I found it very odd to be reading something that was justifying slavery. I guess because this country spent so much time and effort in banishing it and that I grew up learning that it was wrong to own another person. Aristotle’s idea that there are some whose nature it is to rule and those who are meant to be ruled just didn’t sit right with me. How do you decide by nature who is meant to rule and who is meant to be a slave, especially at birth?
Aristotle went on saying that if a man didn’t have the ability of rational principle then by nature he is a slave. My idea from this was basically that if were considered dense and not very smart in the areas that mattered, politics and society, then you need to be a slave because you are not worth anything else but to be owned and follow some one else’s orders. I guess in a world where participation in politics and the world around you is key and you were not able to do that, you would not be worth much. I can see where it would make sense, but that kind of thinking would not get you very far in today’s world
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I was totally thinking the same thing... who decides who is the master and who is the slave?! It seems almost animlaistic that the strongest among us would dominate the weak and treat them in such a demeaning manner. It reminds me of how a pack of lions would function. I'm so glad that society today has recognized that and is starting to move beyond. But, we still do categorize and treat those "below" us not as well as those above us or equal to us. I can only hope this will get better with time.
Slavery, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What I am saying is, there are all kinds of slavery. Someone who is deep in debt with credit cards and such is a slavery to the creditors. Or, a drug addict is a slave to cocaine (or whatever). Just like many are a slave to a cruel employer, but have very little options for any other job. In many times in history there have been slaves, and in some cases those slaves have lived quite well - including in biblical times. It is surprising when we hear of a forward thinking like Aristotle spout certain ideals that conflict with our own values. However, it becomes important to try to immerse ourselves in the time period and really understand the values of that time period. While something, like slavery, may seem cruel it may very well be something a group considers then as thoughtful caretakers. That seems like a stretch, but how were the slaves treated is the part to challenge our values. Slavery in United States history was that of obscene cruelty, not always the same in other time periods. Alexander Graham Bell tried to prohibit the deaf from using sign language, only wanting them to learn to speak and read lips. In todays standards that seems cruel, yet it was prevalent in his time period.
It is great that society has progressed passed the point of slavery and very close to every person is repulsed by the idea today. The main point to remember when you read this article is the mindset of when it was written. This is something I have been trying to do is to leave my present way of thinking out of any historical reading. Aristotle wrote about many things that would not be acceptable today including that males are naturally superior to females. I think his writhing helps to understand the thinking of the time, the way people then perceived the world.
Slavery has a fairly precise definition: it is ownership of a human being. The slave is property, which means the slave can be bought and sold, is counted for tax purposes, etc.
Therefore, someone who is deep in debt is nevertheless not a slave. Nor is a drug addict a slave.
BTW, Aristotle didn't say that the strong enslave the weak. He said there are some who are by nature fit only to be slaves. There are others who are enslaved as the result of the fortunes of war. Those are separate categories.
None of which makes slavery any less despicable; but it's good to use the word in the right way.
Post a Comment