Aristotle (and legacy)

**Aristotle** was an ancient Greek
philosopher and scientist born in the city of Stagira, Chalkidice, on
the northern periphery of Classical Greece. He was one of the most
Influential people who ever lived, contributing heavily to nearly
every existent field at the time, and pioneering several others.
Although he is known mainly as a philosopher, in part due to science
not existing as a distinct field yet, many of his major contributions
were to science itself, such as biology and psychology, and led to a
greater development of scientific understanding as a whole. Though
this page will focus more on his philosophical aspects.

Aristotle's father, Nicomachus, died
when Aristotle was a child, whereafter Proxenus of Atarneus became
his guardian. At seventeen or eighteen years of age, he joined
Plato's Academy in Athens to study under plato, and remained there
until the age of thirty-seven. His writings cover many subjects –
including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics,
aesthetics, poetry, theater, music, rhetoric, psychology,
linguistics, politics and government– and constitute the first
comprehensive system of Western philosophy. Shortly after Plato died,
Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon,
tutored Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC.

The contrast between plato and
aristotle has been considered to be the beginning of two parralel
trends of thoughts that have heavily influenced and given context to
much of the development of western philosophy since their time.
Reflecting the poles of many issues in the forms they are seen in the
west. For instance, plato believed that knowledge was based in
reason, whereas aristotle focused on the empirical. Plato believed in
abstract universals, whereas aristotle believed that properties were
embodied only within the objects themselves. Plato believed that the
real world was a shadowy reflection of a deeper truth, whereas
aristotle saw it as more literal. These trends and their different
aspects still contextualize and explain the difference in many
western philosophies today. Aristotelianism was also a large
influence on the theology of christianity.

As far as megaten goes, the truth is
that aristotle is a little less relevant for understanding it than
plato is. Since while plato was a heavy influence on the kabbalah,
jung, and gnosticism, which are some of the main inspirations for
megaten, aristotle's influences are much more subtle, being more
generalized aspects of western culture in general. Understanding some
of aristotle's main things can go a bit towards understanding the
contrast between east and west the games imply. Aristotle is only
mentioned directly in the games in the descriptions for the element
demons. Since aristotle is only minimally relevant for understanding
the games, this page will be rather minimalistic. While he also
worked heavily on the development of logic (calling it more often
analytics), pioneering formal logic as a whole, this will not be
covered on this page. And as he was such a prolific writer only the
most important topics will be gone over.

## Physics

**Aristotelian physics** is a form of natural science described
in the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his work Physics,
Aristotle intended to establish general principles of change that
govern all natural bodies, both living and inanimate, celestial and
terrestrial – including all motion, change with respect to place,
change with respect to size or number, qualitative change of any
kind; and "coming to be" (coming into existence,
"generation") and "passing away" (no longer
existing, "corruption"). To Aristotle, "physics"
was a broad field that included subjects such as the philosophy of
mind, sensory experience, memory, anatomy and biology. It constitutes
the foundation of the thought underlying many of his works.

Aristotle of course contributed much more to the field of science
than is noted here, (some of which obviously was later supplanted by
more correct information) but this will limit itself to the more
relevant and philosophically related aspects.

**The five elements**. Aristotle
proposed a fifth element, aether, in addition to the four proposed
earlier by Empedocles. These five are: **Earth**, which is cold
and dry; this corresponds to the modern idea of a solid. **Water**,
which is cold and wet; this corresponds to the modern idea of a
liquid. **Air**, which is hot and wet; this corresponds to the
modern idea of a gas. **Fire**, which is hot and dry; this
corresponds to the modern ideas of plasma and heat. **Aether**,
which is the divine substance that makes up the heavenly spheres and
heavenly bodies (stars and planets). The elements are not proper
substances in Aristotelian theory (or the modern sense of the word).
Instead, they are abstractions used to explain the varying natures
and behaviors of actual materials in terms of ratios between them.

Note that the early idea of elements
corresponds more closely to what we now call phases of matter, rather
than elements. So the categories were not entirely without merit. And
there is reason that similar categories tended to show up worldwide.

Interestingly, aristotle is mentioned
directly for the demon description for aquans in-game. It describes
aristotle's view that water has cold and wet properties. And as such
is viewing these elemental spirits in an aristotelian light. Since
aquans is presented as a generic demon, simply being a “Water
spirit” without being any one in particular, the demon description
opted to describe ideas associated with water in general. Similar
presentations showing up for the other elemental demons.

The more relevant concept that was came
up with by aristotle is the idea of aether. In the games, aether,
also called magnetite is the essence of demons. What they use to take
form, and what they subsist on and are composed of. While the game
depicts humans as the primary source of it, it is also depicted as a
cosmic essence, being described as the same thing as dark matter. Its
depiction as the bodies of demons is in keeping with its view as a
divine essence. The fact that its source is in humans being a kind of
existentialist message about how humans create their own reality in a
sense.

For aristotle, Each of the four earthly
elements has its natural place. All that is earthly tends toward the
center of the universe, i.e., the center of the Earth. Water tends
toward a sphere surrounding the center. Air tends toward a sphere
surrounding the water sphere. Fire tends toward the lunar sphere (in
which the Moon orbits). When elements are moved out of their natural
place, they naturally move back towards it. This is "natural
motion" – motion requiring no extrinsic cause. So, for
example, in water, earthy bodies sink while air bubbles rise up; in
air, rain falls and flame rises. Outside all the other spheres, the
heavenly, fifth element, manifested in the stars and planets, moves
in the perfection of circles.

Unlike the eternal and unchanging
celestial aether, each of the four terrestrial elements are capable
of changing into either of the two elements they share a property
with: e.g. the cold and wet (water) can transform into the hot and
wet (air) or the cold and dry (earth) and any apparent change into
the hot and dry (fire) is actually a two-step process. These
properties are predicated of an actual substance relative to the work
it is able to do; that of heating or chilling and of desiccating or
moistening. The four elements exist only with regard to this capacity
and relative to some potential work. The celestial element is eternal
and unchanging, so only the four terrestrial elements account for
"coming to be" and "passing away" – or, as aristotle called them, "**generation**"
and "**corruption**".

**Celestial spheres.** According to Aristotle,
the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are embedded in perfectly concentric
"crystal spheres" (which are literal domes that cover the
sky) that rotate eternally at fixed rates. Because the celestial
spheres are incapable of any change except rotation, the terrestrial
sphere of fire that exists above the sphere of air but below that of
aether must account for the heat, starlight and occasional
meteorites. An unmoved mover is assumed for each sphere, including a
"prime mover" for the sphere of fixed stars. The unmoved
movers do not push the spheres (nor could they, being immaterial and
dimensionless) but are the final cause of the spheres' motion, i.e.
they explain it in a way that's similar to the explanation "the
soul is moved by beauty".

**Four causes**.
According to Aristotle, there are four ways to explain the
*aitia* or causes of change. He writes that "we do not have
knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say,
its cause. His name *aitia* is traditionally translated as
"cause", but it does not always refer to temporal sequence;
it might be better translated as "explanation", but the
traditional rendering will be employed here. Note that the reason
that these things are lumped together without causality being
distinguished being due to earlier views on categorization.

**1: Material cause** describes the material out of which
something is composed. Thus the material cause of a table is wood,
and the material cause of a car is rubber and steel. It is not about
action. It does not mean that one domino knocks over another domino.

**2: The formal cause** is its form, i.e., the arrangement of
that matter. The formal cause of a thing is the essential property
that makes it the kind of thing it is. This does not refer only to
the form instantiated in the object, but to the archetypal design put
into it as well. A simple example of the formal cause is the mental
image or idea that allows an artist, architect, or engineer to create
a drawing. Note however that aristotle did not believe in universals
as seperate from particulars, and so believed that this archetype
only existed in its instantiation.

**3: The efficient cause** is "the primary source",
or that from which the change under consideration proceeds. This is
what is referred to as a cause in the modern sense, being the process
of causality, by which one thing effects another.

**4: The final cause (telos)** is its purpose, or that for the
sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful
and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause is the
purpose or function that something is supposed to serve.

The one of these that deserves special mention is the telos, which
is often treated as similar to the idea of “purpose,” that is
asked in questions of spirituality. Notably, the idea of a telos
ingrained within an item itself is considered an outdated
metaphysical view, one which does not seem applicable to modern day.
But it influenced medieval theology, and the idea of ethics for a
long time. For instance, the idea of a telos being used to support
medieval arguments against homosexuality, saying that they violate
the telos of the body's sexual attributes, due to being an incorrect
use. And that this telos, designed by god, is of moral imperative to
follow.

One aspect of existentialist philosophy especially (but which is
often taken for a given in modern philosophy in general) is the
ramifications of a lack of an objective telos. Existentialism uses
the phrase existence precedes essence to say that there is no telos,
and so the essence of something's end only exists in how events
proceed and where to. That humans can define their own purpose. This
does not mean that morality does not exist however. But that humans
are not inherently ordered to being moral.

Megaten of course follows this trend, with a large theme it has
being about the lack of an objective telos. Gods in megaten represent
an analogue of the telos, but a notable aspect of them is the fact
that gods are in a sense assigned by humans, rather than an objective
feature of reality. What demons can take the form of gods is assigned
by humans, and as described in an interview for iva, while these gods
represent ideal endpoints for humans, the choice for what end you
seek and orient your existence to exists within your decisions,
rather than an inherent thing. Yhvh (when corrupt) believes in
himself as the objective telos in-game, seeing himself as the only
valid one, and as the being humans are inherently in existence to
orient to. And as such, he is a necessary existence in his eyes in
order to embody this end. However, the point being shown in game when
breaking free from this paradigm is the lack of an objective telos,
and so the need to understand that right or wrong, the answer is not
obvious or inherent to humanity.

The term telos also shows up in-game in the form of orpheus telos
in persona 3. The term being used to show it as the end point of
orpheus. That is, a final achievement.

Another example of the declaration of the lack of a telos comes in nocturne where hikawa mentions that history is a series of meaningless events. This is him pointing out that there is no grand narrative of history, merely a series of individual events, and so there is no particular need to follow up on our past history as if it was leading to any necessary end, instead of start over with a better one.

**Psychology**.
According to Aristotle, perception and thought are similar,
though not exactly alike in that perception is concerned only with
the external objects that are acting on our sense organs at any given
time, whereas we can think about anything we choose. Thought is about
universal forms, in so far as they've been successfully understood,
based on our memory of having encountered instances of those forms
directly. Note that psychology and biology were considered subsets of
physics at the time.

## Metaphysics

Aristotle defines metaphysics as "the
knowledge of immaterial being," or of "being in the highest
degree of abstraction." He refers to metaphysics as **"first philosophy"**, as well as "the theologic science,"
with the term metaphysics not coined by him himself. This does not
mean that it refers to non-physical things, but merely that it refers
to aspects of reality that have to be described in abstract terms,
due to not being immediately physically visual.

**Substance**. One of the most
relevant ant core concepts in aristotelian philosophy is the concept
of substance. Namely the essential qualities that makes something
what it is. For instance, a ball has to have the property of
roundness in order to be a ball. However, it may be red, but that
property is not necessary. The properties that are not part of its
substance are known as **accidents**.

Aristotle examines the concepts of
substance and essence (ousia) in his Metaphysics (Book VII), and he
concludes that a particular substance is a combination of both matter
and form. In Book VIII, he distinguishes the matter of the substance
as the substratum, or the stuff of which it is composed. For example,
the matter of a house is the bricks, stones, timbers etc., or
whatever constitutes the potential house, while the form of the
substance is the actual house.

Note here that aristotle's idea of
substance is not merely an issue of semantics, but a metaphysical
claim to particular objects having a fundamental substance that
distinguishes them as that particular object in an objective and
discrete way. For ordinary objects this may not seem to matter in a
huge way. But one thing that helps frame it into context is the
existence of people. Namely, is there any particular substance to
individuals that makes you yourself? Is there a distinct point that
distinguishes you from “not you,” and do you have a specific
substance that is distinct from your accidents? If not, then problems
of identity become more ambiguous.

One challenge to the idea of substance
is the idea that there is no metaphysical distinction between types
of properties. Objects, including people are mere bundles of
properties that are commonly shifting. This view being more common
historically in the east in religions like buddhism, but was not
widely known in the west until recently, popularized by figures like
hume and parfit.

Megaten seems to side against the idea
of discrete substances. Gabriel mentions that the white are
aggregations of thoughts, specifically identifying them in a bundle
theoretic term. And the way identity seems to work in games implies
no fundamental underlying essence. While “souls” exist in-game,
which historically in christianity are tied to the idea of substance,
notably souls are not discrete either, and are shown to shift in
identity. Implying a lack of a totally objective underlying answer.
Since demons and humans both have souls, the implication is that
their natures, despite being different operate in similar ways along
this line.

Notably, the lack of distinct substance
leads to interesting ramifications, something that megaten itself
seems to pick up on. If “you” are not an objective distinct
thing, but merely a bundle of shifting properties, then there is no
discrete “thing” to have beginning and ending properties. Just a
series of changes. And the properties collect or disperse in cycles,
and some go on to different things. This is shown in the ambiguity of
how identity works in cases like fission and fusion in-game, showing
that things' identities come from multiple areas and is often hard to
follow. Likewise, it gives context to the existence of reincarnation
in-game. If people are not discrete things with a fundamental
essence, but merely shifting bundles of properties, then even after
death, those collections of properties are passed on, and degrees of
them can be re-instantiated in various ways.

In the real metaphysical
sense this would not be as direct as is shown in-game, but it does
give context for why death in the normal sense is not seen as a
fundamental end, even if an important one. Which is why in megaten
the idea of death is still presented as in many ways an end, even if
your essence goes on, and your essence reincarnates you to new life
in another sense. This diminished focus on personal substance is also
why eastern countries tended to believe in reincarnation more often.
(Though in the case of much of hinduism this was for other reasons.
Sometimes because personal substance was seen as irrelevant relative
to the substance of brahman, which is the only true substance).

Another important thing to focus on in
terms of the games is the comparison between eastern and western
philosophy. While the idea of substance, categories, or objects in general was
larger in the west, the east focused more on relationships or
processes. It was seen as more important in the east to identify the
relationships something was in, rather than to describe it as having
personal qualities. And its metaphysics focused on motion and change,
rather than static qualities. Sometimes, such as with the buddhist
philosopher nagarjuna, he even emphasized that there *are*
no static objects. That all that exists is motion, without any
underlying substance being moved. So this difference in focus was not
merely a difference in emphasis, but a fundamentally different way
the world was conceptualized as being.

While those metaphysical differences do
not necessarily immediately imply an ethical difference, note how in
interviews for megaten they talk about how law is more western
themed, and chaos is more eastern themed. Law tends to focus more on
the static, trying to reach and then preserve an ideal state. Whereas
chaos tends to focus more on the dynamic, trying to carve your way
through a constantly changing world. These different focuses reflect
the emphasis that is placed on different things in east and west.
Viewed not as metaphysics, but as a focus that provides different
ethics. The east in general due to this emphasis on process viewed
things as more ephemeral, and so had less of a concept of a preserved
ideal state. Which is why in religions like buddhism, heaven was not
seen as eternal, but with the ideal goal being to cease to exist as
an individual, dissolving into the world / an abstraction. This
likewise reflecting why law is seen as more western. This does not
mean that law and chaos have those specific metaphysical views
however, merely that they are associated with trends that stem from
them.

Note how the eastern and western
worldviews themselves are fairly different based on these different
focuses. The east more often describes ethics as a path (tao),
whereas the west describes them as a law. Or in modern cases,
sometimes something like a value (number). The focus on the static
versus the dynamic In the east and west being a large aspect of
understanding the distinction between the sides in megaten.

**Generation** and **corruption**
are his terms for something coming into and leaving existence. With
regard to the change and its causes, as he defines in his Physics and
On Generation and **Corruption**, he distinguishes the coming to
be from: **growth** and **diminution**, which is change in
quantity; locomotion, which is change in space; and **alteration**,
which is change in quality. Note here that generation and corruption
imply a fundamental change in something's substance, rather than its
accidents.

**Potentiality** and **actuality**.
Referring to potentiality, this is what a thing is capable of doing,
or being acted upon, if the conditions are right and it is not
prevented by something else. For example, the seed of a plant in the
soil is potentially (*dynamei*) plant, and if is not prevented
by something, it will become a plant. Potentially beings can either
'act' (*poiein*) or 'be acted upon' (*paschein*), which can
be either innate or learned. For example, the eyes possess the
potentiality of sight (innate– being acted upon), while the
capability of playing the flute can be possessed by learning
(exercise– acting).

Actuality is the fulfillment of the end of the potentiality.
Because the end (*telos*) is the principle of every change, and
for the sake of the end exists potentiality, therefore actuality is
the end. Referring then to our previous example, we could say that an
actuality is when a plant does one of the activities that plants do.

In summary, the matter used to make a
house has potentiality to be a house and both the activity of
building and the form of the final house are actualities, which is
also a final cause or end. Then Aristotle proceeds and concludes that
the actuality is prior to potentiality in formula, in time and in
substantiality. With this definition of the particular substance
(i.e., matter and form), Aristotle tries to solve the problem of the
unity of the beings, for example, "what is it that makes a man
one"? Since, according to Plato there are two Ideas: animal and
biped, how then is man a unity? However, according to Aristotle, the
potential being (matter) and the actual one (form) are one and the
same thing.

**Universals** and **particulars**. Aristotle's
predecessor, Plato, argued that all things have a universal form,
which could be either a property or a relation to other things. When
we look at an apple, for example, we see an apple, and we can also
analyze a form of an apple. In this distinction, there is a
particular apple and a universal form of an apple. Moreover, we can
place an apple next to a book, so that we can speak of both the book
and apple as being next to each other. ====
Plato argued that there are some
universal forms that are not a part of particular things. For
example, it is possible that there is no particular good in
existence, but "good" is still a proper universal form.
Notably, while modern metaphysics holds to idea much different from
plato's original historical versions, the idea of universals is
considered the main position in metaphysics today.

Aristotle disagreed with Plato on this
point, arguing that all universals are instantiated. Aristotle argued
that there are no universals that are unattached to existing things.
According to Aristotle, if a universal exists, either as a particular
or a relation, then there must have been, must be currently, or must
be in the future, something on which the universal can be predicated.
Consequently, according to Aristotle, if it is not the case that some
universal can be predicated to an object that exists at some period
of time, then it does not exist.

In addition, Aristotle disagreed with Plato about the location of
universals. As Plato spoke of the world of the forms, a location
where all universal forms subsist, Aristotle maintained that
universals exist within each thing on which each universal is
predicated. So, according to Aristotle, the form of apple exists
within each apple, rather than in the world of the forms.

**Soul**. Aristotle's psychology, given in his treatise On the
Soul (peri psyche, often known by its Latin title De Anima), posits
three kinds of soul ("psyches"): the vegetative soul, the
sensitive soul, and the rational soul. Humans have a rational soul.
This kind of soul is capable of the same powers as the other kinds:
Like the vegetative soul it can grow and nourish itself; like the
sensitive soul it can experience sensations and move locally. The
unique part of the human, rational soul is its ability to receive
forms of other things and compare them.

For Aristotle, the soul (psyche) was a simpler concept than many
people now consider it. By soul he simply meant the substantial form
of a living being. Which as a concept does not inherently reference
anyhting spiritual. Because all beings are composites of form and
matter, the form of living beings is that which endows them with what
is specific to living beings, e.g. the ability to initiate movement
(or in the case of plants, growth and chemical transformations, which
Aristotle considers types of movement).

**The unmoved mover** or **prime mover** is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.
 As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but
 is not itself moved by any prior action. Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the *Physics* and Book 12 of the *Metaphysics*,
 "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately
responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world". Most specifically to explain movement. Since everything moving needs something to set it in motion. But something unique needs to exist to allow for motion as a whole.

Although this causality does also correspond at times to the modern idea of causality in his explanation, he mainly meant for it to be a mover in the sense of a final cause. These were not seen as operating in the normal causal sense, but as an ideal that things existed to move towards. The unmoved mover itself was seen as not having parts or different thoughts, and to be unchanging ideal existences that were not aware of reality, and which had no other causal power. The first heaven, the outmost sphere of fixed stars, is moved by a desire to emulate the prime mover (first cause), in relation to whom, the subordinate movers suffer an accidental dependency. This shows the very different paradigm of causality this was being approached from. Aristotle also questioned whether there would be one or many unmoved movers, but ultimately decided on one.

Many of Aristotle's contemporaries complained that oblivious, powerless gods are unsatisfactory.
 Nonetheless, it was a life which Aristotle enthusiastically endorsed as
 one most enviable and perfect, the unembellished basis of theology. Christians of course later took the idea, but rather than seeing god as otherwise powerless, viewed him as all powerful, although still unchanging. Christian theology about god in a heavy was was influenced by both the aristotelian idea of the unmoved mover, and the platonic concept of the ideal forms.

## Ethics

Aristotle considered ethics to be a practical rather than
theoretical study, i.e., one aimed at becoming good and doing good
rather than knowing for its own sake. He wrote several treatises on
ethics, including most notably, the Nicomachean Ethics. He is
considered the pioneer of **virtue ethics** in the west, which is
the ethical umbrella in which morality exists in the virtues of the
individual themselves. While he formulated it as a distinct category
however, the idea of virtues obviously preceded him in the west.

Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function
(ergon) of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can
see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle
reasoned that humans must have a function specific to humans, and
that this function must be an activity of the psyche (normally
translated as soul) in accordance with reason (logos). Aristotle
identified such an optimum activity of the soul as the goal of all
human deliberate action. Note here how his formulation was based on
the idea of teleology. But while teleology is not defended much in
modern day, modern forms of virtue ethics that do not appeal to it
exist.

Eudaimonia, generally translated as "happiness" or
sometimes "well being" is seen as the result of this, being
the state one would exist in when living in tune with virtue. To have
the potential of ever being happy in this way necessarily requires a
good character, often translated as moral (or ethical) virtue (or
excellence). Note that despite being translated as happiness, a more
proper understanding would mean something like contentment. It does
not necessarily mean you would be actively happy, but rather morally
satisfied. Notably however, in practice early people did associate
happiness with being moral, seeing those as tied together in a way we
now realize is not so direct.

Aristotle taught that to achieve a virtuous and potentially happy
character requires a first stage of having the fortune to be
habituated not deliberately, but by teachers, and experience, leading
to a later stage in which one consciously chooses to do the best
things. When the best people come to live life this way their
practical wisdom (phronesis) and their intellect (nous) can develop
with each other towards the highest possible human virtue, the wisdom
of an accomplished theoretical or speculative thinker, or in other
words, a philosopher.

Virtue ethics in particular is too general to relate much to megaten too directly. While figures like nietzsche do appeal to noble virtues, the general idea is a wide scale umbrella, and so one should look to the nietzschean content directly.

**The golden mean** is a principle that
comes from Aristotle that the desirable ideal is a middle between two
extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example, in
the Aristotelian view, courage is a virtue, but if taken to excess
would manifest as recklessness, and, in deficiency, cowardice. This
has obvious neutral associations, due to much of neutral being about
taking the principles of order and chaos as a given, and defining
itself as between them even by in game characters such as Isabeau
when fighting merkabah at the end of the neutral route in IV. Though
the taoist idea of the yin yang and balance seem the more obvious
association that the games tie it to than to aristotle, often
depicting taoist things and yin yangs in many of the games associated
with neutral.

## Politics

In addition
to his works on ethics, which address the individual, Aristotle
addressed the city in his work titled Politics. Aristotle considered
the city to be a natural community. Moreover, he considered the city
to be prior in importance to the family which in turn is prior to the
individual, "for the whole must of necessity be prior to the
part". He also famously stated that "man is by nature a
political animal" and also arguing that humanity's defining
factor among others in the animal kingdom is its rationality.
Aristotle conceived of politics as being like an organism rather than
like a machine, and as a collection of parts none of which can exist
without the others. Aristotle's conception of the city is organic,
and he is considered one of the first to conceive of the city in this
manner. Note this organic concept of groups being the basis of later ideas like social organisms that are related to group minds, and so related to gods as they appear in megaten.

The common modern understanding of a
political community as a modern state is quite different from
Aristotle's understanding. Although he was aware of the existence and
potential of larger empires, the natural community according to
Aristotle was the city (polis) which functions as a political
"community" or "partnership" (koinōnia). The aim
of the city is not just to avoid injustice or for economic stability,
but rather to allow at least some citizens the possibility to live a
good life, and to perform beautiful acts: "The political
partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of
noble actions, not for the sake of living together." This is
distinguished from modern approaches, beginning with social contract
theory, according to which individuals leave the state of nature
because of "fear of violent death" or its "inconveniences."

Despite this, his general political ideas are not highly relevant here, and so will not be elucidated on.