Socrates and Plato’s first issue was to consider the plausibility of forming an ideal city-state, and once determined to be possible, the next task ahead would be to chose a government which would rule justly and firmly. Their conversation leads to the question of why people would desire to form a state and adhere to its rules, in which Plato replies, that it is not man’s desire to form a state, but rather his unavoidable need. He supports this claim by arguing two points: 1.) men are not self-sufficient so they need to live in an organized society 2.) each “person has a natural aptitude for a specific task and should concentrate on developing it” for the good of the state. (Plato, 62) Thus the necessity to divide labor according to specializations was not decided by man, but prescribed by nature. Due to the fact that Plato’s state is based on the abstract ideas of knowledge and nature, his approach toward politics and government are likewise more theoretical than actual. Consequently, a hypothetical Polis that seeks to maintain stability must be ruled by those who possess true knowledge. It is from this very foundation of Plato’s ideal city that Aristotle has his first of several objections toward his mentor’s state. Through a more grounded approach, the argument is made that men form states not out of necessity due to lack of self-sufficiency, but rather out of inherent instinct. The state existed in nature prior to its discovery by man, and “a human being is by nature a political animal, and anyone who is without a city-state” is not by definition a man (Aristotle, 4). Even in his most primal form, the very nature of man drives him to realize his role within a given polis. It is man’s self-preserving nature that leads to the organization of the masses in an effort to avoid conflict. Politics, active through formal government, was a constructed means for resisting chaos. Refuting Plato’s theory, by asserting that Politics is not an imagined aspect of a dream world, to the contrary, it is an inherent instinct of men.

Plato’s systematic community is most comparable the Karl Marx’s Communist Russia in the 1920's. The ideal state would be characterized by a strongly unified community, centered around the concepts of commonwealth and conformity. The idea of commonwealth was based on the belief that without private ownership, competition within the community would be eliminated. Aristotle does not just attack Plato’s unrealistic assumption that people can be as unified as he believes they must be, he also goes on to reject complete uniformity in community and warns of the dangers it would bring. The potential dangers are described in terms of the relationship between the city-state and a household, and an individual and household. Aristotle argues that the more unified a city-state is, the more it will resemble a household, and eventually an individual. The model draws the conclusion

Some topics in this essay:
Natural Sciences, Plato Aristotle’s, Plato’s Polis, Communist Russia, Due Plato’s, Aristotle Plato’s, Socrates Plato’s, Ideologically Plato, Refuting Plato’s, Plato Aristotle, eternal forms, absolute truth, ideal city-state, middle class, relationship social government, absolute knowledge, dream world, true forms, plato’s ideal, relationship social, desire form,