Since the birth of society thousands of years ago, thinkers have grappled with one of the most fundamental questions and the most important questions facing humanity: how should society be organized? Plato was one of the first to write down his answer to this question. His work, The Republic, clearly sets out his project for an ideal society. Aristotle, a student of Plato, disagreed with much of what Plato proposed in his work and wrote a response called Politics. At the beginning of the second book, Aristotle states that the purpose of Politics was "to study which political community is best for people capable of living as ideally as possible" (Politics, 1260.27-28). To achieve this, it was necessary to analyze the most important work on the subject, Plato's Republic. However, in his analysis, Aristotle's logic is flawed and his critique of the Platonic structure of civilization is weak. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayA fundamental part of any society is the way citizens share things. Plato argues in The Republic that, among other goods, “marriage, the birth of women and the procreation of children must be governed as much as possible by the old proverb: friends possess everything in common” (Republic, 423e-424a). Instead of presenting an argument against such a system, Aristotle rejects it without discussion. Plato, however, had a valid reason for proposing such an arrangement: he wanted to minimize the conflicts caused by differences in ownership. Plato believed that by eliminating property altogether, one could also eliminate costly civil suits and other property-related disagreements. Aristotle never explains the reasons for his disagreement with such an organization of the distribution of property. Next, Aristotle examines a fundamental premise of the ideal society and rejects Plato's position. Plato states in The Republic: Is there a greater evil that we can mention for a city than that which tears it apart and makes it many instead of one? Or a greater good than that which binds them together and makes them one? There is none (Republic, 462a-b). It is this fundamental assertion that Aristotle attacks, asserting that “the more united a city-state becomes, the less of a city-state it will be” (Politics, 1261a.15-16). Aristotle believes that if a city-state becomes too cohesive, it no longer remains a city-state, but eventually becomes a house, and then ultimately an individual human being. What he fails to notice, however, is that Plato, in fact, wanted a city-state to be as much like a single person as possible. Plato doesn't delineate this well enough, as Aristotle indicated earlier in his argument, but he nevertheless makes a valid point: if a city acts more like one person and shares pain, pleasure, and property, it will be able to survive more traumatic situations. incidents. If, for example, the city was attacked, if the reaction of citizens was uniform throughout the city, the reaction would be easier to mobilize. Aristotle never recognizes this good of unity. For the sake of argument, Aristotle assumes that Plato is correct in stating that unity is best for a city-state. Instead, Aristotle attacks the reason why Plato desires unity in his ideal city-state. Speaking of this unity, Plato asks "then is the best-governed city the one in which most people say 'mine' and 'not mine' in the same way about the same things" (Republic, 462c -d) ? Plato.