BOOK II Chapter 3 The Problem of Unity

Chapter 3

1. Critique of Socrates' Idea of Unity Through Common Ownership (1261b)
   • Socrates' Argument: Socrates suggests that the city will become a complete unity if all citizens say "mine" and "not mine" at the same time, implying a shared sense of ownership over children, women, and property.
   • Aristotle's Counterargument:
     • This argument is not convincing because “all” has a double sense:
       • If "all" means "each individual," then citizens would each refer to the same child as their own son, and the same woman as their own wife.
       • However, in Socrates’ system, citizens would collectively refer to children and wives as belonging to everyone, not individually.
   • Conclusion: This ambiguity in the meaning of “all” undermines Socrates' idea of a unified city through common ownership.
2. Fallacy of the Phrase “All Say the Same Thing”
   • Misleading Logic: Aristotle points out that the phrase “all say the same thing” contains a fallacy:
     • The double sense of “all” can lead to contentious arguments and faulty syllogisms.
     • Therefore, while it sounds appealing for "all" to say the same thing, in practice it is either impossible or does not lead to harmony.
3. Harm of Common Ownership on Responsibility
   • Neglect of Common Property:
     • Aristotle argues that what belongs to the most people receives the least care.
     • Individuals take better care of their own property and are less concerned with common goods, assuming someone else will manage them.
   • Example of Household Service: In households with many attendants, jobs are often done worse than in those with fewer attendants, as each person assumes someone else will do the work.
4. Lack of Care for Common Children
   • Thousand Sons Problem:
     • In a system where children are held in common, each citizen would have a thousand sons, but none individually, meaning that all would care for them in a detached and negligent way.
   • Unclear Ownership: Each citizen would say "mine" only in the sense that a child belongs to the collective, and there would be doubt about who is the real parent, leading to further detachment.
5. Comparison Between Current and Proposed Systems
   • Present System: In current cities, citizens say "mine" in relation to their sons, brothers, cousins, and other family members, with clear kinship ties.
   • Proposed System: In Socrates’ ideal city, citizens would refer to all children collectively as "mine" without clear ties, leading to less responsibility and care.
   • Aristotle's Preference: It is better to have a cousin or other relatives under the current system than to have a "son" in the sense Socrates proposes, where responsibility is diluted.
6. Inevitability of Recognizing Family Ties
   • Recognition of Kinship: Aristotle argues that even if women and children were held in common, people would still be able to recognize their relatives:
     • Physical resemblances between parents and children would make it impossible to hide family ties.
   • Travel Accounts: Aristotle refers to travelers' accounts of societies where women are held in common, yet children are still recognizable based on their physical similarity to their parents.
7. Natural Similarities in Offspring
   • Natural Inclination for Similarity:
     • Aristotle notes that some women, as well as female animals like horses and cattle, naturally produce offspring that resemble their parents.
     • He provides the example of a mare in Pharsalus, known for producing foals that strongly resembled her, reinforcing the point that family ties cannot be easily obscured.

Key Themes in Chapter 3:

• Critique of Common Ownership: Aristotle challenges Plato’s proposal of common ownership of women and children, arguing that it does not foster unity but instead leads to neglect and lack of care for common goods and offspring.
• Ambiguity of “All” and Ownership: The concept of shared ownership among all citizens is shown to be flawed due to the ambiguity in the word “all.” Common ownership does not result in true unity or harmony, as individuals are less likely to take personal responsibility for collective goods.
• Neglect of Shared Responsibility: When property, children, or other elements of life are held in common, they receive less care because people assume others will take responsibility. Aristotle uses both household management and common children as examples of how shared ownership leads to neglect.
• Recognition of Kinship: Aristotle argues that even in systems where children are held in common, kinship ties would still be recognized through physical resemblance, making the goal of complete detachment from familial ties impossible.
• Natural Inclinations: Aristotle reinforces the idea that natural similarities between parents and children make common ownership impractical, as people would inevitably recognize their relatives and care more for their own.