary source of data collection was used which involves in collection of data from books,
articles, websites, etc. No surveys or case studies were conducted.

6
 CHAPTER 2

ARISTOTLE’S VIEW ON STATE

Aristotle always strived to attain an ideal state. According to him, in every state there are three
classes, viz., the very rich, the very poor and the middle class (the mean). Those who are rich
excel in strength, beauty; birth or wealth and they grow arrogant, violent and criminal.3

The poor, on the other hand, are ugly, weak and often become victims of jealousies, intriguing,
rogues and petty rascals. While the former do not obey laws, the latter tend to break the laws.
The government, therefore, by the former would be despotic and that formed by the latter would
be despicable. In either situation, the state remains divided by conflicts, bitterness, jealousies and
frictions.4

The state can never be one as there is an eternal war with each other. So, Aristotle suggested that
the best way is to follow the law of the golden mean. In other words, governments must be run
by middle class citizens who favour neither class. They neither covet not plot but only command
acceptance for their power is transformed into authority.5

Therefore, Aristotle suggested that the legislators must always ensure the association of the
middle class with the government. If it is numerically stronger than the other two classes, then it
is definitely a source of stability. Aristotle opined that the continuous rule by either the rich or
the poor is worst calamity, that can ever happen to a state and for this reason; he supported the
rule of middle class, as the best rule—it is the golden mean.

Aristotle believed that middle class rule ensures not only stability but also liberty and equality.
Liberty is not necessarily doing what one likes to do, but it is also to live by the rule of the
constitution. Liberty also refers to the ability to rule as well as be ruled. This is justice. Thus,

3
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/aristotle-theory-of-origin-of-state-concept-elements-and-necessary-
conditions/40128/ last accessed on 2 April 2017.

4
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p24.
5
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/AristotleFunction.pdf. last accessed on 3 April 2017.

7
liberty, according to Aristotle, is based on justice, which is distributive, and rests on the basis of
proportionate equality.

CHAPTER 3

ARISTOTLE ON THE PURPOSE OF THE STATE

Let me start with Aristotle's well-known definition of the city-state: The partnership finally
composed of several villages is the city state; it has at last attained the limit of virtually complete
self sufficiency, and thus, while it comes into existence for the sake of life, it exists for the good
life. Hence every city-state exists by nature, in as much as the first partnerships so exist; for the
city-state is the end of the other partnerships. According to Aristotle, the polis was a natural
institution because human beings and other partnerships, in accordance with their nature, realized
themselves in it. Individuals, families and villages cannot maintain themselves. Therefore, he
writes: 'The city-state is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually. He did
not mean that the polis is ontologically and historically prior to the individual-on the contrary.
However, the natural priority of the state is based on its self-sufficiency. Although the polis
exists by nature, nature does not prescribe how it should be organized. Therefore, the state
should also be organized.6 So, Aristotle extended his idea of the polis that exists by nature with
the idea that it is a human invention as well. I wish next to turn to the question: how is the
purpose of the state, i.e., the good life of its citizens, to be understood. Aristotle writes: Every
state is as we see a sort of partnership, and every partnership is formed with a view to some good
(since all the actions of all mankind are done with a view to what they think to be good). It is
therefore evident that, while all partnerships aim at some good, the partnership that is the most
supreme of all and includes all the others does so most of all, and aims at the most supreme of all
goods; and this is the partnership entitled the state, the political association.7 Aristotle
acknowledges that the purpose of the state is to achieve the supreme good for its citizens, that is,
their true well-being. This does not mean that the citizens have a subjective feeling that life

6
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/theories-of-state/modern-state-and-its-problems/839. last accessed on 12
April 2017.
7
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p25.

8
pleases them, but that they have good reasons to consider and evaluate the state of their well-
being. This state is one in which all actions which people consider to be good are done.
Therefore, he argues: "For even though it be the case that the Good is the same for the individual
and for the state, nevertheless, the good of the state is manifestly a greater and more perfect
good, both to attain and to preserve" . The state seeks this supreme good in accordance with the
practice of virtues, in particular the virtue of justice. Thus, the virtue of a legislator is to make
just laws. The virtue of a citizen is to practice justice: he should obey the laws of the polis and
acquit himself of his civic duties that enable him to achieve his destination according to his
nature: to live in the polis. Concerning the leading virtue of the polis, Aristotle argues: "It is clear
then that those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are in effect rightly framed in
accordance with absolute justice, while those that aim at the rulers' own advantage only are
faulty, and are all of them deviations from the right constitutions; for they have an element of
despotism, whereas a city is a partnership of free men" Aristotle did not romanticize people's
lives in the polis, "for appetite for pleasure, wealth or honor is in its nature unlimited, and the
majority of mankind live for the satisfaction of appetite”. Most people are only interested in their
own pleasure, wealth and honor. They do not care for the common good unless they benefit by it.
The same point about selfishness arises in his discussion of three true forms of government:
kingship, aristocracy, and timocracy (a form of government in which power is widely and evenly
spread between citizens who satisfy a property qualification), and three corresponding
perversions, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy or demagogy. These are perversions because in
each case either a king, or powerful people, or another social class, wants to enrich themselves at
the cost of others. And his conclusion is: "None of these forms governs with regard to the profit
of the community". Aristotle acknowledged that one form of government is more suitable for a
particular state than for another. However, whatever form of government exists, he insists on one
criterion: "Where the laws do not govern there is no constitution, as the law ought to govern all
things while the magistrates control particulars, and we ought to judge this to be constitutional
government".8 Therefore, in Aristotle's discussion of the state, there is no talk of any despotism
of the government. However, he also states that the law of the state prescribes certain forms of
conduct: "The conduct of a brave man, for example not to desert one's post, not to run away, no
to throw down one's arms; that of a temperate man, for example not to commit adultery or

8
www.college.cqpress.com/sites/drogusorvis/Home/chapter2.aspx. last accessed on 15 April 2017.

9
outrage; that of a gentle man, not to speak evil; and so with actions exemplifying the rest of the
virtues and vices, commanding these and forbidding these-rightly if the law has been rightly
enacted, not so well if it has been made at random". Many critics of Aristotle agree that this text
indicates a far-reaching competence of the law: it covers all public and private aspects of human
life.9 However, D.J. Allen objects to this totalitarian interpretation of the law, and rightly so,
because Aristotle never had in mind a totalitarian polis. Moreover, the law creates a framework
within which virtues can be practiced, as well as a framework for dealing with misconduct. The
law does not require behaviour according to virtues, but its intent is to promote an outwardly
honest life in the citizens without taking into consideration the moral motive. Allen concludes
that in Aristotle's view the law contains minimum claims, and that it is limited to outward
behaviour concerning the good life. So, Aristotle did not support any kind of despotic
government. He did not sacrifice individual citizens to the state. According to Allen, he defended
civic freedom. For this reason some scholars have argued that the Aristotelian ideas of civic
freedom, and the function of the state to promote the good life, are consistent with Locke's
liberal ideas of freedom and the state.10

9
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p26.

10
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p32.

10
 CHAPTER 3

MODERN IDEA ON STATE

The State is the outstanding and characteristic phenomenon of the modern world. Intimate, not to
say intrusive, as regards the daily life of the citizen, it is imposing in authority, and claims, if not
omniscience, something approaching to omnipotence. The modern State, with its agents and
regulations, dogs the footsteps of the individual literally from the cradle to the grave. Of birth,
marriage, death the State demands to be made officially cognizant. Registration, certification,
enumeration - these are required of the citizen at every turn in the wheel of life.11

The term “state” has been defined by a number of political thinkers. Some of these definitions
are given below:

Aristotle defined the state as “a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and
self-sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable life”

According to Bluntschli, “The state is politically organised people of

a definite territory”

According to Burgess “The state is a particular portion of mankind viewed as an organised unit”

Phillimore defines the state as “a people, permanently occupying a fixed territory, bound
together by common laws, habits and customs into one body politic, exercising through the
medium of an organised government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and
things within its boundaries, capable of making war and entering into all international relations
with the communities of the world.12

An analysis of the above definitions reveal that the modern state is constituted of four constituent
elements, namely, Population, Territory, Government and Sovereignty. Of these, the first two are

11
Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1 st edition, ISBN 9780415329323.p23.

12
Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1st edition, ISBN 9780415329323.p56.

11
physical elements, the third is political and the fourth is spiritual. The four constituent elements
of the state are discussed below:

Population or the number of people: There can be no state without people or human habitation.
While the necessity of population as an essential element of state is recognised, there is no
unanimity with regard to its size.13 Plato was of the view that an ideal state should have a
population of 5040. Aristotle opined that the population of a state should be large enough to be
self-sufficing and small enough to be well governened. The view of Rousseau was that 10,000
was an ideal number. In today’s world we have states with large populations like India and China
on the one hand and those with small populations like Monaco and San Marino.14

While considering the population of a state, we have to study not only the number but also the
quality of the people inhabiting the state. According to Aristotle, a good citizen makes a good
state and a bad citizen, a bad state. Again The population of a state may be heterogeneous and
need not belong to a single race, religion, language or culture. Accordingly, while the size of the
population of a state cannot be fixed, it is important that the people are self-sufficient to meet all
their necessary requirements based on the proper utilisation of resources.
Territory or a definite place of residence: The second essential constituent of a state is territory
.If the people continue to move from one place to another without having any definite territory
for their residence, there can be no state. The gypsies and nomads who wander from one place to
another, cannot be said to constitute a state. The territorial jurisdiction of a state extends not only
over the land but also over rivers, lakes, mountains, marginal sea, subsoil and aerial space above
it. However it is difficult to decide the size of an ideal state. The state of San Marino has an area
of 38 Sq. miles only. The Vatican City under the Pope covers 108 acres only. On the other hand,
states like the United States of America and China have large territories. It is important to note
that more than the size, it is the proper utilisation of the resources in the state which leads to its
prosperity.15

13
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html, last accessed on 25 April 2017
14
www.college.cqpress.com/sites/drogusorvis/Home/chapter2.aspx. last accessed on 15 April 2017.

15
Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1 st edition, ISBN 9780415329323.p68.

12
Government: The third essential constituent of the state is the government. Population and
territory alone cannot form a state. Unless people of a territory are subject to the control of an
organised government, a territory cannot be called a state simply because it is inhabited. The
government is the political machinery or organisation through which the collective will of the
state is formulated, expressed and executed. As a matter of fact, the state operates through the
governmental machinery. It is the agency through which society is politically organised,
common policies are determined and by which common affairs are regulated and common
interests are promoted. Hence, the government is responsible for the maintenance of law and
order and for the provision of common services like defence, issue of currency, foreign relations,
roads, bridges, transport and communications, water, electricity, health and education, etc. No
particular type of government can be recommended as essential. It varies in kind and complexity
from nation to nation.

Sovereignty: Sovereignty is the most important characteristic of the state. It is what distinguishes
a state from other forms of human organisation. There can be no state in the absence of
sovereignty. Broadly speaking, sovereignty means supremacy of the state. Sovereignty is of two
types-internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty means that the state is
supreme in all internal matters. It exercises its supremacy over all the institutions and the people
of the state and the latter have to obey its commands. External sovereignty implies that a state
must be free from foreign control. If a state is controlled by another state, the former will no
longer be regarded as a sovereign state and it will become a part of the state which exercises
control over it. This is the reason why India before August15, 1947, could not be regarded as a
state as the country was under the control of Great Britain.16

Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a state could be defined as a community of politically organised
people permanently inhabiting a definite portion of territory, independent of external control and
possessing an organised government which exercises the supreme power of the state.17

16
http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=2410, last accessed on 21 April 2017
17
Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1 st edition, ISBN 9780415329323.p89.

13
 CHAPTER 4

AN ANALYSIS ON ARISTOTLE’S VIEW ON STATE AND

CONTEMPORARY VIEW ON STATE

Aristotle conceived of the State as an association or community which came naturally into
existence to make life possible and which continues to enable man to live the highest life. The
origin of the State must therefore be sought, not in law or convention , but in nature. The impulse
to citizenship or political association is implanted in all men by nature, and only as a member of
a political community can man achieve the highest of which he is capable.18 Nay, since the virtue
of the individual is relative to and conditioned by the Polity to which he belongs, it is only in the
perfect State that the individual can attain to the perfect life. Aristotle finds the proof of his
proposition that the State is a creation of nature and 'prior to the family and the individual' in the
fact that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing, and therefore is like apart in relation
to the whole. 'The man who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is
sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a God.' Citizenship is not for him.

Difficult as it is to the modern mind to accept this complete interdependence of Ethics and
Politics, paradoxical as it seems to us to deny to the individual the possibility of living the
highest life even under imperfect political conditions, we must nevertheless admit that the
Aristotelian theory of the State does set a standard in Politics to which neither States nor
individuals find it easy to attain. Moreover, the theory illustrates the problem as to the due
relation between the rights and the duties of citizenship. It was, as Thomas Hill Green observed,
‘because Plato and Aristotle conceived the life of the so clearly as the of the individual that they
laid the foundation of all true theory of rights'.19 For 'Aristotle regards the State as a society of
which the life is maintained by what its members do for the sake of maintaining it, by functions
consciously fulfilled with reference to that end, and which in that sense imposes duties; and at
the same time as a society from which its members derive the ability through education and
protection to fulfil their several functions, and which in that sense confers rights.' It is

18
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p45.

19
www.southeast-europe.org/pdf/04/DKE_04_A_E_PETHO_S_KRANCZICKI.pdf last accessed on 18 April 2017

14
imperative, however, to recall the fact that of a State in the sense in which the term is commonly
understood in the modern world neither Plato nor Aristotle had any conception whatever. They
had exclusively in mind the city-state typical of ancient Greece, a form of political organization
most clearly exemplified for the modern world by one of the Swiss cantons such as Bern, with its
capital city and circumjacent territory. The ancient world, in fine, knew not the State, as we
conceive it.20 Cities it knew, such as Athens and Sparta; great empires it knew, such as the
Empires of Persia and of Macedon; but of the intermediate form - the nation-state - it was wholly
ignorant.21

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Aristotle always strived to attain an ideal state. According to him, in every state there are three
classes, viz., the very rich, the very poor and the middle class (the mean). Those who are rich
excel in strength, beauty; birth or wealth and they grow arrogant, violent and criminal. The poor,
on the other hand, are ugly, weak and often become victims of jealousies, intriguing, rogues and
petty rascals. While the former do not obey laws, the latter tend to break the laws. The
government, therefore, by the former would be despotic and that formed by the latter would be
despicable. In either situation, the state remains divided by conflicts, bitterness, jealousies and
frictions. The state can never be one as there is an eternal war with each other. So, Aristotle
suggested that the best way is to follow the law of the golden mean. In other words, governments
must be run by middle class citizens who favour neither class. They neither covet not plot but
only command acceptance for their power is transformed into authority.22 On the other hand we
can have both positive as well as negative thoughts on the modern state.

In recent years (particularly after the 1960s) there has developed two opposite and peculiar
tendencies in the minds of common people. One such tendency is that the state should do

20
Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1 st edition, ISBN 9780415329323.p112.
21
Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press, 1st edition, ISBN 978-1-
349-20876-0.p67.

22
Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1 st edition, ISBN 9780415329323.p61.

15
minimum functions so that individuals can get largest amount of freedom. Another tendency is
the state should ensure the maximum amount of welfare services for its citizens. In such services
are included old age pensions, unemployment allowances, expansion of education and health
care services. To discharge these varieties of services, it is the duty of the state to expand its role
in an increasing rate and this will invariably erode the liberty of the individuals. Mrs. Margaret
Thatcher, the British Prime Minister (1979-1990) announced certain new policies that reversed
the role of the state and this invited the wrath and objection from many segments of society. Our
central point is we do not conceal our love for freedom and, at the same time; we invite the state
to take more and more responsibilities to ensure social services so that weaker sections of the
society can get benefit. The problem is more state intervention and maximum freedom cannot
coexist.23

The problem is further aggravated by the fact that these two opposite tendencies are
irreconcilable. In fact, many modern states in today’s world are to some extent helpless. It is not
possible for them to meet both ends simultaneously. We can say that the state is faced with
dilemma and it is unavoidable.24

23
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/aristotle/aristotles-theory-of-state-nature-function-criticism-and-
thought/853, last accessed on 22 April 2017.
24
Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1 st edition, ISBN 9780415329323.p89.

16
 CHAPTER 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:-

1. Johnson, Curtis N, Aristotle’s Theory of the State, 1990 Palgrave Macmillan UK press,
1st edition, ISBN 978-1-349-20876-0.
2. Christopher Pierson, The Modern State, Psychology Press, 2004, 1st edition, ISBN
9780415329323.

Other sources:-

1. http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/aristotle-theory-of-origin-of-state-concept-
elements-and-necessary-conditions/40128/ last accessed on 2 April 2017.
2. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/AristotleFunction.pdf. last accessed on 3
April 2017.
3. http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/theories-of-state/modern-state-and-its-
problems/839. last accessed on 12 April 2017.
4. www.college.cqpress.com/sites/drogusorvis/Home/chapter2.aspx. last accessed on 15
April 2017.

5. www.southeast-europe.org/pdf/04/DKE_04_A_E_PETHO_S_KRANCZICKI.pdf last
accessed on 18 April 2017.

6. http://www.studylecturenotes.com/social-sciences/law/426-aristotle-state-concept-nature-
aims-a-objectives-of-aristotle-state-, last accessed on 20 April 2017.

7. http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=2410, last accessed on 21 April 2017.

8. http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/aristotle/aristotles-theory-of-state-nature-function-
criticism-and-thought/853, last accessed on 22 April 2017.
9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html, last accessed on 25
April 2017.

17