Affiliation:
1. 1Department of Classics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK;, Email: m.f.heath@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
AbstractAristotle's claim that natural slaves do not possess autonomous rationality (Pol. 1.5, 1254b20-23) cannot plausibly be interpreted in an unrestricted sense, since this would conflict with what Aristotle knew about non-Greek societies. Aristotle's argument requires only a lack of autonomous practical rationality. An impairment of the capacity for integrated practical deliberation, resulting from an environmentally induced excess or deficiency in thumos (Pol. 7.7, 1327b18-31), would be sufficient to make natural slaves incapable of eudaimonia without being obtrusively implausible relative to what Aristotle is likely to have believed about non-Greeks. Since Aristotle seems to have believed that the existence of people who can be enslaved without injustice is a hypothetical necessity, if those capable of eudaimonia are to achieve it, the existence of natural slaves has implications for our understanding of Aristotle's natural teleology.
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy,History
Cited by
86 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Marx on Leisure: An Aristotelian Interpretation;Canadian Journal of Political Science;2024-05-13
2. ARİSTOTELES'İN ÖZGÜRLÜK GÖRÜŞÜNÜN MİTOLOJİK KÖKENLERİ;FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi;2024-05-07
3. De-dehumanization: Practicing humanity;International Review of the Red Cross;2024-04-05
4. Environmental Determinism in Aristotle;Journal of the History of Philosophy;2024-04
5. Aristotle: Slavery, Inequality, and Money;The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Money;2024