Ulysses and Aristotle, as expressed in the Iliad (Homer) and Politics respectively, have irreconcilable views regarding government; Aristotle would undoubtedly have condemned the former's beating of Thersites. For Aristotle, this act embodies the dystopia found in an evil government, while the Achaeans, ironically enough, praise it as "by far the best thing [Ulysses] ever accomplished" (II, 274-5 ).Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay One of Aristotle's most famous thoughts, and the foundation of many of his political beliefs, is that "the man is by nature a political animal” (I, 1253a,2). The implications of this statement can be applied to Odysseus' act: if Thersites were to remain silent, he would be denying his very nature as a "political animal", as well as the political inclinations and sentiments which belong to such a being . solidifies his support for Thersites later in the text, when he states that "Nature, as is often said, does nothing in vain, and man is the only animal that has the gift of speech" (I , 1253a, 9-10). It is this same gift of speech for which Thersites is degraded. Odysseus displays his contempt for such liberties in lines 246-256 (Book II): “Although you are a fluent orator, Thersites, your words are thoughtless...you only discuss scandals. In Aristotle's mind, it is this same scandal which would give the richness of the debate which correlates with the richness of a fulfilled and politically oriented lifestyle. Furthermore, Aristotle asserts that those who do not have such a polis are in fact barbarians: “either a bad man or above humanity; he is like one who is without tribe, without law and without heart” (I, 1253a, 2-4). Interestingly, this exact idea is expressed in the Iliad. Once Thersites is denied the freedom of free debate, he becomes significantly less civilized, reduced to a pseudo-barbaric and animalistic state in which fear and pain are expressed without words: "a round tear fell from him.. . and he sat down, frightened, suffering and helplessly looking at the wiped tears” (II, 66-69). Aristotle, with his ideals of human reason and political freedom, would have been sickened to witness such a demonstration. On a larger scale, however, Aristotle rejects the Achaean system of government itself. Their simple system is summed up by Odysseus: “Lordship for many is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one king, to whom [Zeus] gives the scepter and the right to judge” (II, 204-6). Aristotle considers this authority not as the monarchy of divine right as Homer describes it, but as a bastard royalty: a tyranny. Aristotle's definition of a monarchy is "one which governs...one which concerns the common interest" (III, 1279a, 34); a tyranny is “a kind of monarchy which only has in view the interest of the monarch” (III, 1279b, 5). It is this “private interest” which causes the natural form of kingship to become perverse; Aristotle thus considers that the entire system of government of the Greek army is unjust, because it is essentially manipulated by the private interest of Agamemnon. The philosopher, however, would have supported a third objection. Opposed to opulence and "unnatural acquisitions", he agrees with Thersites when the soldier criticizes Agamemnon's extravagance, notably "the shelters filled with bronze" (II, 226) and "the abundance of most chosen women” (II, 227). While Aristotle tolerates the acquisition of wealth in order to run an orderly household, he considers it contemptible to accumulate money for its own sake. He maintains that "the greatest crimes are caused by.