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 Highest Human Science: VI. Aristotle

This is a post from the series, "The Highest Human Science". Click here for a complete list of all posts in the series.

It has been quite some time since I last posted to this series, but I have returned to it, drawn by the most important (and my favorite) chapter of it all. Thus far, we have seen Man's attempts at making sense of the confounding world in which he lives. These studies led him to ask the questions around the material and immaterial compositions of things, the purpose of reason, and the search for truth.

Poised and prepared to give the course of human wisdom one last mighty turn, Aristotle, a resident alien of Athens and a student of Plato, accepted the challenge of traversing the intellectual mountain that even his masters before him were unable to navigate, error-free. He took all of the good conclusions and thoughts from the teaching of Socrates, Plato, and the other noteworthy philosophers and purified them of their errors, solidifying a reality for the human intellect to comprehend. With each piece in it's proper place, he would create the true philosophy, one which if all basic principles were properly understood, would be the most excellent starting point for mankind's intellect.

A biologist by study, Aristotle's teachings and writings appeal to the practical mind and those for whom primary understand comes from their senses and experience. He did not abstract often, and applied his reason to his experiences and using fundamental philosophical principles, explained the natural world around him. In that sense, his philosophy remains perfectly balanced between the appeal to the sense and the consideration of immaterial, unchanging philosophical principles.

It is very difficult to know where to start with Aristotle, since his worldview is so tightly knit and coherent that various branches of the main shoot will often return and be interwoven with other topics of his study. 

Probably the best place to begin would be the fundamental basis on which his principles differed from Plato, his instructor. Plato's theory of substance and form had them separate: matter existed here on earth, imperfect and perceivable to the senses, while the form of a thing resided in the heavens and is the goal of our contemplation. Aristotle's view, on the contrary, places the form and matter of a thing in same entity. This dispelled the thought that the world around us was only a deception of reality and instead, established that the world around us was indeed reality.

To aid in our understanding of this, we will consider the example from the previous post of a glass of wine. It's true that in attempting to determine the essence of wine, we will arrive at an understanding of the form. But instead of each glass of wine suggesting to our intellects that there is some perfectly Wine form in heaven (according to Plato), our reason perceives a "trend" in individual physical manifestations of one idea. Therefore, a glass of wine doesn't help us to know what the perfect heavenly form is (suggested by Plato), it helps us to determine what the glass of wine itself actually is. The "matter" of wine (sugars, proteins, alcohol, etc.) all could take any other form, but the fact that the matter takes the "form" of wine is something present abstractly, though tangibly in the organization of these material ingredients to present to our senses "wine", in both form and matter (as opposed to "bread" or "wood").

In categorizing the substance and accident of a thing, Aristotle identified the two of his four "causes": the formal cause and the material cause. All together, the four causes answer the questions of "why" a thing is the way it is. The third cause is the efficient cause, which is the motivator of change within the thing. For example, the combination of nutrition in a child and the natural tendencies of his body is the efficient cause of his growth. The fourth and final cause is just that: the final cause. It is that which is the end or natural destination of the thing; it is that for the sake of which the being exists.

With this notion, Aristotle's metaphysics laid the groundwork and justification for his ethics; since the ideas we have in our heads come from our senses, it is our job to form the correct ideas from what our senses present to us. Although our understanding may err, our senses, if they be not defective, never lie. Having established that the physical world around us is a reliable source of information, Aristotle proceeds to answer the question of what man "must do" by demonstrating the "good" of man. It is towards the pursuit of this good that all of man's actions should be directed, and this good is virtue. I won't go into too much detail on this here, but you can find a more detailed study of this on one of my previous posts, "The Human Good".

In determining the good of one man, Aristotle deals with the good of all men in his Politics. His method stems from beginning with those foundations of politics that do not stem from "deliberate choice", namely that between husband and wife or master and slave. Neither can subsist without the other and so this is a necessary community. From this, Aristotle expands to a household, which includes children and servants, then to a series of households to form a village or colony.

The point of self-sufficiency is where Aristotle draws the line of what was known in ancient Greece as the polis or "city-state". The city-state comes into existence for the sake of existence and is the necessary end of the primal relationships between man and woman, master and slave. In this way, Aristotle claims that the polis is a natural organization, which makes man, by nature, a political animal.

Though I have only barely scratched the surface of the breadth of Aristotle's intellectual genius, I hope the reader has retained at least a preliminary impression of Aristotle's contribution to the study of human reason and wisdom. It seemed difficult to even hope that the human race would be so graced with the blessing of just one such intellectually masterful man; however, with the teachings of Jesus Christ (approximately 300 years after Aristotle) and the addition of this divine perspective, the study of human reason would need some finishing touches before all was said and done...