I.   Aristotle: Personal Background and Greek Context

Few figures in the history of philosophy have had as profound an influence as Aristotle. His personal background, deeply rooted in his Greek origin and the vibrant context of classical Hellas, shaped his thought and scholarship in ways that would echo through Western intellectual history. Understanding Aristotle is not simply a matter of reading his texts; it is an exploration of a life lived at the crossroads of tradition and transformation in ancient Greece.

Birth and Family Heritage

Aristotle was born in 384 BCE in Stagira, a small city on the northern coast of the Aegean Sea, in the region of Macedonia. Stagira, though not as prominent as Athens or Sparta, was a Greek colony with strong Hellenic traditions and cultural ties. Aristotle's family belonged to the Asclepiad clan, which traced its lineage to Asclepius, the mythological god of medicine. This heritage was more than mere myth; it gave Aristotle a formative connection to the medical and scientific traditions of Greece.

His father, Nicomachus, was the personal physician to King Amyntas III of Macedon. The role of a royal physician in ancient Greece was both prestigious and influential—not only did it require technical skill and knowledge, but it also brought one into the inner circles of political power. Although Aristotle lost both of his parents at a young age, the legacy of his father’s profession and his family’s connections to the Macedonian court would decisively shape his opportunities and worldview.

Early Education and Greek Intellectual Traditions

Orphaned as a young boy, Aristotle was placed under the guardianship of Proxenus of Atarneus, a family friend. This arrangement was not uncommon in Greek society, where kinship and patronage networks often stepped in to support the young. In Stagira and Atarneus, Aristotle would have received a traditional Greek education, which emphasized literature, poetry, music, physical education, and above all, the memorization and interpretation of Homer and Hesiod.

Education in classical Greece was as much about cultivating character (arete) as it was about imparting knowledge. From his earliest days, Aristotle was immersed in the Greek language, myth, and a worldview in which reason and debate were essential virtues. The city-state (polis) in which he was raised, though peripheral to larger powers, was nonetheless a microcosm of the broader Greek intellectual landscape.

Journey to Athens: The Heart of Greek Philosophy

At the age of seventeen, Aristotle traveled to Athens, the intellectual center of Greece. Athens in the fourth century BCE was a city of dazzling diversity, home to playwrights, sophists, politicians, and above all, philosophers. The city’s democratic institutions, theaters, and philosophical schools created a unique environment for the exchange of ideas.

Aristotle joined Plato’s Academy, the premier philosophical institution of the day. Founded by Plato, a pupil of Socrates, the Academy was dedicated to the pursuit of philosophical truth through dialectic and reason. Aristotle remained at the Academy for twenty years, first as a student and later as a teacher. During this period, he absorbed and critiqued the teachings of his master, developing his own distinctive approach to philosophy.

The Academy’s curriculum reflected the breadth of Greek intellectual curiosity—mathematics, astronomy, metaphysics, politics, and ethics were all subjects of inquiry. Aristotle’s Greek background made him a natural participant in this culture of debate, where the asking and answering of questions was considered the highest form of intellectual engagement.

Macedonian Connections and the Wider Greek World

Aristotle’s Macedonian origins and connections set him apart in the largely Athenian milieu of the Academy. With the ascent of Philip II, Macedonia was becoming a dominant force in Greek affairs; Aristotle’s ties to the royal house would later prove crucial. When Plato died in 347 BCE, the leadership of the Academy passed to Speusippus, and Aristotle, along with Xenocrates, left Athens—possibly because of rising anti-Macedonian sentiment or philosophical disagreements.

Aristotle traveled to Atarneus in Asia Minor, where he was hosted by Hermias, the local ruler and a friend from his youth. In this period, Aristotle married Pythias, Hermias's niece and adopted daughter, and engaged in scientific and philosophical investigations. His movements reflected the interconnectedness of the Greek world: philosophers, like artists and politicians, were constantly on the move, exchanging ideas across the Aegean.

Tutor to Alexander and Return to Athens

In 343 BCE, Aristotle was summoned by Philip II to the Macedonian court at Pella to become the tutor to his young son, Alexander—who would eventually conquer much of the known world as Alexander the Great. This appointment was not simply a personal honor; it was a testament to the esteem in which Greek learning—and Aristotle in particular—was held by the Macedonian elite.

Aristotle’s role as tutor to Alexander reinforced the spread of Hellenic culture and values throughout the empire. He is said to have inspired in Alexander a love of learning, inquiry, and Greek literature. This period also afforded Aristotle access to resources, specimens, and knowledge from across Macedon’s expanding dominion—enriching his later scientific work.

After Alexander ascended the throne, Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 BCE and established his own school, the Lyceum. Unlike the Academy, the Lyceum combined philosophical discourse with empirical investigation and collection, reflecting Aristotle’s distinctive approach to knowledge.

The Greek Polis and Aristotle’s Philosophical Outlook

Aristotle’s Greek heritage was central to his thinking about politics, ethics, and society. He saw the polis—the Greek city-state—as the natural context for human flourishing. In his “Politics,” he explores the constitutions of Greek states, the virtues of citizenship, and the nature of justice, always drawing on Greek examples and ideals.

Greek philosophy was characterized by an emphasis on rational inquiry, debate, and the systematic study of nature and society. Aristotle contributed to all branches of knowledge—from logic and metaphysics to biology and poetics. He was a polymath in the best Greek tradition, driven by the conviction that reasoned investigation could uncover the principles underlying all things.

Personal Life and Character in Greek Context

While Aristotle's works offer only glimpses of his personal life, his actions and writings reflect the values of his Greek upbringing. He married Pythias and later had a relationship with Herpyllis, with whom he had a son named Nicomachus. Like many Greeks, Aristotle valued family, friendship (philia), and civic engagement.

His will, fragments of which survive, demonstrates a concern for his family, his slaves, and even his burial—suggesting a life lived according to both personal affection and civic duty, as was esteemed in Greek society. His method—prefering careful observation, classification, and logical analysis—was an outgrowth of the Greek tradition of reasoned debate (logos).

Later Years and Death

Following the death of Alexander the Great, anti-Macedonian sentiments flared in Athens, and Aristotle, given his Macedonian connections, found himself in danger. He reportedly left Athens, saying he would not allow the Athenians to "sin twice against philosophy," a reference to the earlier execution of Socrates. Aristotle retired to Chalcis on the island of Euboea, where he died in 322 BCE at the age of 62.

Legacy: Aristotle, Greece, and the World

Aristotle’s legacy is inseparable from his Greek context. His methods, questions, and worldview were shaped by the intellectual ferment of Hellas. His Lyceum, like Plato’s Academy, became a model for future institutions of learning. The Greek language, with its precision and subtlety, became the medium for some of the greatest works of logic, political theory, biology, and ethics ever written.

Aristotle’s influence reached far beyond Greece, shaping the development of medieval Islamic and Christian philosophy, and laying foundations for modern science. Yet, at the heart of his thought lies the spirit of Greek inquiry: a relentless search for understanding, rooted in a world of gods, cities, and the rational mind.

 

II.  Aristotle’s Reputation as a Philosopher

Aristotle stands among the towering figures in the history of philosophy, his reputation enduring for over two millennia as the quintessential thinker whose intellectual pursuits spanned the breadth of human knowledge. From antiquity to the present day, Aristotle’s name evokes images of rigorous logic, systematic inquiry, and profound wisdom. His contributions are woven into the very fabric of Western thought, and his reputation as a philosopher remains formidable, multifaceted, and ever-relevant.

Foundations of Aristotle’s Reputation

Aristotle’s reputation is rooted first and foremost in his vast literary output, which addressed virtually every area of knowledge available to the ancient Greeks. While his mentor Plato focused on the world of forms and ideals, Aristotle was more concerned with the concrete—the particulars of nature, society, and the human mind. He pioneered a method of inquiry that combined empirical observation, systematic classification, and logical reasoning, laying the groundwork for both philosophical and scientific disciplines.

His approach to philosophy was deeply influenced by his Greek heritage, reflecting the values of rational debate, civic participation, and the pursuit of excellence. Aristotle’s intellectual curiosity was legendary, and his works cover logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, biology, rhetoric, poetics, psychology, and more. In each of these fields, he sought not merely to speculate, but to understand the underlying principles and causal relationships.

Contributions to Logic and the Birth of Scientific Method

Aristotle’s creation of formal logic is among his most enduring achievements. He systematized the study of reasoning, introducing syllogistic logic—a framework for deducing conclusions from premises. This innovation became the cornerstone of logical thought and dominated philosophical education for centuries. The Organon, his collected logical works, remained the primary text on logic through the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance.

Beyond logic, Aristotle is credited with laying the foundation for the scientific method. His emphasis on observation, categorization, and analysis was revolutionary in an age when speculation often outpaced empirical investigation. In biology, for instance, Aristotle meticulously studied animals, recorded anatomical details, and classified species—a practice virtually unheard of before his time. Though some of his conclusions were mistaken, his method of inquiry inspired generations of natural scientists.

Ethics, Politics, and the Human Good

Aristotle’s reputation as a philosopher owes much to his treatises on ethics and politics. In the Nicomachean Ethics, named after his son, he presents a sophisticated account of the good life, arguing that human flourishing (eudaimonia) is achieved through the cultivation of virtue. For Aristotle, virtue was not an abstract ideal but a practical habit—a mean between extremes, rooted in rational deliberation and shaped by lived experience.

His political philosophy, articulated in Politics, views the city-state (polis) as the natural arena for human development. Aristotle analyzed the constitutions of existing Greek states, probing the virtues and vices of different forms of government. He championed the idea of citizenship as participation in public life, insisting that humans are inherently political animals whose fulfillment depends on engagement with their community.

This ethical and political vision remains influential, shaping debates about justice, rights, and the role of government. Aristotle’s insistence on the importance of character, habituation, and context continues to inform contemporary discussions of moral development and civic responsibility.

Metaphysics and the Nature of Reality

In metaphysics, Aristotle set forth a comprehensive account of being, substance, and causality. He famously challenged Plato’s theory of forms, arguing that universals exist only in particular things rather than in a transcendent realm. His concept of substance (ousia) and his doctrine of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final) offered a powerful framework for understanding change and existence.

Aristotle’s metaphysical inquiries provided a vocabulary and set of tools for subsequent philosophers, from the Neoplatonists to medieval scholastics. His influence in this domain is particularly evident in the works of Thomas Aquinas, who synthesized Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, creating a system that dominated European intellectual life for centuries.

Influence on Science and Learning

Aristotle’s Lyceum, the school he founded in Athens, became one of the great institutions of ancient learning. There, he gathered scholars, taught students, and compiled research across disciplines. The Lyceum’s emphasis on written records, collected data, and collaborative inquiry anticipated modern research universities.

For centuries after his death, Aristotle’s writings were preserved, studied, and debated in both the Islamic and Christian worlds. Arab and Persian philosophers such as Avicenna and Averroes engaged deeply with Aristotle’s thought, translating and commenting on his works. Through these scholars, Aristotle’s philosophy entered medieval Europe, where it became central to the curriculum of universities and shaped the development of logic, natural philosophy, and ethics.

Criticism and Evolution of Aristotle’s Reputation

Aristotle’s reputation, though immense, has never been static. From antiquity onward, his theories have been both revered and contested. The rise of modern science in the seventeenth century led to the rejection of many Aristotelian doctrines, particularly those concerning physics and cosmology. Figures like Galileo and Newton challenged Aristotle’s geocentric universe and his explanations of motion.

Nonetheless, Aristotle’s method—his insistence on careful observation and logical analysis—remained influential. Even as newer scientific paradigms supplanted Aristotelian physics, his approach to inquiry continued to inspire thinkers across disciplines.

In philosophy, Aristotle’s ideas have been revived and reinterpreted in various contexts. Twentieth-century philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre found in Aristotle’s ethics a rich resource for understanding moral development and social practices. His political thought has been invoked in discussions of democracy, citizenship, and the common good.

Aristotle in Contemporary Perspective

Today, Aristotle’s reputation as a philosopher is secure but nuanced. He is celebrated as a foundational figure, whose thought underpins much of Western philosophy. His works are studied not only for their historical significance but also for their continuing relevance. Debates in ethics, politics, metaphysics, and logic frequently return to Aristotle’s insights, whether to critique, refine, or build upon them.

At the same time, scholars recognize the limitations and context of his views. Aristotle’s perspectives were shaped by the scientific and social understanding of his time, some of which are now outdated or problematic. Nevertheless, his intellectual spirit—the drive to understand, classify, and reason—remains an ideal for philosophers and scientists alike.

 

 

 

III. Aristotle’s Political Philosophy: Foundations, Theories, and Enduring Concepts

Few figures in the history of Western thought have exerted as profound an influence on political philosophy as Aristotle. A towering intellect of the classical era, Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was both a student of Plato and tutor to Alexander the Great. Yet, his political vision charted its own course, distinct from his predecessors and contemporaries. His treatises—most notably the Politics—laid crucial foundations for the study of governance, citizenship, and the ideals of the good life, setting parameters for debates that continue to shape political theory to this day.

The Framework of Aristotle’s Political Philosophy

At the heart of Aristotle’s political philosophy lies a vision of humans as inherently social and political beings. In his famous dictum, “man is by nature a political animal,” Aristotle encapsulated his belief that the polis (city-state) is not simply an organizational convenience but the natural context for human flourishing. The polis enables individuals to realize their potential and virtue through participation in communal life.

Teleology and the Good Life

A key feature of Aristotle’s thought is teleology—the idea that everything in nature has a purpose (telos). For humans, this purpose is to achieve eudaimonia, often translated as "happiness" or "flourishing." Politics, for Aristotle, is the art of achieving this end collectively. The state exists not just for the sake of life but for the good life, and laws and institutions should foster the development of virtue among citizens.

The Household and the Polis

Aristotle’s analysis begins with the smallest social units—individuals and families. In his work, he describes the progression from the household (oikos) to the village, and ultimately to the city-state (polis), which he considers the highest form of community. The household provides for daily needs, but only in the polis can humans achieve the fulfillment of their rational and moral capacities.

Citizenship and Participation

For Aristotle, citizenship is not merely a legal status but an active participation in the life of the community. A citizen (polites) is someone who shares in the deliberative and judicial functions of the state. Aristotle distinguishes between good and bad forms of government by the extent to which citizens are involved in ruling and being ruled in turn.

Types of Constitutions

Aristotle famously classifies constitutions based on who rules and in whose interest they rule. He identifies three "correct" forms of government and their corrupt counterparts:

·       Monarchy (rule by one for the common good) and Tyranny (rule by one for personal interest)

·       Aristocracy (rule by the few best for the common good) and Oligarchy (rule by the wealthy few for their own interest)

·       Polity (rule by the many for the common good) and Democracy (rule by the poor majority for their own interest)

Aristotle is notable for his preference for the "polity," which he defines as a mixed or constitutional government blending elements of oligarchy and democracy. He sees it as the most stable and just, as it incorporates the interests and virtues of both the rich and the poor, fostering moderation and compromise.

Justice and Law

Justice, for Aristotle, is central to political life. He distinguishes between two forms of justice:

·       Distributive Justice: Concerns the fair allocation of resources and honors within a community, based on merit, need, or contribution.

·       Corrective Justice: Involves rectifying wrongs and restoring balance, as in the law courts.

Laws must be designed to cultivate virtue and maintain justice, balancing the interests of different social groups. For Aristotle, the stability and health of the polis depend on the rule of law rather than the arbitrary will of rulers.

Virtue and Education in Politics

Aristotle views the cultivation of virtue as the chief aim of politics. Education plays a vital role in shaping character and preparing individuals for participation in civic life. He advocates for a system in which citizens are taught to deliberate wisely, control their passions, and act in the public interest. The best political order, in his view, is one that produces virtuous citizens capable of self-governance.

Slavery, Gender, and the Limits of Aristotle’s Politics

While Aristotle’s political philosophy is rich and influential, it also reflects the limitations and prejudices of his time. He defends the institution of natural slavery, arguing that some people are by nature suited to be slaves, and maintains hierarchical views regarding women and non-Greek peoples. These positions have been widely criticized and rejected by later generations, but they also serve as a reminder of the contextual boundaries of ancient theories.

Aristotle’s Political Thought in Practice

Aristotle’s analysis is rooted in detailed observation of the constitutions and practices of Greek city-states. He famously compiled summaries of 158 constitutions (the Athenian Constitution survives), using empirical methods to study what makes states succeed or fail. He argues that political arrangements must be adapted to the specific circumstances of each community—its size, resources, traditions, and character.

Moderation and the Middle Class

Aristotle emphasizes the importance of a strong middle class for political stability. Extreme inequality, he warns, leads to factionalism and unrest. A polity that values moderation and cultivates a sizable middle stratum will be more resilient and just.

Related Concepts in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy

·       Deliberation: Collective decision-making is essential; wise laws result from the reasoned debate of citizens.

·       Common Good: The end of politics is the common good, not the glory or enrichment of the rulers.

·       Practical Wisdom (Phronesis): Good governance requires not only knowledge of universal principles but the practical wisdom to apply them in particular cases.

·       Friendship (Philia): Aristotle highlights civic friendship as the glue of political life—a sense of solidarity and mutual respect among citizens.

Aristotle’s Enduring Legacy

The influence of Aristotle’s political philosophy stretches across millennia. His typologies, concepts of justice, and arguments for the rule of law have shaped Roman, medieval, Islamic, and modern political thought. The revival of Aristotelianism in the Middle Ages helped lay the groundwork for the emergence of constitutional government in Europe, and his emphasis on rational deliberation and civic participation continues to animate discussions of democracy.

Nevertheless, Aristotle’s work is not without its critics, and contemporary philosophers often revisit his ideas to refine, critique, or reinterpret them. Whether as a source of wisdom or a point of departure, Aristotle’s theories remain a vital part of the philosophical conversation about politics, ethics, and the pursuit of the good life.

 

IV. Aristotle’s Literary Theories and Criticism

Aristotle, the towering figure of ancient philosophy, is celebrated not only for his contributions to political thought but also for his foundational work in literary theory and criticism. His treatise Poetics stands as the earliest surviving work of dramatic theory and continues to shape the critical vocabulary and analytical frameworks by which literature—especially drama and epic poetry—is understood. To explore Aristotle’s literary theories is to delve into the core principles that have guided generations of critics, writers, and philosophers in their quest to define and appreciate the nature of art.

The Context of Aristotle’s Poetics

Composed in the fourth century BCE, the Poetics is believed to be a set of lecture notes or an unfinished treatise. While only the first book, primarily focused on tragedy, survives in full, references in Aristotle’s other works and in later sources suggest that a second book, presumably on comedy, once existed. The Poetics emerges from Aristotle’s broader philosophical project: the systematic investigation of the nature and function of various forms of knowledge and expression.

Aristotle’s approach to literature is empirical and analytic. He seeks to classify genres, define their purposes, and evaluate the means by which poets achieve their effects. Unlike his teacher Plato, who often distrusted poetry for its potential to mislead and corrupt, Aristotle regards literary creation as natural to human beings and worthy of serious examination.

Mimesis: The Principle of Imitation

At the heart of Aristotle’s literary theory lies the concept of “mimesis”, or imitation. For Aristotle, poetry and art in general are forms of imitation, yet he does not mean mere copying of reality. Rather, mimesis is the creative re-presentation of human actions, emotions, and experiences. All humans, Aristotle argues, are naturally imitative from childhood, and this faculty enables learning and the creation of art.

He distinguishes among genres based on what is imitated (noble or base actions), the medium of imitation (language, rhythm, harmony), and the mode of imitation (narration or enactment). Epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, and dithyrambic poetry are all imitative, but they differ in their subjects and methods.

Genres: Tragedy, Epic, and Comedy

Aristotle’s taxonomy of genres is one of his most enduring contributions. He focuses especially on tragedy, which he defines with remarkable precision:

·       Tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation (catharsis) of these emotions.

Let us unpack this definition:

·       Tragedy seeks to represent actions that are significant and complete, with a beginning, middle, and end, giving the work a sense of wholeness.

·       The language is elevated and artistic, employing verse and musical elements.

·       The mode is enactment—drama on stage—rather than narration, as in epic poetry.

·       The aim is to arouse emotions in the audience, particularly pity and fear, and, crucially, to bring about catharsis—a purification or cleansing of these feelings.

Epic poetry, by contrast, is narrative, can be much longer, and allows for a multiplicity of plots and episodes. Comedy, though Aristotle’s discussion of it is fragmentary, is said to imitate characters of a lower type, not to arouse pity and fear but laughter by depicting human foibles.

Plot and Structure: The Soul of Tragedy

For Aristotle, the plot (mythos) is the “soul” of tragedy. He insists that a well-constructed plot is more important than character or spectacle. A plot should be unified, with each event logically following from what precedes it, creating a coherent and necessary sequence. Accidents and coincidences are to be minimized; causality reigns.

A good plot, he argues, should contain a reversal (peripeteia)—a sudden change in fortune—and recognition (anagnorisis)—the moment of critical discovery or self-knowledge. The combination of these elements contributes to the emotional impact on the audience.

Simple plots merely depict change without these dramatic turnings, whereas complex plots intertwine reversal and recognition, often inextricably linked, as in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. In Aristotle’s view, this play achieves the ideal tragic plot through its intricate unfolding of fate and knowledge.

Character and Thought

While plot is central, Aristotle does not ignore character (ethos). The protagonist of a tragedy should be a person who is neither wholly virtuous nor wholly wicked, but who falls into misfortune through some error in judgment (hamartia). This notion of the tragic flaw or mistake has influenced subsequent literary theory, though later critics sometimes misrepresent it as inherent vice.

Characters must be true to life, consistent, and appropriate to their roles. Thought (dianoia), the intellectual element, comprises the ideas and arguments expressed by the characters and helps reveal their motivations and values.

Language and Spectacle

Aristotle analyzes lexis—diction or style—as the way language is used to suit the genre, situation, and character. He values clarity, propriety, and expressive power, urging poets to balance the familiar and the surprising to achieve both intelligibility and beauty.

He gives lower priority to spectacle (opsis), the visual elements of staging, costumes, and scenery, warning that while impressive effects can delight, they do not compensate for weak plot or character.

Catharsis: The Purging of Emotions

Perhaps the most debated aspect of Aristotle’s theory is his concept of catharsis. Through experiencing the sufferings and reversals of the protagonist, the audience is moved to pity and fear. The resolution of the plot then produces catharsis—a term Aristotle does not fully explain, leading to centuries of interpretation.

Is catharsis a purgation of emotions, a clarification of the passions, or a means to restore psychological balance? Whatever the precise meaning, Aristotle’s insight is that tragedy performs a vital psychological function, providing both pleasure and moral insight.

Aristotle as Literary Critic

Aristotle’s literary criticism is distinguished by its systematic, almost scientific method. He draws on existing works of poetry and drama, especially those of Homer and the great Athenian tragedians, to illustrate his principles. He analyzes the failures as well as successes of playwrights, using them as case studies in literary construction and effect.

He also sets forth rules and recommendations: unity of plot, appropriateness of style, avoidance of improbable events. Yet he remains flexible, acknowledging that genius sometimes transcends or bends the rules, and that the ultimate measure of art is its ability to evoke emotional and intellectual response.

The Legacy and Influence of Aristotle’s Poetics

Aristotle’s Poetics has exercised a profound influence on Western literary theory. In the Renaissance, its rediscovery triggered a wave of commentary and adaptation, shaping the conventions of neoclassical drama. The unities of time, place, and action—though not strictly prescribed by Aristotle—became central tenets of French classical theatre.

Modern critics, from Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Northrop Frye, have revisited Aristotle’s categories and concepts, often challenging or reinterpreting them for new contexts. His emphasis on organic structure, causality, and the psychological effects of art continues to inform the study of literature and the practice of criticism.

Contemporary Reinterpretations and Critique

While Aristotle’s theories have been foundational, they have not gone unchallenged. Some contemporary theorists critique the emphasis on unity and closure, arguing for the value of fragmented or open-ended forms. The universality of catharsis and the applicability of Aristotle’s models to non-Western literatures have also been questioned.

Feminist and postcolonial critics, for example, examine the assumptions about character, genre, and audience embedded in the Poetics. New historicists and structuralists investigate the broader cultural forces shaping literary production, sometimes moving beyond the mimetic framework.

Yet, even in critique, Aristotle remains central—a point of reference, inspiration, and debate. His insistence on the intelligibility of art, the pleasure of recognition, and the value of structured emotion endures.

 

Bibliography

• Ackrill, J. L. Aristotle the Philosopher. Oxford University Press, 1981.

·       Allan, D. J. Aristotle’s Philosophical Development: Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 1986.

·       Barnes, Jonathan, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

·       Burnyeat, Myles. "Aristotle’s Philosophy in Its Ancient Context." Classical Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 1, 1995, pp. 1-25.

·       Carnes, Pack. "Aristotle’s Political Thought and the Greek Polis." Political Theory, vol. 9, no. 2, 1981, pp. 215-238.

·       Carter, L. B. The Quiet Athenian. Oxford University Press, 1986.

·       Cooper, John M. Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory. Princeton University Press, 1999.

·       Curren, Randall R. Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.

·       Else, Gerald F. Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Harvard University Press, 1957.

·       Everson, Stephen. Aristotle on Perception. Oxford University Press, 1997.

·       Ford, Andrew. The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton University Press, 2002.

·       Gerson, Lloyd P. Aristotle and Other Platonists. Cornell University Press, 2005.

·       Irwin, Terence. Aristotle’s First Principles. Clarendon Press, 1988.

·       Kennedy, George A. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford University Press, 1991.

·       Kraut, Richard. Aristotle: Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2002.

·       Lloyd, G. E. R. Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of His Thought. Cambridge University Press, 1968.

·       Lord, Carnes. Aristotle’s Politics. University of Chicago Press, 2013.

·       MacIntyre, Alasdair. A Short History of Ethics. Routledge, 1967.

·       Miller, Fred D. Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford University Press, 1995.

·       Nussbaum, Martha C. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1986.

·       Ober, Josiah. "Aristotle’s Political Sociology." History of Political Thought, vol. 11, no. 3, 1990, pp. 405-424.

·       Pellegrin, Pierre. Aristote: Physique, Métaphysique, Poétique. Éditions du Seuil, 1997.

·       Reeve, C. D. C. Action, Contemplation, and Happiness: An Essay on Aristotle. Harvard University Press, 2012.

·       Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg, ed. Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics. Princeton University Press, 1992.

·       Ross, W. D. Aristotle. Methuen, 1923.

·       Shields, Christopher. Aristotle. Routledge, 2014.

·       Sorabji, Richard. Aristotle on Memory. Duckworth, 1972.

·       Sprague, Rosamond Kent. Aristotle’s Way. Blackwell, 1972.

·       Treanor, Brian. "Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics and Its Relevance Today." Philosophy Today, vol. 41, no. 2, 1997, pp. 225-246.

·       Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. The Black Hunter: Forms of Thought and Forms of Society in the Greek World. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.