Political Naturalism: A Reading of Avicenna’s Political Philosophy in Light of Aristotle’s Thought

Political naturalism is a foundational approach in Aristotle’s political philosophy, manifested through three principal doctrines: the political nature of human beings, the natural existence of the political community, and the natural precedence of the political community over individuals. These doctrines significantly influence his other political teachings. Furthermore, due to this approach and the connection Aristotle establishes between nature and telos (purpose), politics in his thought is intrinsically linked with ethics and ethical ends. This study seeks to answer the question of whether a naturalistic interpretation of Avicenna’s socio-political thought is possible—particularly in light of contemporary debates on Aristotle’s philosophy—and in what sense. It becomes evident that although Avicenna does not explicitly reference Aristotle’s three aforementioned political doctrines, by gathering his scattered remarks and extracting their implications, one can ascribe to him a form of political naturalism. Avicenna, too, considers the formation of political society to be rooted in a kind of necessity or practical compulsion among humans for mutual cooperation in fulfilling their needs. He regards the existence of a political community governed by law as a precondition for the realization of human existence, the survival of the human species, and the attainment of human perfections. Thus, if Aristotle’s political naturalism is interpreted through a teleological lens—where the Greek polis is conceived as a plurality of citizens whose natural end (telos) as human beings is achieved only through self-sufficiency within such a community, and the political community is therefore deemed a natural entity prior to its individual members—then Avicenna’s socio-political thought can be interpreted as an extension of Aristotle’s political naturalism.

This study seeks to answer the question of whether a naturalistic interpretation of Avicenna’s socio-political thought is possible—particularly in light of contemporary debates on Aristotle’s philosophy—and in what sense. It becomes evident that although Avicenna does not explicitly reference Aristotle’s three aforementioned political doctrines, by gathering his scattered remarks and extracting their implications, one can ascribe to him a form of political naturalism. Avicenna, too, considers the formation of political society to be rooted in a kind of necessity or practical compulsion among humans for mutual cooperation in fulfilling their needs. He regards the existence of a political community governed by law as a precondition for the realization of human existence, the survival of the human species, and the attainment of human perfections.

Thus, if Aristotle’s political naturalism is interpreted through a teleological lens—where the Greek polis is conceived as a plurality of citizens whose natural end (telos) as human beings is achieved only through self-sufficiency within such a community, and the political community is therefore deemed a natural entity prior to its individual members—then Avicenna’s socio-political thought can be interpreted as an extension of Aristotle’s political naturalism.