n completely shun the child away. The system also leads to a lack of respect for each father. If a child steps out of line, and a father in the village tries to reprimand that child, he willbe justified in saying, "Im not going to obey you. You are not my father." Imagine another situation in which a family has a son and a daughter and they are brought up by the entire community, never knowing who theirparents are, nor the fact that they are siblings. There remains a chance that the two could be united and procreate, never realizing that they are ofrelation. Aristotle would argue that Plato, therefore, in his vision of the most unified and perfect polis could, in fact, have numerous incestuousrelationships. Another factor, that Aristotle fails to mention, is the situation in which a child were born mentally or physically challenged. This child would still beloved by his parents under Aristotles system of the household. However, if this child were released into the entire community to educate and tonurture, chances are members of the community would not treat this child in the same way that his birth parents would. Under Platos system hemay be deemed a social outcast, rather than a loved and cared for member of a family.All of these examples add to Aristotles arsenal of criticisms against Platos vision of a literally unified community. Plato cannot escape thereality of the fact that common things are given the least care. If we share everything, society would only become more fragmented and mostlikely to fall apart because no real unity or sense of belonging would exist. While both Aristotle and Plato feel that friendship is essential toholding a community together, they seem to differ radically as to the types of friendship that would create unity.In arguing against Platos vision of the perfectly unified city-state, Aristotle is really proving the importance of a community having differentinteracting households, rather than one unified ...
