Odysseus and Aristotle, as expressed in the Iliad (Homer) and the Politics respectively, have irreconcilable views regarding government; Aristotle would no doubt have condemned the former's beating of Thersites. For Aristotle, this act embodies the dystopia found in perverse government, while the Achaeans, ironically, praise it as "by far the best thing [Odysseus] ever accomplished" (II, 274-5). Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayOne of Aristotle's most famous thoughts, and the foundation of many of his political beliefs, is that "man is by nature a political animal" (I, 1253a,2). The implications of this statement can be applied to Odysseus' act: if Thersites were to remain silent, he would deny his very nature as a "political animal", as well as the political inclinations and feelings that belong to such a being. Aristotle consolidates his support to Thersites later in the text, when he states that «nature, as we often say, does nothing in vain, and man is the only animal that has the gift of speech» (I, 1253a, 9-10). It is this same gift of speech by which Thersites is degraded. Odysseus flaunts his disdain for such liberties in lines 246-256 (Book II): "Fluent orator though you are, Thersites, your words are reckless... you discuss nothing but scandal." In Aristotle's mind, it is this same scandal that would provide the richness of debate that correlates with the richness of an accomplished and politically inclined lifestyle. Furthermore, Aristotle argues that those who do not have such a polis are in fact barbarians: "either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the without three, without law, without heart" (I,1253a, 2-4 ) Interestingly, this exact idea is expressed in the Iliad. Once Thersites is denied the freedom of free debate, he becomes decidedly less civilized, reduced to a pseudo-barbaric and animalistic state of fear and pain. expressed without words: "a round tear fell from him... and he sat down, frightened, suffering and looking around helplessly, dried by tears" (II,66-69). Aristotle, with his ideals of human reason and political freedom, would have been disgusted to see such a display. On a larger scale, however, Aristotle rejects the Achaean system of government itself. Their simple system is summarized by Ulysses: "Lordship for many is not a good thing. Let there be only one sovereign, only one king, to whom [Zeus] gives the scepter and the right of judgment" (II, 204-6 ). Aristotle sees this authority not as the divine right monarchy as Homer describes it, but as a bastardized kingship: a tyranny. The Aristotelian definition of monarchy is "which governs... which concerns the common interest" (III,1279a,34); a tyranny is "a kind of monarchy that has only the interest of the monarch in mind" (III,1279b,5). It is this “private interest” that causes the natural form of kingship to become perverse; Aristotle therefore considers the entire system of government of the Greek army to be unjust, as it was essentially manipulated by Agamemnon's private interest. The philosopher, however, raised a third objection. Opposed to opulence and "unnatural acquisition", he agrees with Thersites when the soldier criticizes Agamemnon's extravagance, including "shelters full of bronze" (II,226) and "many of the best women" (II,227 ). While Aristotle condones the acquisition of wealth to run an orderly household, he considers accumulating money for its own sake to be despicable. He maintains that «the greatest crimes are caused by excess and not by necessity» (II, 1267a,14). This astonishing statement applies not only to Agamemnon's monetary excesses, but to.