/lit/ - Literature

>>16709059
It's all quite intertwined. Broadly there are these are the reasons for slavery: slaves could not survive without masters, political communities could not survive without slaves, and slaves cannot flourish without masters.
Now Aristotle near the very beginning of the book says
>He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other
Indeed, if we recall the opening of his metaphysics, he says that one of the characteristics of the wise man is the one who has best knowledge of what causes what, to best know the first principles. So in Book I we are looking at these foundational causes of political communities. We can interpret the above in a basic question: what is causally necessary for the existence of a political community? this is a question we will see Aristotle build on in stages towards the polis proper. So what, minimally, must there be for a political community to exist? Our first answer is, of course: people! for without people, there could be no citizens of the polis. As Aristotle says firstly:
>namely, of male and female, that the race may continue
and continues with another
>and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved.
Analysing this with the above consideration counterfactual: could it be such that there are men or women if there was no union of men and women? after a generation there clearly would not be, as no one would be born. Aristotle is asking the exact same question of the natural master and natural slave: could it be such that either could survive without the other? Aristotle thinks not. And he here isn't talking about simply the position of master and slave, but their physical continuation. Recall the distinguishing feature between the natural slave and master is:
>For if something is capable of rational foresight, it is a natural ruler and master, whereas whatever can use its body to labor is ruled and is a natural SLAVE
So running our counterfactual here should be obvious: could it be that someone who is incapable of rational foresight could survive for any given time? possibly for a while, but they would have great difficulty engaging in any form of hunting or agriculture without the capacity of foresight. Presumably the natural master could survive without the slave, but their labour would be very inefficient and they would be unable to pursue higher ends. So 'That is why the same thing is beneficial for both master and slave'. What is initially beneficial to both is sufficiency.