aristotle biography essay

Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, together with Socrates and Plato, laid much of the groundwork for western philosophy.

Who Was Aristotle?

Early life, family and education.

Aristotle was born circa 384 B.C. in Stagira, a small town on the northern coast of Greece that was once a seaport.

Aristotle’s father, Nicomachus, was court physician to the Macedonian king Amyntas II. Although Nicomachus died when Aristotle was just a young boy, Aristotle remained closely affiliated with and influenced by the Macedonian court for the rest of his life. Little is known about his mother, Phaestis; she is also believed to have died when Aristotle was young.

After Aristotle’s father died, Proxenus of Atarneus, who was married to Aristotle’s older sister, Arimneste, became Aristotle’s guardian until he came of age. When Aristotle turned 17, Proxenus sent him to Athens to pursue a higher education. At the time, Athens was considered the academic center of the universe. In Athens, Aristotle enrolled in Plato ’s Academy, Greek’s premier learning institution, and proved an exemplary scholar. Aristotle maintained a relationship with Greek philosopher Plato, himself a student of Socrates , and his academy for two decades. Plato died in 347 B.C. Because Aristotle had disagreed with some of Plato’s philosophical treatises, Aristotle did not inherit the position of director of the academy, as many imagined he would.

After Plato died, Aristotle’s friend Hermias, king of Atarneus and Assos in Mysia, invited Aristotle to court.

Aristotle’s Books

Aristotle wrote an estimated 200 works, most in the form of notes and manuscript drafts touching on reasoning, rhetoric, politics, ethics, science and psychology. They consist of dialogues, records of scientific observations and systematic works. His student Theophrastus reportedly looked after Aristotle’s writings and later passed them to his own student Neleus, who stored them in a vault to protect them from moisture until they were taken to Rome and used by scholars there. Of Aristotle’s estimated 200 works, only 31 are still in circulation. Most date to Aristotle’s time at the Lyceum.

Poetics is a scientific study of writing and poetry where Aristotle observes, analyzes and defines mostly tragedy and epic poetry. Compared to philosophy, which presents ideas, poetry is an imitative use of language, rhythm and harmony that represents objects and events in the world, Aristotle posited. His book explores the foundation of storymaking, including character development, plot and storyline.

'Nicomachean Ethics' and 'Eudemian Ethics'

In Nichomachean Ethics , which is believed to have been named in tribute to Aristotle’s son, Nicomachus, Aristotle prescribed a moral code of conduct for what he called “good living.” He asserted that good living to some degree defied the more restrictive laws of logic, since the real world poses circumstances that can present a conflict of personal values. That said, it was up to the individual to reason cautiously while developing his or her own judgment. Eudemian Ethics is another of Aristotle’s major treatises on the behavior and judgment that constitute “good living.”

On happiness: In his treatises on ethics, Aristotle aimed to discover the best way to live life and give it meaning — “the supreme good for man,” in his words — which he determined was the pursuit of happiness. Our happiness is not a state but but an activity, and it’s determined by our ability to live a life that enables us to use and develop our reason. While bad luck can affect happiness, a truly happy person, he believed, learns to cultivate habits and behaviors that help him (or her) to keep bad luck in perspective.

The golden mean: Aristotle also defined what he called the “golden mean.” Living a moral life, Aristotle believed, was the ultimate goal. Doing so means approaching every ethical dilemma by finding a mean between living to excess and living deficiently, taking into account an individual’s needs and circumstances.

'Metaphysics'

In his book Metaphysics , Aristotle clarified the distinction between matter and form. To Aristotle, matter was the physical substance of things, while form was the unique nature of a thing that gave it its identity.

In Politics , Aristotle examined human behavior in the context of society and government. Aristotle believed the purpose of government was make it possible for citizens to achieve virtue and happiness. Intended to help guide statesmen and rulers, Politics explores, among other themes, how and why cities come into being; the roles of citizens and politicians; wealth and the class system; the purpose of the political system; types of governments and democracies; and the roles of slavery and women in the household and society.

In Rhetoric , Aristotle observes and analyzes public speaking with scientific rigor in order to teach readers how to be more effective speakers. Aristotle believed rhetoric was essential in politics and law and helped defend truth and justice. Good rhetoric, Aristotle believed, could educate people and encourage them to consider both sides of a debate. Aristotle’s work explored how to construct an argument and maximize its effect, as well as fallacious reasoning to avoid (like generalizing from a single example).

'Prior Analytics'

In Prior Analytics , Aristotle explains the syllogism as “a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so.” Aristotle defined the main components of reasoning in terms of inclusive and exclusive relationships. These sorts of relationships were visually grafted in the future through the use of Venn diagrams.

Other Works on Logic

Besides Prior Analytics , Aristotle’s other major writings on logic include Categories, On Interpretation and Posterior Analytics . In these works, Aristotle discusses his system for reasoning and for developing sound arguments.

Works on Science

Aristotle composed works on astronomy, including On the Heavens , and earth sciences, including Meteorology . By meteorology, Aristotle didn’t simply mean the study of weather. His more expansive definition of meteorology included “all the affectations we may call common to air and water, and the kinds and parts of the earth and the affectations of its parts.” In Meteorology , Aristotle identified the water cycle and discussed topics ranging from natural disasters to astrological events. Although many of his views on the Earth were controversial at the time, they were re-adopted and popularized during the late Middle Ages.

Works on Psychology

In On the So ul , Aristotle examines human psychology. Aristotle’s writings about how people perceive the world continue to underlie many principles of modern psychology.

Aristotle’s work on philosophy influenced ideas from late antiquity all the way through the Renaissance. One of the main focuses of Aristotle’s philosophy was his systematic concept of logic. Aristotle’s objective was to come up with a universal process of reasoning that would allow man to learn every conceivable thing about reality. The initial process involved describing objects based on their characteristics, states of being and actions.

In his philosophical treatises, Aristotle also discussed how man might next obtain information about objects through deduction and inference. To Aristotle, a deduction was a reasonable argument in which “when certain things are laid down, something else follows out of necessity in virtue of their being so.” His theory of deduction is the basis of what philosophers now call a syllogism, a logical argument where the conclusion is inferred from two or more other premises of a certain form.

Aristotle and Biology

Although Aristotle was not technically a scientist by today’s definitions, science was among the subjects that he researched at length during his time at the Lyceum. Aristotle believed that knowledge could be obtained through interacting with physical objects. He concluded that objects were made up of a potential that circumstances then manipulated to determine the object’s outcome. He also recognized that human interpretation and personal associations played a role in our understanding of those objects.

Aristotle’s research in the sciences included a study of biology. He attempted, with some error, to classify animals into genera based on their similar characteristics. He further classified animals into species based on those that had red blood and those that did not. The animals with red blood were mostly vertebrates, while the “bloodless” animals were labeled cephalopods. Despite the relative inaccuracy of his hypothesis, Aristotle’s classification was regarded as the standard system for hundreds of years.

Marine biology was also an area of fascination for Aristotle. Through dissection, he closely examined the anatomy of marine creatures. In contrast to his biological classifications, his observations of marine life, as expressed in his books, are considerably more accurate.

Wife and Children

During his three-year stay in Mysia, Aristotle met and married his first wife, Pythias, King Hermias’ niece. Together, the couple had a daughter, Pythias, named after her mother.

In 335 B.C., the same year that Aristotle opened the Lyceum, his wife Pythias died. Soon after, Aristotle embarked on a romance with a woman named Herpyllis, who hailed from his hometown of Stagira. According to some historians, Herpyllis may have been Aristotle’s slave, granted to him by the Macedonia court. They presume that he eventually freed and married her. Regardless, it is known that Herpyllis bore Aristotle children, including one son named Nicomachus, after Aristotle’s father.

In 338 B.C., Aristotle went home to Macedonia to start tutoring King Phillip II’s son, the then 13-year-old Alexander the Great . Phillip and Alexander both held Aristotle in high esteem and ensured that the Macedonia court generously compensated him for his work.

In 335 B.C., after Alexander had succeeded his father as king and conquered Athens, Aristotle went back to the city. In Athens, Plato’s Academy, now run by Xenocrates, was still the leading influence on Greek thought. With Alexander’s permission, Aristotle started his own school in Athens, called the Lyceum. On and off, Aristotle spent most of the remainder of his life working as a teacher, researcher and writer at the Lyceum in Athens until the death of his former student Alexander the Great.

Because Aristotle was known to walk around the school grounds while teaching, his students, forced to follow him, were nicknamed the “Peripatetics,” meaning “people who travel about.” Lyceum members researched subjects ranging from science and math to philosophy and politics, and nearly everything in between. Art was also a popular area of interest. Members of the Lyceum wrote up their findings in manuscripts. In so doing, they built the school’s massive collection of written materials, which by ancient accounts was credited as one of the first great libraries.

When Alexander the Great died suddenly in 323 B.C., the pro-Macedonian government was overthrown, and in light of anti-Macedonia sentiment, Aristotle was charged with impiety for his association with his former student and the Macedonian court. To avoid being prosecuted and executed, he left Athens and fled to Chalcis on the island of Euboea, where he would remain until his death a year later.

In 322 B.C., just a year after he fled to Chalcis to escape prosecution under charges of impiety, Aristotle contracted a disease of the digestive organs and died.

In the century following Aristotle’s death, his works fell out of use, but they were revived during the first century. Over time, they came to lay the foundation of more than seven centuries of philosophy. Aristotle’s influence on Western thought in the humanities and social sciences is largely considered unparalleled, with the exception of his teacher Plato’s contributions, and Plato’s teacher Socrates before him. The two-millennia-strong academic practice of interpreting and debating Aristotle’s philosophical works continues to endure.

QUICK FACTS

• Name: Aristotle
• Birth Year: 384
• Birth City: Stagira, Chalcidice
• Birth Country: Greece
• Gender: Male
• Best Known For: Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, together with Socrates and Plato, laid much of the groundwork for western philosophy.
• Science and Medicine
• Plato's Academy
• Nationalities
• Death Year: 322
• Death City: Chalcis, Euboea
• Death Country: Greece

We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact us !

• Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.
• All men by nature desire knowledge.
• A friend to all is a friend to none.

Philosophers

Francis Bacon

Auguste Comte

Charles-Louis de Secondat

Saint Thomas Aquinas

William James

John Stuart Mill

Jean-Paul Sartre

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 13, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) made significant and lasting contributions to nearly every aspect of human knowledge, from logic to biology to ethics and aesthetics. Though overshadowed in classical times by the work of his teacher Plato , from late antiquity through the Enlightenment, Aristotle’s surviving writings were incredibly influential. In Arabic philosophy, he was known simply as “The First Teacher.” In the West, he was “The Philosopher.”

Aristotle's Early Life

Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in Stagira in northern Greece. Both of his parents were members of traditional medical families, and his father, Nicomachus, served as court physician to King Amyntus III of Macedonia . His parents died while he was young, and he was likely raised at his family’s home in Stagira. At age 17 he was sent to Athens to enroll in Plato's Academy . He spent 20 years as a student and teacher at the school, emerging with both a great respect and a good deal of criticism for his teacher’s theories. Plato’s own later writings, in which he softened some earlier positions, likely bear the mark of repeated discussions with his most gifted student.

Did you know? Aristotle's surviving works were likely meant as lecture notes rather than literature, and his now-lost writings were apparently of much better quality. The Roman philosopher Cicero said that "If Plato's prose was silver, Aristotle's was a flowing river of gold."

When Plato died in 347, control of the Academy passed to his nephew Speusippus. Aristotle left Athens soon after, though it is not clear whether frustrations at the Academy or political difficulties due to his family’s Macedonian connections hastened his exit. He spent five years on the coast of Asia Minor as a guest of former students at Assos and Lesbos. It was here that he undertook his pioneering research into marine biology and married his wife Pythias, with whom he had his only daughter, also named Pythias.

In 342 Aristotle was summoned to Macedonia by King Philip II to tutor his son, the future Alexander the Great —a meeting of great historical figures that, in the words of one modern commentator, “made remarkably little impact on either of them.”

Aristotle and the Lyceum

Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 B.C. As an alien, he couldn’t own property, so he rented space in the Lyceum, a former wrestling school outside the city. Like Plato’s Academy, the Lyceum attracted students from throughout the Greek world and developed a curriculum centered on its founder’s teachings. In accordance with Aristotle’s principle of surveying the writings of others as part of the philosophical process, the Lyceum assembled a collection of manuscripts that comprised one of the world’s first great libraries .

Aristotle's Works

It was at the Lyceum that Aristotle probably composed most of his approximately 200 works, of which only 31 survive. In style, his known works are dense and almost jumbled, suggesting that they were lecture notes for internal use at his school. The surviving works of Aristotle are grouped into four categories. 

The “Organon” is a set of writings that provide a logical toolkit for use in any philosophical or scientific investigation. Next come Aristotle’s theoretical works, most famously his treatises on animals (“Parts of Animals,” “Movement of Animals,” etc.), cosmology, the “Physics” (a basic inquiry about the nature of matter and change) and the “Metaphysics” (a quasi-theological investigation of existence itself).

Third are Aristotle’s so-called practical works, notably the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics,” both deep investigations into the nature of human flourishing on the individual, familial and societal levels. Finally, his “Rhetoric” and “Poetics” examine the finished products of human productivity, including what makes for a convincing argument and how a well-wrought tragedy can instill cathartic fear and pity.

The Organon

“The Organon” (Latin for “instrument”) is a series of Aristotle’s works on logic (what he himself would call analytics) put together around 40 B.C. by Andronicus of Rhodes and his followers. The set of six books includes “Categories,” “On Interpretation,” “Prior Analytics,” “Posterior Analytics,” “Topics,” and “On Sophistical Refutations.” The Organon contains Aristotle’s worth on syllogisms (from the Greek syllogismos , or “conclusions”), a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two assumed premises. For example, all men are mortal, all Greeks are men, therefore all Greeks are mortal.

Metaphysics

Aristotle’s “Metaphysics,” written quite literally after his “Physics,” studies the nature of existence. He called metaphysics the “first philosophy,” or “wisdom.” His primary area of focus was “being qua being,” which examined what can be said about being based on what it is, not because of any particular qualities it may have. In “Metaphysics,” Aristotle also muses on causation, form, matter and even a logic-based argument for the existence of God.

To Aristotle, rhetoric is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” He identified three main methods of rhetoric: ethos (ethics), pathos (emotional) and logos (logic). He also broke rhetoric into types of speeches: epideictic (ceremonial), forensic (judicial) and deliberative (where the audience is required to reach a verdict). His groundbreaking work in this field earned him the nickname “the father of rhetoric.”

Aristotle’s “Poetics” was composed around 330 B.C. and is the earliest extant work of dramatic theory. It is often interpreted as a rebuttal to his teacher Plato’s argument that poetry is morally suspect and should therefore be expunged from a perfect society. Aristotle takes a different approach, analyzing the purpose of poetry. He argues that creative endeavors like poetry and theater provides catharsis, or the beneficial purging of emotions through art. 

Aristotle's Death and Legacy

After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., anti-Macedonian sentiment again forced Aristotle to flee Athens. He died a little north of the city in 322, of a digestive complaint. He asked to be buried next to his wife, who had died some years before. In his last years he had a relationship with his slave Herpyllis, who bore him Nicomachus, the son for whom his great ethical treatise is named.

Aristotle’s favored students took over the Lyceum, but within a few decades the school’s influence had faded in comparison to the rival Academy. For several generations Aristotle’s works were all but forgotten. The historian Strabo says they were stored for centuries in a moldy cellar in Asia Minor before their rediscovery in the first century B.C., though it is unlikely that these were the only copies.

In 30 B.C. Andronicus of Rhodes grouped and edited Aristotle’s remaining works in what became the basis for all later editions. After the fall of Rome, Aristotle was still read in Byzantium and became well-known in the Islamic world, where thinkers like Avicenna (970-1037), Averroes (1126-1204) and the Jewish scholar Maimonodes (1134-1204) revitalized Aritotle’s logical and scientific precepts.

Aristotle in the Middle Ages and Beyond

In the 13th century, Aristotle was reintroduced to the West through the work of Albertus Magnus and especially Thomas Aquinas, whose brilliant synthesis of Aristotelian and Christian thought provided a bedrock for late medieval Catholic philosophy, theology and science.

Aristotle’s universal influence waned somewhat during the Renaissance and Reformation , as religious and scientific reformers questioned the way the Catholic Church had subsumed his precepts. Scientists like Galileo and Copernicus disproved his geocentric model of the solar system, while anatomists such as William Harvey dismantled many of his biological theories. However, even today, Aristotle’s work remains a significant starting point for any argument in the fields of logic, aesthetics, political theory and ethics.

HISTORY Vault: Ancient History

From the Sphinx of Egypt to the Kama Sutra, explore ancient history videos.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas Essay (Biography)

Aristotle is considered to be one of the greatest Greek philosophers that ever lived according to the Encyclopedia of Classical philosophy (1997).

He lived between 384 B.C. and 322 B.C. having accomplished a lot in philosophy and all other fields of Education. At the age of seven, he joined Plato’s academy where he became one of his favorite student. He later on became a researcher then a teacher in the same institution. In his life, he taught Alexander the Great who at the time was thirteen years of age, at the invitation of his father King Phillip II.

This great philosopher was born in a town called Stageira in Chalcidice. Later on at the age of eighteen, he moved to Athens to study and this became his home for the next twenty years, after which he moved to Asia after the death of Plato where he concentrated in the study of biology at Lesbos Island. In fact, Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece (2005) indicates that he conducted most of his research in this period.

There are a number of significant events which took place during the times of Aristotle and which had an impact in his life. In Athens where he had lived for almost twenty years, there was the anti-Macedonia uprising around 347 B.C. which led to a series of political unrests. Being of Macedonian origin, he was forced to flee the country as indicated in The Columbia Encyclopedia (2008). Later on, King Philip came to power and restored peace between Macedonia and Athens, a gesture that saw to the return of peace. In 323 B.C. however, the political unrest revived again after the rule of Alexander the Great came to an end. Aristotle was considered to be a great sympathizer of Alexander and these latter revolts were directly focused on him. He was charged with blasphemy and forced to flee the country together with his family (Bryant 1996).

With the help of other scholars, Aristotle was able to establish his own school, the Lyceum which was later renamed to Peripatetic. According to the Encyclopedia of classical philosophy (1997), Alexander the Great who was one of Aristotle’s students “financed his research in Peripatetic and had ordered hunters, fishermen, bird-catchers, beekeepers and other professionals to convey to Aristotle any information of scientific interest” (pg 1).

The coming down of Alexander’s reign had negative effects to the life of Aristotle since it caused a security threat forcing him to flee (Bechler 1995). Besides this the death of Plato also caused a major turn of events in the life of Aristotle. This owes to the fact that he left the Academy and started working on his own philosophical dissertations.

After fleeing Athens in 323 BC, Aristotle’s life came to an end in 322 BC after an ailment of the digestive organs (Bar and Bat 1994). His work was considered as the most influential in the world of philosophy and was widely used between the period of antiquity and renaissance. He had a great influence in the western world especially with regards to social sciences and humanities and some of the ideas he developed are still debatable to date.

Aristotle was famous for a number of philosophical theories some of which survived while others were faced out. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999), a majority of his work was geared towards the public and it is believed that Plato played a big role in these writings.

There are however others which are historical in nature such as the Constitution of the Athenians, a piece that was used by his students in the study of political theories. Despite the fact that most of his writings got lost, the ones that survived are still considered the best writings of the time (Anton, George and Anthony 1971).

One of Aristotle’s most famous theories was the metaphysics. In this theory, he argues that “all investigation must begin with what the senses record and must move only from that point to thought” (Stern 1995, pg 4). The term metaphysics is directly interpreted to ‘what comes after physics’.

According to the Cambridge dictionary of philosophy , there were two conditions to this theory. The first one indicated that objects which were widely known needed to exist separately from the non-sensible objects. The second condition on the other hand had it that the objects which were known were just a generalization of objects.

The other theory developed by Aristotle was that of Practical philosophy . This was stipulated in two of his works namely the Nicomachean Ethics and the politics. The main aim of this was to bring out the best actions in issues related to conduct (Ferrarin 2001). As a result of this, he developed the Nicomachean Ethics as a reminder of the principle of becoming good and not just knowing what is good.

In this philosophy, he went ahead to explain that good people made that choice at one point or the other and not just the actions but the right way of performing those actions as well. He explained different types of individuals; the akratic being one who decides to act contrary to what they know is right out of desire while the enkratic despite feeling like they want to act contrary decide to take the right action.

Another philosophical theory that was brought forth by Aristotle was that of psychology. One of his writings, on the soul provided a universal interpretation of the nature and quantity of cognitive faculties principles of the soul. Other writings such as the Parva naturalia made use of the universal theory to a wide variety of psychological occurrences ranging from sleeping, dreaming and waking to memory and reminiscence (Bryant 1996).

He went ahead and subdivided the capacity to perform different actions into either potentiality or actuality. He explained potentiality as an inborn characteristic in an organism by virtue of it belonging to a specific species. Actuality on the other hand is gained through training and experience in that particular field.

The ideas developed by Aristotle were unique in their own ways. In the development of his theories he tried to bring the natural way of occurrences in to the thinking and actions of living creatures and specifically humans. As a result of this, his theories were subject to less disapproval since they were self-supportive.

The other significant element about these theories was that they remained relevant long afterwards, owing to his extensive research in the different fields. This implies that his ideas were viable in a way that has not been countered by any other scholars so far.

The philosophical ideas and theories developed by Aristotle were mainly influenced by his predecessors such as Socrates and Plato. Plato was his teacher earlier in life and he got an inspiration in mathematics while in the academy. He however opposed some of the speculations made by Plato but later on came to understand these ideas and incorporated some of them in his theories.

The other great influence to the development of Aristotle’s theories was Socrates who died long before Aristotle was born and who also happened to be Plato’s teacher ( Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics 2006 ). Socrates was among the original authors of Greek philosophies and made a great contribution to the development of ethics as a discipline. Aristotle built his theory of ethics on this hence making Socrates an important figure in his work.

The philosophical theories developed by Aristotle acted as the main guidelines to human living at the time. These philosophies played a major role in ensuring co-existence in a place where there were no laid down rules. The theory on ethics for example ensured that people were able to develop behavioral habits that were less of a bother to other people around them. These theories also had an impact on the future since they formed the foundation of the present day education system (Bodaeeus 1993).

Other scholars who came after Aristotle were developing their theories from what Aristotle had already researched on. He also pioneered the issue of gender equality by insisting that women needed to be happy just like their male counterparts. Some of the people who were directly influenced by Aristotle include Aristoxenus, Harpalus, Nichomacus and Dicaerchus among others, all of whom were students at the Lyceum.

Works Cited

Anton, John Peter, George L. Kustas, and Anthony Preus. Essays In Ancient Greek Philosophy . n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1971. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) . Web.

“Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.).” Encyclopedia of Classical Philosophy. Westport: Greenwood, (1997). Credo Reference. Web.

“Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.).” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1999). Credo Reference. Web.

“Aristotle (384–322 BCE).” The Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics. Abingdon: Hodder Education, (2006). Credo Reference. Web.

“Aristotle.” The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, (2008). Credo Reference. Web.

Bar On and Bat Ami. Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings In Plato And Aristotle . n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1994. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) . Web.

Bechler, Zeafer. Aristotle’s Theory Of Actuality . n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1995. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) . Web.

Bodaeeus, Richard. The Political Dimensions Of Aristotle’s Ethics . n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1993. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) . Web.

Bryant, Joseph M. Moral Codes And Social Structure In Ancient Greece : A Sociology Of Greek Ethics From Homer To The Epicureans And Stoics . n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1996. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) . Web.

Ferrarin, Alfredo. Hegel And Aristotle . n.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2001. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) . Web.

“Introduction.” Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, (2005). Credo Reference. Web.

Stern-Gillet, Suzanne. Aristotle’s Philosophy Of Friendship . n.p.: State University of New York Press, 1995. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, June 15). Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aristotles-life/

"Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas." IvyPanda , 15 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/aristotles-life/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas'. 15 June.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas." June 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aristotles-life/.

1. IvyPanda . "Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas." June 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aristotles-life/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas." June 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/aristotles-life/.

• New York City Article at Wiki vs. New World Encyclopedia
• Socrates by Aristophanes and Plato
• Socrates Influence on Plato’s Philosophy
• Greek Philosopher Socrates
• Athens Put Socrates and Philosophy on Trial
• Information About Socrates: Analysis
• Aristotle's Philosophical Theories
• Compare and Contrast: Plato and Aristotle Essay
• Plato vs. Aristotle: Political Philosophy Compare and Contrast Essay
• Socrates as a Founder of Western Philosophy
• Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
• Theory between Economics and Ethics. Adam Smith 'Problem'
• John Locke: His Ideas in The Second Treatise and Contemporary Development
• Comparison of Descartes’ “Meditation” and Plato’s “Phaedo”

• Corrections

Aristotle: A Complete Overview of His Life, Work, and Philosophy

Aristotle is one of the most influential thinkers in the history of Western philosophy. But how much do you really know about this ancient philosopher?

As Plato’s student and Alexander the Great’s teacher, Aristotle left a lasting impact on Western philosophy. He has shaped today’s perceptions of philosophy with his teachings on ethics and logic and thoughts on politics and metaphysics. His philosophy has been both scrutinized and venerated for years, thereby establishing him as an essential personality in Western philosophy.

From discussing topics like ethics to exploring concepts like metaphysics and politics, Aristotle’s writings had a profound influence that endures to this day. Let’s explore Aristotle’s life, his teachings, and their legacy!

Who Was The Great Philosopher Aristotle?

Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) was a renowned ancient Greek philosopher who greatly influenced the world of philosophy, science, and logic. He is considered one of the most influential figures in the history of Western thought.

His works have been pivotal in developing metaphysics , ethics, politics, biology, and aesthetics. In addition, he famously wrote about topics such as natural philosophy, logic, and rhetoric which were studied extensively by many later philosophers.

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

Aristotle was born in 384 BC in a doctor’s family, which is likely why his future works would also focus on physiology and anatomy. At 15, he became an orphan, and his uncle, who took the boy under his guardianship, told him about the already famous teacher at that time— Plato in Athens.

At 18, Aristotle independently reached Athens and entered the academy of Plato, whose admirer he had already been for three years. Due to his talent and success in scientific activity, Aristotle was given a teaching position in the academy.

In 347 BC, after the death of Plato, Aristotle moved to the city of Assos. Five years later, the Macedonian King Philip invited the philosopher to educate his son Alexander .

In 339 BC, Philip died, and the heir no longer needed lessons, so Aristotle returned to Athens, now a popular and well-known scholar, largely due to his connection to the royal court.

Contribution-wise, Aristotle played an important role in developing both zoology and anatomy via various research methods. He gained recognition for his exceptional contributions to fields like zoology by creating an animal classification system that factored in both physical traits and habits.

In addition to receiving credit for having revolutionized military tactics at that moment in history, another tremendous feat achieved by Aristotle was passing on this knowledge to Alexander The Great . His contribution to military strategy has been commended through time, resulting in his recognition as a brilliant strategist.

Aristotle’s Writings & Works

Aristotle is highly esteemed for his significant contributions across a vast range of human knowledge fields. His numerous written works have profoundly impacted philosophy, science, mathematics, and more.

Aristotle’s The Nicomachean Ethics is a significant work where he presents his theory on the appropriate way to live life. It explores the concept of virtues and their contribution to leading a satisfying life.

Another prominent example is Aristotle’s Politics . In this groundbreaking work, the author explains his political views, including the state’s role, what citizenship should be, and different types of government systems. He claims that the ideal state should be based on a constitution that respects the needs and desires of its citizens.

Another famous work by Aristotle is his Poetics . This piece is considered to be the first work on literary criticism, interpreting and analyzing the genre and structure of Greek literature. It has influenced the study of literature, film, and other art forms. Aristotle discussed the effects of plot, character, and tragedy on audiences to better understand how these devices can be used effectively.

Aristotle is also widely known for his works in the natural sciences. One of the most popular ones is the Metaphysics . This work deals with the fundamental issues of reality, including the study of existence, causality, and substance.

Relatedly, another one of his famous works is named Physics . It laid out his views on motion, time, space, and other important concepts later built upon in the scientific revolution.

Aristotle’s numerous works have made a lasting impact on history by providing valuable insights and knowledge to humanity. They have helped us gain a better understanding of our world, and continue to be discussed in academic and non-academic contexts alike.

Aristotle Was A Student Of Plato

One important fact already stated is that Aristotle was a student of Plato and is widely considered his most illustrious student.

Plato (c. 428 – c. 348 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher who was one of the preeminent minds in Western philosophy, laying down foundations for many areas such as epistemology, metaphysics, and political theory through his numerous dialogues and other works.

While studying at the Academy based in ancient Athens, Aristotle grew intellectually under mentorship from its founder – Plato—hence cementing its status as one of antiquity’s foremost places of advanced studies.

Some of Aristotle’s most prominent works, like Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics , discussed various topics, including metaphysics, ethics, or morality, as well as communication through the spoken word—known as rhetoric .

The combination of Aristotle’s education under Plato and his own personal research made him a key figure in philosophy due to his logical yet creative approach to arguments and reasoning. His writing has been fundamental in the formation of traditional thought up until modern times, making him one of the most influential thinkers ever known.

Aristotle’s Style Of Teaching

Aristotle’s pedagogy emphasized using the Socratic method for stimulating dialogue, ideas generation, opinion sharing, and conclusion building. The method focused on dialogues between the teacher and student to generate new ideas, express opinions and reach conclusions.

This was done by starting with a given problem or premise and then questioning it, with each student considering alternate solutions or alternative interpretations.

For example, when teaching, Aristotle might ask his students: “If we assume that all men are mortal, what does this imply about our understanding of Socrates?” Then, through further questioning, he would lead his students to conclude that Socrates is mortal.

In this way, the Socratic method allowed for deeper learning through active participation and discourse from both the teacher and the students.

By prioritizing logic over traditional sources of information like doctrine or custom when arriving at conclusions, Aristotle effectively shaped subsequent philosophical movements.

This influence would even stretch centuries into the future, with figures like Cicero and Augustine citing his work, which is still taught in schools and universities today.

Teaching Alexander The Great

When Alexander the Great was a teenager, his father, Philip II, turned to the famous philosopher of the time, Aristotle, with a request to become his son’s teacher. Aristotle agreed to be Alexander’s teacher on one condition: if Philip restored his hometown of Stagira, which had been destroyed by the Macedonian king.

In that short time (343-340 BC), when the great thinker was Alexander’s teacher, he managed to instill in him a love for philosophy, art, and poetry, which acted as a catalyst in shaping the personality of a young man.

But the Homeric epic Iliad especially influenced Alexander. With the help of this work about the Trojan War, the philosopher found a good means for educating military prowess in his ward. This book accompanied Alexander throughout his short life.

Aristotle taught in the classroom about the duties of rulers and the art of government. He tried to develop the ability to perceive various factors, analyze them, and then make a decision. In addition, he enriched the young ruler with scientific knowledge in the lessons of physics, biology, mathematics, medicine, and geography.

The philosopher was preparing the future ruler so that he would become a full-fledged individual.

Aristotle Gave Us Scientific Reasoning

Aristotle was a pioneering figure in the development of scientific reasoning . By combining his deep knowledge of philosophy, biology, and physics—he laid out the foundations for modern science by advocating for empirical observation, testing, and experimentation to draw meaningful conclusions.

While other philosophers tended towards deriving explanations from religious beliefs or authoritative sources, he stood out due to the emphasis on his analytical abilities tempered with insights into causation.

For instance, Aristotle postulated about natural phenomena, including the behavior of falling objects and species distribution in nature, which later became foundational concepts of classical physics.

To document animal behavior and analyze anatomy, Aristotle produced a multitude of writings on biology for future generations to learn from.

By careful observation, he deduced that every living organism was made up of equivalent elemental constituents. This served as a prefatory notion behind present-day notions concerning evolution and genetics .

Aristotle’s methodical approach to understanding nature left an indelible mark on human thinking. Scientific reasoning has since revolutionized how we understand and interact with our environment; from advances in medicine to space exploration, but Aristotle’s approach to problem-solving has had a lasting legacy.

Aristotle Laid The Foundation For A System Of Logic

Aristotle’s most invaluable and lasting contribution to the world of knowledge was undoubtedly his development of syllogistic logic . He coined the term “ logic ,” emphasizing logical relations between terms in reasonable conclusions. His approach to understanding philosophy and our conception of reality endeavored to explain how we think and develop ideas.

Aristotle’s landmark work, Prior Analytics , put forth syllogism as his chief logical contribution. Syllogisms are modes of reasoning that involve specific assumptions or premises from which a conclusion can be drawn. This logic system marked the starting point for much of our current understanding of argumentation processes.

Moreover, Aristotle presented rules for appropriate reasoning, such as the law of non-contradiction, which expresses that two conflicting statements cannot simultaneously be true. This principle is still recognized as true today in many disciplines, including mathematics and science.

From its inception, Aristotle’s work on logic has been a driving force throughout the ages. Its pervasive impact can be seen in our modern-day understanding of philosophy and knowledge.

His contributions inform us about how we think and enable us to make more rational decisions concerning ourselves and our environment. Truly, his legacy will remain with us for generations to come!

Aristotle Established The Principle Of Inductive Reasoning

Establishing the principle of inductive reasoning is one of Aristotle’s credited accomplishments. Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations and experiences. Generalizing fetched evidence helps us draw closer-to-truth conclusions, even if they’re not completely certain.

Aristotle first proposed the concept of induction in his book Prior Analytics . Initially described by Aristotle, induction involves collecting factual data and formulating hypotheses accordingly before reconciling them with further empirical research. Modern logic and systematic research owe much to this groundbreaking theory.

Starting from concrete observations up to developing more theoretical concepts is how inductive logic works differently than deductive logic, which goes straight from theory to specifics. This approach has been incredibly valuable in advancing scientific inquiry by eliminating false premises from the discussion.

Aristotle was a pioneer in many aspects of philosophy. Still, his establishment of the principle of inductive reasoning stands as one of his most significant contributions to our understanding of how knowledge is best acquired and evaluated.

Aristotle Was A Biologist Even Before There Was Biology

Before the formal practice of biology existed, Aristotle showed a remarkable talent for observing and classifying living things. Combining keen observations with philosophy, Aristotle established himself as an early maker of modern-day biological knowledge before it became more established and formalized.

Aristotle is rightly considered the creator of biology as a science. Several of his works are devoted to the problems of biology: The History of Animals , On the Parts of Animals , On the Origin of Animals , On the Movement of Animals , and a small essay, On the Walking of Animals .

In addition to these special works, which treat questions of zoology, the first two books of On the Soul are also devoted to the problem of life and the living.

In works devoted to the study of wildlife, the “empirical component” is especially striking: the philosopher relies both on his observations and on the vast experience gleaned from the practice of contemporary agriculture, fishing, etc.

Judging by his writings, Aristotle collected information about animals primarily from fishermen, shepherds, beekeepers, pig breeders, and veterinarians.

It should be noted that the philosopher shared some of the prejudices of his time, believing, for example, that males are warmer than females and the right side of the body of animals is warmer than the left.

In humans, he believed, the left side of the body is colder than in other living beings, so the heart is shifted to the left to balance the temperature of both sides of the body.

Aristotle’s pioneering work in biology and his insistence on empirical observation exemplify the power of scientific inquiry. Thanks to his observatory approach toward life sciences, many biologists have—a couple of millennia later—decoded nature’s clandestine ways.

Aristotle “Invented” the Field of Economics

The economic views of Aristotle are not separated from his philosophical teachings. They are woven into the general theme of reasoning about the foundations of ethics and politics (and, more broadly, how people and the state should be managed).

In his treatises, one can see the desire to single out and understand certain categories and connections that later became the subject of political economy as a science.

For example, in Aristotle’s time, the basis of wealth and the main source of its increase were slaves. Aristotle called slaves “the first object of possession,” so he advised that care must be taken to acquire good slaves who can work long and hard.

Barter trade’s evolution into large-scale commerce through history was also a subject matter Aristotle examined extensively. He tried with great persistence to understand the laws of exchange.

Aristotle’s focus was on comprehending how barter trade transformed into large-scale operations through historical analysis. Large-scale trade facilitated and contributed to state formation.

Aristotle approved of the type of management that pursued the goal of acquiring goods for the home and the state, calling it “economy.” The economy is associated with the production of products necessary for life. The activities of commercial and usurious capital, aimed at enrichment, he characterized as unnatural, calling it “ chrematistics .”

Chrematistics is focused on making a profit and primarily aims at the accumulation of wealth. Aristotle argues that trading in commodities is not part of chrematistics because it only involves exchanging objects necessary for buyers and sellers.

Therefore, the original form of commodity profit was barter, but with its expansion, money necessarily arises. With the invention of money, barter must inevitably develop into commodity trade. The latter turned into chrematistics, the art of making money.

Arguing in this way, Aristotle concludes that chrematistics is built on money since money is the beginning and end of any exchange.

Therefore, Aristotle tried to determine the nature of these two phenomena (economics and chrematistics) to determine their historical place. On this path, he was the first to distinguish between money as a simple means of enrichment and money that has become capital.

Aristotle’s Views On Death And The Afterlife

Aristotle, who considered the ability to think about death an indispensable condition for active happiness and a wonderful life, did not try to embellish the bitter truth. On the contrary, he believed death was the worst thing because this was the limit.

The philosopher knew that many of his readers believed in an afterlife . We can find hints that his ethics were compatible with a belief in the so’s immortality in a dialogue designed to console those mourning the heroic death of a Cypriot named Evdem, who did not belong to philosophical circles.

But Aristotle, like most of today’s atheists and agnostics, certainly considered death final and irrevocable. Immortality can be desired, he says in Nicomachean Ethics , but it is not given to a person to consciously choose it.

Aristotle believed life and death are not opposites but two parts of a natural process. He theorized that when a person dies, their soul leaves their body and enters either the celestial realm or Hades —depending on whether they had lived virtuously or unvirtuously during their lifetime.

The souls in the celestial realm would enjoy an eternal existence full of happiness, wisdom, and moral fulfillment. At the same time, those who lived a more unvirtuous life would be doomed to an eternity of instability and suffering within Hades.

Aristotle also thought that certain spiritual objects, such as friendship, love , knowledge, and beauty, could exist beyond physical death. Furthermore, he believed that these non-physical forms were immutable and could, therefore, never perish.

Aristotle’s Views On Justice / Equality

Aristotle also expressed his views on justice in Nicomachean Ethics . For him, justice is the equalization of one’s own interest with the interests of others. The task of justice is to serve society, and if the law is violated, it is a crime.

According to the philosopher, actions consistent with justice and contrary to it can be of two types: they can affect one person or the whole society. A person who commits adultery and inflicts beatings is doing injustice to one particular person, and a person who evades military service is doing injustice to society.

For Aristotle, justice is a principle that regulates relations between people regarding the distribution of social values. The ancient Greek philosopher points out the differences between justice and injustice.

He believed that justice is retribution to everyone for his merits. Injustice is arbitrariness that violates human rights. Objective decisions are fair. It is unfair to transfer one’s own responsibilities to others and receive benefits at the expense of others.

Aristotle distinguishes two types of justice—comparative and distributive. Comparative justice implies a comparison of actions between people, and distributive justice focuses on the equitable distribution of social resources to all members of society.

Aristotle’s views on justice are not dissimilar from those of modern society, as he believed that law should be based on equality and applied to all people without discrimination. He also argued that justice should work for the benefit of all it affects.

Aristotle’s Views On Politics

Aristotle plunged into politics with the same passion with which he studied nature and ethics. Aristotle considered man a “political animal” ( zoon politikon ), which acquires its true essence only in community with other people. In his opinion, a person must live in a political society to be complete and happy.

According to Aristotle, the ideal state should be neither too big nor too small so that citizens can personally participate in political life and follow justice. Furthermore, Aristotle taught that the best way of life and government is the golden mean between extremes.

Thus, an ideal state is a place where the interests of different social strata are balanced, and no one group dominates the others.

Aristotle did a great job of studying the history and experience of different forms of government to understand what kind of government best promotes the common good. In his Politics , he analyzes over 150 city-states and their constitutions.

Aristotle argued that a good state should provide education for all its citizens since educated people can better serve their state and live in harmony with laws and morals. For the philosopher, politics was an art and science to secure a just common good.

Aristotle’s Views On Slavery

Aristotle’s singular approach toward envisaging enslavement as a crucial piece of historical community sets him apart. He viewed slavery as a necessary phenomenon in the social structure. That said, his viewpoint was detailed and layered, though unacceptable by today’s ethical standards.

According to the thinker, there exist segments of the human population that are predestined by nature towards servitude. In his opinion, slaves had physical abilities but could not manage their lives or make decisions. So, those born as slaves required leadership from the wise.

One of Aristotle’s beliefs was that slavery actually proved advantageous for both masters and slaves alike. He believed that slavery was advantageous for slave owners and slaves alike because, he argued, masters provided protection and provision to their slaves in exchange for their labor and services.

Aristotle also acknowledged that slaves could be “improved” through the upbringing they received from their masters. In his view, the masters are responsible for teaching the slaves virtues and discipline.

Part of a slave’s improvement process involved learning from their master how to live virtuously, leading them to become more independent individuals with greater responsibilities towards society.

Aristotle’s Views On Women

Aristotle’s views on women became influential in the further development of philosophy and thoughts of future thinkers until the end of the Middle Ages. In his treatise on state Politics , Aristotle defined women as the subordinate sex to men.

As stipulated by Aristotle, according to his beliefs expressed within Politics —when males maintained dominance over politics—females were considered higher class individuals when compared with slaves.

Among the notable features of women were: expansiveness, compassion, and naivety, which also hindered them in political life.

However, in writing Rhetoric , Aristotle put women’s happiness on the same level of importance as men’s because he believed it is impossible to achieve general happiness in society if some segments of the population remained dissatisfied.

Aristotle believed that men and women possess differing levels of intelligence and physiological distinctions. Some recent studies have shown that memory strength may vary between genders, though the reasons for this are unclear.

Besides, the thinker said that fair-skinned women, but not black-skinned women, can climax during sex. Aristotle believed women were more passionate than men despite having weaker intellects.

Overall, even though it might not seem that way, Aristotle’s views on women were somewhat progressive for his time. Aristotle’s outlook on female empowerment and rights was somewhat liberal for its period; nevertheless, it remained insufficiently evolved compared with present-day perspectives.

Aristotle’s Views On Homosexuality

With a discussion of homosexuality in the Nichomachean Ethics , Aristotle was one of the first early Ancient Philosophers who shared their thoughts on this topic.

He proposed that one’s ability and character should outweigh their sex when it comes to making friends. Aristotle asserted that a gentleman should not feel attracted to someone of the same sex if their relationship is solely based on physical pleasure, which would go against nature’s purpose for human sexuality.

Homosexual behavior might cause a man to act against his nature, thus leading him toward moral wickedness.

While generally expressing disapproval of such relationships, the author also recognized their potential benefits in boosting a person’s physical and emotional wellness whenever the relationship is based on genuine mutual affection.

Despite holding these relatively open attitudes towards homosexuality compared to other ancient thinkers, it’s clear that Aristotle still viewed it as primarily something harmful or unnatural. This reflects the prevailing attitudes towards LGBT+ people during his lifetime. Nevertheless, contemporary societal standards classify these views as obsolete and morally questionable.

So, Who Was The Great Philosopher Aristotle?

As a renowned philosopher and polymath from ancient Greece, Aristotle’s contributions have influenced fields including politics, logic, science, mathematics, and philosophy.

Aside from his groundbreaking contributions in these fields, he authored several works on various subjects like ethics, politics, morality, etc., which many scholars continue to study today.

Looking at reality and considering the philosophical disputes prevalent during his time formed Aristotle’s foundation for philosophy. Throughout the Middle Ages, Aristotle’s perspective towards topics such as homosexuality, slavery, and women has been considered influential for later scientific thought.

That being said, most people now regard Aristotle’s beliefs about slavery, homosexuality, and women as archaic.

The level of admiration directed towards Aristotle persists even today because of his extraordinary intelligence and the breadth of his work. He managed to organize and deepen the lessons of his ancestors and lay them out into a large number of works that, fortunately, remain available to us to this day.

Therefore, Aristotle made a far-reaching arrangement of theories, covering all areas of human thought and interest, from what would later become the topics of social sciences and governmental issues to physical science and rationality.

What Was Aristotle’s Opinion on Metaphysics?

By Viktoriya Sus MA Philosophy Viktoriya is a writer from L’viv, Ukraine. She has knowledge about the main thinkers. In her free time, she loves to read books on philosophy and analyze whether ancient philosophical thought is relevant today. Besides writing, she loves traveling, learning new languages, and visiting museums.

Frequently Read Together

Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Brief Overview

What did Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle Think About Wisdom?

Alexander the Great: The Accursed Macedonian

Culture History

Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was a Greek philosopher and polymath. He was a student of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great. Aristotle made significant contributions to various fields, including ethics, metaphysics, biology, physics, and politics. His works laid the foundation for Western philosophy and had a profound influence on the development of scientific thinking.

Aristotle’s early life, spanning from his birth in 384 BCE to his years as a student in Plato’s Academy, played a crucial role in shaping the intellectual giant he would become. Born in the ancient Greek city of Stagira, located in the northern part of the Aegean Sea, Aristotle belonged to a family with connections to medical practice. His father, Nicomachus, was the court physician to King Amyntas II of Macedon, providing Aristotle with a background that would later intersect with his own pursuits in natural sciences.

The loss of his parents at an early age, with his mother dying when he was a child and his father’s death during his adolescence, compelled Aristotle to navigate the challenges of life independently. This period of personal loss likely contributed to the development of his resilience and self-reliance, traits that would be evident in his later endeavors.

As a young man, Aristotle made his way to Athens, the intellectual hub of ancient Greece, to pursue education. This decision marked the beginning of his association with one of the most influential philosophers in history—Plato. In Athens, Aristotle entered Plato’s Academy around 367 BCE. The Academy, founded by Plato, was a center of philosophical inquiry and learning, attracting scholars from various regions.

Under Plato’s tutelage, Aristotle delved into the intricacies of philosophy, absorbing the teachings of his revered master. However, philosophical differences began to emerge between them, laying the groundwork for Aristotle’s eventual divergence from Plato’s idealistic views. While Plato emphasized the world of eternal Forms as the ultimate reality, Aristotle, with a more empirical mindset, leaned towards a focus on the observable world and the study of nature.

Despite these differences, Aristotle’s time in the Academy significantly influenced his intellectual development. It was during these formative years that he honed his analytical skills and acquired a profound understanding of philosophical inquiry. The dialogues and debates within the Academy provided Aristotle with a rich intellectual environment that fostered critical thinking and dialectical reasoning.

Following Plato’s death in 347 BCE, Aristotle’s trajectory took a new turn. Though he was considered as a potential successor to lead the Academy, differences in philosophical approach and perhaps the shadow of Plato’s legacy led to his departure from Athens. Aristotle embarked on a journey that would take him to various regions, including a period spent as the tutor to a young Alexander the Great.

This tutoring role proved to be instrumental in Aristotle’s life. The education of Alexander, who would later become one of history’s most renowned military leaders, allowed Aristotle to delve into a wide range of subjects, including ethics, politics, and natural sciences. The Macedonian court provided Aristotle with resources and opportunities to engage in extensive research and exploration, contributing to the breadth of his later works.

After Alexander’s conquests, which expanded Greek influence across vast territories, Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 BCE. It was during this period that he founded his own school, the Lyceum, marking a significant chapter in his educational legacy. The Lyceum, often referred to as the Peripatetic School due to Aristotle’s habit of walking while lecturing, became a center for learning and intellectual discourse.

In contrast to the more exclusive nature of Plato’s Academy, the Lyceum welcomed a diverse array of students. Aristotle’s teaching style was characterized by a systematic and methodical approach, covering a wide range of subjects. He lectured on topics ranging from ethics and politics to biology and metaphysics, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of his intellectual pursuits.

Aristotle’s commitment to empirical observation and classification was evident in his biological studies during this period. He engaged in detailed examinations of plant and animal life, making significant contributions to the early understanding of natural history. His observations, while not always accurate by modern standards, laid the foundation for future developments in biology.

Unfortunately, only a fraction of Aristotle’s vast body of work has survived the centuries. The surviving works, often in the form of lecture notes or treatises, provide glimpses into the immense scope of his contributions. Whether exploring the nature of being in “Metaphysics,” discussing ethical virtues in “Nicomachean Ethics,” or laying the groundwork for systematic classification in “Categories,” Aristotle’s writings continue to be a source of inspiration and study in diverse fields.

Aristotle’s early life, marked by personal challenges, intellectual exploration, and the establishment of the Lyceum, serves as a crucial backdrop to understanding the foundations of his enduring legacy. His influence not only shaped the trajectory of Western philosophy but also left an indelible mark on fields ranging from ethics and politics to natural sciences—a testament to the enduring impact of a remarkable thinker whose journey began in the ancient city of Stagira.

Academic Career

Aristotle’s academic career, centered around his role as a philosopher, teacher, and founder of the Lyceum, represents a pivotal chapter in the history of intellectual inquiry. From his early education in Plato’s Academy to the establishment of his own school, Aristotle’s contributions to philosophy and various disciplines continue to resonate across centuries.

Aristotle’s academic journey began in Athens, where he joined Plato’s Academy around 367 BCE. This period of his life was marked by intensive philosophical engagement and intellectual exploration. Plato, the venerable philosopher and founder of the Academy, played a crucial role in shaping Aristotle’s early philosophical outlook. However, as Aristotle immersed himself in the Academy’s intellectual milieu, subtle differences in philosophical approach began to emerge between him and his mentor.

While Plato emphasized the world of abstract Forms as the ultimate reality, Aristotle’s penchant for empirical observation and a focus on the tangible world led to a departure from Plato’s idealism. This intellectual evolution laid the foundation for Aristotle’s distinctive philosophical system, which would later be articulated in his extensive writings.

After spending nearly two decades in the Academy, Aristotle’s academic trajectory took a turn following Plato’s death in 347 BCE. Despite being considered as a potential successor to lead the Academy, Aristotle’s departure from Athens was driven by both philosophical differences and, perhaps, a desire to forge his own intellectual path. This decision set the stage for the next phase of his academic journey.

Aristotle’s association with Alexander the Great played a pivotal role in shaping his academic career. As the tutor to the young prince, Aristotle had the opportunity to delve into a wide array of subjects, ranging from ethics and politics to natural sciences. The Macedonian court provided him with resources and access to knowledge that enriched his intellectual pursuits.

The tutoring relationship with Alexander not only contributed to Aristotle’s scholarly endeavors but also had broader implications for the dissemination of knowledge. The conquests of Alexander spread Greek influence across vast territories, fostering an environment where intellectual exchange flourished. Aristotle’s teachings and ideas, influenced by his experiences with Alexander, permeated through these regions, contributing to the synthesis of Greek philosophy with various cultural traditions.

Following Alexander’s conquests, Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 BCE. It was during this period that he founded his own school, the Lyceum, marking a significant milestone in his academic career. The Lyceum, situated in the outskirts of Athens, became a renowned center for learning and philosophical inquiry. Aristotle’s teaching style at the Lyceum was distinctive—he often walked while lecturing, leading to the school being referred to as the Peripatetic School.

Unlike the more exclusive nature of Plato’s Academy, the Lyceum had a more inclusive ethos. Aristotle welcomed a diverse group of students, and the school became a hub for intellectual exchange. The curriculum at the Lyceum covered a vast range of subjects, reflecting Aristotle’s interdisciplinary approach to knowledge. He lectured on ethics, politics, metaphysics, natural sciences, and more, underscoring the interconnectedness of various branches of inquiry.

The systematic and methodical nature of Aristotle’s teachings at the Lyceum is evident in his surviving works, often presented in the form of lecture notes or treatises. His approach to philosophy was characterized by a commitment to careful analysis, classification, and empirical observation. In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle delved into the nature of virtue and the pursuit of a morally fulfilling life. In “Politics,” he explored different forms of government and advocated for a balanced, mixed government.

A significant aspect of Aristotle’s academic legacy lies in his contributions to natural sciences. His biological studies, documented in works like “On the Parts of Animals” and “On the Generation of Animals,” demonstrated a keen interest in understanding the diversity of life through observation and classification. While some of his conclusions may not align with modern scientific understanding, his pioneering efforts laid the groundwork for future developments in biology.

Tragically, much of Aristotle’s extensive writings have been lost to time. However, the surviving works, combined with the influence of his ideas on subsequent generations of scholars, highlight the enduring impact of his academic career. The Lyceum, as an institution, played a crucial role in shaping Aristotle’s legacy and fostering intellectual inquiry long after his death.

Aristotle’s academic journey stands as a testament to the transformative power of education and the pursuit of knowledge. From his formative years in Plato’s Academy to the establishment of the Lyceum, Aristotle’s contributions continue to inspire scholars and thinkers across disciplines, marking him as one of history’s most influential figures in the realm of academia and philosophy.

Works and Writings

Aristotle’s prolific works and writings encompass a vast array of subjects, showcasing his profound impact on philosophy, ethics, politics, metaphysics, and the natural sciences. His systematic and analytical approach is evident in surviving texts, which include treatises, dialogues, and lecture notes. While some works have been lost to time, the extant corpus provides invaluable insights into Aristotle’s intellectual legacy.

One of Aristotle’s foundational works is “Nicomachean Ethics,” a treatise on moral philosophy. In this work, Aristotle explores the nature of virtue, ethics, and the pursuit of happiness. He introduces the concept of eudaimonia, often translated as “flourishing” or “the good life,” and argues that virtuous character is essential for achieving it. Aristotle identifies virtues as the mean between extremes, advocating for a balanced and moderate approach to ethical decision-making.

In “Politics,” Aristotle delves into the realm of political philosophy, examining different forms of government and their ethical implications. He categorizes governments based on whether they serve the common good or the interests of a ruling elite. Aristotle’s advocacy for a mixed government, combining elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, reflects his belief in achieving balance and avoiding the pitfalls associated with each form when taken to extremes.

Metaphysics, Aristotle’s magnum opus, explores the nature of being, existence, and reality. Divided into fourteen books, this work covers a wide range of topics, from substance and causality to potentiality and actuality. Aristotle introduces the concept of the unmoved mover, an eternal and uncaused entity that sets the cosmos in motion. His exploration of metaphysical principles has had a profound impact on Western philosophical thought, influencing thinkers from the medieval period to the present.

In “Physics,” Aristotle addresses the principles of natural philosophy, including concepts of motion, time, and space. He distinguishes between different types of causation, such as material, formal, efficient, and final causes, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the natural world. While some of Aristotle’s scientific ideas have been superseded by later developments, his emphasis on systematic observation and classification laid the groundwork for the scientific method.

Aristotle’s logical treatises, including “Categories” and “On Interpretation,” form the basis of his contributions to formal logic. In “Categories,” he explores the classification of entities and introduces the notion of substance as a primary category. “On Interpretation” delves into language and propositions, discussing topics like truth, meaning, and the principles of contradiction and excluded middle. Aristotle’s logical works had a profound influence on medieval scholastic philosophers and continue to be studied in the field of logic.

The “Organon,” a collection of Aristotle’s logical treatises, includes works beyond “Categories” and “On Interpretation.” “Prior Analytics” introduces the theory of syllogism, a deductive reasoning system that became central to Aristotelian logic. “Posterior Analytics” explores scientific knowledge and demonstration, while “Topics” delves into dialectical reasoning and argumentation. The “Sophistical Refutations” addresses fallacies and deceptive reasoning. Together, these works form a comprehensive foundation for the study of logic.

Aristotle’s interest in rhetoric is evident in “Rhetoric,” where he examines persuasive communication. He identifies three modes of persuasion: ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason). This work provides insights into the art of effective public speaking and persuasive discourse, contributing to the field of rhetoric.

In the realm of natural sciences, Aristotle’s biological works, such as “On the Parts of Animals” and “On the Generation of Animals,” demonstrate his keen observational skills. He classifies animals based on characteristics such as blood circulation and embryonic development, offering early insights into the diversity of living organisms. While some of his conclusions are outdated, Aristotle’s pioneering efforts laid the groundwork for the study of biology.

Aristotle’s literary style varies across his works. In dialogues like “Eudemian Ethics” and “On the Soul,” he engages in dialectical discussions, while more systematic treatises like “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” present structured arguments. The surviving texts often appear as lecture notes, suggesting that Aristotle’s works were products of his teaching at the Lyceum.

Despite the richness of Aristotle’s extant corpus, the fate of some of his writings remains uncertain. The “Corpus Aristotelicum,” a collection of works attributed to Aristotle, includes both genuine and spurious texts. Scholars have debated the authenticity of certain works, such as the “Magnanimity” and “Eudaimonia,” leading to ongoing discussions about the extent of Aristotle’s lost writings.

In the centuries following Aristotle’s death, his works were preserved, studied, and commented upon by scholars in the Islamic world, contributing to the transmission of Greek philosophy. During the medieval period in Europe, Aristotle’s writings became central to scholastic philosophy, especially through the works of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas.

Aristotle’s enduring influence extends beyond philosophy into literature, science, and various academic disciplines. His systematic approach to inquiry, emphasis on empirical observation, and contributions to logic have left an indelible mark on the history of human thought. The ongoing study and interpretation of Aristotle’s works continue to shape contemporary discussions and provide a rich source of inspiration for scholars across the globe.

Philosophical Contributions

Aristotle’s philosophical contributions encompass a vast range of disciplines, shaping the course of Western thought and influencing scholars for centuries. His systematic approach to inquiry, emphasis on empirical observation, and insightful analyses laid the foundation for advancements in philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, politics, and natural sciences.

In metaphysics, Aristotle’s exploration of being, existence, and reality is encapsulated in his magnum opus, “Metaphysics.” He introduced the concept of substance, defining it as that which is independent and exists in its own right. Aristotle distinguished between potentiality and actuality, asserting that everything has both a potential state and an actual state. This conceptual framework became fundamental to understanding change and the nature of existence.

One of Aristotle’s most enduring contributions is his exploration of causality. In “Physics,” he identified four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. The material cause is the substance from which something is made, the formal cause is its structure or essence, the efficient cause is the agent responsible for its creation, and the final cause is its purpose or goal. This comprehensive causal analysis provided a sophisticated understanding of events and entities in the natural world.

Aristotle’s emphasis on empirical observation and classification in the study of nature laid the groundwork for the development of the scientific method. In works like “On the Parts of Animals” and “On the Generation of Animals,” he applied his methodical approach to biology, systematically categorizing animals based on characteristics such as blood circulation. While some of his biological conclusions have been surpassed by modern knowledge, Aristotle’s contributions were groundbreaking in his time and paved the way for future developments in the natural sciences.

In ethics, Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” remains a cornerstone of moral philosophy. He approached ethics not as a set of rules but as an inquiry into the nature of virtue and the good life. Aristotle introduced the concept of eudaimonia, often translated as “flourishing” or “the good life,” as the ultimate goal of human existence. Virtue, he argued, is essential for achieving eudaimonia, and virtues are the mean between extremes. This virtue ethics framework has profoundly influenced moral philosophy and continues to shape discussions on character and moral conduct.

Aristotle’s political philosophy, as presented in “Politics,” explores the organization and governance of human societies. He categorized different forms of government based on the number of rulers and whether they serve the common good or the interests of a ruling elite. Aristotle favored a mixed government that combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. His analysis of political systems, the role of citizenship, and the concept of the polis (city-state) has had a lasting impact on political thought.

The concept of the polis is integral to Aristotle’s political philosophy. He argued that humans are political animals and that the polis is the highest form of community, providing a context for individuals to live a virtuous life. Aristotle’s ideas on citizenship, participation in civic life, and the importance of education in shaping responsible citizens have influenced discussions on democracy and governance throughout history.

Aristotle’s logical treatises, collectively known as the “Organon,” are foundational to the study of formal logic. In “Categories,” he explores the classification of entities, introducing the concept of substance as a primary category. “On Interpretation” delves into language and propositions, addressing topics like truth, meaning, and the principles of contradiction and excluded middle. Aristotle’s development of syllogistic reasoning in “Prior Analytics” has been a central component of formal logic, shaping subsequent developments in the field.

Aristotle’s contributions to rhetoric in his work aptly titled “Rhetoric” are noteworthy. He analyzed persuasive communication, identifying three modes of persuasion: ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason). Aristotle’s insights into effective public speaking, argumentation, and the art of persuasion remain relevant in fields such as communication and rhetoric.

The enduring influence of Aristotle’s philosophical contributions extends beyond his own time. During the medieval period, his works were preserved and studied in Islamic scholarship, contributing to the synthesis of Greek philosophy with Islamic thought. In the West, the rediscovery of Aristotle’s texts in the 12th century had a profound impact on scholastic philosophy, particularly through the works of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas.

Aristotle’s systematic and comprehensive approach to philosophy, combined with his emphasis on empirical observation, has left an indelible mark on the history of human thought. His ideas continue to inspire scholars and influence diverse fields, from ethics and politics to metaphysics and logic. The ongoing study and interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophical contributions reflect the enduring significance of his intellectual legacy in shaping our understanding of the world and the human experience.

Natural Sciences

Aristotle’s contributions to the natural sciences, while reflective of the scientific understanding of his time, laid the groundwork for the systematic study of the natural world and influenced subsequent developments in biology and other scientific disciplines. His approach to observation, classification, and explanation in works like “On the Parts of Animals” and “On the Generation of Animals” exemplifies his early contributions to the field of natural sciences.

In “On the Parts of Animals,” Aristotle undertakes a detailed examination of the anatomical structures of various animals. His approach involves careful observation of diverse species, leading to systematic classifications based on shared characteristics. Aristotle categorizes animals according to the presence or absence of blood, a criterion that he considered fundamental. This classification reflects the rudimentary understanding of physiological processes in Aristotle’s time and serves as an early attempt at systematic biological taxonomy.

Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology, the study of purpose or final causes, is evident in his biological works. He believed that the structures of organisms are designed to fulfill specific functions, and he often interpreted biological phenomena in light of these perceived purposes. This teleological perspective is particularly prominent in his discussions on the adaptations of animals to their environments and the functions of various organs.

In “On the Generation of Animals,” Aristotle extends his exploration to the reproductive processes of animals. He examines the generation of living beings, emphasizing the idea of epigenesis—the gradual development of the embryo over time. Aristotle proposes that embryos undergo a process of successive differentiation, with organs forming gradually as the organism develops. While his theories on embryology were groundbreaking in his era, they would later be superseded by more accurate scientific explanations during the Renaissance and the subsequent scientific revolution.

One of Aristotle’s significant contributions to the natural sciences lies in his method of empirical observation and classification. Rather than relying solely on speculative reasoning, he sought to understand the natural world through systematic observation of living organisms. By categorizing animals based on shared characteristics, Aristotle laid the foundation for the practice of taxonomy—an essential component of modern biology.

Aristotle’s recognition of the diversity of living organisms and his attempts to categorize them contributed to the development of biological classification. While his criteria, such as the presence or absence of blood, may seem rudimentary by contemporary standards, they marked a crucial step forward in organizing and understanding the complexities of the living world.

The teleological aspect of Aristotle’s biological thought, while influential in its time, has undergone significant transformation with the advent of modern biology. The teleological perspective, with its focus on purpose and design, has been largely supplanted by mechanistic explanations grounded in the principles of genetics and evolution. However, Aristotle’s teleological approach left a lasting impact on the history of biology, influencing thinkers throughout the medieval period who sought to reconcile Aristotelian ideas with Christian theology.

Aristotle’s influence on the natural sciences extended beyond his biological works. In “Physics,” he explored broader principles of natural philosophy, investigating concepts of motion, time, and space. His discussions on causation, including the four causes—material, formal, efficient, and final—provided a comprehensive framework for understanding natural phenomena. These foundational ideas contributed to the development of classical physics and influenced the scientific thinking of later scholars.

While Aristotle’s contributions to natural philosophy were groundbreaking, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of his understanding, given the historical context of his work. The absence of advanced microscopy and a lack of knowledge about cellular and molecular processes constrained the accuracy of his biological observations. Moreover, Aristotle’s reliance on teleology, while insightful for its time, posed challenges to the development of a more mechanistic understanding of living organisms.

Despite these limitations, Aristotle’s impact on the natural sciences is profound. His emphasis on empirical observation, classification, and systematic inquiry laid the groundwork for the scientific method. The practice of observing, categorizing, and explaining natural phenomena has become a cornerstone of scientific inquiry, with contemporary biologists building upon and refining Aristotle’s early contributions.

In the centuries following Aristotle, scientific thought evolved significantly, particularly during the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. The advent of new technologies and methodologies allowed for more precise observations and experiments, leading to a deeper understanding of the natural world. However, Aristotle’s foundational contributions to biology and natural philosophy provided a crucial starting point for subsequent generations of scientists.

Political Influence

Aristotle’s political influence is profound, extending across centuries and shaping the foundations of political thought. His seminal work “Politics” provides a comprehensive analysis of different forms of government, the role of citizens, and the ideal state, influencing subsequent political thinkers, policymakers, and theorists. Aristotle’s impact on political philosophy can be observed in several key areas, including his analysis of government types, his concept of citizenship, and his ideas on the importance of education for civic virtue.

Aristotle’s classification of governments in “Politics” remains a foundational contribution to political science. He categorizes governments based on two criteria: the number of rulers and whether rulers govern for the common good or their self-interest. The resulting classifications are monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and polity (rule by the many for the common good). Aristotle further identifies corresponding corrupt forms of these governments: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, respectively.

Aristotle’s emphasis on the concept of polity—a mixed form of government that combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy—reflects his belief in balance and moderation. He argues that a polity, which seeks to avoid the excesses and pitfalls of pure forms of government, is more likely to promote justice and the common good. This idea of a mixed government had a lasting impact on subsequent political thought, influencing thinkers like Polybius and, later, the framers of the United States Constitution.

The idea of a balanced and mixed government found resonance in the political philosophy of Polybius, who acknowledged Aristotle’s influence and expanded on the concept in his work “The Histories.” Polybius argued that a well-ordered state should incorporate elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy to prevent the degeneration of government into tyranny, oligarchy, or democracy. This idea, known as the mixed constitution, played a significant role in the development of constitutional thinking.

The framers of the United States Constitution, particularly James Madison, drew upon Aristotle’s ideas when designing the American system of government. Madison, in “The Federalist Papers,” expressed concerns about the tyranny of the majority in a pure democracy and advocated for a system that blended democratic, aristocratic, and monarchical elements. The resulting checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution mirror the mixed government concept, illustrating Aristotle’s enduring influence on the design of modern political institutions.

Aristotle’s exploration of citizenship in “Politics” remains influential in discussions on political participation and civic engagement. He defines the citizen as someone who participates in deliberative and judicial functions within the political community. Aristotle distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens, emphasizing that only those who contribute to the political life of the community can be considered citizens. This concept of active citizenship has resonated throughout history, influencing notions of civic responsibility and political participation.

The idea of citizenship as active participation found echoes in the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau during the Enlightenment. Rousseau’s work, particularly “The Social Contract,” emphasized the concept of the general will and the active involvement of citizens in shaping political decisions. The notion of an engaged and participatory citizenry, rooted in Aristotle’s ideas, became foundational to democratic theory and influenced the development of modern democratic states.

Aristotle’s discussions on the importance of education for civic virtue in “Politics” have enduring significance. He argues that education is crucial for the moral and intellectual development of citizens, enabling them to contribute meaningfully to the political community. Aristotle’s emphasis on education as a means to cultivate virtuous citizens influenced subsequent educational philosophies and political theories.

The educational philosophy of John Locke , an Enlightenment thinker, bears traces of Aristotle’s influence. Locke, in his work “Some Thoughts Concerning Education,” stressed the importance of education in shaping moral character and civic virtue. Locke’s ideas contributed to the Enlightenment emphasis on education as a tool for individual and societal progress, echoing Aristotle’s views on the role of education in fostering responsible citizenship.

Aristotle’s political thought also influenced the development of republicanism during the Renaissance. The works of civic humanists like Machiavelli and civic republicans like James Harrington and the Levellers drew upon Aristotle’s ideas. Machiavelli, in “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy,” explored the concept of mixed government and the role of civic virtue in maintaining political stability. Harrington, in “The Commonwealth of Oceana,” envisioned a mixed government inspired by Aristotle’s principles.

Aristotle’s impact on political philosophy extends to the 20th century, with scholars engaging with his ideas in the context of political theory and international relations. Hannah Arendt, in “The Human Condition,” drew on Aristotle’s concepts of public life and political action. Arendt’s exploration of the vita activa (active life) and the importance of political participation can be traced back to Aristotle’s insights into the nature of citizenship.

In international relations, scholars like Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr, often associated with political realism, engaged with Aristotle’s ideas on politics and ethics. The realist emphasis on power, national interest, and the limits of moral principles in international affairs reflects a certain continuity with Aristotle’s pragmatic understanding of politics.

Aristotle’s political influence is not confined to any particular school of thought but permeates diverse political traditions and theories. His exploration of government types, citizenship, and the role of education in shaping virtuous citizens continues to inform discussions on governance, democracy, and civic life. The enduring relevance of Aristotle’s political thought lies in its ability to transcend historical epochs and contribute to ongoing debates about the nature of political authority, justice, and the common good.

Aristotle’s legacy is profound and far-reaching, extending across multiple disciplines and shaping the course of Western thought for over two millennia. His contributions to philosophy, ethics, politics, metaphysics, and natural sciences have left an indelible mark, influencing thinkers, scholars, and institutions throughout history. Aristotle’s enduring legacy can be examined through the lens of his impact on various intellectual traditions, his influence on religious and philosophical thought, and his contributions to education.

In the realm of philosophy, Aristotle’s legacy is foundational. As a student of Plato and the founder of the Lyceum, he laid the groundwork for systematic inquiry and logical reasoning. His works, including “Nicomachean Ethics,” “Politics,” and “Metaphysics,” became canonical texts in Western philosophy. The medieval scholastic philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, sought to reconcile Aristotelian thought with Christian theology, leading to the synthesis of Aristotelianism and Scholasticism. This fusion profoundly influenced the development of Western philosophical traditions.

During the Renaissance, the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works had a transformative effect on intellectual and cultural movements. Scholars like Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola embraced Aristotelian philosophy as a complement to their humanistic endeavors. The revival of interest in classical texts, including Aristotle’s, played a crucial role in the Renaissance’s intellectual and artistic flourishing.

In the Enlightenment, thinkers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant engaged with Aristotle’s ideas on ethics, politics, and metaphysics. While the Enlightenment marked a departure from certain aspects of Aristotelian thought, it also reflected a continuation of the tradition of rational inquiry and empirical observation that Aristotle championed.

Aristotle’s impact on political thought endured through the centuries. His analysis of different forms of government, the concept of citizenship, and the idea of a mixed government influenced political philosophers, including Machiavelli, John Locke, Montesquieu, and the framers of the United States Constitution. The Founding Fathers, drawing inspiration from Aristotle’s political philosophy, incorporated elements of mixed government, checks and balances, and civic virtue into the design of the American political system.

In the 20th century, political thinkers such as Hannah Arendt engaged with Aristotle’s concepts of political action and public life. Aristotle’s ideas on citizenship and the role of education in cultivating virtuous citizens continue to resonate in discussions about democratic governance and civic participation.

Aristotle’s impact on religious thought is also noteworthy. His metaphysical exploration of the unmoved mover and his contributions to natural philosophy influenced medieval Christian theologians. The synthesis of Aristotelian thought with Christian theology, known as Thomism, became a dominant intellectual force in the Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas, in particular, sought to harmonize Aristotle’s philosophy with Christian doctrine, demonstrating how reason and faith could coexist.

In the Islamic world, Aristotelian philosophy underwent a significant revival and adaptation. Islamic scholars, including Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), engaged deeply with Aristotle’s works. Avicenna’s synthesis of Aristotle’s metaphysics with Neoplatonic thought influenced both Islamic philosophy and medieval Christian philosophy. Averroes, a commentator on Aristotle, contributed to the transmission of Aristotelian thought to medieval Europe.

Aristotle’s legacy is not limited to the realms of philosophy and theology. His contributions to natural sciences, particularly biology, influenced early scientific inquiry. While some of his biological theories have been superseded by modern discoveries, Aristotle’s emphasis on systematic observation, classification, and the study of nature laid the foundation for the scientific method.

The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution witnessed a revival of interest in empirical observation and experimentation, aligning with Aristotle’s approach to natural philosophy. Early modern scientists, such as Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler , built upon Aristotle’s legacy, incorporating empirical methods into their scientific inquiries.

In education, Aristotle’s influence is evident in his emphasis on the cultivation of virtue through lifelong learning. The educational philosophy of Aristotle, as outlined in his “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics,” underscores the importance of education in shaping responsible and virtuous citizens. This notion influenced educational thinkers throughout history, including John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and contemporary educational theorists.

Aristotle’s legacy is a testament to the enduring power of ideas. His methodical approach to inquiry, commitment to empirical observation, and contributions to various disciplines have left an imprint on the intellectual landscape of Western civilization . The ongoing study and interpretation of Aristotle’s works continue to yield insights into human nature, ethics, politics, and the natural world.

While Aristotle’s ideas have undergone critical scrutiny and revision over the centuries, his legacy endures as a source of inspiration and intellectual guidance. Whether in philosophy, political thought, religious discourse, or scientific inquiry, Aristotle’s impact remains an integral part of the intellectual heritage that continues to shape our understanding of the world and the human experience.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Lasted Stories

• Essay Editor

Aristotle, His Life and Philosophical Ideas Essay (Biography)

1. early life and education.

Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stageira in Northern Greece. His father, Nicomachus, was a doctor, and his mother, Phaestis, came from a politically active family. Although Aristotle's family background was relatively privileged, it is clear from his writings that he had a deep respect for social justice and equality. In line with his upper-class background, Aristotle received a typical education of that time, studying a wide range of subjects, such as biology, grammar, logic, music, natural history, and rhetoric. He was trained in the tradition of a particular strand of philosophy that had been established long before his time, called the 'Peripatetic' tradition. His education helped to set the course of his life and development of his philosophical ideas. Aristotle was only 17 when his father died and, as the son of a famous doctor, he was pressured into the medical profession. However, it seems that he was always more interested in philosophy and learning, and it was this inclination that led to his departure for Athens at the age of 18. In particular, his enthusiasm for the work of Plato, another famous ancient Greek philosopher, influenced his decision to study and teach philosophy there. He became a student at Plato's Academy, which was a world-renowned center for study and learning, and it was there that his talent and interest in philosophy really began to flourish under the guidance of his multiple major early philosophical influences, especially Plato. Plato was one of the earliest and most important influences on Aristotle. Born around 428 BC, Plato was about 46 years older than Aristotle, and his sophisticated philosophical works focused on defining a strong rivalry between the material and immaterial worlds; this was an influential debate that has continued throughout the history of philosophy. Often, Plato's later works, such as The Republic, are remembered for their promotion of metaphysical ideas. The Republic is a Socratic dialogue; the principal speaker is Socrates himself, with potential mind from other speakers, including a former student called Glaucon. Socrates is concerned with the nature of a 'perfect' city, its 'guardians,' and the idea of justice in this city and beyond. The work is considered a tour de force of political theory and helped to lay some of the basic principles for the philosophy of society.

1.1. Birth and Family Background

Aristotle was born in 384 BCE in Stagirus, a small town on the northwest coast of the Aegean. His father, Nicomachus, was the family physician of King Amyntas of Macedonia. Although Aristotle's family had a long history in the medical field, they were of low social standing. This was partly because the practice of medicine was considered to be a kind of manual labour. In ancient Greek society, where the intellectual skills associated with activities such as public speaking and politics were highly prized, people who worked with their hands were seen to be lower in status. Wealth and poverty were measured by the ownership of land and by the ability to rule and defend one's city. Aristotle's family would have been expected to do this in Macedon. Nevertheless, having high-status patrons, such as the king, would have lifted the family's social standing, so Aristotle was able to enjoy the privileges of an upper-class background in his early years. He lost both his parents at a young age; his father died while he was still a child and his mother died when he was in early adolescence. Wealth and poverty were measured by the ownership of land and by the ability to rule and defend one's city. Aristotle's family would have been expected to do this in Macedon. Nevertheless, having high-status patrons, such as the king, would have lifted the family's social standing, so Aristotle was able to enjoy the privileges of an upper-class background in his early years. He lost both his parents at a young age; his father died while he was still a child and his mother died when he was in early adolescence.

1.2. Education and Mentors

Aristotle's mention of physical objects does indeed seem to imply the existence of sensible qualities. His fascination with change and the ideal was sparked while discovering the teachings of his philosophy mentor, Plato, at the age of 17 in 367 B.C. In 367 B.C., when Aristotle was 17, his uncle, Hermeius, was made the new ruler in Atarneus and Assos. Hermeius left Pella, the earlier capital of Macedon, and went to Atarneus. There, he founded a new ruling centre in the following year and he asked his nephew, Aristotle, to join him. Hermeius governed the new area and Aristotle actually became a counselor. The presence of a form or essence common to various instances of a natural kind was what he discovered through the work of his philosophy mentor, Plato. When he was 37, Aristotle was asked to tutor Alexander, who was only 13 years old at the time and was to become a famous figure in history known as Alexander the Great. This provided Aristotle an opportunity of doing research and experimentation at the new court for four years. It was also the ideal environment to critically appraise Plato's views on the nature of the physical world and try to develop a fresh and original framework instead of mimicking the work of other philosophers, according to the book. This is because Alexander the Great's father, King Phillip II of Macedon, proclaimed that the Mountaineers (including Aristotle) were to have political as well as private rights and privileges and he also ordered a council of the representatives from the Coast to meet the Mountaineer's council in order to discuss common affairs. So, Aristotle was given the chance to make a proper understanding of the political situation in Macedonia and further establish an independent state on the coastal area for Mountaineers. It was a realm full of different races, a place where intellectuals were valued and respected and where scientific researches seemed to be encouraged. Tapies states that Aristotle's time at the court - the period he spent with Alexander and the time after that - brought him a holistico-political approach. In other words, Aristotle's philosophy was primarily the analysis of all political states of his time. He completed his work in politics and also made huge contributions to lots of the different fields in natural and social sciences. His fame soon spread all over and to some extent, he was considered both as the intellectual and the spiritual leader at the same time. In conclusion, the education from his philosophy mentors, first Plato and then Xenocrates from whom he discovered the doctrines of mathematics, astronomy and harmonics, does tell us that they have exerted a profound influence on the philosophical development of Aristotle. The belief in the importance of empirical observation and that knowledge always starts from experience and ends in it - attributing to the practice where biology was taught and the research on plant and animal were carried out at the Lycaeum, led to the study of natural science and so did he. His mental training, such as training of critical ability by discovering self-evident truths in course of arguments based on assumption and conclusions as well as the division and classification - matured in Plato's Academy enhanced by subsequent academic activities in the Lyceum - has formed the foundation of his philosophical thoughts and arguments. His method of systematic inquiry and investigation, through the process of posing a series of questions and critiquing his own and others' arguments through dialectics and debate, was what he learned systematically in the Academy. These have given him the confidence and ability to start studying and critically analyzing the popular views on ethics at that time, as required by his first original work, the Nicomachean Ethics.

1.3. Influence of Plato

Aristotle's exposure to Plato had a significant impact on his intellectual development. Many of his own philosophical ideas were intended as criticisms against Plato's theories. As he deviated from Platonic idealism to a more individual and empirical view of the world, Aristotle began to formulate his own theories. For example, Plato had argued that the material world is an imperfect and impermanent reflection of the world of forms, which alone is completely real. In his view, what we perceive with our physical senses is a confused and insufficient version of the world of forms - only the intellect can perceive the true reality. This theory is evident in his work "Alcibiades I" which critiques a person who believes they are well informed and complete in themselves. By favoring the world of forms, Plato's epistemology suggests that only the knowledge of the perfect forms can translate to genuine understanding. However, Aristotle disagreed with this sharp separation between the material and immaterial worlds. He argued that, while knowledge always begins with sense experience, it should be the intellect's role to organize and interpret the information that the senses present and that understanding is intrinsically linked with sense experience. This suggests a much more individualist and empirical approach to knowledge, asserting that it is through examining the particular qualities of the material world that genuine truths can be revealed. This focus on the importance of experience and the rejection of the idea that understanding is found in a higher reality is evident in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" where he details his theory of eudaimonia: a good life that is associated with rational activities and requires practical and rational ways to achieve it. It is clear that Aristotle's departure from Platonic forms, towards the belief that the material world is crucial to gaining true knowledge. His empiricist view that knowledge is cultivated through everyday, rational experiences was clearly paramount in the foundation of many of his own theories in metaphysics and science.

2. Contributions to Philosophy

Aristotle made significant contributions to various areas of philosophy, including metaphysics, ethics, politics, and sciences. First, in the investigation of being, it is necessary to follow a rational method. Empirical studies show that structured, discernible, and evidencing phenomena prove that a being is available. The being is a forming component and psychological mode, which can be demonstrated with an example in psychology: the four causes would make the material, form, and space, and lastly the efficient cause. Additionally, things in nature do not leap. The things are a product of their several causes. The form itself is also, in fact, very clear. Just like when building a house, humanity is not merely a work of art but a certain kind of architectural relationship with definite objects; in stating that form is impending, or in complete actuality and the material or incomplete in potency. First potency is the source of change; something that it can change, and then it will change. However, if it is not change, it does not impart the form. For example, a cup may be made of bronze, except it may become something else to change; then it also can be altered into a different form and purpose, and the thing keeps changing endlessly. Every change is kind of that form is impending on the thing, and soon it is in complete actuality. Applying to psychology, when a human being possesses sensations, then some activities will change and the form will be. This is kind of like human study and knowledge that potential is accepted, and it will change lastly. I think that the last cause means that why we do something. The morality in human beings is different from metaphysics and although both are generally abstract and discuss the existence. As for Aristotle, he insists that ethics and sciences give the people any knowledge of form and the true happiness and good. Every morality must be references to a certain kind of activities and of activities that are desired of that are good in themselves. So, teleology is applied in the ethical theory. Just like desire and choice is the most important in ethical studies, and the will is from the human being. The will is an intellectual appetite for a certain end. Also, actuality is the most important in this field of philosophy. This is because actuality and the full perfection will give the form; just like knowledge will give the truth in the mind. So everyone has an individual perfect possibility in it; that is the reason mankind has to seek their own target, the perfection and obtain what they desire, the real good. I think that politics nowadays should be influenced by the great philosopher, Aristotle. Many well-known forefathers, e.g. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, quote that from Aristotle. "...for that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill..." from the book of Politics. The ideology of shared governance for social responsibilities is deeply rooted from ancient times. However, the fast-changing world may soon forget it; I strongly agree with Aristotle's concept of politics. He said the man is by nature a "political animal" and he argues that the good life is a whole.

2.1. Metaphysics and Essence

Aristotle addressed the topic of existence in his "Metaphysics". He believed that existence is not just an aspect of individual things but is the essence of all things. For Aristotle, everything, from the smallest thing to God, has its existence and its essence. The problem he was dealing with was the problem that had bothered philosophers ever since. In his view, the study of existence - "being as being is" - was the true way to understand the basic natures of things. This is very different from what modern science tries to do. According to Aristotle's belief, a person can get closest to the truth if one would understand the ways in which each thing is said "to be". The study of "being qua being" leads one to the understanding of primary substance. By looking and learning about the primary substance, one can acquire the knowledge of everything else because everything else is known through its relationship with primary substance. This primary substance is what exists purely in itself, not in anything else. From his analysis in Metaphysics, for something to be fully understood, the understanding of its four causes is necessary: its material cause, its formal cause, its efficient cause, and its final cause. By doing so, one can get the full and exact proper explanation as to why something is the way it is. These four causes also lead to Aquinas' argument of existence of God. He believes that these four causes are the evidence of God's existence. These causes form a consecutive and dependent series of causes and there must be a first cause to begin the series. This first cause is God. Everything is coming and depending on one another's causation and the whole series must be created and started by a first cause, God.

2.2. Ethics and Virtue

Aristotle's ethical views are best known through his writings in Nicomachean Ethics. He says that an action is virtuous if it is something that a virtuous person would do in the same situation. For example, we know that courage is a virtue because brave people are seen to perform courageous acts. His ethical ideas are consistently based on the belief that happiness is the highest good, disclosing the notable influence of his teacher, Plato. Nonetheless, Aristotle clearly argues that there is a difference between the philosophers and the rest of mankind when it comes to happiness. As he points out, philosophical wisdom is a great part of virtue, which is a necessary means to supreme happiness. According to Aristotle, the mission of each person's life is to achieve happiness. Emphasizing on human mind and the unique capacity the person has to think, the life in accordance with the rational principle is the best way of living. He identifies that there are 'moral virtues' such as courage, generosity, and justice and 'intellectual virtues' such as wisdom, which are developed through education, experience, and time. However, these virtues are not an end in themselves and they are in harmony. For instance, wisdom is the most precious intellectual virtue and legislates how other intellectual virtues should be used. On the other hand, courage is viewed as the 'first principle' of moral virtues and ensures all other virtues are regulated appropriately. He therefore purposefully wrote that 'happiness extends just so far as contemplation'. At last, happiness refers to the activity of the soul in the way of full virtue. He agrees that the happy life is a good life but it is not just a good life in a moral sense, but also in a pleasurable sense. He points out that happiness must be a mixture of pleasure and pain. And happiness is the result of a successful cultivation of virtue, though it is not a guarantee. He says that to be truly happy, man must engage in activity which is best for the human soul and that is the activity of the rational soul but it needs some form of external goods, too, to support contemplation. Yet, by comparing with the life of pleasure and the life of politics and honor, Aristotle gives a preference to the life of philosophy. He assumes that when a person lives a life of pleasure, which could be led by any human being, a person cannot be considered as a human being but life of politics and honor could be affected by factors such as fortune, which is external to the agent. In contrast, the contemplative life is seen to be the greatest life for a human being because it is the best manifestation of a good doer, who is leading a life in full virtue. He says that the person that chooses a mind's life, the person has an ultimate good that the external fortune cannot affect him. In this regard, his ethical ideas reflect the key theme of his overall work, 'the good for man', which is to achieve happiness. And ethical virtue is a habit disposed towards action by deliberate choice, being at the mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.

2.3. Politics and Governance

Aristotle's view on politics is a natural outcome of his philosophical works. He has borrowed his concept of politics from the Greeks. His work on politics is actually based on his theory of ethics. Politics is a normative science because it is based on values. Here he has tried to apply the same method that he adopted in his treatises of ethics. Common good is the highest end of the state and an individual is able to achieve morality only if he is discharging his services as a part of the state. A true citizen is not a man who lives his life for the sake of his own individual good but for the sake of the state. According to Aristotle, there are several types of states. It is the function of the good man to know the method of ruling in each and every one of these states because he himself possesses the characteristics of all such forms. This is also a content of his theory of virtue. He says that true knowledge means knowledge for the sake of all men and for the sake of the earth. Aristotle also goes on to stress that personal slavery is a result of natural slavery. Because there are two kinds of servitude - that which comes from law and that which comes by agreement. And among barbarians, servitude is a result of war; because the intention of barbarians is to be able to feed themselves. But for such a thing it is necessary to conquer those weaker than them and lead a life of mugging. Background Aristotle's politics is in continuation to his ethics. When a thing has been considered and studied, certain knowledge has been obtained. This knowledge is of a thing that is necessary and cannot be other than it is. For example, knowledge about the existence of water. When a thing is considered, but studied in a different manner, opinion is the outcome. Opinion is defined by Aristotle as a judgment that the good or bad, that is denied or affirmed, is to be accomplished in a certain manner on account of some or other thing. All activities in Greece are divided into theoretical and practical. Science and actions are of different natures. The end and the output of a theoretical science are knowledge. Knowledge is an end in itself. The exact definition of knowledge, according to Aristotle, is a judgment that cannot be other than it is. But the ultimate object of practical activity is action. Action is something different from activities. The outcome of actions is production or creation. When a production is studied, it gives rise to a different kind of science and that is productive knowledge. Aristotle says that he would consider a different and higher sort of life which is going to be devoted to contemplation. Ergon is study; that is the function of the subject under examination. Hpjecos is outcome; this is known as work; and telos is the completion, that is the final end. Ergon is in close connection with telos. Telos can be defined as the end or the intention of affairs while according to ergon, something is at work. He says that 'man' is not just an explanation or a mere idea of a living creature, but however a productive life has to be assigned to him. Aristotle's claim is that the human function is an active life of the rational element. This can be proved by the method and manner of the life of the gods. If they live in eternal blessedness, there is something, some kind of activity, that they must be having. For Aristotle, slavery in the traditional sense is justified only if the master has the welfare of the slave at heart and tries to benefit the slave. This kind of slavery is a redundancy. It is not limited to the present conditions and the master will gain largely by the service of the slave. It is not natural and does not proceed from nature, according to traditional logic of slavery. Slavery for the sake of others is a cunning and is a means to avoid servitude. Aristotle ends his treatise on Politics.

3. Legacy and Influence

It is in these later works that Aristotle's thought is most clearly in dialogue with Plato. In this dialogue, Aristotle's thought often works to respond to and criticize the positions articulated in Plato's work. The works clearly demonstrate the ongoing relevance of his philosophy to his own work and the range of contributors who engage with it. For many centuries, Aristotle's solid objects in opposition to Plato's theory of Forms. Forms are perfect templates for which objects in the world are simply imperfect copies. While Forms have no matter, objects in the world are made out of matter and therefore too perishable and corruptible. By placing a greater emphasis on the physical world that we encounter every day, and by showing the importance of empirical observation, it could be said that Aristotle helped to encourage scientific investigation. In contrast to the vision of philosophy put forward by Plato in which we turn away from the physical object in search of perfect Forms, Aristotle provides a vision of philosophy in which it is the physical world that is the proper focus of our attention. It is in this way that the legacy of Aristotle's philosophy of the natural world is tied up with the ongoing influence of his work as a scientific ground.

3.1. Impact on Western Philosophy

Approaching the Middle Ages, the arguments presented by Aristotle seemed to be too logical and rigorous to be dismissed. As a result, there was a conscious effort to reconcile the works of Aristotle and Christianity. This led to the emergence of Scholasticism. Scholastic philosophers sought to apply the ideas of Aristotle and other ancient thinkers to the faculties of theology and rational explanation. The Roman Catholic Church embraced the works of Aristotle. Soon, Aristotle's philosophy became a symbol of science. Scientific findings had to correlate with the ideas of Aristotle. This exacerbated the criticisms that have always been leveled at his ideas. However, it was not until the 16th century that people started to question the validity of Aristotle's claim to the truth of the physical world. It was in the modern period, which came after the Middle Ages, that theologians and philosophers began to dispute the role of Aristotle's political and ethical works in the church and in the governmental bodies of various countries. His theory was both moral and political, which led to discussions regarding Aristotle's teachings and their applications in forming national policies and lifestyles. Critics of that time, including the well-regarded Bertrand Russell, have pointed out that it was 'unfortunate' that nowadays people do not study Aristotle's works as much as they study the works of Plato. In Russell's view, the importance of Aristotle's works was brought about by the fact that they were 'intimately connected with the Greek science of his century and of the two centuries preceding'. But since the Renaissance, he laments, 'progress in science has caused the work of those centuries to be [somewhat unfairly] despised'. However, history has proven that the so-called progress - albeit with good intentions - compromised the introduction of such groundbreaking ideas that Aristotle has envisaged, such as democracy. It wasn't until the emergence of the United States of America that the true wisdom behind Aristotle's political restructuring surfaced. The "creation of a system of government that upholds liberty and justice" in American politics is a realization of the Nicomachean Ethics, where Aristotle discussed the essence of goodness and how we may achieve it in a potential life. Since then, the importance of Aristotle's political theory in structuring the government and policies in various countries has been gaining more and more attention.

3.2. Aristotle's Influence on Science

Aristotle's influence on the physical sciences is equally deep. That influence, it could be argued, never ceases, since his ideas began the era in which the groundwork was being laid. His ideas formed an overall system in which scientific work could be conducted for over 2000 years, and several subsequent scholars and researchers have applied his mode of thinking. Even in those cases where something new was learned and involved the discarding of one of his ideas, Aristotle's way of articulating the nature of the phenomena to be encountered and the questions to be asked was helpful to their progress. In some cases, it has taken a long and painful time for scientists in physical science to realize that the origin of some deep-seated and persistent obstacles to progress were found in the views of ancient authority, such as Aristotle. For instance, Aristotle's physics, a study concerned with the phenomena of motion and change in the physical world, may be said to be based on certain fundamental assumptions which he made. These assumptions were thought by Aristotle to be obvious from experience and the direct perception of the nature of the things in the world around him. The most important assumptions were that nature works for an end or purpose and there is an absolute distinction between what is natural and what is not. These things and motions have their own natures which dictate the way in which they will tend to move, if at all, and that in turn the stoppage. Aristotle's study of this aspect of the natural world contains a body of work which is still used as an exemplification of science misconceived by the Greeks. Specifically, the earth was held to be the center of the universe, around which the rest of the celestial bodies rotate in uniform, circular motion. This theory remained the cornerstone of astronomy and cosmology until the 16th century when it was essentially destroyed by Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. However, not until the system of Copernicus and the exact formulas of Kepler was a clearer view of the universe available. Scholastic philosophy has been traced back to the attempt to make a theism or Christianized form of Aristotelian thought acceptable. The reflection of Aristotle's error remained even through the formulation of Newton's theorem of gene. Such a long persistence of a mistaken way of understanding the universe has been blamed largely upon following the authority of Aristotle in that manner which was termed a science for several centuries. His ideas and the worldview created a great influence on science as he made the environment for the extension and confirmation of his great idea, based on the assumption of observation, leading people to the correct conclusion on the phenomena. In this way, the foundation of his theory on the natural look and one of assumption on observation had generated the area for not only the development of science itself but also the training of many generations using the same approach until new theories overruled it.

3.3. Relevance of Aristotle's Ideas in Modern Society

Throughout human history, which is marked by specifically distinctive eras, people have always been in pursuit of ways to illustrate, express, and manifest their needs and desires. The attempt to make clear the objective reality has never been so vigorous. This is why classics, including the ideas by Aristotle, are considered relevant and precious, deserving to be well kept in the treasury of human knowledge. In our fast-changing society, however, it is not hard to find people tend to ignore the significance of knowing and understanding the ancient theories like the four causes, which Aristotle spent a lot of effort explaining and illustrating. Instead, it seems that modern technology has gradually taken over people's way of cognition and functioning, and the supremacy of the present time is rooted in the use of material and ways of working. But what we need to bear in mind is that these things are transient and liable to cease or perish, and there is no denying that everyone is being dominated by this power - desire, which leads to the chain reaction affecting people physically, emotionally, spiritually, and morally. By looking into what Aristotle put forward in Nicomachean Ethics, which elucidates the highest good for human beings - eudaimonia, and the way to achieve it - virtues, we can see that in fact, there are some radical similarities between the materialistic modern society and Aristotle's concern of leading a good life. Both of them focus on the well-being, happiness, and satisfaction of humanity. While people nowadays are enthusiastic in seeking a higher living standard and quality of life, Aristotle, through his cardinal virtues - prudence, temperance, courage, and justice, emphasizes the significance and essentials of the spiritual life and how one can achieve ultimate happiness. Also, Aristotle's political theories stress the value of examining the multitude of forms of government. It advocates the practice of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of various constitutions, and thus, individuals would not be swayed by mere examples but would understand what would make a society most fulfilling to all, which corresponds to the civic life nowadays that citizens are encouraged to take an active part in the development of the community. These show us that not only did Aristotle pay attention to the connection between the individual and the communal, but also his ideas are of universal, timeless value, and they can definitely shed light on how people today can live a meaningful life. Therefore, it is of vital importance for us to retrieve and recapture the understanding and cognition of human life and value, and the adaptability and relevance of Aristotle's ideas in current society have shown us that his philosophy will never be an out-of-date intellectual fossil.

Recent articles

Classical physics: aristotle, galileo galilei and isaac newton.

1. Aristotle's Contributions In the essay, Aristotle's contribution had a great influence on the history of physics. According to Aristotle, everything contained in the natural world is in its element. The universe is in motion and the swing of the heavens is not uniform; there are some parts of the celestial sphere which move faster than other parts. The terrestrial elements settle into a sphere which is at rest with respect to the center of the universe; earth occupies the center to a depth o ...

English Language Dictionaries and Thesauruses Essay

1. Introduction This paper describes a project to develop an automated dictionary and a thesaurus which will provide information about English words and which will demonstrate the associations a person might make between words. The resource being developed has two components, a dictionary providing information about the meanings and uses of words and a thesaurus aimed at those who are looking for a word to use, and who are interested in finding out more about the words they already know. The di ...

Biography of Aristotle

Aristotle was born in 384 BC, in Stagira, near Macedonia at the northern end of the Aegean Sea. His father, Nicomachus, was the family physician of King Amyntas of Macedonia. It is believed that Aristotle's ancestors had been the physicians of the Macedonian royal family for several generations. Having come from a long line of physicians, Aristotle received training and education that inclined his mind toward the study of natural phenomena. This education had long-lasting influences, and was probably the root cause of his less idealistic stand on philosophy as opposed to Plato. Aristotle's father died when he was a boy, and Aristotle was left under the care of his guardian Proxenus.

When Aristotle was seventeen, Proxenus sent him to study at Plato's Academy in Athens, the heart of the intellectual world at the time. Aristotle remained at the Academy for twenty years, until Plato's death in 347 BC. Although Aristotle was Plato's most promising student, Aristotle did not succeed Plato as head of the Academy because of their opposing views on several fundamental philosophical issues, specifically regarding Plato's theory of ideas. As has already been noted, Aristotle was more concerned than Plato with the actual material world, and did not believe that the only thing that mattered is the realm of ideas and perfect forms.

After leaving the Academy, Aristotle was invited to go live in the court of his friend Hermeas, ruler of Atarneus and Assos in Mysia. Aristotle remained there for three years, during which time he married Pythias, the niece and adopted daughter of the king. Later in life Aristotle married Herpyllis, with whom had a son, named Nicomachus after his father. When Hermeas' kingdom was taken over by Persians, Aristotle moved to Mytilene. King Amyntas invited Aristotle to tutor his thirteen-year old son, Alexander. Aristotle tutored Alexander for five years until King Amyntas died and Alexander came to power. In gratitude for Aristotle's services, Alexander provided Aristotle generously with means for the acquisition of books and for the pursuit of scientific inquiry. While the extent to which Aristotle's tutoring influenced Alexander's successes in conquering an empire is disputable, Alexander did try to organize much of his empire along the model of the Greek city-state.

In 335 BC Aristotle went back to Athens, where he found the Academy flourishing under Xenocrates. Aristotle founded his own school, the Lyceum, and ran it for twelve years. The school is often called the Peripatetic School, because Aristotle used to like walking around and discusses his ideas with his colleagues. Peripatetics are "people who walk around." Aristotle would have detailed discussions with a small group of advanced students in the mornings, and larger lectures in the evenings. During his time at the Lyceum, Aristotle wrote extensively on a wide range of subjects: politics, metaphysics, ethics, logic and science.

Aristotle agreed with Plato that the cosmos is rationally designed and that philosophy can come to know absolute truths by studying universal forms. Their ideas diverged, however, in that Aristotle thought that the one finds the universal in particular things, while Plato believed the universal exists apart from particular things, and that material things are only a shadow of true reality, which exists in the realm of ideas and forms. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers is that Plato thought only pure mathematical reasoning was necessary, and therefore focused on metaphysics and mathemtics. Aristotle, on the other hand, thought that in addition to this "first philosophy," it is also necessary to undertake detailed empirical investigations of nature, and thus to study what he called "second philosophy," which includes such subjects as physics, mechanics and biology. Aristotle's philosophy therefore involved both inductive and deductive reasoning, observing the workings of the world around him and then reasoning from the particular to a knowledge of essences and universal laws. In a sense, Aristotle was the first major proponent of the modern scientific method. The Lyceum was an unprecedented school of organized scientific inquiry. There was no comparable scientific enterprise for over 2,000 years after the founding of the Lyceum.

In 323 BC Alexander the Great died unexpectedly and the government of Athens was overthrown by anti-Macedonian forces. Having had close connections with the Macedonian royal family, Aristotle was associated with the Macedonians and was unpopular with the new ruling powers. The new government brought charges of impiety against Aristotle, but he fled to his country house in Chalcis in Euboea to escape prosecution. Aristotle commented that he fled so that "the Athenians might not have another opportunity of sinning against philosophy as they had already done in the person of Socrates." About a year later, Aristotle died after complaints of a stomach illness.

Aristotle's writings were preserved by his student Theophrastus, his successor as leader of the Peripatetic School. Theophrastus' pupil Neleus and his heirs concealed the books in a vault to protect them from theft, but they were damaged by dampness, moths and worms. The books were found around 100 BC by Apellicon, who brought them to Rome. In Rome, scholars took interest in the works and prepared new editions of them. The writings of Aristotle that we have today are based on this collection. Overall, Aristotle wrote three types of works: dialogues or other works of a popular character, collections of scientific data and observations, and systematic treatises. His philosophy can be divided into four main areas: 1) Logic; 2) Theoretical Philosophy, including Metaphysics, Physics and Mathematics; 3) Practical Philosophy, such as Ethics and Politics; and 4) Poetical Philosophy, covering the study of poetry and the fine arts.

Study Guides on Works by Aristotle

Aristotle's metaphysics aristotle.

The Metaphysic or Metaphysics is a canonical collection of various writings by Aristotle which were collected and featured in the order they now appear, although there are historical-critical debates about whether this was the originally intended...

• Study Guide

Aristotle's Poetics Aristotle

Though the precise origins of Aristotle's Poetics are not known, researchers believe that the work was composed around 330 BCE and was preserved primarily through Aristotle's students' notes. Despite its vague beginning, the Poetics has been a...

• Lesson Plan

Aristotle's Politics Aristotle

Aristotle's Politics is one of the most influential and enduring texts of political philosophy in all of history. The Aristotelian tradition, following from the philosophy of Plato and continuing in the writings of Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas and...

Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics was written around 340 BC. It is probably named after either his father or son, who were both named Nicomachus. Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle's most mature work on ethics. That the argument as presented in the book...

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Aristotle’s Political Theory

Aristotle (b. 384–d. 322 BCE), was a Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist. Along with his teacher Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient thinkers in a number of philosophical fields, including political theory. Aristotle was born in Stagira in northern Greece, and his father was a court physician to the king of Macedon. As a young man he studied in Plato’s Academy in Athens. After Plato’s death he left Athens to conduct philosophical and biological research in Asia Minor and Lesbos, and he was then invited by King Philip II of Macedon to tutor his young son, Alexander the Great. Soon after Alexander succeeded his father, consolidated the conquest of the Greek city-states, and launched the invasion of the Persian Empire. Aristotle returned as a resident alien to Athens, and was a close friend of Antipater, the Macedonian viceroy. At this time (335–323 BCE) he wrote, or at least worked on, some of his major treatises, including the Politics . When Alexander died suddenly, Aristotle had to flee from Athens because of his Macedonian connections, and he died soon after. Aristotle’s life seems to have influenced his political thought in various ways: his interest in biology seems to be reflected in the naturalism of his politics; his interest in comparative politics and his qualified sympathies for democracy as well as monarchy may have been encouraged by his travels and experience of diverse political systems; he reacts critically to his teacher Plato, while borrowing extensively, from Plato’s Republic , Statesman , and Laws ; and his own Politics is intended to guide rulers and statesmen, reflecting the high political circles in which he moved.

Supplement: Characteristics and Problems of Aristotle’s Politics

Supplement: Presuppositions of Aristotle’s Politics

Supplement: Political Naturalism

4. Study of Specific Constitutions

5. aristotle and modern politics, glossary of aristotelian terms, a. greek text of aristotle’s politics, b. english translations of aristotle’s politics, c. anthologies, d. single-authored commentaries and overviews, e. studies of particular topics, other internet resources, related entries, 1. political science in general.

The modern word ‘political’ derives from the Greek politikos , ‘of, or pertaining to, the polis’. (The Greek term polis will be translated here as ‘city-state’. It is also commonly translated as ‘city’ or simply anglicized as ‘polis’. City-states like Athens and Sparta were relatively small and cohesive units, in which political, religious, and cultural concerns were intertwined. The extent of their similarity to modern nation-states is controversial.) Aristotle’s word for ‘politics’ is politikê , which is short for politikê epistêmê or ‘political science’. It belongs to one of the three main branches of science, which Aristotle distinguishes by their ends or objects. Contemplative science (including physics and metaphysics) is concerned with truth or knowledge for its own sake; practical science with good action; and productive science with making useful or beautiful objects ( Top . VI.6.145a14–16, Met . VI.1.1025b24, XI.7.1064a16–19, EN VI.2.1139a26–8). Politics is a practical science, since it is concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens (although it resembles a productive science in that it seeks to create, preserve, and reform political systems). Aristotle thus understands politics as a normative or prescriptive discipline rather than as a purely empirical or descriptive inquiry.

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle describes his subject matter as ‘political science’, which he characterizes as the most authoritative science. It prescribes which sciences are to be studied in the city-state, and the others — such as military science, household management, and rhetoric — fall under its authority. Since it governs the other practical sciences, their ends serve as means to its end, which is nothing less than the human good. “Even if the end is the same for an individual and for a city-state, that of the city-state seems at any rate greater and more complete to attain and preserve. For although it is worthy to attain it for only an individual, it is nobler and more divine to do so for a nation or city-state” ( EN I.2.1094b7–10). The two ethical works (the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics ) explain the principles that form the foundations for the Politics : that happiness is the highest human good, that happiness is the activity of moral virtue defined in terms of the mean, and that justice or the common advantage is the political good. Aristotle’s political science thus encompasses the two fields which modern philosophers distinguish as ethics and political philosophy. (See the entry on Aristotle’s ethics .) Political philosophy in the narrow sense is roughly speaking the subject of his treatise called the Politics . For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:

2. Aristotle’s View of Politics

Political science studies the tasks of the politician or statesman ( politikos ), in much the way that medical science concerns the work of the physician (see Politics IV.1). It is, in fact, the body of knowledge that such practitioners, if truly expert, will also wield in pursuing their tasks. The most important task for the politician is, in the role of lawgiver ( nomothetês ), to frame the appropriate constitution for the city-state. This involves enduring laws, customs, and institutions (including a system of moral education) for the citizens. Once the constitution is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate measures to maintain it, to introduce reforms when he finds them necessary, and to prevent developments which might subvert the political system. This is the province of legislative science, which Aristotle regards as more important than politics as exercised in everyday political activity such as the passing of decrees (see EN VI.8).

Aristotle frequently compares the politician to a craftsman. The analogy is imprecise because politics, in the strict sense of legislative science, is a form of practical knowledge, while a craft like architecture or medicine is a form of productive knowledge. However, the comparison is valid to the extent that the politician produces, operates, maintains a legal system according to universal principles ( EN VI.8 and X.9). In order to appreciate this analogy it is helpful to observe that Aristotle explains the production of an artifact such as a drinking cup in terms of four causes: the material, formal, efficient, and final causes ( Phys . II.3 and Met . A.2). For example, clay (material cause) is molded into a roughly cylindrical shape closed at one end (formal cause) by a potter (efficient or moving cause) so that it can contain a beverage (final cause). (For discussion of the four causes see the entry on Aristotle’s physics .)

One can also explain the existence of the city-state in terms of the four causes. It is a kind of community ( koinônia ), that is, a collection of parts having some functions and interests in common ( Pol . II.1.1261a18, III.1.1275b20). Hence, it is made up of parts, which Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts: as households, or economic classes (e.g., the rich and the poor), or demes (i.e., local political units). But, ultimately, the city-state is composed of individual citizens (see III.1.1274a38–41), who, along with natural resources, are the “material” or “equipment” out of which the city-state is fashioned (see VII.14.1325b38–41).

The formal cause of the city-state is its constitution ( politeia ). Aristotle defines the constitution as “a certain ordering of the inhabitants of the city-state” (III.1.1274b32–41). He also speaks of the constitution of a community as “the form of the compound” and argues that whether the community is the same over time depends on whether it has the same constitution (III.3.1276b1–11). The constitution is not a written document, but an immanent organizing principle, analogous to the soul of an organism. Hence, the constitution is also “the way of life” of the citizens (IV.11.1295a40–b1, VII.8.1328b1–2). Here the citizens are that minority of the resident population who possess full political rights (III.1.1275b17–20).

The existence of the city-state also requires an efficient cause, namely, its ruler. On Aristotle’s view, a community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or authority. This ruling principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8–10; cf. IV.1.1289a15–18). However, on a deeper level, there must be an efficient cause to explain why a city-state acquires its constitution in the first place. Aristotle states that “the person who first established [the city-state] is the cause of very great benefits” (I.2.1253a30–1). This person was evidently the lawgiver ( nomothetês ), someone like Solon of Athens or Lycurgus of Sparta, who founded the constitution. Aristotle compares the lawgiver, or the politician more generally, to a craftsman ( dêmiourgos ) like a weaver or shipbuilder, who fashions material into a finished product (II.12.1273b32–3, VII.4.1325b40–1365a5).

The notion of final cause dominates Aristotle’s Politics from the opening lines:

Since we see that every city-state is a sort of community and that every community is established for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake of what they believe to be good), it is clear that every community aims at some good, and the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims highest, that is, at the good with the most authority. This is what is called the city-state or political community. [I.1.1252a1–7]

Soon after, he states that the city-state comes into being for the sake of life but exists for the sake of the good life (2.1252b29–30). The theme that the good life or happiness is the proper end of the city-state recurs throughout the Politics (III.6.1278b17–24, 9.1280b39; VII.2.1325a7–10).

To sum up, the city-state is a hylomorphic (i.e., matter-form) compound of a particular population (i.e., citizen-body) in a given territory (material cause) and a constitution (formal cause). The constitution itself is fashioned by the lawgiver and is governed by politicians, who are like craftsmen (efficient cause), and the constitution defines the aim of the city-state (final cause, IV.1.1289a17–18). Aristotle’s hylomorphic analysis has important practical implications for him: just as a craftsman should not try to impose a form on materials for which it is unsuited (e.g. to build a house out of sand), the legislator should not lay down or change laws which are contrary to the nature of the citizens. Aristotle accordingly rejects utopian schemes such as the proposal in Plato’s Republic that children and property should belong to all the citizens in common. For this runs afoul of the fact that “people give most attention to their own property, less to what is communal, or only as much as falls to them to give attention” ( Pol. II.3.1261b33–5). Aristotle is also wary of casual political innovation, because it can have the deleterious side-effect of undermining the citizens’ habit of obeying the law (II.8.1269a13–24). For a further discussion of the theoretical foundations of Aristotle’s politics, see the following supplementary document:

It is in these terms, then, that Aristotle understands the fundamental normative problem of politics: What constitutional form should the lawgiver establish and preserve in what material for the sake of what end?

3. General Theory of Constitutions and Citizenship

Aristotle states, “The politician and lawgiver is wholly occupied with the city-state, and the constitution is a certain way of organizing those who inhabit the city-state” (III.1.1274b36–8). His general theory of constitutions is set forth in Politics III. He begins with a definition of the citizen ( politês ), since the city-state is by nature a collective entity, a multitude of citizens. Citizens are distinguished from other inhabitants, such as resident aliens and slaves; and even children and seniors are not unqualified citizens (nor are most ordinary workers). After further analysis he defines the citizen as a person who has the right ( exousia ) to participate in deliberative or judicial office (1275b18–21). In Athens, for example, citizens had the right to attend the assembly, the council, and other bodies, or to sit on juries. The Athenian system differed from a modern representative democracy in that the citizens were more directly involved in governing. Although full citizenship tended to be restricted in the Greek city-states (with women, slaves, foreigners, and some others excluded), the citizens were more deeply enfranchised than in modern representative democracies because they were more directly involved in governing. This is reflected in Aristotle’s definition of the citizen (without qualification). Further, he defines the city-state (in the unqualified sense) as a multitude of such citizens which is adequate for a self-sufficient life (1275b20–21).

Aristotle defines the constitution ( politeia ) as a way of organizing the offices of the city-state, particularly the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8–10; cf. IV.1.1289a15–18). The constitution thus defines the governing body, which takes different forms: for example, in a democracy it is the people, and in an oligarchy it is a select few (the wealthy or well born). Before attempting to distinguish and evaluate various constitutions Aristotle considers two questions. First, why does a city-state come into being? He recalls the thesis, defended in Politics I.2, that human beings are by nature political animals, who naturally want to live together. For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:

Aristotle then adds, “The common advantage also brings them together insofar as they each attain the noble life. This is above all the end for all both in common and separately” (III.6.1278b19–24). Second, what are the different forms of rule by which one individual or group can rule over another? Aristotle distinguishes several types of rule, based on the nature of the soul of the ruler and of the subject. He first considers despotic rule, which is exemplified in the master-slave relationship. Aristotle thinks that this form of rule is justified in the case of natural slaves who (he asserts without evidence) lack a deliberative faculty and thus need a natural master to direct them (I.13.1260a12; slavery is defended at length in Politics I.4–8). Although a natural slave allegedly benefits from having a master, despotic rule is still primarily for the sake of the master and only incidentally for the slave (III.6.1278b32–7). (Aristotle provides no argument for this: if some persons are congenitally incapable of governing themselves, why should they not be ruled primarily for their own sakes?) He next considers paternal and marital rule, which he also views as defensible: “the male is by nature more capable of leadership than the female, unless he is constituted in some way contrary to nature, and the elder and perfect [is by nature more capable of leadership] than the younger and imperfect” (I.12.1259a39–b4).

Aristotle is persuasive when he argues that children need adult supervision because their rationality is “imperfect” ( ateles ) or immature. But he is unconvincing to modern readers when he alleges (without substantiation) that, although women have a deliberative faculty, it is “without authority” ( akuron ), so that females require male supervision (I.13.1260a13–14). (Aristotle’s arguments about slaves and women appear so weak that some commentators take them to be ironic. However, what is obvious to a modern reader need not have been so to an ancient Greek, so that it is not necessary to suppose Aristotle’s discussion is disingenuous.) It is noteworthy, however, that paternal and marital rule are properly practiced for the sake of the ruled (for the sake of the child and of the wife respectively), just as arts like medicine or gymnastics are practiced for the sake of the patient (III.6.1278b37–1279a1). In this respect they resemble political rule, which is the form of rule appropriate when the ruler and the subject have equal and similar rational capacities. This is exemplified by naturally equal citizens who take turns at ruling for one another’s advantage (1279a8–13). This sets the stage for the fundamental claim of Aristotle’s constitutional theory: “constitutions which aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons” (1279a17–21).

The distinction between correct and deviant constitutions is combined with the observation that the government may consist of one person, a few, or a multitude. Hence, there are six possible constitutional forms ( Politics III.7):

This six-fold classification (which is doubtless adapted from Plato’s Statesman 302c–d) sets the stage for Aristotle’s inquiry into the best constitution, although it is modified in various ways throughout the Politics . For example, he observes that the dominant class in oligarchy (literally rule of the oligoi , i.e., few) is typically the wealthy, whereas in democracy (literally rule of the dêmos , i.e., people) it is the poor, so that these economic classes should be included in the definition of these forms (see Politics III.8, IV.4, and VI.2 for alternative accounts). Also, polity is later characterized as a kind of “mixed” constitution typified by rule of the “middle” group of citizens, a moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor ( Politics IV.11).

Aristotle’s constitutional theory is based on his theory of justice, which is expounded in Nicomachean Ethics book V. Aristotle distinguishes two different but related senses of “justice” — universal and particular — both of which play an important role in his constitutional theory. Firstly, in the universal sense “justice” means “lawfulness” and is concerned with the common advantage and happiness of the political community ( NE V.1.1129b11–19, cf. Pol. III.12.1282b16–17). The conception of universal justice undergirds the distinction between correct (just) and deviant (unjust) constitutions. But what exactly the “common advantage” ( koinê sumpheron ) entails is a matter of scholarly controversy. Some passages imply that justice involves the advantage of all the citizens; for example, every citizen of the best constitution has a just claim to private property and to an education ( Pol. VII.9.1329a23–4, 13.1332a32–8). But Aristotle also allows that it might be “in a way” just to ostracize powerful citizens even when they have not been convicted of any crimes (III.13.1284b15–20). Whether Aristotle understands the common advantage as safeguarding the interests of each and every citizen has a bearing on whether and to what extent he anticipates what moderns would understand as a theory of individual rights. (See Fred Miller and Richard Kraut for differing interpretations.)

Secondly, in the particular sense “justice” means “equality” or “fairness”, and this includes distributive justice, according to which different individuals have just claims to shares of some common asset such as property. Aristotle analyzes arguments for and against the different constitutions as different applications of the principle of distributive justice (III.9.1280a7–22). Everyone agrees, he says, that justice involves treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are deemed to be equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own analysis of distributive justice set forth in Nicomachean Ethics V.3: Justice requires that benefits be distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs mistakenly think that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free birth should also have equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle’s view, because they assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state. The city-state is neither a business enterprise to maximize wealth (as the oligarchs suppose) nor an association to promote liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain). Instead, Aristotle argues, “the good life is the end of the city-state,” that is, a life consisting of noble actions (1280b39–1281a4). Hence, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political rights to those who make a full contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom (1281a4–8). This is what Aristotle understands by an “aristocratic” constitution: literally, the rule of the aristoi , i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the implications of this argument in the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law and the rule of a supremely virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case of aristocracy. Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal constitution in which the citizens are fully virtuous.

Although justice is in Aristotle’s view the foremost political virtue ( Pol . III.9.1283a38–40), the other great social virtue, friendship, should not be overlooked, because the two virtues work hand in hand to secure every sort of association ( EN VIII.9.1159b26–7). Justice enables the citizens of a city-state to share peacefully in the benefits and burdens of cooperation, while friendship holds them together and prevents them from breaking up into warring factions (cf. Pol . II.4.1262b7–9). Friends are expected to treat each other justly, but friendship goes beyond justice because it is a complex mutual bond in which individuals choose the good for others and trust that others are choosing the good for them (cf. EE VII.2.1236a14–15, b2–3; EN VIII.2.1155b34–3.1156a10). Because choosing the good for one another is essential to friendship and there are three different ways in which something can be called ‘good’ for a human being—virtuous (i.e., good without qualification), useful, or pleasant—there are three types of friendship: hedonistic, utilitarian, and virtuous. Political (or civic) friendship is a species of utilitarian friendship, and it is the most important form of utilitarian friendship because the polis is the greatest community. Opposed to political friendship is enmity, which leads to faction or civil war ( stasis ) or even to political revolution and the breakup of the polis, as discussed in Book V of the Politics. Aristotle offers general accounts of political or civic friendship as part of his general theory of friendship in EE VII.10 and EN VIII.9–12.

The purpose of political science is to guide “the good lawgiver and the true politician” (IV.1.1288b27). Like any complete science or craft, it must study a range of issues concerning its subject matter. For example, gymnastics (physical education) studies what sort of training is best or adapted to the body that is naturally the best, what sort of training is best for most bodies, and what capacity is appropriate for someone who does not want the condition or knowledge appropriate for athletic contests. Political science studies a comparable range of constitutions (1288b21–35): first, the constitution which is best without qualification, i.e., “most according to our prayers with no external impediment”; second, the constitution that is best under the circumstances “for it is probably impossible for many persons to attain the best constitution”; third, the constitution which serves the aim a given population happens to have, i.e., the one that is best “based on a hypothesis”: “for [the political scientist] ought to be able to study a given constitution, both how it might originally come to be, and, when it has come to be, in what manner it might be preserved for the longest time; I mean, for example, if a particular city happens neither to be governed by the best constitution, nor to be equipped even with necessary things, nor to be the [best] possible under existing circumstances, but to be a baser sort.” Hence, Aristotelian political science is not confined to the ideal system, but also investigates the second-best constitution or even inferior political systems, because this may be the closest approximation to full political justice which the lawgiver can attain under the circumstances.

Regarding the constitution that is ideal or “according to prayer,” Aristotle criticizes the views of his predecessors in the Politics and then offers a rather sketchy blueprint of his own in Politics VII–VIII. Although his own political views were influenced by his teacher Plato, Aristotle is highly critical of the ideal constitution set forth in Plato’s Republic on the grounds that it overvalues political unity, it embraces a system of communism that is impractical and inimical to human nature, and it neglects the happiness of the individual citizens ( Politics II.1–5). In contrast, in Aristotle’s “best constitution,” each and every citizen will possess moral virtue and the equipment to carry it out in practice, and thereby attain a life of excellence and complete happiness (see VII.13.1332a32–8). All of the citizens will hold political office and possess private property because “one should call the city-state happy not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens.” (VII.9.1329a22–3). Moreover, there will be a common system of education for all the citizens, because they share the same end ( Pol . VIII.1).

If (as is the case with most existing city-states) the population lacks the capacities and resources for complete happiness, however, the lawgiver must be content with fashioning a suitable constitution ( Politics IV.11). The second-best system typically takes the form of a polity (in which citizens possess an inferior, more common grade of virtue) or mixed constitution (combining features of democracy, oligarchy, and, where possible, aristocracy, so that no group of citizens is in a position to abuse its rights). Aristotle argues that for city-states that fall short of the ideal, the best constitution is one controlled by a numerous middle class which stands between the rich and the poor. For those who possess the goods of fortune in moderation find it “easiest to obey the rule of reason” ( Politics IV.11.1295b4–6). They are accordingly less apt than the rich or poor to act unjustly toward their fellow citizens. A constitution based on the middle class is the mean between the extremes of oligarchy (rule by the rich) and democracy (rule by the poor). “That the middle [constitution] is best is evident, for it is the freest from faction: where the middle class is numerous, there least occur factions and divisions among citizens” (IV.11.1296a7–9). The middle constitution is therefore both more stable and more just than oligarchy and democracy.

Although Aristotle classifies democracy as a deviant constitution (albeit the best of a bad lot), he argues that a case might be made for popular rule in Politics III.11, a discussion which has attracted the attention of modern democratic theorists. The central claim is that the many may turn out to be better than the virtuous few when they come together, even though the many may be inferior when considered individually. For if each individual has a portion of virtue and practical wisdom, they may pool these moral assets and turn out to be better rulers than even a very wise individual. This argument seems to anticipate treatments of “the wisdom of the multitude” such as Condorcet’s “jury theorem.” In recent years, this particular chapter has been widely discussed in connection with topics such as democratic deliberation and public reason.

In addition, the political scientist must attend to existing constitutions even when they are bad. Aristotle notes that “to reform a constitution is no less a task [of politics] than it is to establish one from the beginning,” and in this way “the politician should also help existing constitutions” (IV.1.1289a1–7). The political scientist should also be cognizant of forces of political change which can undermine an existing regime. Aristotle criticizes his predecessors for excessive utopianism and neglect of the practical duties of a political theorist. However, he is no Machiavellian. The best constitution still serves as a regulative ideal by which to evaluate existing systems.

These topics occupy the remainder of the Politics . Books IV–VI are concerned with the existing constitutions: that is, the three deviant constitutions, as well as polity or the “mixed” constitution, which are the best attainable under most circumstances (IV.2.1289a26–38). The mixed constitution has been of special interest to scholars because it looks like a forerunner of modern republican regimes. The whole of book V investigates the causes and prevention of revolution or political change ( metabolê ) and civil war or faction ( stasis ). Books VII–VIII are devoted to the ideal constitution. As might be expected, Aristotle’s attempt to carry out this program involves many difficulties, and scholars disagree about how the two series of books (IV–VI and VII–VIII) are related to each other: for example, which were written first, which were intended to be read first, and whether they are ultimately consistent with each other. Most importantly, when Aristotle offers practical political prescriptions in Books IV–VI, is he guided by the best constitution as a regulative ideal, or is he simply abandoning political idealism and practicing a form of Realpolitik?For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:

Aristotle has continued to influence thinkers up to the present throughout the political spectrum, including conservatives (such as Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin), communitarians (such as Alasdair MacIntyre and Michael Sandel), liberals (such as William Galston and Martha C. Nussbaum), libertarians (such as Tibor R. Machan, Douglas B. Rasmussen, and Douglas J. Den Uyl), and democratic theorists (such as Jill Frank and Gerald M. Mara).

It is not surprising that such diverse political persuasions can lay claim to Aristotle as a source. For his method often leads to divergent interpretations. When he deals with a difficult problem, he is inclined to consider opposing arguments in a careful and nuanced manner, and he is often willing to concede that there is truth on each side. For example, though he is critical of democracy, in one passage he allows that the case for rule by the many based on the superior wisdom of the multitude “perhaps also involves some truth” ( Pol. III.11.1281a39–42). Again, he sometimes applies his own principles in a questionable manner, for example, when he reasons that because associations should be governed in a rational manner, the household should be run by the husband rather than by the wife, whose rational capacity “lacks authority” (I.13.1260a13). Modern commentators sympathetic with Aristotle’s general approach often contend that in this case he applies his own principles incorrectly–leaving open the question of how they should be applied. Further, the way he applies his principles may have seemed reasonable in his socio-political context–for example, that the citizen of a polity (normally the best attainable constitution) must be a hoplite soldier (cf. III.7,1297b4)–but it may be debatable how these might apply within a modern democratic nation-state.

The problem of extrapolating to modern political affairs can be illustrated more fully in connection with Aristotle’s discussion of legal change in Politics II.8. He first lays out the argument for making the laws changeable. It has been beneficial in the case of medicine, for example, for it to progress from traditional ways to improved forms of treatment. An existing law may be a vestige of a primitive barbaric practice. For instance, Aristotle mentions a law in Cyme that allows an accuser to produce a number of his own relatives as witnesses to prove that a defendant is guilty of murder. “So,” Aristotle concludes, “it is evident from the foregoing that some laws should sometimes be changed. But to those who look at the matter from a different angle, caution would seem to be required” (1269a12–14). Since the law gets its force from the citizens’ habit of obedience, great care should be exercised in making any change in it. It may sometimes be better to leave defective laws in place rather than encouraging lawlessness by changing the laws too frequently. Moreover, there are the problems of how the laws are to be changed and who is to change them. Although Aristotle offers valuable insights, he breaks off the discussion of this topic and never takes it up elsewhere. We might sum up his view as follows: When it comes to changing the laws, observe the mean: don’t be too bound by traditional laws, but on the other hand don’t be overeager in altering them. It is obvious that this precept, reasonable as it is, leaves considerable room for disagreement among contemporary “neo-Aristotelian” theorists. For example, should the laws be changed to allow self-described transsexual persons to use sexually segregated restrooms? Conservatives and liberals might agree with Aristotle’s general stricture regarding legal change but differ widely on how to apply it in a particular case.

Most scholars of Aristotle advisedly make no attempt to show that he is aligned with any contemporary ideology. Rather, insofar as they find him relevant to our times, it is because he offers a remarkable synthesis of idealism and pragmatism unfolding in deep and thought-provoking discussions of perennial concerns of political philosophy: the role of human nature in politics, the relation of the individual to the state, the place of morality in politics, the theory of political justice, the rule of law, the analysis and evaluation of constitutions, the relevance of ideals to practical politics, the causes and cures of political change and revolution, and the importance of a morally educated citizenry.

• action: praxis
• citizen: politês
• city-state: polis (also ‘city’ or ‘state’)
• community: koinônia
• constitution: politeia (also ‘regime’)
• faction: stasis (also ‘civil war’)
• free: eleutheros
• friendship: philia
• good: agathos
• happiness: eudaimonia
• happy: eudaimôn
• justice: dikaiosunê
• lawgiver: nomothetês
• master: despotês
• nature: phusis
• noble: kalon (also ‘beautiful’ or ‘fine’)
• people ( dêmos )
• political: politikos (of, or pertaining to, the polis )
• political science: politikê epistêmê
• politician: politikos (also ‘statesman’)
• practical: praktikos
• practical wisdom: phronêsis
• revolution: metabolê (also ‘change’)
• right: exousia (also ‘liberty’)
• ruler: archôn
• self-sufficient: autarkês
• sovereign: kurios
• virtue: aretê (also ‘excellence’)
• without qualification: haplôs (also ‘absolute’)
• without authority: akuron

Note on Citations . Passages in Aristotle are cited as follows: title of treatise (italics), book (Roman numeral), chapter (Arabic numeral), line reference. Line references are keyed to the 1831 edition of Immanuel Bekker which had two columns (“a” and “b”) on each page. Politics is abbreviated as Pol. and Nicomachean Ethics as NE . In this article, “ Pol . I.2.1252b27”, for example, refers to Politics book I, chapter 2, page 1252, column b, line 27. Most translations include the Bekker page number with column letter in the margin followed by every fifth line number.

Passages in Plato are cited in a similar fashion, except the line references are to the Stephanus edition of 1578 in which pages were divided into five parts (“a” through “e”).

Caveat on Bibliography. Although fairly extensive, this bibliography represents only a fraction of the secondary literature in English. However, the items cited here contain many references to other valuable scholarly work in other languages as well as in English.

• Dreizehnter, Alois, Aristoteles’ Politik , Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1970 [generally the most reliable critical edition].
• Ross, W. D., Aristotelis Politica , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
• Barker, Ernest, revised by Richard Stalley, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Jowett, Benjamin, revised in The Complete Works of Aristotle (The Revised Oxford Translation), Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984, vol. II, pp. 1986–2129.
• Lord, Carnes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013, revised edition.
• Rackham, H., Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1932.
• Reeve, C. D. C., Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2017 (new translation).
• Simpson, Peter L. P., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
• Sinclair, T. A., revised by Trevor J. Saunders, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983.

The Clarendon Aristotle Series (Oxford University Press) includes translation and commentary of the Politics in four volumes:

• Trevor J. Saunders, Politics I–II (1995).
• Richard Robinson with a supplementary essay by David Keyt, Politics III–IV (1995).
• David Keyt, Politics V–VI (1999).
• Richard Kraut, Politics VII–VIII (1997).
• Also of interest is the Constitution of Athens , an account of the history and workings of the Athenian democracy. Although it was formerly ascribed to Aristotle, it is now thought by most scholars to have been written by one of his pupils, perhaps at his direction toward the end of Aristotle’s life. A reliable translation with introduction and notes is by P. J. Rhodes, Aristotle: The Athenian Constitution . Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984.
• Barnes, Jonathan, Malcolm Schofield, and Richard Sorabji (eds.), Articles on Aristotle (Volume 2: Ethics and Politics), London: Duckworth, 1977.
• Boudouris, K. J. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, 2 volumes, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995.
• Deslauriers, Marguerite, and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Höffe, Otfried (ed.), Aristoteles Politik , Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001.
• Keyt, David, and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
• Kraut, Richard, and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.
• Lockwood, Thornton, and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
• Lord, Carnes, and David O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
• Patzig, Günther (ed.), Aristoteles’ Politik: Akten des XI. Symposium Aristotelicum , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
• Aquinas, Thomas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics , translated by Richard J. Regan, Indianapolis Publishing Co.: Hackett, 2007.
• Barker, Ernest, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle , London: Methuen, 1906; reprinted, New York: Russell & Russell, 1959.
• Bodéüs, Richard, The Political Dimensions of Aristotle’s Ethics , Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.
• Brill, Sara, Aristotle on the Concept of the Shared Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
• Hansen, Mogens Herman, Reflections on Aristotle’s Politics , Copenhagen: Tusculaneum Press, 2013.
• Keyt, David, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , Leuven: Peeters, 2017.
• Kontos, Pavlos, Aristotle on the Scope of Practical Reason: Spectators, Legislators, Hopes, and Evils , Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 2021.
• Kraut, Richard, Aristotle: Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Miller, Fred D., Jr., Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Mulgan, Richard G., Aristotle’s Political Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
• Newman, W. L., The Politics of Aristotle , 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1887–1902; reprinted Salem, NH: Ayer, 1985.
• Nichols, Mary, Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle’s Politics , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1992.
• Pangle, Lorraine Smith, Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020.
• Pellegrin, Pierre, Endangered Excellent: On the Political Philosophy of Aristotle , translated by Anthony Preus, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2020.
• Riesbeck, David J., Aristotle on Political Community , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
• Roberts, Jean, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle and the Politics , London and New York: Routledge, 2009.
• Schütrumpf, Eckart, Aristoteles: Politik , 4 vols. Berlin and Darmstadt: Akademie Verlag, 1999–2005.
• Simpson, Peter, A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
• Strauss, Leo, “On Aristotle’s Politics,” in The City and Man , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 13–49.
• Susemihl, Franz, and R. D. Hicks, The Politics of Aristotle , London: Macmillan, 1894. [Includes books I–III and VII–VIII renumbered as IV–V.]
• Trott, Adriel M., Aristotle on the Nature of Community , New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Veogelin, Eric, Order and History (Vol. III: Plato and Aristotle ), Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1977.
• Yack, Bernard, The Problems of a Political Animal: Community, Justice, and Conflict in Aristotelian Political Thought , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

1. Biographical and Textual Studies

• Barker, Ernest, “The Life of Aristotle and the Composition and Structure of the Politics ,” Classical Review , 45 (1931), 162–72.
• Jaeger, Werner, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948.
• Kelsen, Hans, “Aristotle and the Hellenic-Macedonian Policy,” in Jonathan Barnes et al. (eds.), Articles on Aristotle (Volume 2: Ethics and Politics), London: Duckworth, 1977, pp. 170–94.
• Lord, Carnes, “The Character and Composition of Aristotle’s Politics ,” Political Theory , 9 (1981), 459–78.

2. Methodology and Foundations of Aristotle’s Political Theory

• Adkins, A. W. H., “The Connection between Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics ,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 75–93.
• Cherry, Kevin M., Plato, Aristotle and the Purpose of Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Depew, David J., “The Ethics of Aristotle’s Politics ,” in Ryan K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 399–418.
• Frank Jill, “On Logos and Politics in Aristotle,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 9–26.
• Frede, Dorothea, “The Political Character of Aristotle’s Ethics,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 14–37.
• Gerson, Lloyd, “On the Scientific Character of Aristotle’s Politics,” in K. I. Boudouris, K. I. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995, vol. I, pp. 35–50.
• Irwin, Terence H., “Moral Science and Political Theory in Aristotle,” History of Political Thought , 6 (1985), pp. 150–68.
• Kahn, Charles H., “The Normative Structure of Aristotle’s Politics ,” in Günther Patzig (ed.) Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’ , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 369–84.
• Kamtekar, Rachana, “The Relationship between Aristotle’s Ethical and Political Discourses ( NE X 9),” in Ronald Polansky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 370–82.
• Keyt, David, “Aristotle’s Political Philosophy,” in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 165–95.
• Lockwood, Thornton, “ Politics II: Political Critique, Political Theorizing, Political Innovation,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 64–83.
• Miller, Fred D., Jr., “The Unity of Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics,” in David Konstan and David Sider (eds.), Philoderma: Essays in Greek and Roman Philosophy in Honor of Phillip Mitsis (Siracusa: Parnassos Press, 2022), pp. 215–43.
• Ober, Joshua, “Aristotle’s Political Sociology: Class, Status, and Order in the Politics ,” in Carnes Lord and David O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
• Pellegrin, Pierre, “On the ‘Platonic’ Part of Aristotle’s Politics ,” in William Wians (ed.) Aristotle’s Philosophical Development , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996, pp. 347–59.
• –––, “Is Politics a Natural Science?” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 27–45.
• –––, “Aristotle’s Politics ,” in Christopher Shields (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 558–85.
• Peonids, F., “The Relation between the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics Revisited,” History of Political Thought 22 (2001): 1–12.
• Rowe, Christopher J., “Aims and Methods in Aristotle’s Politics ,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 57–74.
• Salkever, Stephen G., “Aristotle’s Social Science,” Political Theory , 9 (1981), pp. 479–508; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 27–64.
• –––, Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Political Philosophy , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
• Santas, Gerasimos X.,“The Relation between Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics,” in K. I. Boudouris, K. I. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995, vol. I, pp. 160–76.
• Smith, Nicholas D. and Robert Mayhew, “Aristotle on What the Political Scientist Needs to Know,” in K. I. Boudouris (ed.) Aristotelian Political Philosophy , Athens: International Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture, 1995, vol. I, pp. 189–98.
• Vander Waerdt, Paul A., “The Political Intention of Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy,” Ancient Philosophy 5 (1985), 77–89.
• –––, “The Plan and Intention of Aristotle’s Ethical and Political Writings,” Illinois Classical Studies 16 (1991), 231–53.

3. Political Naturalism

• Ambler, Wayne, “Aristotle’s Understanding of the Naturalness of the City,” Review of Politics , 47 (1985), 163–85.
• Annas, Julia, “Aristotle on Human Nature and Political Virtue,” The Review of Metaphysics , 49 (1996), 731–54.
• Berryman, Sylvia, Aristotle on the Sources of the Ethical Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2919, esp. Ch. 3 “Naturalism in Aristotle’s Politics. ”
• Chan, Joseph, “Does Aristotle’s Political Theory Rest on a Blunder?” History of Political Thought , 13 (1992), 189–202.
• Chappell, Timothy, “‘Naturalism’ in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy,” in Ryan K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 382–98.
• Cherry, K. and E. A. Goerner, “Does Aristotle’s Polis Exist ‘By Nature’?” History of Political Thought , 27 (2006), 563–85.
• Cooper, John M., “Political Animals and Civic Friendship,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’ , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 220–41; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 65–89.
• DePew, David J., “Humans and Other Political Animals in Aristotle’s Historia Animalium ,” Phronesis , 40 (1995), 156–76.
• –––, “Political Animals and the Genealogy of the Polis : Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Statesman ,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 238–57.
• Everson, Stephen, “Aristotle on the Foundations of the State,” Political Studies , 36 (1988), 89–101.
• Karbowski, Joseph, “Political Animals and Human Nature in Aristotle’s Politics ,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 221–37.
• Keyt, David, “The Meaning of BIOS in Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics ,” Ancient Philosophy , 9 (1989), 15–21; reprinted in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 101–9.
• –––, “Three Basic Theorems in Aristotle’s Politics ,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 118–41; reprinted in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 111–38.
• Kullmann, Wolfgang, “Man as a Political Animal in Aristotle,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 94–117.
• Lloyd, Geoffrey, “Aristotle on the Natural Sociability, Skills and Intelligence of Animals,” in Verity Harte and Melissa Lane (eds.), Politeia in Greek and Roman Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 277–94.
• Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle: Naturalism,” in Christopher J. Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 321–43.
• Mulgan, Richard, “Aristotle’s Doctrine that Man is a Political Animal,” Hermes , 102 (1974), 438–45.
• Reeve, C. D. C., “The Naturalness of the Polis in Aristotle,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 512–25.
• Roberts, Jean, “Political Animals in the Nicomachean Ethics ,” Phronesis , 34 (1989), 185–202.

4. Household: Women, Children, and Slaves

• Booth, William James, “Politics and the Household: A Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics Book One,” History of Political Thought , 2 (1981), 203–26.
• Brunt, P. A., “Aristotle and Slavery,” in Studies in Greek History and Thought , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 434–88.
• Chambliss, J. J., “Aristotle’s Conception of Children and the Poliscraft,” Educational Studies , 13 (1982), 33–43.
• Cole, Eve Browning, “Women, Slaves, and ‘Love of Toil’ in Aristotle’s Moral Psychology,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle , Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 127–44.
• Deslauriers, Marguerite, “The Virtues of Women and Slaves,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy , 25 (2003), 213–31.
• –––, “Political Rule Over Women in Politics ,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 46–63.
• Fortenbaugh, W. W., “Aristotle on Slaves and Women,” in Jonathan Barnes et al. (eds.), Articles on Aristotle , vol. 2, Ethics and Politics. London: Duckworth, 1977, pp. 135–9.
• Frank, Jill, “Citizens, Slaves, and Foreigners: Aristotle on Human Nature,” American Political Science Review , 98 (2004), 91–104.
• Freeland, Cynthia, Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.
• Garnsey, Peter, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Lindsay, Thomas K., “Was Aristotle Racist, Sexist, and Anti-Democratic?: A Review Essay,” Review of Politics 56 (1994), 127–51.
• Lockwood, Thornton, “Justice in Aristotle’s Household and City,” Polis , 20 (2003), 1–21.
• –––, “Is Natural Slavery Beneficial?” Journal of the History of Philosophy , 45 (2007), 207–21.
• Mayhew, Robert, The Female in Aristotle’s Biology: Reason or Rationalization , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
• Modrak, Deborah, “Aristotle: Women, Deliberation, and Nature,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle , Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 207–21.
• Mulgan, Robert G., “Aristotle and the Political Role of Women,” History of Political Thought , 15 (1994), 179–202.
• Nagle, D. Brendan, The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Pellegrin, Pierre, “Natural Slavery,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 92–116.
• Saxenhouse, Arlene W., “Family, Polity, and Unity: Aristotle on Socrates’ Community of Wives,” Polity , 15 (1982), 202–19.
• Schofield, Malcolm, “Ideology and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery,” in Günther Patzig (ed.) Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’ , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 1–27; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 91–119.
• Senack, Christine M., “Aristotle on the Woman’s Soul,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle , Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 223–36.
• Simpson, Peter, “Aristotle’s Criticism of Socrates’ Communism of Wives and Children,” Apeiron , 24 (1991), 99–114.
• Smith, Nicholas D., “Plato and Aristotle on the Nature of Women,” Journal of the History of Philosophy , 21 (1983), 467–78.
• –––, “Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 142–55.
• Spelman, E. V., “Aristotle and the Politicization of the Soul,” in Sandra Harding and M. B. Hintikka (eds) Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science , Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983, pp. 17–30.
• –––, “Who’s Who in the Polis,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle , Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 99–125.
• Stauffer, Dana J., “Aristotle’s Account of the Subjection of Women,” Journal of Politics , 70 (2008), 929–41.

5. Political Economy

• Ambler, Wayne H., “Aristotle on Acquisition,” Canadian Journal of Political Science , 17 (1984), 487–502.
• Crespo, Ricardo F., A Re-assessment of Aristotle ’ s Economic Thought . London: Routledge, 2014.
• Dobbs, Darrell, “Aristotle’s Anticommunism,” American Journal of Political Science , 29 (1985), 29–46.
• Finley, M. I., “Aristotle and Economic Analysis,” in Jonathan Barnes et al. (eds.), Articles on Aristotle , vol. 2, Ethics and Politics. London: Duckworth, 1977, pp. 140–58.
• Gallagher, Robert L., Aristotle’s Critique of Political Economy with a Contemporary Application. London: Routledge, 2018.
• Hadreas, Peter, “Aristotle on the Vices and Virtue of Wealth,” Journal of Business Ethics, 39 (2002), 361–76.
• Hartman, Edwin M., “Virtue, Profit, and the Separation Thesis: An Aristotelian View,” Journal of Business Ethics ,99 (2011), 5–17.
• –––, Virtue in Business: Conversations with Aristotle . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Inamura, Kazutaka, “The Role of Reciprocity in Aristotle’s Theory of Political Economy,” History of Political Thought , 32 (2011), 565–87.
• Irwin, Terence H., “Aristotle’s Defense of Private Property,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.). A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 200–25.
• Judson, Lindsay, “Aristotle on Fair Exchange,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy , 15 (1997), 147–75.
• Keyt, David, “Aristotle and the Joy of Working,” in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , Leuven: Peeters, 2017, pp. 223–39.
• Mathie, William,“Property in the Political Science of Aristotle,” in Anthony Parel & Thomas Flanagan(eds.), Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present . Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1979, pp. 12–35.
• Mayhew, Robert, “Aristotle on Property,” The Review of Metaphysics , 46 (1993), 802–31.
• McNeill, D., “Alternative Interpretations of Aristotle on Exchange and Reciprocity,” Public Affairs Quarterly , 4 (1990), 55–68.
• Mei, Todd S., “The Preeminence of Use: Reevaluating the Relation between Use and Exchange in Aristotle’s Economic Thought,” American Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (2009), 523–48.
• Meikle, Scott, “Aristotle on Money” Phronesis 39 (1994), 26–44.
• –––, Aristotle’s Economic Thought , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Miller, Fred D. Jr., “Property Rights in Aristotle,” in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 121–44.
• –––, “Was Aristotle the First Economist?” Apeiron , 31 (1998), 387–98.
• –––, “Aristotle and Business: Friend or Foe?” in Eugene Heath and Byron Kaldis (eds.), Wealth, Commerce and Philosophy: Foundational Thinkers and Business Ethics , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017, pp. 31–52.
• Morris, Tom, If Aristotle Ran General Motors: The New Soul of Business , New York: Henry Holt, 1997.
• Nielsen, Karen Margrethe, “Economy and Private Property,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 67–91.
• Solomon, Robert C., “Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly , 2 (1992), 317–39.
• –––, “Aristotle, Ethics, and Business Organizations,” Organization Studies, 25 (2004), 1021–43.

6. Political Justice and Injustice

• Brunschwig, Jacques, “The Aristotelian Theory of Equity,” in Michael Frede and Gisela Striker (eds.), Rationality in Greek Thought , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–55.
• Marguerite Deslauriers, “Political Unity and Inequality,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 117–43.
• Georgiadis, Constantine, “Equitable and Equity in Aristotle,” in Spiro Panagiotou (ed.), Justice, Law and Method in Plato and Aristotle , Edmonton: Academic Printing & Publishing, 1987, pp. 159–72.
• Keyt, David, “Aristotle’s Theory of Distributive Justice,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 238–78.
• –––, “The Good Man and the Upright Citizen in Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics ,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), Freedom, Reason, and the Polis: Essays in Ancient Greek Political Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 220–40. Reprinted in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 197–221.
• –––, “Nature and Justice,” in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle , Leuven: Peeters, 2017, pp. 1–19.
• Lockwood, Thornton, “Polity, Political Justice, and Political Mixing,” History of Political Thought , 27 (2006), 207–22.
• Morrison, Donald, “The Common Good,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 176–98.
• Nussbaum, Martha C., “Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’ , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 153–87.
• Roberts, Jean, “Justice and the Polis,” in Christopher J. Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 344–65.
• Rosler, Andrés, “Civic Virtue: Citizenship, Ostracism, and War,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 144–75.
• Saxonhouse, Arlene W., “Aristotle on the Corruption of Regimes: Resentment and Justice,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 184–203.
• Schütrumpf, Eckart, “Little to Do With Justice: Aristotle on Distributing Political Power,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 163–83.
• Young, Charles M., “Aristotle on Justice,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 27 (1988), 233–49.
• Zingano, Marco, “Natural, Ethical, and Political Justice,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 199–222.

7. Political Friendship and Enmity

• Hatzistavrou, Antony, “Faction,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 301–23.
• Irrera, Elena, “Between Advantage and Virtue: Aristotle’s Theory of Political Friendship,” History of Political Thought , 26 (2005), 565–85.
• Jang, Misung, “Aristotle’s Political Friendship as Solidarity,” in Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer, & Nuno M.S. Coelho (eds.), Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics, Dordrecht: Springer, 2018. pp. 417–33.
• Kalimtzis, Kostas, Aristotle on Political Enmity and Disease: An Inquiry into Stasis , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000.
• Kreft, Nora, “Aristotle on Friendship and Being Human,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 182–99.
• Kronman, Anthony, “Aristotle’s Idea of Political Fraternity,” American Journal of Jurisprudence , 24 (1979),114–138.
• Leontsini, Eleni, “The Motive of Society: Aristotle on Civic Friendship, Justice, and Concord,” Res Publica , 19 (2013), 21–35.
• Ludwig, Paul W., Rediscovering Political Friendship: Aristotle’s Theory and Modern Identity, Community, and Equality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
• Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle on Deviant Constitutions,” in K. I. Boudouris, K. I. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995, vol. II, pp. 105–15.
• Mulgan, Richard, “The Role of Friendship in Aristotle’s Political Theory,” in Preston King, and Heather Devere (eds.), The Challenge to Friendship in M odernity , London: Frank Cass, 2000, pp. 15–32.
• Schofield, Malcolm, “Political Friendship and the Ideology of Reciprocity,” in Saving the City , London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 82–99.
• Schwarzenbach, Sibyl, “On Civic Friendship,” Ethics , 107 (1996), 97–128.
• Skultety, Steven C.,. “Defining Aristotle’s Conception of Stasis in the Politics ,” Phronesis 54 (2009), 346–70.
• –––, Conflict in Aristotle ’ s Political Philosophy , Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 2019.
• Sosa, Javier Echeñique & Jose Antonio Errázuriz Besa, “Aristotle on Personal Enmity,” Ancient Philosophy , 62 (2022), 215–31.
• Ward, Ann, “Friendship and politics in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics ,” European Journal of Political Theory , 10 (2011), 443–62.
• Weed, Ronald, Aristotle on Stasis: A Psychology of Political Conflict , Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2007.
• Yack, Bernard, “Community and Conflict in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy,” Review of Politics , 47 (1985), 92–112.
• –––, “Natural Right and Aristotle’s Understanding of Justice,” Political Theory , 18 (1990), 216–37.

8. Citizenship, Civic Obligation, and Political Rights

• Allan, D. J., “Individual and State in the Ethics and Politics ,” Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique IX, La ‘Politique’ d’Aristote , Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1964, pp. 53–95.
• Barnes, Jonathan, “Aristotle and Political Liberty,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’ , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 249–63; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 185–201.
• Collins, Susan D., Aristotle and the Rediscovery of Citizenship , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Frede, Dorothea, “Citizenship in Aristotle’s Politics ,” in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 167–84.
• Horn, Christoph, “Law, Governance, and Political Obligation,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 223–46.
• Irwin, Terence H., “The Good of Political Activity,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’ , Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 73–98.
• Kraut, Richard, “Are There Natural Rights in Aristotle?” The Review of Metaphysics , 49 (1996), 755–74.
• Lane, Melissa, “Claims to Rule: The Case of the Mutlitude,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 247–74.
• Long, Roderick T., “Aristotle’s Conception of Freedom,” The Review of Metaphysics , 49 (1996), 775–802; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law , Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 384–410.
• Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle and the Origins of Natural Rights,” The Review of Metaphysics , 49 (1996), 873–907.
• –––, “Aristotle’s Theory of Political Rights,” in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law , Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 309–50.
• Morrison, Donald, “Aristotle’s Definition of Citizenship: A Problem and Some Solutions,” History of Philosophy Quarterly , 16 (1999), 143–65.
• Mulgan, Robert G., “Aristotle and the Value of Political Participation,” Political Theory , 18 (1990), 195–215.
• Roberts, Jean, “Excellences of the Citizen and of the Individual,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 555–65.
• Samaras, Thanassis, “Aristotle and the Question of Citizenship,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 123–41.
• Schofield, Malcolm, “Sharing in the Constitution,” The Review of Metaphysics , 49 (1996), 831–58; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law , Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 353–80.
• Zuckert, Catherine H., “Aristotle on the Limits and Satisfactions of Political Life,” Interpretation , 11 (1983), 185–206.

9. Constitutional Theory

• Balot, Ryan, “The ‘Mixed Regime’ In Aristotle’s Politics ,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 103–22.
• Bates, Clifford A., Aristotle’s “Best Regime”: Kingship, Democracy, and the Rule of Law , Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2003.
• Bobonich, Christopher, “Aristotle, Decision Making, and the Many,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 142–62.
• Cherry, Kevin M., “The Problem of Polity: Political Participation in Aristotle’s Best Regime,” Journal of Politics , 71 (2009), 406–21.
• Coby, Patrick, “Aristotle’s Three Cities and the Problem of Faction,” Journal of Politics , 50 (1988), 896–919.
• Destrée, Pierre, “Aristotle on Improving Imperfect Cities,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 204–23.
• Dietz, Mary G., “Between Polis and Empire: Aristotle’s Politics ,” American Political Science Review 106 (2012), 275–93.
• Garsten, Bryan, “Deliberating and Acting Together,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 324–49.
• Huxley, G., “On Aristotle’s Best State,” in Paul Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux: Essays Presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix , London: Duckworth, 1985, pp. 139–49.
• Johnson, Curtis N., Aristotle’s Theory of the State , New York: Macmillan, 1990.
• Keyt, David, “Aristotle and Anarchism,” Reason Papers , 18 (1993), 133–52; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety. Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 203–22.
• Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle’s Critique of False Utopias,” in Otfried Höffe (ed.), Aristoteles Politik , Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001, pp. 59–73.
• Lintott, Andrew, “Aristotle and Democracy,” The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 42 (1992), 114–28.
• Mayhew, Robert, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
• –––, “Rulers and Ruled,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 526–39.
• Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle on the Ideal Constitution,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 540–54.
• –––, “The Rule of Reason,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 38–66.
• Mulgan, Richard, “Aristotle’s Analysis of Oligarchy and Democracy,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 307–22.
• –––, “Constitutions and the Purpose of the State,” in Otfried Höffe (ed.), Aristoteles Politik , Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001, pp. 93–106.
• Mulhern, J. J., “ Politeia in Greek Literature, Inscriptions, and in Aristotle’s Politics : Reflections on Translation and Interpretation,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 84–102.
• Murray, O., “Polis and Politeia in Aristotle,” in Mogens Herman Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State , Copenhagen: Muksgaard, 1993, pp. 197–210.
• Ober, Joshua, “Aristotle’s Natural Democracy,” in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 223–43.
• –––, “Democracy’s Wisdom: An Aristotelian Middle Way for Collective Judgment,” American Political Science Review , 107 (2013), 104–22.
• –––, “Nature, History, and Aristotle’s Best Possible Regime,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 224–43.
• Polansky, Ronald, “Aristotle on Political Change,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 322–45.
• Rosler, Andres, Political Authority and Obligation in Aristotle , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Rowe, C. J., “Reality and Utopia,” Elenchos , 10 (1989), 317–36.
• –––, “Aristotelian Constitutions,” in Christopher J. Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 366–89.
• Strauss, Barry, “On Aristotle’s Critique of Athenian Democracy,” in Carnes Lord and David O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991, pp. 212–33.
• Vander Waert, Paul A., “Kingship and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Best Regime,” Phronesis , 30 (1985), 249–73.
• Waldron, Jeremy, “The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics ,” Political Theory , 20 (1992), 613–41; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 145–65.
• Wilson, James L., “Deliberation, Democracy, and the Rule of Reason in Aristotle’s Politics ,” American Political Science Review , 105 (2011), 259–74.

10. Education

• Burnyeat, Myles F., “Aristotle on Learning to Be Good,” in Amelie O. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980, pp. 69–92.
• Curren, Randall R., Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
• Depew, David J., “Politics, Music, and Contemplation in Aristotle’s Ideal State,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 346–80.
• Destrée, Pierre, “Education, Leisure, and Politics,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 301–23.
• Frede, Dorothea, “The Deficiency of Human Nature: The Task of a ‘Philosophy of Human Nature’,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 258–74.
• Jimenez, Marta, Aristotle on Shame and Learning to Be Good , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
• Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle on Method and Moral Education,” in Jyl Gentzler (ed.), Method in Ancient Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 171–90.
• –––, “Aristotle on Becoming Good: Habituation, Reflection, and Perception,” in Christopher Shields (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 529–57.
• Lord, Carnes, Education and Culture in the Political Thought of Aristotle , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.
• Lynch, John Patrick, Aristotle’s School , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
• Muzio, G. D., “Aristotle on Improving One’s Character,” Phronesis , 45 (2000), 205–19.
• Reeve, C. D. C,  “Aristotelian Education,” in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Philosophers on Education , London: Routledge, 1998, pp. 51–65.
• Stalley, Richard, “Education and the State,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 566–76.
• Brooks, Richard O. and James B. Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law , Aldershot Hants, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.
• Burns, Tony, “Aristotle and Natural Law,” History of Political Thought , 19 (1998), 142–66.
• Duke, George, Aristotle and Law: The Politics of Nomos , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gordley, James R., “Tort Law in the Aristotelian Tradition,” in Salvador Rus Rufino (ed.), Aristoteles: El Pensamiento Politico y Juridico . León & Seville: University of León & University of Seville, 1999, pp. 71–97.
• Hamburger, Max, Morals and Law: The Growth of Aristotle’s Legal Theory , New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951.
• Huppes-Cluysenaer, Liesbeth & Nuno M..S. Coelho (eds.), Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics , Dordrecht: Springer, 2018.
• Miller, Eugene, “Prudence and the Rule of Law,” American Journal of Jurisprudence , 24 (1979), 181–206.
• Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle’s Philosophy of Law,” in Fred D. Miller, Jr. and Carrie-Ann Biondi (eds.), A History of the Philosophy of Law from the Ancient Greeks to the Scholastics [vol. 6 of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence , ed. Enrico Pattaro]. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007, pp.79–110.
• Schroeder, Donald N., “Aristotle on Law,” Polis , 4 (1981), 17–31; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law , Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 37–51.
• Wormuth, F. D., “Aristotle on Law,” in M. R. Korvitz and A. E. Murphy (eds.), Essays in Political Theory Presented to G. H. Sabine,  Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1948, pp. 45–61.
• Zanetti, Gianfrancesco, “Problematic Aspects of Aristotle’s Philosophy of Law,” Archiv f ü r Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie , 81 (1995), 49–64.

12. Aristotle and Contemporary Politics

• Biondi, Carrie-Ann, “Aristotle on the Mixed Constitution and Its Relevance for American Political Thought,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), Freedom, Reason, and the Polis: Essays in Ancient Greek Political Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 176–98.
• Frank, Jill, A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
• Galston, William A., Justice and the Human Good , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
• Garver, Eugene, Aristotle’s Politics: Living Well and Living Together , Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011.
• Goodman, Lenn E. and Robert Talise (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics Today , Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.
• Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle and Rawls on the Common Good,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 350–74.
• Lord, Carnes, “Aristotle and the Idea of Liberal Education,” in Josiah Ober and Charles Hedrick (eds.), Demokrateia: A Conversation of Democracy, Ancient and Modern , Princeton: Princeton University Press Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, pp. 271–88.
• Machan, Tibor R., “Aristotle and the Moral Status of Business,”  Journal of Value Inquiry , 38 (2004), 217–33.
• Mara, Gerald M., “The Culture of Democracy: Aristotle’s Athênaiôn Politeia as Political Theory,” in Aristide Tessitore (ed.), Aristotle and Modern Politics: The Persistence of Political Philosophy , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002, 307–41.
• Mulgan, Robert G., “Was Aristotle an ‘Aristotelian Social Democrat’?” Ethics , 111 (2000), 79–101.
• Murphy, James Bernard, The Moral Economy of Labor: Aristotelian Themes in Economic Theory , New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
• Nussbaum, Martha C., “Aristotelian Social Democracy,” in R. Bruce Douglas, Gerald M. Mara, and Henry S. Richardson (eds.) Liberalism and the Good , London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 203–52.
• –––, “Capabilities and Human Rights,” Fordham Law Review , 66 (1997), 273–300; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law , Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 413–40.
• –––, “Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities: A Response to Anthony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan,” Ethics , 111 (2000), 102–40.
• Pack, Spencer J., “Aristotle’s Difficult Relationship with Modern Economic Theory,” Foundations of Science , 13 (2008), 256–80.
• Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Douglas J. Den Uyl, Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order , La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1991.
• –––, Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005.
• Schollmeier, Paul, Rewriting Contemporary Political Philosophy with Plato and Aristotle: An Essay on Eudaimonic Politics,  London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.
• Salkever, Stephen S., Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Political Philosophy , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
• Tessitore, Aristide (ed.), Aristotle and Modern Politics: The Persistence of Political Philosophy , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002.
• Wallach, John C., “Contemporary Aristotelianism,” Political Theory , 20 (1992), 613–41.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Aristotle, General Topics: biology | Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | Aristotle, Special Topics: natural philosophy

Copyright © 2022 by Fred Miller < fmiller @ sppfbg . org >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples
• Philosophers

Aristotle Biography

Updated 08 May 2023

Subject Philosophers ,  Learning

Downloads 27

Category Philosophy ,  Religion ,  Education

Topic Aristotle ,  Theology ,  Research

The Writings of Mr. Aristotle

The writings of one distinguished philosopher, Mr. Aristotle, shall be discussed in this article. The author of this article felt that it was important to first define the philosopher in order to provide the parties involved in this paper a more comprehensive understanding of what the paper comprises before starting to write the works of this great philosopher. Thus, a philosopher is somebody who engages in philosophy, which involves conducting extensive research on a national level in fields unrelated to science or theology (Finardi, 2013). The word "philosophy" itself derives from the Greek adjective "philosophos," which simply means "lover of wisdom." Therefore, to achieve the aim of this paper, the writer will briefly give the description of Mr. Aristotle's biography and lastly discuss critically his contribution in the field of philosophy.

This great philosopher Mr. Aristotle was born in the Stagira over the decades of years ago, 384 B.C. in Greece. At the age of 17 Mr. Aristotle commenced his education in Plato's Academy. Years later Mr. Aristotle completed his education successfully and started his first job at Alexander the Great. Mr. Aristotle continued to expand his professional ladder. This great philosopher spent most of his life in the city of Lyceum in Athens studying teaching and writing. The works of this great philosopher came to an end after he passed on 322 B.C.

Ideas of Mr. Aristotle

How does Aristotle incorporate the three kinds of goodness in his writings on ethics? What is good and bad about each kind, and what place does each play in excellence and the happy life?

Aristotle first discusses the three kinds of goodness, those external, those associated with the soul, and those associated with the body (Moed, 2012). Throughout his writings Aristotle brings up each of these various kinds of goodness in reference to the vast majority of his teachings regarding things such as virtue, justice, happiness, and friendship. Aristotle claims that people normally talk what is associated with their soul particularly what is good (Moed, 2012).

Mr. Aristotle goes on to explain that pleasure belongs to the soul, and thus the goodness of the soul accounts for all innate pleasures, and passions of an individual, leading to the ultimate end of happiness. Though good of the soul is considered the most governing, goods of the body encompass things such as good health and one's physical well-being, which are integral to attaining happiness. External goods are those things that likely have the least merit, as it only encompasses things that are not directly pertaining to the individual or his well-being, but merely his state of living in reference to society.

Each of these also has the potential to be bad, because desiring any of these goods in excess, can lead to vice. An excess of goods of the soul, body, or external can lead to such things such as self-obsession, health problems, and material obsession respectively. However, in moderation, and in the hands of excellent individuals, these goods lead to the ultimate end of ethical behavior, according to Aristotle, happiness.

What is Aristotle's purpose in writing this book?

What is Aristotle's purpose in writing this book? How does he answer Socrates' suggestion that virtue cannot be taught? Is ethics like math, which is teachable? What does Aristotle think human beings can be taught about virtue? How ought ethics to be taught?

In writing Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle attempts to outline an ethical system in which the final end of all human behavior is happiness. Aristotle discusses many things in his work, arguably one of the most important of which is virtue. According to Aristotle, "habit creates excellence of character (Willmatt, 2012). He further argues that virtue is an active condition, thus it must be habituated, and cannot occur naturally. Socrates claims that virtue simply cannot be taught, whereas Aristotle claims it is habituated. Though these seem like fairly similar claims, Socrates' suggestion does not allow for anyone to be taught virtue at all, whereas, Aristotle argues that 'sort of virtue is attached to pleasures and pains. Which I believe means that so long as someone can be taught as a child what to take pleasure and what to take pain from, they can be taught to be virtuous. In Aristotle's ethics, virtue and excellence are synonymous and thus if at a young age, excellence can be taught, then virtue is as well.

However, ethics is not like math, where it can be taught in a classroom setting. Ethics is centered on virtue, and virtue can only be taught in the sense of habituation, practicing over and over until one is excellent. Aristotle thinks that human beings can be taught the theory behind their virtue, but to actually achieve virtue is impossible without consistent habituation. Ethics ought to be taught at a young age, to make children aware of what to take pain and pleasure in, so that they understand what to actively do and avoid for the sake of virtue.

Book IX: Why is the friend another self?

Do we need friends to live a happy life? Do we choose friends or good things according to self-love, or not?

Aristotle begins Chapter Four of Book Nine by claiming that the things by which friendships are defined, claiming that they are related to one's own self, discussing what unifies friendship as opposed to the varieties between them. Friendship, as defined by Aristotle, as the person who respects himself and values herself / himself and whatever he/she does is for the benefit of him/herself (Van Gusteren, 2013).

By discussing the type of friendship that arises due to mutual goodness and alikeness in virtue, it becomes apparent that each individual in that sort of friendship would act for their friend as if their friend was an extension of themselves, thus I believe that the friend is another self. I do not believe that Aristotle explicitly states whether or not friends are a necessity to living a happy life, but he does argue, that friends and friendships that are another self tend to hardly be present in people of low character. Aristotle states, Aristotle's states that people with such kind of character do not typically enjoy themselves since their soul is victimized by the civil wars. (Finardi, 2013).

This heavily implies that though they may be able to live a happy life somehow, those of low character tend to despise themselves, and thus despise those in similar states, that would be their friends. Thus I believe that Aristotle means that those that are devoid of friends are unhappy, and thus in such a state that it is difficult to create friendships. I believe that we do choose friends according to self-love, as self-love, as previously stated, implies a love of those that share goodness and are both actively virtuous. However, as mentioned in Book Eight, not all friendships are based upon alikeness in virtue, which even those could be argued to be chosen due to self-love, as they are created for the purpose of being of some use or pleasure to the self. Would Aristotle consider choosing friends based off of usefulness or pleasure unethical, or merely not as important?

Book VIII: Why is friendship between people alike in excellence more long-lasting than pleasure or usefulness?

Why is there no justice among friends? Why is friendship a better model for ethical life than justice, according to Aristotle?

In the article of Nicomachen Ethics by Aristotle he discussed the virtue of friendship. The author Aristotle explains the virtue of friendship as people who have the common interest of helping each and that they share out their problems and seek solution together. They wish good things to each other he further retaliate that such kind of friendship last for long time (Van Gunsterean, 2013).

Friends that share the qualities of being good and share the same virtue will ultimately last longer than any friendship merely based off of pleasure or usefulness. Relationships that are based off of only pleasure or usefulness are essentially one sided, making them incidental friendships, as they are based entirely off of wanting something good from the other party, thus they tend to dissolve or wither once the usefulness or pleasure fades. There is no justice between friends, because as Aristotle explains, in respect to justice, equality is in accordance with whatever is observed consequently, in friendship equality is in respect to amount and also what is observed (Willmott, 2012).

In a situation regarding friendship, justice is not the same, as equality comes first to what is deserved. Aristotle does not necessarily believe that friendship in itself is a better model for ethical life, but rather that friendship akin to brotherhood is a better model for ethical life than justice. Aristotle claims that even though all friendships vary slightly, comrades and brothers hold the strongest relationships, and thus it is more terrible to cheat or hurt a comrade than anyone else. Thus, if all were to achieve brotherhood and community with all those that they interact with, the end result would be a much more ethical society. Why is it that Aristotle claims that there is no justice among friends, when it is simply a different type of justice?

Finardi, U. (2013). Correlation between journal impact factor and citation performance: An experimental study. Journal of informetrics, 7(2), 357-370.

Moed, H. F., (2012). Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way. Scientometrics, 92(2), 367-376.

Willmott, M. A., Dunn, K. H., & Durance, E. F. (2012). The accessibility quotient: A new measure of open access.

Van Gunsteren, W. F. (2013). Die sieben Todsünden akademischen Handelns in der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Angewandte Chemie, 125(1), 128-132.

Van Gunsteren, W. (2015). On the pitfalls of peer review. F1000Research, 4.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

Finished Papers

In the order page to write an essay for me, once you have filled up the form and submitted it, you will be automatically redirected to the payment gateway page. There you will be required to pay the entire amount for taking up the service and writing from my experts. We will ask you to pay the entire amount before the service as that gives us an assurance that you will come back to get the final draft that we write and lets us build our trust in you to write my essay for me. It also helps us to build up a mutual relationship with you while we write, as that would ease out the writing process. You are free to ask us for free revisions until you are completely satisfied with the service that we write.

Finished Papers

Calculate the price

Minimum Price

Adam Dobrinich

receive 15% off

Essays service custom writing company - The key to success

Quality is the most important aspect in our work! 96% Return clients; 4,8 out of 5 average quality score; strong quality assurance - double order checking and plagiarism checking.

A writer who is an expert in the respective field of study will be assigned