In the second book of Aristotle's Politics, Aristotle defines his ideal state by criticizing the values ​​put forward in Plato's Republic. In doing so, Aristotle censures Plato's idea of ​​unifying the state by sharing as much as possible, including wives, children, and property. Aristotle counters that Plato's concept is detrimental to the unity of the state because it prevents the individual citizen from fulfilling his maximum role in society and being as happy as possible. By criticizing Plato's constitution, Aristotle offers his own solutions that promote diversity of functions within the state and allow each citizen to exercise their maximum role in society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Throughout the second book of Politics, Aristotle's divergences from Plato's ideal state revolve around the idea of ​​communal sharing. Aristotle first attacks Plato's suggestion that men should share the women of the city and that their children be taken from their mothers at birth and raised in public nurseries. Aristotle argues that Plato's reasoning behind his claim (to unify the state) is illogical because, over time, all citizens will become the same, which is detrimental. Rather, Aristotle argues that diversity in terms of experience and specialty is essential. He believes that as a state moves toward total unification, it loses its identity as a nation, which makes the analogy of the unified state as a home rather than a nation. Second, Aristotle argues that the practicality of Plato's concept would inevitably lead to a weakening of the state. citizen's sense of attachment. This feeling of diluted attachment would undoubtedly prevent the citizen from feeling responsible towards his fellow citizens or towards the State and would lead to harmful results. Aristotle is of the opinion that since man is naturally selfish, it would be unlikely that he would innately respect his fellow citizen, as this is not directly beneficial to him. Furthermore, Aristotle combats Plato's concept by asserting that the more owners there are, the less one tends to respect common property. This idea refers to the natural selfishness of man, as Aristotle says: “[people] care about common property only to the extent that they are personally concerned. » (p. 108) Finally, Aristotle refutes the Platonic idea of ​​communal ownership, because he believes that this principle not only leads to the absence of responsibility towards property, but also abandons the virtues of generosity and mutual respect. Although Aristotle finds many faults in the politics of Plato's Republic, he is able to offer logical solutions built around the principle of allowing everyone within a nation's population to perform their maximum function as as a citizen. Aristotle first addresses the issue of overwhelming similarity among citizens, arguing that a nation must be composed of different types of citizens in order to function and be unified. He validates this by asserting that the various duties of citizens complement those of other citizens of the state. By saying: “It is reciprocal equivalence which maintains a State in existence”, Aristotle shows that for each duty of citizenship, there exists an opposite and complementary duty. The resulting solution applied to the placement of community wives and children, but did not offer an outright solution. Instead, Aristotle argues that a community of wives and children should be established for the agricultural class rather than the Guardian class. According to him, this would be, 1981.