The texts of Alfarabi and Averroes take unique approaches to topics addressed by Aristotle in Politics and by Plato in his Republic. It is important to understand these approaches in relation to each other, because it is the similarities and differences between the four texts that allow the reader to truly understand what "good" government was at that time. While their contemporaries Alfarabi and Averroes both have ideal states in mind, their differences lie in what each considers the appropriate means by which to achieve them. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay When it comes to the body and soul, women and men have differences and similarities that are inconsistent among philosophers. Plato addresses physical differences by saying: “In these duties, the lighter share must fall to women, because of the weakness of their sex” (Plato 155). In her article “The Philosopher and Woman in Plato's Political Thought,” writes Arlene Saxonhouse, “Socrates apologizes by suggesting that men and women differ only to the extent that bald men differ from those with long hair , that is to say superficially. and not with regard to their nature” (Saxonhouse 71). Plato also refers to their unique missions in war, perhaps in relation to their physical differences: "And if their women went to war with [the men], either in the ranks or in the rear ranks to intimidate the enemy and act as a reserve in case of need, I am sure that all this would make them invincible” (Plato 176). This shows how interpretations of the female body affect the place of women in each philosopher's conception of an "ideal" society. However, their main disagreement seems to lie in the question of the equality of the soul. Alfarabi does not consider women as potential leaders, because the first characteristic he attributes to an ideal leader is being sovereign over himself. This sovereignty, according to Alfarabi, was simply not possible when it came to women. In a way, their souls could therefore never receive a full analysis beyond their material status as male supplements. When Plato gives women the right to be guardians in his Republic, he assumes that their souls are rational like those of men, and Averroes agrees: "We say that women, inasmuch as they are of the same species than men with regard to the ultimate human goal, necessarily participate in it and differ only in degree... it already appears from the study of animals that it is right that there are guardians feminine” (Averroes 164-165). If women and men share human goals, their souls, according to Plato, must be in harmony on some level. The emergent nature of these observations underpins the intrigue of the film Destiny, which details the struggle to reproduce and preserve the writings of Averroes. Despite these implications, Alfarabi clearly states that “in the case of the faculty of sense, the faculty of sense, the faculty of representation, and the male and female faculty of reason do not differ” (Alfarabi 197). This idea is also supported by Plato's assertions that Guardians must be reasonable and that some women have this potential "because these are the qualities for which we have selected our male Guardians" (Plato 153). If male Guardians were selected based on their possession of rational souls, female Guardians should be evaluated in the same way. To understand the ideas behind the contradictionsapparent inherent in the belief systems of the four philosophers, gender identity seems the next logical area to examine. Alfarabi implicitly offers a commentary on gender and sexuality by barely mentioning women. He talks about women only in the context of men, biology and procreation. It fails to philosophize about gender and sexual identity any further than its details of human design. He discredits the vitality of the role of women by concluding that women provide the material for the conception of life, but, more importantly, that men provide the form. “Thus, the blood prepared in the womb is the matter of the man, while the sperm is the engine of that matter toward the development of the form within it” (Alfarabi 189). Therefore, the masculine faculty of form is what gives matter a reason for being. Alfarabi briefly alludes to female sexual pleasure, but refers to the clitoris as a failed expression of a male form. "There are also some among [the animals] which have a perfect feminine faculty, but to which is added a sort of defective masculine faculty, which fulfills its function up to a certain limit and then proves too weak and in the need external help..." (Alfarabi 195). The function that is fulfilled to a limit is orgasm; because female orgasm is less "useful" than male ejaculation, he views the process as some kind of mistake. Averroes also seems to ignore female sexuality, except with regard to the “wedding parties” of arranged procreation described in the Republic. He curiously says that “necessity would undoubtedly lead women to desire sexual intercourse” and does not attribute desire to men alone at all (Averroes 167). This suggests that desire, which is seen in the Republic only as a basis for complications, is a weakness. Averroes further implies that any weakness is less likely to be found in men than in women. Averroes begins his analysis of Plato's ideas on women's equality by saying that men are in many ways more efficient than women, but that it is nevertheless possible for women to surpass men in some areas. He accepts Plato's guardians, but then details their methods of procreation. The principles of common wives and children seem of great importance to Averroes, and he details the advantages of arranged unions. He compares the peace found in joint families to that found in collective goods societies. “In general,” concludes Averroes, “there is nothing that brings more harm and confusion to the state than when its citizens say of something 'this is mine and this is not mine'” (Averroes 166-171). He suggests here that such disputes are the ruins of otherwise healthy states. To support his argument that women can be more effective than men in certain fields, Averroes begins by suggesting that women are better than men in the fields of music and art. “It is for this reason that it is said that melodies are perfect if men invent them and if women interpret them” (Averroes 164). He compares the Guardians to defensive animals, saying that women are capable of fighting like dogs and hyenas; they lack strength, not passion (Averroes 165). He claims that women are called "burdens" because they "outnumber men to two to one", even though their lack of training leaves them unable to contribute in a way that is recognizable to men. “Because the women of these states are not adapted to any of the human virtues, it often happens that they resemble plants” (Averroes 166).To argue the case for the selective breeding of the Guardians, he mentions a man “who wants to breed hunting dogs or feathered game” (Averroes 167). He takes care to raise the best of what he desires, just as Guardians should do to ensure quality leaders. Averroes justifies the Guardians' apprenticeship by citing blacksmiths and artisans as examples, but notes that this system may not work in all circumstances (Averroes 173). He says that Greeks enslaving Greeks “resembles the conflicts that arise between members of the same house or between lovers” (Averroes 175). In this way, he supports Plato's ideas with examples gleaned from his own environment. However, even with all his practical examples, his work lacks empirical grounding. Averroes strives to reiterate and illustrate Plato's strengths, but his examples are, at best, mere observations, summaries, and analyses. Homosexuality is another important topic to address in this literature because the concept establishes societal norms that might otherwise be difficult to understand. Averroes doesn't say much about homosexuality, but what he does say is direct and supports Plato's arguments in The Republic: Plato allows these Guardians, when they are in camp, to exchange kisses with each other. as it will, because it will cause them to fight [finally]. [Plato] said: It is proper to honor the distinguished among these Guardians with special honors in the State and to bring them sacrifices and offerings and to compose speeches and songs in their favor. (Averroes 174) On the other hand, Plato's examples of homoeroticism are more explicit. He talks about appreciating young men like wine and compares philosophers to connoisseurs of knowledge and truth. He tells Glaucon: “You should not have forgotten that any boy in the flower of youth will arouse some sting of passion in a man of your amorous temperament and will seem worthy of his attentions” (Plato 181). Aristotle takes this notion further when he says that Plato “should consider it indifferent whether lovers can be father and son, or even whether they can be brothers” (Aristotle 44). This quote suggests a societal recognition of open homosexual – and even incestuous – relationships. Averroes' ideas connect to those of Plato in several obvious ways. He uses many examples to further illustrate his points, but he never questions or deviates from Plato's ideas. These illustrations of Plato's alarming stance on female rulers and the abolition of the traditional family are some of the reasons why the film Fate depicted the fatwa in an attempt to undermine the works of Averroes. It connects with Aristotle on a more fundamental level; he writes in the same way and uses examples in the same way as Aristotle. However, in their methods of argument, Aristotle and Averroes have very little in common, largely because Aristotle's Politics focuses heavily on criticism of the Republic. Alfarabi, conversely, shares Aristotle's ideas about the city as a healthy body and believes that women should have priority. Both philosophers almost completely exclude women from their discussions, but Alfarabi's inability to trust women as intelligible or capable of fully developing all three intellects resembles Aristotle's perceptions of Spartan women: The flaws of the position of women in Sparta, as we have already suggested, seem not only calculated to produce a certain lack of harmony in the constitution, if we take that in itself, but also to promote the growth of avarice. The agents responsible (1994): 67-85.