We become what we become partly because we are what we are. Just as the animal organ system is determinative of the form of life the animal will lead so it is with us human beings. Our organ system results in speech and reason and a more complex form of life in which it is not sufficient, as it is in the case of animals, to preserve one's life in accordance with survival mechanisms. The complexity of our capacities which build upon each other and are integrated with each other results in a form of life in which survival and preservation are important but only because they are necessary conditions of a natural striving which human beings possess to lead the good life, the flourishing life. In the course of the use of these capacities, truth becomes an important aspect of speech because truthfulness is important for the political animal leading his political life. Here the truth function of language will obviously be integrated with the communicative and expressive forms of language we encounter in political discussions. The life of a city-‐ state, then, for Aristotle is not an arbitrary conventional construction brought about by the linear causal mechanisms of science but rather a matter of Logos, a matter of logic. There is a logical relation between Logos and the political form of life expressed thus by Smith: Aristotle discusses the various forms of friendship that one encounters in the city and settles on the categorical form which involves trusting one another. Smith feels that this pevents the Aristotelian city state from having cosmopolitan ambitions. The lecture comments thus on this issue: Smith does go on to argue that Aristotle believes that only a small city-‐state can house the kind of trust involved in the political form of friendships required for the polis to fulfill its political functions. He asks specifically and rhetorically : "Does this mean that the city can never be a universal cosmopolitan state?" The implied answer is in the negative. He goes on to confirm this position: "It appears that Aristotle's polis must be small enough to be governed by a common language, common memories, and common customs. This may imply a criticism of our modern societies, this may be a suggestion that our cities and nations are not healthy." The argument continues that this is not a necessary limitation since it is possible that the universality of the logos of the political regime could permit a cosmopolitan regime of the kind envisaged by Kant, i.e. a regime which did not involve a world government. Slavery is discussed and Aristotle’s view is defended as appropriate for the times he lived in: a time when the state did not take responsibility for its citizens.