requestId:68499ac31428c4.78091949.
Why are people justified in “ruling”? ——Aristotle’s “Natural Slavery” problem explanation and performance
Author: Jay Yongjian
The source is cold and the snow in the community has not melted. : “The Original Dao” No. 35, edited by Chen Ming and Zhu Han, Hunan Major Bookstore published in January 2019
Time: Confucius was in the 2570s and Ji Hai on April 2019
� sans-serif;”>
(Aristotle: “Politics”, published by the Commercial Press in 1965)
Content summary:People often form this impression: Aristotle was protecting slaves. Aristotle’s “aesthetic” of “slavery system” is not a reference to slave system, but rather a description and structure of the “Natural Slavery” study from a natural goal theory.
He believes that the sensual difference in human nature determines the natural justity and eternity of human (sensual intact) (sensual intact). It has many commonalities with the Chinese Confucian Confucianism’s ruling and correct argument based on the differences in human virtues.
In modern language, “Natura unintentionally stretches out l Slavery to the male supporting role who is trampled by the male protagonist and stomped on stone” is actually a kind of emotional division of labor in the political and social field: the difference in human sentiment determines that there must be division of labor and division between people and people and “brain and physical strength, governance and governance”.
In response to the doubts and criticisms of the so-called “sports decisions” or even “racialism”, Ahnar said that the concept of modern civilization must be fully absorbed, “unrestricted and open, equal opportunities” to be more interpretive and vital. Looking to the future, the development of artificial intelligence may create the ultimate energy of “differentiation” of people such as “social division of labor”.
Keywords:Aristotle; Natural Slavery; Social division of labor; Sensitiveism
1. Propose of problems
(I) Was Aristotle defending slaves?
When reading Aristotle’s “Politics”, people often have this impression: Aristotle was defending slavery.
He tried to use sufficient evidence of various methods such as reasoning and facts to give “slave system” the most wonderful words at that time: “natural”, “ineffective”, “mutually beneficial”, and “justified”, and said that “someone should be the master of life, and some people should be slaves in life. To slaves, being enslaved is not single and fair.”
This makes “modern readers of Aristotle’s “Politics” often feel awkward about Aristotle’s support for the slave system.” The reason for the embarrassment is that in modern readers, everyone is born equally unrestrained, and the system that suits this kind of concept is justified; and the real slave system forms the pressure and slavery of people; slaves are treated as objects and are wantonly dispossed, destroyed, or even killed.
The slave system should be a “all-afraid system” that severely destroys humanity and tramples on humanity. How can we talk about the right thing? Why is there no benefit in talking about it? How to talk about mutual benefit? And this evil thinker actually supports this ugly and evil system! In this regard, readers who hold modern concepts certainly feel puzzled and embarrassed.
Modern thinkingist Lusso strongly opposed this modern opposition to Aristotle’s “reverse result as the cause”, and even used it as an important criticism of “The Reasons and Foundations of Dissatisfaction between the Person and the 官网彩官网平台”. Modernists since then have always been attributed to their prejudice in the slavery era.
For example, Aristotle’s researcher Ross explained in his book “Aristotle”: “Such as it has become a convention of the habits of Greece in his daily life, such as slavery, which Aristotle would think belongs to the nature of things, and this is a bit It is regrettable, but it is absolutely unsurprising.”
Another scholar, Mulgan, also reminded the reader in the book “Asristotle’s Political Management Discussion”: “We cannot forget… He wrote that the society regards the slave system as of course, and the slave system is widely recognized.”
Heath asked directly to abandon this difficult academic statement because it was out of a prejudice of the ideology and insufficient evidence, which was basically wrong.
In our country, for a long time, I believe that this is due to the view of “Aristotle’s own limitations of the stage”, which is visible in many textbooks and works such as the history of political thinking and legal thinking.
A comparison of the classical statement, such as “For this clarity is due to the inevitable evolution of social economyThe slave system produced by the violent town of Sweethearts maintained by the country, Aristotle insisted on referring to it as a ‘natural’ or ‘sensual’ system. As can be seen, as a slave-level intellectual, Asritus’s level bias is extremely profound. ”
In short, many scholars from ancient and modern times, both at home and abroad have criticized and criticized the “slave system” and actual slave production as a unified thing.
(Athenian city-state)
How can we explain the beauty of “slave system” and the severe and violent conflict of the real slave system? Even careful readers will find that Aristotle’s fool’s statement on slave system There is a problem of “contradiction before and after”.
For example, “naturally give bodies that are unrestrained and slaves who are divided”, slaves “have a rough body to work with”, and the unrestrained body is upright and suitable for combat and political activities (1254b25-30), and later it is said that “some slaves have the soul of unrestrained people, Some slaves have an unrestrained body” (1254b35).
Some scholars simply believe that “Aristotle’s praise for the slave system must be wrong”; others point out that their praise for the slave system is inconsistent with its huge natural goal belief from the most basic perspective.
If Aristotle is regarded as a contemplative person, then there is such a question and confusion in the natural structure: the above-mentioned contradictions and misunderstandings that our descendants are prone to discover, is it difficult for this fool to have no idea about this or is he obsessed with intention?
The aforementioned academic world’s slave condition on Aristotle’s slave conditionIncrease feelingsAll kinds of explanations are all due to the more or less misreading and biasedness, and cannot answer this confusion thoroughly.
In this regard, we cannot simply feel awkward or criticize the attitude of Aristotle in supporting the slave system on the standpoint of modern concepts, nor can we fully emerge from the times of the timeDevelop a comprehensive and object-oriented attitude to understand with inclusiveness and sympathy.
This article introduces a two-dimensional perspective, namely Aristotle’s “slave system” statement, which actually includes two dimensions: one is the metaphysical “natural goal theory” dimension; the other is the metaphysical “real agreement method” dimension, and there are two types of slave systems: one is the “natural” slave system; the other is the “real” slave system.
If you stick to these two dimensions, reading “Politics” may lead to a comprehensive understanding of Aristotle’s “slave system”.
(II) What does the “slave system” Aristotle advocated refers to?
“Politics” has regarded “slave system” as the topic of discussion from the very beginning, but it was not until Chapter 6 that it was pointed out that there are two descriptive dimensions of “slave system verbs”.
He said: “The two words of slavery and slave have two meanings: one is born from the decree, which is a war agreement: “The one who fails is the slave of the warrior”; the other is born from nature” (1255a5-10).
The slave system born from laws. This law is important to war agreement, so it is a contract law. Then this slave system can also be said to be a slave system born from the “contract law”.
This expression of “slave system” in “Politics” has two dimensions that divide the demand zones: one is the metaphysical “real contracting method” dimension; the other is the metaphysical “natural goal discussi