Aristotle’s concept of zoon politikon: on political benefits of being not too perfect

Abstract

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The article discusses the concept of zoon politikon in order to provide arguments justifying the attractiveness of Aristotle’s practical philosophy.
 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: There are three quasi-definitions of man in Aristotle’s works, each of which emphasises a different aspect of humanity. According to the philosopher, we are speaking animals, political animals (zoa politika) and the only animals endowed with reason. I argue that it is the condition of zoon politikon that comes to the fore as the most human of human properties. The article uses a historical-philosophical method supported by textual analysis.
 THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: In the first part of the text, Aristotle’s term zoon politikon is analysed as a concept intended to show the superiority of humanity over animality. In the second part, it is presented as a limitation that distinguishes humans from gods. By analysing how these two perspectives overlap, it is then possible to discuss some political consequences of the tension between them.
 RESEARCH RESULTS: The analysis leads to the conclusion that, according to Aristotle, a good human is not someone who “exercises rationality to a high degree”, but above all someone who is political to a high degree. It also suggests that Aristotle’s concept can be used to distinguish between two kinds of politics, which should not be reduced to each other: “artificial” politics (which can be equated with power), and natural human politics (which is based on free individual action in the area of praxis).
 CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The notion of zoon politikon reflects the relational character of the individual human self, and thus offers a perspective that allows both methodological and political individualism to be challenged. It can also be a source of inspiration for those scholars, who argue that politics cannot be reduced to power.