Ancient Greece was undoubtedly one of the greatest civilizations of all time. Starting in the 8th century BC and ending around 146 BC, this era introduced some of the greatest innovations in literature, technology, and philosophy. But with such a great civilization came many conflicts that created internalized rifts. Plagued by economic instability, wars such as that of the Peloponnese and political tensions, ancient Greece began to divide into “poleis”, or city-states (singular: “polis”). As opposed to a centralized government system, the division into these city-states allowed each polis to gain political and economic independence, while providing better protection and security for its inhabitants. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay As a result, distinct cultures and beliefs arose within these poleis, gathering some of the greatest scientists, warriors, and philosophers to ever exist. Born in Stagira, Aristotle grew up learning in a world-class education system. At just 17 years old he fled to Athens, where he studied with the great philosopher Plato. Aristotle soon demonstrated that he had his own philosophical eminence and began to create works of his own. In one of his most important works, Politics, Aristotle investigates the concept and structure of a polis and the various ways in which it influences man's existence in ancient Greece. Using his method of analytical thinking, he argues that man can achieve true goodness and virtue only by becoming an active member of a polis. However, Aristotle's argument that the "polis" is the greatest form of human association has many flaws. It suggests that slavery is a key component of a successful polis and that it is “natural.” However, as Aristotle explores this concept of “natural slavery,” many contradictions emerge in his argument, as well as deficiencies in what Aristotelian ideology defines as “natural” in a polis. Before addressing the pitfalls of Aristotle's argument, it is necessary to examine what exactly a polis is in Aristotelian terms. Aristotle begins his work by discussing the foundations on which an ideal polis is built. First, it states that a polis is “natural” and that it consists of a hierarchy of associations, in which the members of each association work towards the common goal of achieving virtue. This idea that a polis is “natural” is based on the fact that humans have the natural inclination to form a hierarchy. Therefore, an Aristotelian polis is made up of multiple hierarchical “phases” that work coherently to provide for the common good. At the lowest stage are associations between individuals, such as man/woman, master/slave, and ruler/ruled. These associations form because neither individual is able to live without the other. When multiple associations of “couples” come together, they form the next phase of the polis: families. From the coming together of many families a village is born, and from many villages it becomes a self-sufficient and virtuous state. For Aristotle, the State is considered the pinnacle of human association because it guarantees a "good life" to those who decide to be part of it. This exploration of the structure of a polis is what sets the stage for other topics discussed in subsequent chapters. As the book progresses, Aristotle analyzes the key aspects of a successful polis. One component of Aristotle's rhetoric is that slavery is necessary for a polis to function properly. In Chapter V, Aristotle delves into the idea that slavery is natural and serves as a catalyst forthe economic efficiency of the polis. To justify the reasoning as to why slavery is natural, he links the relationship between master and slave to other natural relationships, such as the mind and emotion: “In these relationships it is clear that it is natural and appropriate for the body to be governed by the soul , and that the emotional part of our nature may be governed by the mind, the part which possesses reason” (1254b2). Here he suggests that the mind controls people's emotional nature because it possesses reasoning strong enough to tame one's emotions. Therefore, it is natural that the mind is the “ruler” of emotions because it is capable of rationalizing and making justified decisions, while emotions often lead people to impulsive and irrational behavior. Aristotle links the relationship between mind and emotion to the relationship between master and slave, in the sense that the master is more capable of reasoning than the slave and is able to rationalize, thus giving him the right to be the "sovereign" in the relationship over the slave. Although the relationship between mind and emotion is indeed true, the relationship between master and slave is simply incomparable. First, in this sense it is impossible to compare the intangibility of the mind and emotions with the tangibility of people. The mind and the master have different characteristics that ultimately influence the dynamics of their respective relationships in disparate ways. For example, while the mind and emotion work coherently to improve the person as a whole, the relationship between master and slave is often one aligned and in favor of the master. While I believe there are humans meant for slavery and not, master-slave relationships often revolve around varying degrees of oppressive force in order for it to function properly. Second, Aristotle's argument that the relationship between master and slave is natural relies heavily on the assumption that the master will act rationally and reasonably towards the slave. While there may be marginal cases where this is true, history has proven time and again that most masters were irrational individuals who treated their slaves inhumanely, making Aristotle's statement highly conditional and valid only up to a certain point. If a master in a master/slave relationship is irrational, the claim that a polis is “natural,” as well as Aristotle's argument, are immediately disproved. Continuing with his claim that slavery is natural, Aristotle compares the idea that the relationship between a master and his slave is the same as the relationship between a man and an animal. In chapter V he states: “This also applies between man and other animals; for domestic animals are by nature better than wild ones, and it is better for them to be governed by men, because this guarantees their safety” (1254b2). Here Aristotle is denoting that a relationship between a man and an animal is natural because the animal benefits from being domesticated and, in return, man gains from using the animal as a tool to increase productivity. He then links this to the relationship between master and slave, arguing that these relationships are one and the same, in that the master "tames" the slave for his own use, and in return, the slave is given purpose and guidance. However, like the analogy between mind and emotion, this comparison is incorrect. Although slaves are considered “property” in a polis, they are ultimately still human beings. As previously stated by Aristotle, all human beings are capable of reasoning and rational thought, but the concept of slavery is what systematically oppresses slaves even preventing them from becoming rational human beings, thus making it unnatural. Please note: this is just an example..