Aristotle’s Anthropological Machine and Slavery

Abstract

Among the most controversial aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy is his endorsement of slavery. Natural slaves are excluded from political citizenship on ontological grounds and are thus constitutively unable to achieve the good life, identified with the collective cultivation of logos in the polis. Aristotle explicitly acknowledges their humanity, yet frequently emphasizes their proximity to animals. It is the latter that makes them purportedly unfit for the polis. I propose to use Agamben’s theory of the anthropological machine to make sense of this enigmatic exclusion and suggest a new conception of the good life and community detached from political rule. Aristotle’s distinction between humans and animals condemns slaves to bare life, but also reveals an opportunity for an inoperative form-of-life.

Who Deserves to be Refugee? : The Instrumentalization of Art and Culture in the Solidarity Discourse of Ukrainian Refugees in Social Media

“…Deriving from the Aristotelian ontology, Agamben identifies that refugee camp as "a zone of indistinction between animality and humanity, where neither the animal nor the human potentialities are actualized" (Agamben, 2004, p. 38). In this diagram, to be included in the human community capability of actualizing the human potentiality of logos becomes necessary (Christiaens, 2018). Creative labor marks the difference between citizens and refugees.…”

Agamben’s ‘bare life’ and Grossman’s ethics of senseless kindness

“…2. For a critical discussion of this interpretation of Aristotle, see Dubreuil (2006), Finlayson (2010) and Christiaens (2018). 3.…”

The World of Dune as an Alternate Future Without AI

“…Georges Canguilhem (2008), Knowledge of Life, New York: Fordham University Press, 80-81. 10 TimChristiaens (2018), "Aristotle's Anthropological Machine and Slavery", Epoché, vol. 23, issue 1, 250.…”