Aristotle Politics

[Anonymous No.16709059]

I just finished book I of Aristotle's Politics.

It's not clear to me what his position his about women, he puts them in the slave category in the family and says that they are free and something else that its not clear to me.

Also I didn't understand the paragraph where he talks about the legitimacy of slavery, legal vs natural slavery, and the arguments he presents.

[Anonymous No.16709095]

>>16709059
I don't remember but I think he believed some people were naturally slaves

[Anonymous No.16709223]

>>16709059
>asking /lit/
From a phd on Aristotle: look at secondary sources, and don't restrict your views of his work to one book. His works are deeply connected.

[Anonymous No.16709233]

>>16709059
>reading Aristotle, a known misogynist

[Anonymous No.16709316]

>>16709233
Idgaf his content can still be interesting you sjw

[Anonymous No.16709378]

>>16709223
If ur a PhD in Aristotle cant you answer?

[Anonymous No.16709403]

>>16709378
Don't have time anymore. I was eating and now have class.
Plus /lit/ is for input, not output, you dumb faggot. Go and read a serious second source, not dumb faggot opinions on /lit/, that will ruin an actual image of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.16710100]

>>16709059
It's all quite intertwined. Broadly there are these are the reasons for slavery: slaves could not survive without masters, political communities could not survive without slaves, and slaves cannot flourish without masters.
Now Aristotle near the very beginning of the book says
>He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other
Indeed, if we recall the opening of his metaphysics, he says that one of the characteristics of the wise man is the one who has best knowledge of what causes what, to best know the first principles. So in Book I we are looking at these foundational causes of political communities. We can interpret the above in a basic question: what is causally necessary for the existence of a political community? this is a question we will see Aristotle build on in stages towards the polis proper. So what, minimally, must there be for a political community to exist? Our first answer is, of course: people! for without people, there could be no citizens of the polis. As Aristotle says firstly:
>namely, of male and female, that the race may continue
and continues with another
>and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved.
Analysing this with the above consideration counterfactual: could it be such that there are men or women if there was no union of men and women? after a generation there clearly would not be, as no one would be born. Aristotle is asking the exact same question of the natural master and natural slave: could it be such that either could survive without the other? Aristotle thinks not. And he here isn't talking about simply the position of master and slave, but their physical continuation. Recall the distinguishing feature between the natural slave and master is:
>For if something is capable of rational foresight, it is a natural ruler and master, whereas whatever can use its body to labor is ruled and is a natural SLAVE
So running our counterfactual here should be obvious: could it be that someone who is incapable of rational foresight could survive for any given time? possibly for a while, but they would have great difficulty engaging in any form of hunting or agriculture without the capacity of foresight. Presumably the natural master could survive without the slave, but their labour would be very inefficient and they would be unable to pursue higher ends. So 'That is why the same thing is beneficial for both master and slave'. What is initially beneficial to both is sufficiency.

[Anonymous No.16710105]

>>16710100
And from these two pairings springs the oikos, or household. If we recall Aristotle's original talk about what is necessary for the existence,
>The community naturally constituted to satisfy everyday needs, then, is the household
So a household will spring out of this need for self-sufficiency, much in the same way man and women, ruler and slave need each other to exist. And then the village
>But the first community constituted out of several households for the sake of satisfying needs other than everyday ones is a village
is simply building on this idea of necessary per-existence: not all needs can be satisfied by one alone, or even one household alone, so there will need to be many working together to satisfy all needs. Then, towards the culmination:
>A complete community constituted out of several villages, once it reaches the limit of total SELF-SUFFICIENCY, practically speaking, is a city-state. It comes to be for the sake of living, but it remains in existence for the sake of living well. That is why every city-state exists by NATURE
The culmination of this investigation is to say, for individuals to exist they must exist within a society, and each progression of community aids in that initial precondition. And for society to exist, there must be individuals. So we see, for Aristotle, this kind of natural slavery forms an initial pillar for the existence of political communities and individuals at all. Self sufficiency here means material sufficiency, which when total, can allow individuals to then pursue higher ends. You could say that this is all addressing the 'material cause' of the political community, with the final cause of a political community being the collective good (here interpreted as the ability for each member to flourish, not some modern concept).

However, not only is this relationship necessary for both the master and slave, it is also beneficial. As
>For domestic animals are by nature better than wild ones, and it is better for all of them to be ruled by human beings, since this will secure their safety
It is through domestication that wild animals—that is, their subjection to man's reason and direction—that not only do they become better, but they will also be safer. But, Aristotle tells us, this division also exists within people. For there are some...
>people whose task, that is to say, the best thing to come from them, is to use their bodies are in this condition-those people are natural slaves. And it is better for them to be subject to this rule, since it is also better for the other things we mentioned
So the highest attainment for these people who are naturally slaves is to have their labour under the direction of another's reason. for...
>he who shares in reason to the extent of understanding it, but does not have it himself (for the other animals obey not reason but feelings), is a natural slave.

[Anonymous No.16710109]

>>16710105
The natural slave, lacking his own reason, but capable of understanding the reason of another, will be able to attain more through a position of slavery than they will through being 'wild', for lack of a better term. If he could survive being 'wild' at all. For the slave, their telos—their final cause, their highest attainment, the task for which nature gave them—requires the 'efficient cause' of the master to bring about. And in the same way, the slave is an efficient cause of the master towards their highest flourishing—as without a slave to do the labour and provide the material necessities, the master would never be able to pursue his natural flourishing: in moral, economic, and political matters.
So here we see that what distinguishes a natural slave from a slave by law is precisely whether they are of the kind that 'understands reason, but does not have it', who is reliant on the direction of another for their own highest flourishing. Anyone could become a slave by law through unluckily being conquered by a foreign force or whatever, but that does not make them natural slaves.

Now, Aristotle does not put Women in the slave category, but he did think they were inferior to men.
>For a man rules his wife and children both as free people, For a male, unless he is somehow constituted contrary to nature, is naturally more fitted to lead than a female, and someone older and completely developed is naturally more fitted to lead than someone younger and incompletely developed.
In fact, it is a sign of barbarism to treat wives as slaves. Women are not natural slaves because
>because, while the parts of the soul are present in all these people, they are present in different ways. The deliberative part of the soul is entirely missing from a SLAVE; a WOMAN has it but it lacks authority; a child has it but it is incompletely developed.
So the woman is not by nature a slave, but her 'soul' (read: reason) is partly insufficient. Unlike the natural slave, women have the same reason that all natural masters have, but this reason 'lacks authority'. What that means is simply that a women is not, or is not always, ruled by reason. That is, that reason does not have complete authority over her actions—they are influenced by emotions and intuitions and whatnot. Which is why they take a subordinate position in the household, but they are not slaves because they are not necessarily dependent on another for flourishing, simply worse at it. Which is why it is more akin to the statesman than the master. recall what Plato said about female guardians. But she is far closer to the ruler in virtue of possessing reason than she is to the natural slave, who is something closer to an animal.
>For rule of a statesman is rule over people who are naturally free, whereas that of a master is rule over slaves
There is more going on and a lot makes more sense in relation to Aristotle's broader metaphysics, but that should be enough.

[Anonymous No.16710125]

>>16709059
>women are whores
>women are subhuman animals and slavery is the only way they can be happy
He's absolutely and completely 100% right

[Anonymous No.16710207]

>>16710125
>t. hasn't read Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16710357]

>>16709403
You're a faggot

[Anonymous No.16710783]

>>16709223
>phd on aristotle here
>haha, no I won't tell you

[Anonymous No.16710801]

>>16710783
>please spoon feed us
fuck off

[Anonymous No.16711377]

>>16710357
we are all faggots on this blessed day

[Anonymous No.16711401]

>>16709223
>>16709403
>>16710801
It is the duty of the epistemic superior to help the epistemic inferior. Especially when you are so uniquely capable in this situation. That is your noblesse oblige. I don't know how anyone who truly loves what they study wouldn't want to help another learn it, if they are genuinely interested. And even if you don't think OP meets that criteria, I want to hear what you have to say. So have some pride in your education and position, and lend us a hand.

[Anonymous No.16711418]

>>16710100
>>16710105
>>16710109
Great posts, thanks

[Anonymous No.16711632]

>>16710109
Thanks for the good reply.

So the salve by law has no freedom because he is what we usually mean by slave, and the natural slave is free but works for another person?

Or they're both enslaved and not free, just that one is not there by nature but by law?

[Anonymous No.16711635]

>>16711401
Oh you want my help? I know! Try to READ A FUCKING BOOK!!!

[Anonymous No.16711644]

As someone with no knowledge of Aristotle outside of knowing he was a philosopher and greek, why should i give a flying fuck about him and his writings?

[Anonymous No.16711682]

This is a good thread.

You both
>>16711401
>>16711644
are scumm of lit/ (in diferent ways).

[Anonymous No.16711686]

>>16711682
>can't answer the question
>adds shit to the thread too
Pot meet kettle.

[Anonymous No.16711735]

>>16711686
Actually, I can answer a question
(I guess), though I'm not an Aristotle scholar. And I'm gonna answer with the glad help of the gentle knowledgeable anon. So there it goes:

>>16711632
Succinctly.
A wageslave (legal slave) might be a (master). And a bilionaire might be a (natural slave).
This happens if the first has control over his emotions, while the second one is ruled by them, this way shunning reason.
That's what I got, at least.

[Anonymous No.16711822]

>>16711735
Idk about that, I'm not sure that's what he means

[Anonymous No.16711909]

>>16711822
How so?

[Anonymous No.16711954]

>>16711632
No worries.
Aristotle's section about the slave by law is mostly just defending against claims that there is no natural slavery. He notes earlier his outline for book I a position
>Others believe that it is contrary to nature to be a master (for it is by law that one person is a slave and another free, whereas by nature there is no difference between them), which is why it is not just either; for it involves force.
What he wants to demonstrate is that this claim has implicit in it that there are indeed slaves by nature. The first two positions he presents are those claiming that slaves by law are slaves by an agreement between the victor over the defeated. There is no dispute that these may be slaves by law, but there is whether it is just for them to enslave the vanquished. Aristotle suggests the argument that is really happening here is
>For one side believes that justice is benevolence, whereas the other believes that it is precisely the rule of the more powerful that is just.
when disentangled is really leading back to the idea that the more virtuous should rule the less. The point of benevolence argues against slavery because it is not good for the conquered population (ie. it is not by their nature to be slaves). The point of 'might makes right' is also grounded in this idea of the virtuous should rule because...
>virtue, when it is equipped with resources, is in a way particularly adept in the use of force; and anything that conquers always does so because it is outstanding in some good quality.
essentially saying that the argument is those who are more capable warriors make slaves justly also falls back to a position that the more virtuous should rule. Which in both cases
>have neither force nor anything else to persuade us that the one who is more virtuous should not rule or be master
So neither position is a true argument against natural slavery.
Then there is a third argument, that
>that enslavement in war is just. But at the same time they imply that it is not just. For it is possible for wars to be started unjustly, and no one would say that someone is a slave if he did not deserve to be one
And it is here where he really picks up on the fact that in these arguments against natural slavery are actually pointing towards natural slavery. For, as Aristotle says, the idea that someone who can be a slave but not deserve to be one implies that there are in fact those who deserve to be slaves in the first place. we would call those, natural slaves.

[Anonymous No.16711959]

>>16711954
From which he concludes:
>It is clear, then, that the objection with which we began has something to be said for it, and that the one lot are not always natural slaves, nor the other naturally free. But it is also clear that in some cases there is such a distinction--cases where it is beneficial and just for the one to be master and the other to be slave, and where the one ought to be ruled and the other ought to exercise the rule that is natural for him.
So there can be cases where there are slaves by law but not by nature (in the case of the person who argues for benevolence and the person who argues that the slave of an unjust war is a slave wrongly). Yet if we believe the argument from virtuous force, then those who are even enslaved unjustly were not naturally free (because the victor is the more virtuous and hence deserves to rule). Now, i don't think Aristotle really advocates for any of these positions, he is simply pointing out that none of them are an argument against natural slavery. But if we interpolate from his initial points, i guess there can indeed be slaves by law who are not natural slaves, for they came about through defeat in war. Natural slaves are also be slaves by law, but they are also slaves besides by law, because it is their nature to be. They were born slaves by their nature, they did not become slaves by law. A natural slave cannot exist long nor flourish without a master. But a slave who is merely a slave by law would be able to do so if they win their freedom. Though Aristotle never states as such, i think you could follow this logic to say that the slave by law but not by nature is unjust, because it prevents that individual's natural teleology (which is to be a master), that is, their natural flourishing. But that may just be me making something out of nothing.

>>16711635
I've read the politics multiple times, most major works of Aristotle, and secondary too. I assume that you're just a troll at this point.
>>16711682
And what is that way, that i'm the 'scumm' of /lit/?
>>16711735
No. Aristotle meant actual slavery. It would also be impossible, at least under Aristotle's definitions, for a natural slave to become a billionaire. debatably he may have thought wage slaves natural slaves too. In any case, the lack of reason here literally means an inability to plan ahead or having any personal agency. They 'understand reason, but not not posses it'. They may indeed be guided by impulse and emotion, but it is not because they 'shun' reason—they literally don't possess it in the first place. Which is why they need another to guide them, and hence slavery is beneficial to them.

[Anonymous No.16711970]

>>16711635
If you really studied and understood Aristotle you could give some answer to OP's questions. You are just scholar larping faggot.

[Anonymous No.16711982]

>>16709233
Oh my God shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.16712012]

>>16709233
Based, right? I know

[Anonymous No.16712109]

>>16710100
>>16710105
>>16710109
Based effortposter

[Anonymous No.16712183]

>>16711959
>debatably he may have thought wage slaves natural slaves too.
How so?
Think about Horace. How a guy like him (even being the son of a slave) could be in any conceivable way considered a
NATURAL slave?

A wageslave might be this way because he was born poor not because of some fundamental inability to possess reason or foresee consequencies.
Or does Aristotle think value is hereditary?

[Anonymous No.16713416]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16713945]

>>16709233
Bad bait

[Anonymous No.16714161]

free bump

[Anonymous No.16714169]

>>16709059
TL:DR

[Anonymous No.16714367]

>>16712183
Perhaps it was too far to say that they were natural slaves, but neither would Aristotle consider them masters either, or truly free.
>The best city-state will not confer citizenship on vulgar craftsmen, however; but if they too are citizens, then what we have characterized as a citizen's virtue cannot be ascribed to everyone, or even to all free people, but only to those who are freed from necessary tasks. Those who perform necessary tasks for an individual are slaves; those who perform them for the community are vulgar craftsmen and hired laborers.
So the wage labourer cannot participate in the proper virtues of the master or the citizen, as they are still preforming necessary tasks, and further labouring for another. Which ties in with what Aristotle was initially talking about with the polis being complete when it reaches maximal self-sufficiency. That simply mean material sufficiency which frees citizens to pursue the good life, dedicating themselves wholly to public life, philosophy, and moral matters. That is, to human flourishing—the final cause of humans. Which is why the final cause of the city-state is demonstrated in the famous opening lines...
>We see that every CITY-STATE is a COMMUNITY of some sort, and that every community is established for the sake of some GOOD (for everyone performs every ACTION for the sake of what he takes to be good). Clearly, then, while every community aims at some good, the community that has the most AUTHORITY of all and encompasses all the others aims highest, that is to say, at the good that has the most authority of all.
The good that has the highest authority of all, as we know from NE, is eudaimonia, human flourishing.
Which is also what Aristotle talks about with the slave and master needing each other to survive and flourish; the natural slave, being unable to direct his own self through reason, requires the master to both survive and flourish (they would never be able to participate in higher virtues anyway, because they lack reason. Their full virtue is as a directed labourer); the master, being unable to pursue higher goals without the slave to provide a material basis, also cannot flourish. So the wage labourer could be the master with no slave, which would be a defective master. They posses reason, but are unable to properly direct it.
In any case, Aristotle was not fond of labourers in general, as labour corrupts one's character and is unfitting a master. Maybe even a NEET, depending on how they spent their time, would be closer to a master than a wage labourer. The unlikely inheritors of the aristocratic class...

[Anonymous No.16714385]

>>16711401
Just cheked back on this thread. Sorry Anon, maybe in a few weeks I'll have the time to discuss Aristotle in the way it should be, but at the moment I'm stuffed grading papers and developing an article. Plus /lit/ is, as I've said, a place for input, suggestions and shitpost, not for actual development.

[Anonymous No.16714406]

>>16709059
Some people are better for some functions than others, including leadership, but allocation of the right people to the right functions isn't a simple problem.

[Anonymous No.16714702]

>>16714385
If you're that busy I guess it's fine, you have duties above and beyond anything here. I just didn't want to miss out on your input...
As to whether /lit/ isn't a place for development, I don't think it has to be that way.

[Anonymous No.16714887]

>>16711644
He was pretty smart

[Anonymous No.16715102]

>>16714367
>Maybe even a NEET, depending on how they spent their time, would be closer to a master than a wage labourer. The unlikely inheritors of the aristocratic class...
That feel when I was right all along. Feels good man.
Look mom, Aristotle says I'm right.

[Anonymous No.16715380]

>>16714169
If I warm up a woman, will she start producing cum?

[Anonymous No.16715423]

>>16709059
Summary:
Free Men > Free Woman > Slave Men = Slave Women

[Anonymous No.16715607]

>>16714367
>Maybe even a NEET, depending on how they spent their time, would be closer to a master than a wage labourer. The unlikely inheritors of the aristocratic class...
i 'member that post

[Anonymous No.16715927]

>>16715380
If she's a woman(male).
what would Aristotle say about traps?

[Anonymous No.16716550]

bump

[Anonymous No.16716886]

>>16713945
people bit though

[Anonymous No.16716955]

>>16710100
>>16710105
>>16710109
based
cheers

[Anonymous No.16716958]

>>16714169
hahahaha fucking based

[Anonymous No.16716974]

>>16709403
incel alert! incel alert!

[Anonymous No.16717135]

>>16716886
i wonder if they can't tell it's bait or know and just bite anyway

[Anonymous No.16717260]

>>16715927

[Anonymous No.16717652]

>>16710100
>>16711954
>>16714367
Please stay on /lit/

[Anonymous No.16718039]

>>16714169
aristotle wrote such weird shit in his biological works.

[Anonymous No.16718058]

>>16714169
His works on biology and physics aged extremely badly.

[Anonymous No.16718139]

>>16718039
>>16718058
It makes you question his other work, eh? If he was so wrong there, why trust his metaphysics and ethics to be right?

[Anonymous No.16718171]

>>16718139
They haven't really been refuted. Sure, there's other types of metaphysics and ethics, but his stuff is still solid. This goes for his "Rhetoric" as well.

[Anonymous No.16719599]

>>16718171
Can they be refused?

[Anonymous No.16719821]

>>16719599
I mean refuted

[Anonymous No.16720305]

>>16719821
Not in a sense in which I guess most people take it today, i.e. the scientific way. You can't compare science to ethics etc.
I guess someone can argue why his moral system is better than Aristotle's, but that's about it.