Since the birth of society thousands of years ago, thinkers have pondered one of the most basic and important questions facing humanity: what it should be like is the society organised? Plato was one of the first to write his answer to this question. His work, La Repubblica, clearly outlines his project for an ideal society. Aristotle, a student of Plato, disagreed with much of what Plato offered in his work and wrote a response, titled Politics. At the beginning of the second book, Aristotle states that the purpose of Politics was "to study which political community is best of all for people who are capable of living in the most ideal way possible" (Politics, 1260, 27-28). To achieve this objective it was necessary to analyze the most important work in this field, Plato's Republic. In his analysis, however, Aristotle's logic is flawed and his criticism of Plato's structure of civilization is weak. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay A fundamental part of any society is how citizens share things. Plato argues in the Republic that, among other goods, "marriage, the bearing of wives, and the procreation of children must be governed, as far as possible, by the ancient proverb: Friends possess everything in common" (Republic, 423e-424a ). Instead of presenting an argument against such a system, Aristotle rejects it out of hand. Plato, however, had a valid reason for proposing such an agreement: he wanted to minimize the conflict caused by differences in property ownership. Plato believed that by eliminating property completely, one could also eliminate costly civil lawsuits and other similar property-based disagreements. Aristotle never illustrates a reason to disagree with such an organization of property distribution. Aristotle subsequently examines a fundamental premise of the ideal society and rejects Plato's position. Plato states in the Republic: Is there perhaps a greater evil that can be mentioned for a city than that which tears it apart and makes it many instead of one? Or some greater good than that which unites her and makes her one? There is not (Repubblica, 462a-b). It is this fundamental claim that Aristotle attacks, arguing that "the more a city-state becomes unified, the less of a city-state it will be" (Politics, 1261a.15-16). Aristotle believes that if a city-state becomes too cohesive, it no longer remains a city-state, but eventually becomes a family and finally a single human being. What he fails to notice, however, is that Plato, in fact, wanted a city-state to resemble a single one as much as possible. person. Plato does not delimit this concept well enough, as Aristotle indicates earlier in his argument, but he still makes a valid point: if a city behaves more like a single person and shares pain, pleasure and property, it will be able to survive more traumatic situations. accidents. If, for example, the city were attacked, if the reaction of the citizens was uniform throughout the city, the reaction would be easier to mobilize. For the sake of argument, Aristotle assumes that Plato is correct in declaring that unity is best for a city-state. Instead, Aristotle attacks Plato's reason for desiring unity in his ideal city-state. Speaking of this unity, Plato asks “is the best-governed city then the one in which most people say 'mine' and 'not mine' about the same things in the same way” (Republic, 462c-d)? Plato says yes..