More Than Meets The Eye Analysis

More than Meets the Eye
In his novel, Eye for an Eye, William Miller traces the origins of justice in talionic societies. In order to explain how these talionic societies began to use currency, Miller cites Aristotle’s philosophical novel, Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle believes that currency comes out of a need and that need keeps society together, while Miller believes that the types of currency evolved to fit the changing requirements of society. Miller traces the evolution of currency in talionic societies from bodies to body parts to animal parts to tokens to coins. In this essay, I will show that Miller fundamentally misinterprets Aristotle’s source to fit the agenda of his novel. After analyzing how Aristotle’s argument is different from Miller’s, I will explain why the ancient philosopher’s theory is more accurate. Aristotle’s main idea in Nicomachean
I believe that Aristotle’s theory on the function of currency in ancient societies is more accurate than Miller’s because the evidence he uses to support his claims is more legitimate. Aristotle’s asks why people would ever want to come together in society. He correctly analyzes that people need each other to survive or to have the goods they want. Returning to his example with the builder and the shoemaker, Aristotle says that people need to be equalized or less there would be nothing to hold the parties together. Why would people ever come together unless the majority of them were inherently equal in terms of the rights they were afforded. He argues that everything that is traded needs to be comparable and that currency fills that role as a mechanism to compare anything that needs to be bartered. Miller’s fundamental flaw is that he does not read well enough into Aristotle’s argument, completely misinterprets it, and fits it to his own