Ancient Greece was arguably one of the greatest civilizations of all time. Beginning in the 8th century BC and ending around 146 BC, this era introduced some of the greatest innovations in literature, technology, and philosophy. But such a vast civilization was accompanied by many conflicts that created internalized divisions. Afflicted by economic instability, wars such as the Peloponnesian War, and political tensions, ancient Greece began to divide into "poleis", or city-states (singular: "polis"). Unlike a centralized governmental system, the division into city-states allowed each polis to gain political and economic independence, while providing greater protection and security for its inhabitants. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay As a result, distinct cultures and beliefs arose within these poles, harvesting some of the greatest scientists, warriors, and philosophers of all time. Born in Stagira, Aristotle grew up learning in a top-notch education system. At just 17 years old, he fled to Athens, where he studied under the great philosopher Plato. Soon enough, Aristotle proved that he possessed his own philosophical eminence and began to create his own works. In one of his greatest works, Politics, Aristotle studies the concept and structure of a polis, as well as the various ways in which it influenced the existence of man in ancient Greece. Using his method of analytical thinking, he argues that man can only achieve true goodness and virtue 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. He suggests that slavery is a key element of the success of a polis and that it is “natural.” However, as Aristotle explores this concept of "natural slavery", many contradictions arise in his argument, as well as gaps 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. He first states that a polis is "natural" and that it consists of a hierarchy of associations, where the constituents of each association work toward the common goal of achieving virtue. This idea that a polis is “natural” is based on the fact that humans have a natural tendency to form a hierarchy. Thus, an Aristotelian polis is composed of multiple hierarchical “stages” that work coherently to ensure the common good. At the lowest stage are associations between individuals, such as male/female, master/slave, and ruler/ruled. These associations are formed because no individual is capable of living without the other. When several associations of “pairs” come together, they form the next stage of the polis: households. From a collection of many households a village is born, and from many villages becomes a virtuous and self-sufficient state. For Aristotle, the state is considered the pinnacle of human association because it ensures a “good life” for those who choose to be part of it. This exploration of the structure of a polis lays the foundation for other topics covered in subsequent chapters. As the book progresses, Aristotle analyzes the key aspects of a successful polis. One of the elements of theAristotle's rhetoric is that slavery is necessary for the proper functioning of a polis. In Chapter V, Aristotle expands on the idea that slavery is natural and serves as a catalyst for the economic efficiency of the polis. To justify the reasoning that slavery is natural, he connects the relationship between master and slave to other natural relationships, such as mind and emotion: "In these relationships it is clear that it is to both natural and expedient that the body should be governed by the soul, and that the emotional part of our nature should be governed by the mind, the part which possesses reason” (1254b2). Here he suggests that the mind controls people's emotional nature because it has strong enough reasoning to tame emotions. Thus, it is completely natural that the mind is the "master" of emotions, because it is capable of rationalizing and making justified decisions, while emotions often lead people to impulsive and irrational behavior. Aristotle relates the mental and emotional relationship to the master-slave relationship 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 "ruler" 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, it is impossible, in this sense, to compare the intangibility of the mind and emotions to the tangibility of people. The spirit and the master have different characteristics that ultimately affect the dynamics of their respective relationships in disparate ways. For example, while the mind and emotion work cohesively to improve the person as a whole, the relationship between master and slave is often one. on the side and in favor of the master. While he considers that there are humans destined for slavery or not, master-slave relationships often revolve around varying degrees of oppressive force for them to function properly. Second, Aristotle's argument that the master-slave relationship is natural relies largely on the assumption that the master will act rationally and reasonably toward the slave. While there may be marginal cases where this is true, history has proven time and time again that most masters were irrational individuals who treated their slaves inhumanely, making Aristotle's assertion highly conditional and valid only to a certain extent. 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 refuted. Continuing his assertion that slavery is natural, Aristotle compares the idea that the relationship between a master and his slave is equal to the relationship between a man and an animal. In chapter V he states: “This is equally true between man and animal. other animals; for tame animals are by nature better than wild animals, and it is better that they be governed by men, for this ensures their safety” (1254b2). Here, Aristotle indicates that a relationship between a man and an animal is natural because the animal benefits from being tamed and, in return, man benefits from using the animal as a tool to increase his productivity. He then relates this to the relationship between master and slave, stating that these relationships are the same in the sense 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 the mind and emotions, this comparison is flawed. Although slaves were considered “property” in a..