Humble Servitude and the Good Master

In writing my previous post on Aristotle in the "Highest Human Science Series", I had the opportunity to review one of his more controversial philosophical views. I say "controversial", but only because our too-often arrogant modern perspective shuts us off from learning anything about the world unless it comes from a contemporary and up-to-date 'world-view'. Our tendency to ignore great thinkers and men of virtue from history just because they didn't have the Internet is a handicap that makes any attempt at intellectual honesty evaporate instantly. I think that's a topic for another time.

The Aristotelian doctrine that I am referring to is his commentary on the composition of the household. In Chapter 3 of Politics I, the Philosopher starts from the basic communities, these being man and woman or a master and a slave, and works his way up to the city-state. However, in Chapter 5, he makes the very startling claim, and I quote directly from C.D.C. Reeve's translation:

"... There are some people, some of whom are naturally free, others naturally slaves, for whom slavery is both just and beneficial." (Pol I.5 1225a 2-4)"

To the careless reader, this might be enough to stop reading and move on to a task which requires significantly less intellectual digestion. However, can this really be true? I do not hold individuals' opinions in high honor unless I have heard all of it and find all of it honorable. This pricks that nagging, hopelessly modern part of my conscience that is the mark of everyone born in this age of history. But it's so aggressively bold that given how high I have admired Aristotle's intellect up to this point, I am willing to give him a fair shot.

Aristotle's understanding of "slave" is not at all the same as that which we typically hold when reflecting on our nation's history. True, he is most likely referring to slaves taken in the conquest of one nation over another, but the imagery of Uncle Tom's Cabin is a modern intellectual prejudice exclusive to human thought in the last few centuries.

Aristotle uses the term "natural slaves" to denote that these men (or women) are made slaves by nature. So in this sense, he is not strictly referring to those slaves won as spoils of military conquest. Instead, these human beings had it in their nature to be slaves from birth. As a biologist by study, Aristotle gravitates towards assigning the distinction of "by nature" to his observances. However, he does have proof to back this up. He asserts that, "Nature tends... to make the bodies of slaves and free people different," specifically, a slaves body is physically superior to that of a free person's. (Pol I.6 1254b 26) Harkening back to his argument about function, it is plain to see that a strong body is best suited for tasks that are physically strenuous. 

Also, though I do not fully agree with the sweeping generalization of this next statement, he also points out that the natural slave "shares in reason to the extent of understanding it, but not have it himself." (Pol I.6 1254b 22-23) This statement makes it clear (and if it doesn't, he makes it more obvious later in the work) that according to Aristotle, natural slaves do not possess reason at all. However, to avoid getting into an entirely tangential argument on what Aristotle is actually saying, I think we can sufficiently agree that the people that tend to end up at the bottom of the pile are those less capable of intellectually robust activity than those above them. So I think it is fair to say that though Aristotle's statement above might not ring entirely true; there's enough to it that I can believe it to an extent.

This startling claim gathers more credence when you think about the vast majority of the people in the world that are not seriously capable of thinking for themselves. The phrase of "following the herd", an aimless hive-mind, describes this phenomenon perfectly. Following what everyone else is doing is the norm for these individuals. On a small scale, these individuals might have their checkbook balanced and their schedules planned, but if you survey their global quality of life, especially in terms of ethics, these people lack the intellectual robustness to comprehend their life's meaning on their own. 

At this point, my conclusion is that Aristotle was definitely on to something when he defines the natural slave. Though I might not agree with every characteristic that he associates with them, I do accept that there are persons capable of understanding human reason, though incapable of vigorously applying it themselves.

But to return to the initial claim, Aristotle's view that slavery could ever be both "just and beneficial" is still very difficult to swallow, despite the natural slave only being fit for physical labor (as shown above). Though without any guidance to his labors, he would be useless and unproductive. For it to be just, it would have to be in accordance with the virtue of justice and fittingness; and for it to be beneficial, it would need to be in the individual's best interest to be ruled by another man.

If a natural slave were to be ruled by another man, then who more beneficial to his interests than the virtuous, or eudaimon, man? Given the master's virtue, he would be of a superlative intellect, as contemplative wisdom, along with action-based practical wisdom, are the crowning achievement of the virtuous man and the most visible marks of his intellectual prowess.

Furthermore, without the capacity for agile rational activity, natural slaves are incapable of full human virtue, according to Aristotle; however, in the company of a virtuous master, the natural slave could share in his master's intellectual wisdom and share in living a virtuous life. Aristotle is very scrupulous when it comes to assigning the term, "virtuous". Both excellent acts and thoughts are require for the virtuous man, and on those grounds, the natural slave is disqualified from the title unfortunately. While I agree with this on the grounds that to achieve the highest status of any human being, you must perform your function the best, I believe there is a similar value and virtue associated with knowing your intellectual betters and modeling your conduct and contemplation after theirs.

And it is here that I think we have come across the most helpful and universally practical nugget in this lonely corner of Aristotle's political theory. Modern thinkers would never have discovered it because modern thinkers wouldn't have made it past the first paragraph. But we have. To some degree, we are all natural slaves; there is something deficient in our human understanding and it's something we can always work on. We need to make our understandings subservient to virtuous men; we must sit at the feet of the intellectual masters and allow ourselves to be guided by their practical and contemplative wisdom. In modern terms, it is comparable to discovering our role models and fashioning our thoughts and behavior from theirs.

To conclude, when considering Aristotle's political and ethical theory in its entirety, I believe he presents the most mature and responsible blueprint for a society that permits servitude. His biological (natural) perspective may overstep its bounds in some respects to a comprehensive understanding of the nature of all human beings, but in the end, he holds the masters of other men to high standards of conduct and responsibility in governing those under their charge. And in applying Aristotle's theory of natural slavery broadly with a little humility, we discover that we could all allow ourselves to cease our intellectual rebellions and naturally "enslave" our minds and hearts to men and women of high and admirable virtue.

The Most Rare Human Virtue

As with many of the inspirations I have for posting something to this blog, I could most often cite TheArtofManliness.com as a common source. The blog/website is a fantastic source of information and helpful encouragement for those who wish to see more in their fellow man. Recently, Mr. McKay "retweeted" an article that appeared in a 1902 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine (of all places). The post can be found here and the material is from the article entitled "What Men Like in Men", written by Rafford Pike. I started reading down the page and I came to this paragraph, reproduced here for the reader's convenience:

"... The average man will name a number of qualities which he thinks he likes, rather than those which in his heart of hearts he actually does like.

In the case of one who tries to enumerate the characteristics which he admires in other men, this sort of answer is not insincere. Although it is defective, and essentially untrue, the man himself is quite unconscious of the fact. The inaccuracy of his answers really comes from his inability to analyze his own preferences. The typical man is curiously deficient in a capacity for self-analysis. He seldom devotes any serious thought to the origin of his opinions, the determining factor in his judgments, the ultimate source of his desires, or the hidden mainsprings of his motives. In all that relates to the external and material world he observes shrewdly, reasons logically, and acts effectively; but question him as to the phenomena of the inner world – the world of his own Ego – and he is dazed and helpless. This he never bothers his head about, and when you interrogate him closely and do not let him put you off with easy generalities, he will become confused and at last contemptuous, if not actually angry. He will begin so suspect that you are just a little “queer”; and if he knows you well enough to be quite frank with you, he will stigmatize your psychological inquiries as “rot.”…"

At this point, I looked ahead to see how many more paragraphs were left in the article and though I returned to read the rest of the article later (this was only the second paragraph, mind you), I had decided that the mission of the article had already been fulfilled: it had just stated what I admire in other men (and other women, for that matter).

Human virtues, like anything else of value, are prized for their rarity among men, and just as a flawless diamond takes much perseverance and hard work to obtain due to its rarity, virtue also is rare because of the demands it makes on the man who seeks it. If human virtues were as abundant as blades of grass in a field or grains of sand in a desert, we would assign them the same value as these. However, virtue is not that easily found or obtained, so it is natural that we value it in other men.

The most rare of all human virtues is self-awareness, or maybe more accurately, self-comprehension. It is rare because those who seek it must do battle with the most common and deadly of the human vices: pride. Self-comprehension permits every agent in an environment to be judged in the context of that environment, including the individual himself. This man understands that when judging a situation or situation of persons, he is never exempt from being included in those circumstances which he scrutinizes. Regardless of the subject matter, he always makes some alteration to that environment and thus must be included in its judgement.

In this manner, self-comprehension enables the individual to perceive himself in the context of his surroundings, almost as a completely alter-ego. The self-comprehensive man's gaze reaches farther from an independent perspective than any person who fails to understand that his personality has effect on the circumstances. The mystery of why a friend is quick to temper with us is easily solved when we realize our own tendency to make inflammatory remarks.

The self-comprehensive man not only knows of his leanings and biases: he also knows why he has them. He keeps record of his influences, in a way, similar to a student citing his sources in a research paper. Every agreement he has to an idea is properly labelled and everything is organized. With this organizational system, it's not only important to know one's flaws or weaknesses, but it's knowing where those flaws and weaknesses originated from which set the self-comprehensive man apart from the rest as a gem of uncountable worth.

As the worth of virtue is in its practice, the worth of self-comprehension is most notably found in the practice of self-improvement. While self-awareness permits the man to admit to his failures and shortcomings, the self-comprehensive man does this and also understands why he fails in these ways. The answer to "why" is the answer to what strategies he must take to better himself, putting himself in a more advantageous situation than the sick man who knows that he's ill, but knows not why.