The first fundamental statement made by Plato and Aristotle on human nature is that people are, according to fundamental differences in their nature, suited to fulfilling different roles in society, which The natural attitude is destiny. What needs to be clarified, however, is whether Plato and Aristotle mean that this nature is biologically determined (absolute) or socially constructed (relative). In this context, it would be useful to first examine the way in which Plato and Aristotle approach the notion of nature or the natural. Aristotle believes that what is natural can be determined empirically. He says: “If one were to see how a city-state develops naturally from the beginning, one would get, in this case as in others, the best view” (Politics 2). Social hierarchy, he notes, quickly emerges in nature “for reasons of survival” (Politics 2). In the Republic, Plato follows a similar path of reasoning, as he introduces the idea of ​​kallipolis. Socrates states, “I think a city comes into being because none of us is self-sufficient, but we all need many things” (Republic 369b). Aristotle then presents what will become his main teleological argument in Politics. He says that "the nature of anything, for example that of a human being, a horse, or a house, is the character it has when its becoming has been completed." He continues: “Moreover, that for which something exists, that is, its end, is the best thing, and self-sufficiency is both an end and a best thing” (Politics 3). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The idea of ​​self-sufficiency is at the heart of Plato and Aristotle's discussion of human nature, because they ultimately define the human purpose in order to create a self-sustaining society. The distinction here is between a pragmatic definition (which they actually offer) and a universal definition of human nature (which they may appear to offer). Plato recognizes that specialization in one sector increases productivity; he writes that "more abundant and better quality goods are more easily produced if everyone does something for which they are naturally gifted, does it at the right time and is free from having to do some of the others" (Repubblica 370c). Aristotle opens his Politics by making arguments similar to those of Plato. Aristotle says, “For if anything is capable of rational foresight, it is a natural ruler and master, while anything that can use its body to work is governed and is a natural slave” (Politics 2). Aristotle recognizes that "everything is defined by its task and its capacity" and that, in fact, "the city-state is natural and of a nature prior to the individual" (Politics 4). He finally arrives at his definition of humanity by saying that “he who cannot form a community with others, or does not need one because he is self-sufficient, is not part of a city-state, he is a beast or a God” (Politics 5). These pragmatic and functionalist views of human beings open the framework for future arguments by Plato and Aristotle on the ideal city and slavery respectively. The organization of Plato's kallipolis mirrors the organization of man's soul. The tripartite division of man's soul, into the rational, appetitive, and spiritual parts, corresponds to the three main roles of people within the kallipolis, the guardian, the auxiliary, and the craftsman (Republic 439d). Just as the three parts of the soul must be in the right proportion, being governed by the rational, the city must be in an appropriate balance between governing and being governed. Describing how the healthy city would function, Socrates says: "To produce health is to establish the components of the body in anatural control, and of being controlled, by each other" (Republic 444d). Plato introduces the Phoenician myth of metals as an analogy to his idea that each person has a natural role in society. He describes a city of brothers, where God “mixes some gold into those who are properly equipped to rule, because they are the most valuable, some silver into those who are auxiliaries, and some iron and bronze into the farmers and artisans” (Republic 415a). and appropriate for Plato's purposes, since one cannot tell from birth what kind of metal one has in oneself. There is limited mobility in the kallipolis, as "if a descendant of the guardians is inferior, he must be sent to join. to other citizens and, if the others have able offspring, he must join the guardians". If someone is unsuitable or unhappy in his position in society, in this ideal city, "he must be directed to what he is naturally suited for" (Repubblica 423c-d). However, unnatural mobility is dangerous and can cause civil wars and perversions of the aristocracy such as oligarchy. Socrates warns that “the mixing of iron with silver and bronze with the resulting gold will generate lack of likeness and inharmonious inequality, and these always generate war and hostility where they arise” (Republic 546c). Plato's definition of human nature, while seemingly fluid (in that one naturally adapts to one's ideal role), is based on the idea that each person has a specific role to play. Plato's argument here is somewhat slippery, as any problem that arises in his system (such as an unhappy craftsman or a greedy ruler) can be dispelled simply by saying that they were in a role for which they were not suited. Aristotle wrestles with the question of whether or not slavery is natural, whether some human beings are slaves by nature, and that's no surprise; he needs the slave class for his self-sustaining city to function, but he feels uncomfortable stripping them completely of their humanity. On the one hand, it recognizes the natural tendency for “a dominant element and a subject [to] appear, whenever several components come together in a common thing” (Politics 7). But he cites fundamental deficiencies in the slave's soul as the primary justification for his subordinate status. He states that “the deliberative part of the soul is completely lacking in the soul” (Politics 23). However, Aristotle recognizes that for the slave to be human, and states that “slaves are human and have a part in reason” ( Politics 22), they must have a part in virtue. Consistent with his functionalist definitions, Aristotle argues that “the soul contains by nature a part that governs and a part that is governed, and each of them has a different virtue” ( Politics 23). It is important to remember here how Aristotle defined virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics, as something that is divinely inspired. Slaves, Aristotle would seem to argue here, are biologically determined to be slaves, if you lack virtue you cannot learn it. This sense of determinism is also found in the Ethics, when Aristotle says that "no one assigns to the slave a part of happiness, if he does not assign to him a part of human life" (Ethics 263). Aristotle is particularly astute in his arguments throughout the Politics, careful not to overextend certain arguments, lest he jeopardize his somewhat dubious arguments about slavery. For example, Aristotle begins a very modern discussion about equality and merit that seems to lead him to reconsider his position on slavery. Recognizes that some people are wrongly promoted or punished for a quality that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He gives an example where “those who are superior in complexion, height or any other assetthey will achieve more in the things that political justice deals with” (Politics 86). Ultimately, Aristotle says that “for superiority in wealth by birth one would have to contribute to performance, but in reality they contribute nothing” (Politics 86). This argument, if extended to slaves, would become problematic for Aristotle. He has already recognized that slaves taken captive (by law) are separated from slaves by nature. Are slaves not therefore punished for their birth? The issue of slavery is complex, but Aristotle cannot treat it fairly because he must censor himself to ensure that his conclusions do not compromise his broader vision of political society. If one of the last pieces of a large, carefully assembled puzzle doesn't fit, sometimes it's better to just force it. The fact that both Aristotle and Plato define human nature in a way that fits their proposed social structure does not entirely discredit what they are saying. In their texts, they have other places to investigate human nature that seem less contaminated by their functionalist goals. Education, for example, plays an essential role in a just city or a moderate soul and also adds insight into the way Aristotle and Plato define human nature. Both authors, in their views on education, emphasize the malleability of the human character. Plato writes that "good education and education, when preserved, produce good natures, and useful natures, which in turn are well educated, grow even better than their predecessors" (Republic 423e). He goes on to warn against the possible corrupting force of poetry and music, as people are bound to want to imitate them; teachers “must guard with the utmost care against any innovation in music and poetry or in physical training which is contrary to the established order” (Repubblica 424b). Aristotle, although significantly less emphatic about possible sources of corruption. However, he places equal importance on the education of youth, since “states of character arise from similar activities” (Ethics 29). Habituation is an important instructor; Acquiring practical wisdom, after all, takes a lot of time and experience. An important distinction must be emphasized here, as virtue is something considered by both Aristotle and Plato to be something that cannot be taught, but rather is innate or God-given, a divine determination left ambiguous as to who is naturally virtuous and who it isn't. Aristotle writes that practical wisdom “will avail nothing to those who have no virtue” (Ethics 154). He later states that education “is not the art of making sight penetrate the soul? He assumes that the view is there but is not turned in the right direction or is not looking where it should be looking, and tries to redirect it correctly” (Republic 518d). Remember: this is just an example. Get an article customization now from our expert writers. Get a custom essay Finally, Plato and Aristotle produced texts that, in the teleological spirit, aim to construct and describe the best political society and to define the purposes of human life. Since this is the primary focus, it is not surprising that they defined human nature in a way that is consistent with their other arguments. This strategy, however, seems more appropriate for Aristotle than for Plato, because Aristotle recognizes that his rhetorical strategy is empirically based and limited, while Plato adheres to the Forms and the absolute. I would argue that Plato and Aristotle fail to provide convincing arguments in support of biological determinism. However, there seems to be a recognition between the lines that these definitions of human nature and purpose are socially relative.. (2018)..