As far back as the presence of a development, the crucial inquiry of how and why; to distinguish and clarify the human instincts’ and how the man should live, has been the key component in philosophical world. Aristotle’s theory is that man is naturally sociable what’s more, that they are normally attracted to a different political relationship to fulfill their social needs. Not everyone would side with Aristotle’s political theory, but it’s crucial to comprehend the principles that highlight the new political theories. Aristotle’s book written on politics has proven to be one of the most influential books on political philosophy. His fundamental ideology comprises that a man is by nature a political creature since he can reason and speak with others.Therefore, can possibly modify or improve his living conditions for better since he can perceive the distinction between right and wrong. Further probing at modern political views it can be rationalized that politics and humans doing conscious decisions does not correlate with one another. Aristotle’s political theory of humans naturally political animals since they rely on communication to improve their surroundings or environment. In his book, Aristotle studied the natural world of animals and plants and observed that human settlements like the polis were similar to beehives, ants nests, and termite hills. Aristotle exhorted that man is either political which is the natural state or an outcast like “bird which flies alone.” Presently the motivation behind why man is all the more a political creature than honey bees or some other gregarious creatures is obvious(Aristotle 10). Nature, as we regularly say, makes nothing futile, and man is the main creature whom she has invested with the endowment of discourse. What’s more, while simple sound is, however, a sign of delight or torment, and is in this way found in different creatures (for their tendency accomplishes the impression of joy and torment and the suggestion of them to each other, and no further), the energy of discourse is proposed to set forward the convenient and inexpedient, and in like manner the fair and the unreasonable. Furthermore, it is normal for the man that only he has any feeling of good and malevolence, of just and unjust, and the relationship of living creatures who have this sense makes a family and a state.Like Aristotle stated, “Man is a political animal.”(Aristotle 10) The meaning of the political is significant on its own. Aristotle demonstrates that a man lives best in a “polis” which is a term for city-state(Aristotle 11) Man moves toward becoming the man among others, living in a general public administered by laws and traditions.The man builds up his potential and understands its regular end in a social setting. This is what defines the good life according to Aristotle. It is not a simple life, but a life of virtue that emulates on the existence of ethicalness in the most elevated good (eudaimonia), regularly deciphered as happiness(Aristotle 19).Aristotle held the city to be of natural consequence to the human behavior of partnership and in turn the physical embodiment of these bonds.Aristotle calls attention to in the Politics that ” man is naturally social” for this reason he is “naturally political.” Humans communicate with each other through speech, to convey their ideas about what is correct or incorrect as well as fair and unfair. Like he stated in his book, the Politics “Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.Without the true purpose of man coming to light then we are considered no different than any animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state is either above humanity or below it.” One can examine how the role of speech is to be a weapon for man in order for him to defend himself from what is fair and unfair. A man normally has a place in the city since that is the place he can practice his amiability and can wrangle with others upon his righteousness or virtues. He noticed human nature instinct was to be subdued by political issues, not practiced. Happiness is pure and corrupted and therefore suffices all other yearnings while existing only to satisfy and justify its own existence. Human nature was to have been aided and thus evolved with the help of a sense of community and politics. It is Aristotle’s belief that, when a man capable of the reason he approaches politics, he must do so with the best intent for mankind, and is to hold this as the foundation for his politics to stand on. Aristotle defines happiness as the “complete and sufficient good of human beings.” Moreover, to Aristotle happiness is contenting, living well and doing well too. Happiness is dependent on what individuals consider to be living and doing well. Many individuals believe living well consists of having wealth, successes, as well as honor whereas others disagree because to them living, is defined by having a virtuous and religious life. Nonetheless, we all want to achieve happiness even though, people have distinct meanings from each other. Some might think what is beneficial to them will be for others as well(Klonoski 9). Virtues are like habits within soul by which one follows by. Virtuous behaviors express right, high thinking, which is gained through training and habituation(Aristotle 16).The city is preceding the individual in light of the fact that the individual separated from the city is not independent and along these lines, he must be something unique as opposed to a human being. A man has the means to do good, however in the event that he is not able to utilize his prudence and is with no limits, he can be more dreadful than any creature. In Aristotle’s perspective, the city is independent since it contains every one of the necessities for people to have a decent existence(Aristotle 13). The city furnishes people with association with others, which assumes a major part of the purpose of fundamental survival, yet it exists for the prosperity of mankind.Another argument is that the city is natural is that city is prior by nature to the household and each of us.” The city itself has jurisdiction over households as well as individual because only the city itself can assemble men into full human being. The nature of humanity for Aristotle is to endeavor the good life. Humans shape unavoidable social ties which help secure this objective. Marriages normally lead to families which results in households forming.From there these multitudes of households moderately create villages and before long city-state or polis where politics happens as the determination of rational discussion and contention(Klonoski 6). His view considers people to be rational animals of cooperation, consultation and abusing people for the personal gain(benefits)(Klonoski 17). Furthermore, man can get the experience from being part of the city due to the fact that thought and reason are practiced within the city more. Man can utilize his reason often in the city to communicate with others and fully participate. Although it is said families are created through households reason is not fully developed since a man is the family’s sole ruler. On the other hand, in the city, the man has the authority to rule but is ruled by the city too(Klonoski 9). This evidently demonstrates humans are political animals and they need their city in order to create such experience(Klonoski 7).Human interests, traditions and character contrast tremendously crosswise over societies and region; striking ecological and social contrasts to be sure present the defense for the assorted variety of human interests. However, the inclination to be political stays reliable; where dialect, atmosphere, and way of life are so different, all people have in like manner is the instinctual want to mingle, deal, discuss, and trade-off. Man on his own is a danger to humankind. If an individual is isolated then, he will not unable to share the benefits of political association and at the same time is not part of the city which to Aristotle means he is either a “beast or a god”(Aristotle 11) Also, if he isolated from the law as well as justice then he is the worse of all. Yet there is an impulse of men being part of the association, this is why man is the ideal animal .Not every person is persuaded by Aristotle’s record of humankind, in any case, contending that a collective perspective of people is extremely tight. Undoubtedly, not every person lives in a deliberative society, and maybe not all people would live with others. Faultfinders may likewise contend the view that all people take a stab at a similar shared objective and offer similar interests is unbelievably imperfect. Doubtlessly to scrutinize Aristotle’s view is a predicament like that of the ‘chicken or the egg’; at the end of the day, it is maybe hard to tell whether ‘governmental issues’ is the man made answer for the conflict of individual interests, or if ‘being political’ is the main impetus behind man’s activities.Given these points, Aristotle is contending that the health in a state corresponds to the cooperative relationship between the creatures in it, especially that man is a creature, yet an all the more exceptionally created one, and that, similar to all creatures, is headed to gather, and that the arrangement of the state speaks to the most astounding type of improvement.A basic look at the advanced world offers us tremendous measures of confirmation to help the case for our political roots. The sheer reality that administration, clans, rulers, and militaries have even shaped is verification enough that people work politically. We are basically bartering creatures; making arrangements and weighing up expenses and advantages, on the grounds that by doing as such is the best intends to get by in a contending world. Therefore, similarly, as the Oak seed will just turn into an Oak, man is an inescapable political machine.