Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
This is what I wrote and below is what the TA added
and help or a route to go on this or any paper allready written.LOL
thanks for any help
My thesis:
>Although Aristotle, for the most part, speaks of slavery
>> >and the family as two seperate relations, his comparison
>> >between slaves and wives suggests that they should in fact
>> >be considered one association. The significance in this
>> >singular association lies within the nature of
>citizenship. "For that some should rule and others be
>ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient" (The
>Politics, 1254a21-22).
What the TA wrote:
As I said, I think that you have hit upon something, but you need to
articulate it more clearly. For example, if slaves and women really are more
or less the same then what does say about Aristotle's ideas regarding
citizenship? Women can rule a household, but slaves cannot. Women have some
type of managing telos, but natural slaves do not. Therefore, if they are
basically the same, then what does that say about Aristotle's political
community? In other words, would a female slave be the "worst of both worlds"
or does a slave's gender really matter in Aristotle's world? This is a
question that Prof. *****y is intrigued with, and it is an interesting topic,
so just continue to muck around with it. I think that you are on the verge of
saying something very good, but you haven't quite got there yet. Specifically,
with this thesis, you need to explain "nature of citizenship" and how that
relates to the singular association of slaves and women.
James
and help or a route to go on this or any paper allready written.LOL
thanks for any help
My thesis:
>Although Aristotle, for the most part, speaks of slavery
>> >and the family as two seperate relations, his comparison
>> >between slaves and wives suggests that they should in fact
>> >be considered one association. The significance in this
>> >singular association lies within the nature of
>citizenship. "For that some should rule and others be
>ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient" (The
>Politics, 1254a21-22).
What the TA wrote:
As I said, I think that you have hit upon something, but you need to
articulate it more clearly. For example, if slaves and women really are more
or less the same then what does say about Aristotle's ideas regarding
citizenship? Women can rule a household, but slaves cannot. Women have some
type of managing telos, but natural slaves do not. Therefore, if they are
basically the same, then what does that say about Aristotle's political
community? In other words, would a female slave be the "worst of both worlds"
or does a slave's gender really matter in Aristotle's world? This is a
question that Prof. *****y is intrigued with, and it is an interesting topic,
so just continue to muck around with it. I think that you are on the verge of
saying something very good, but you haven't quite got there yet. Specifically,
with this thesis, you need to explain "nature of citizenship" and how that
relates to the singular association of slaves and women.
James
Last edited:
