Liberation By Aristotle

providing leisure for them (Aristotle 6-7). In addition, this relationship would also benefit the slaves because the slaves would be able to share the virtue of the master and elevate themselves (Aristotle 7). This is where the concept of being ruled and ruling comes into play. They are both assets to one another in which they are both advantageous things. Although, the slaves were a social necessity not only to their masters but to their political rule (Aristotle 8).
In the context of liberation, Aristotle discusses the difference between the men who are naturally suited for slavery versus the man naturally suited for freedom (Aristotle 7). The man naturally suited for freedom has the capacity to think intellectually, this is a factor that the man who is naturally suited for slavery lacks. If a man “who does not belong to himself by nature but is another’s, though a human being, is by nature a slave” (Aristotle 7). Aristotle is distinguishing the difference between the two types of men who are naturally suited for their role. From the quote, Aristotle is describing the first man as a man who is a slave because he does not belong to himself and is defined as a slave by nature. Since this person is incapable of logic and reasoning, he cannot participate in a deliberation. Therefore, he is no use as an active …show more content…
For instance, it is not clearly evident if the natural slave is truly a slave because he is physically incapable of caring for himself because one can argue that “natural slaves are mentally deficient persons” (Aristotle 11). This is problematic yet it opens up a space for dialogue and interpretation on how Aristotle was trying to define a natural slave. It is also arguable that the natural slaves were possibly the barbarians who did not speak Greek and were one of the largest groups of slaves within the Greek society (Aristotle