To discuss what I believe is to be more favorable between two great philosophers of the past, it would need to show how one dominates another while listing defenses and oppositions. Marcus Aurelius had the belief that we as being citizens of the world should not take concern of anything outside ones control, however, ingest happiness within ourselves to be content with the things that one can control. While Aristotle seems to explain that by living in the city, one can become more complete by satisfying their nature. By that he means for one to become more virtuous and reasonable, they need to moderate any desire that one may show at any current time or possibly at birth. As we can see, Marcus Aurelius has more of a macro view while on the …show more content…
Aristotle seems to only tell us that by living in the city or polis, one can only become fully complete after fulfilling his nature. Meaning to become reasonable over the desires they are presented with at birth or later on. But how can one become truly complete if it is only allowed in the city that one can exercise their logos, which habituates citizens to act in ways the city demands. The city chooses their actions by what is believed to be reasonable to reflect the virtue in everyone. This idea compromises the ideal society because Aristotle portrays the city as more of a dictator over the ideal concepts of rationality, one’s purpose, and their true nature. Whereas Marcus Aurelius makes, what I believe, to be the correct assumptions that with enough knowledge, human beings can form coexisting good between each other which in turn makes mankind inherently stable, or could at least continually recognize good through social responsibility. With the help of stoicism, I believe Marcus Aurelius focused on living in the moment and becoming at peace with the passing nature as life goes on while progressing in knowledge to benefit not only yourself, but others as well. With these ideas, I find myself to favor what Marcus Aurelius believed in as a citizen of the