Three Possibilities In Aristotles Argument example essay topic

Ancient Political Thought Throughout the Republic it becomes obvious that Plato believes that the best city-state has the highest level of sharing and unity while in the Politics, Aristotle believes that too much unity can de unify a city-state. The "unity" argument is a prime example of Platos way of thinking about the nature of a community, and Aristotles criticism of this unity gives insight into Aristotles way of thinking about his views on the nature of the community. In order to understand Aristotles attack on Platos "unity", it must be understood that for Aristotle, unity is synonymous with the level of sharing in a community. In Politics II 1, Aristotle begins his assessment by stating that, "We must begin, at the natural starting point of this investigation. For all citizens much share everything, or nothing, or some things but not others" (Pol. 1260 b 36-39).

There are three possibilities in Aristotles argument regarding how much citizens should share in common: Nothing, everything, and some things but not others. Similar to Platos style of forming an argument, Aristotle states the problem and all the possible outcomes. He then proceeds to disprove two of them, thereby making the last remaining possibility the correct one by means of deduction. Aristotle argues that it would be "evidently impossible" for a community to have nothing in common (1260 b 39-40).

A community citizens all share the same location, and they are all organized by a common constitution. Therefore, the first possibility can be ruled out. Aristotle attacks the two remaining possibilities simultaneously. He asks, "is it better for a city-state that is to be well managed to share everything possible Or is it better to share some things but not others" (1261 a 2-4) Plato would argue that it is best for a city-stat to share everything, including women and children, with all members of a society. In addressing the remaining possibilities, Aristotle questions if Plato was right in the Republic to assert that "children, women, and property should be communal" in society (1261 a 6-7), or is having too much unity (sharing) a bad thing. In the Republic, Socrates explains to Adeimantus the importance of having a communist-like society where everything is shared by the community.

He states that "If a sound education has made [our children] into reasonable men, they will easily see their way through all these mattes, as well as others which we will pass over for the moment, such as the possession of wives, marriage, and child-bearing, and the principle that here we should follow, as far as possible, the proverb which says that friends have all things in common" (423 e-424 a). Aristotle cannot simply dismiss the possibility of sharing everything, because it can, in theory, take place in a community. All members of a community, if they so desired, could raise and educate their children together, and share all of their wives amongst their friends and neighbors. However, Aristotle would like to prove that although it is possible to bring up children in a communal setting, it would undermine that citys unity, rather than support it. It is important to note that Socrates says that the principle of sharing children should, as far as possible, be followed. In order for Aristotles to make his argument, it must be assumed that Plato means that once a child is born, he is given over to the community, and therefore, does not know who his parents are, and his parents do not know who their child is.

Aristotles first argument centers on the statement that what is common and shared, by nature, is given the least amount of care and attention. When a large number of people share something in common, they tend to neglect that something. "What is common to the most people gets the least care since they are concerned more of all with their own things, but less with common things" (1261 b 33-35). Aristotle compares sharing children with an entire community to a master who employs too many servants. A servant will be less motivated to perform specific actions, because he very well might assume that another servant has already taken care of that task.

Furthermore, if the servant knows that the task has not been competed but fails to perform the task himself, if he is caught slacking off, he can simply exonerate himself by making the claim that he thought that task was already competed. If, however, a master only had one slave, this slave would not be able to claim that the work was not done, or that he was not needed, because he is the only one who can serve in the entire household. From this example, Aristotle infers that if our children are brought up in a communal setting, the same thing will happen to human relationships that happens to masters with too many slaves. If we all share our children, "There comes to be a thousand sons to each of the citizens", and this forms a situation in which "any chance man is equally the son of any chance man, such that all [the "fathers"] will equally neglect them (all the sons) " (1261 b 38-1262 a 1).

No matter how close a "father" feels for one of his "sons", he will end up neglecting the child since it is quite natural, or in some cases tempting, to think that another "father" is taking care of that "son". (62, dude). This neglect will lead to a weakened father-son relationship. Every father will only recognize himself as one of many fathers in the village, and all the children will see all the fathers as an unorganized whole. If there are 1,000 fathers in a village, the child will therefore be only 1/1000 of each individual father. This fragmentation leads to a decrease in concern or care.

Furthermore, since the father does not know which son is really his, he will begin to doubt the entire system. He may think that a child is someone elses based on the childs resemblance to another father in the village, and then completely shun the child away. The system also leads to a lack of respect for each father. If a child steps out of line, and a father in the village tries to reprimand that child, he will be justified in saying, "Im not going to obey you. You are not my father". Imagine another situation in which a family has a son and a daughter and they are brought up by the entire community, never knowing who their parents are, nor the fact that they are siblings.

There remains a chance that the two could be united and procreate, never realizing that they are of relation. Aristotle would argue that Plato, therefore, in his vision of the most unified and perfect polis could, in fact, have numerous incestuous relationships. Another factor, that Aristotle fails to mention, is the situation in which a child were born mentally or physically challenged. This child would still be loved by his parents under Aristotles system of the household. However, if this child were released into the entire community to educate and to nurture, chances are members of the community would not treat this child in the same way that his birth parents would.

Under Platos system he may be deemed a social outcast, rather than a loved and cared for member of a family. All of these examples add to Aristotles arsenal of criticisms against Platos vision of a literally unified community. Plato cannot escape the reality of the fact that common things are given the least care. If we share everything, society would only become more fragmented and most likely to fall apart because no real unity or sense of belonging would exist. While both Aristotle and Plato feel that friendship is essential to holding a community together, they seem to differ radically as to the types of friendship that would create unity. In arguing against Platos vision of the perfectly unified city-state, Aristotle is really proving the importance of a community having different interacting households, rather than one unified household.