Aesop's Fables

Edward Clayton's ability to expand on the fact that Aesop's fables were much deeper than their obvious morals was an observation that I can agree with. The use of animals in the fables by Greek superiors made it easier for the people of that time to understand and respect situations more easily than any other alternatives. Even though they are made to seem relatable, the animals in the fables certainly do face a much more harsh reality. Clayton was correct in pointing out that we have the capabilities and skills to maneuver our way out of problems, whereas the animals aren't left with much options. Regarding Aristotle's four ways on how human beings and animals are linked to the animal world, each point was perfectly supported with evidence and made great use of comparisons, particularly with children. However, in the argument, Clayton mentions that the animals shouldn't be split between tame or wild, because either of the animals can fall under both, and just like with children, their knowledge and surroundings will shape their attitudes. That was what Aristotle believed would change the Athenian's perceptions on the fables, and I agree with the second half of the statement for the most part, but I think that the deviousness portrayed in the "wild" animals in the story seems more advanced than the wildness of children, and I failed to understand directly how it correlated with one another. Overall, the author did succeed in bringing together the details on how people can view the fables as a representation of democracy, equality, and justice. The way I see it, if we are able to see the animals in the story in the same light as we do humans and factor in all the same characteristics, we would be able to balance out the messages on both point of views, and the morals would be seen as less one-sided and not always "evil over good."