I was surprised that Aristotle considered a slave to be a necessity for any man to live well and that some are marked for slavery and others are intended to be masters. If I could discuss this matter with Aristotle I would ask him, "If this is the case why does a master have to rule with a whip? Those who are meant for slavery should be naturally submissive. They should be easily controlled and uprisings would be nonexistent."
My opinion is that there are not those suited for slavery but those who are determined to be in control. Some people are more aggressive, like the Romans. The Roman philosophy was if they are in control they are protected. For their homeland security they didn't employ diplomacy, they took over the surrounding territories to protect the Roman state. Therefore, it is the one who carries the bigger stick who is really destined to rule.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Kimberly, the presence of the whip (symbolizing any sort of rule by force) is necessary precisely because they are slaves. Free men can rule themselves. Slaves need someone to rule them, because their nature is to be rebellious, violent, dangerous. In the same way, barbarians need kings, because they cannot rule themselves.
That was the logic. I don't agree with it either, but I did want to point out that the logic did indeed take into account why the whip was needed.
Post a Comment