Aristotle In The Politics And Marcus Aurelius In Meditations

1408 Words6 Pages
There are two philosophies on citizenship given by Aristotle in The Politics, and Marcus Aurelius in Meditations. I think that Aristotle’s theory is superior to that of Marcus Aurelius. I believe Aristotle gives a better description and real-world application on the idea of citizenship.
Though his theory contains some ideas that are controversial in modern days I think we can use the rest of his theory to fix that. Aristotle does a far better job at analyzing the formation of a village, and how that can grow into a state. He then describes how citizenship of this state is determined as well as what it means to be a citizen, as well as what makes a good citizen. Finally he looks at how the different states can be governed and he gives his opinion on which is the best. While Marcus Aurelius has a philosophy that seems to be ideal, especially in today’s world, I don’t think its
…show more content…
Through time the expansion of that family makes the village, “The most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren” (Aristotle, The Politics, Pg.100). Over time, as villages grow larger and get intermingled, they create the state, “When several villages are united in a single community… The state comes into existence” (Aristotle, The Politics, Pg. 100). From this we can interpret that citizenship is passed through lineage and inherited through birth. I think this is the superior description of the foundation of citizenship. Take my citizenship for example, I was born in Baltimore, Maryland. This means that I am a citizen of not only The United States, but a citizen of Maryland. So, even though this theory was written with the idea that the location a family settled at, and eventually populated would determine the citizenship and hierarchy of that state, we can use it to understand how we obtain citizenship in the modern
Open Document