|
| location =Amsterdam
}}</ref> However, Plato reports that [[syntax]] was devised before him, by [[Prodicus of Ceos]], who was concerned by the correct use of words. Logic seems to have emerged from [[dialectics]]; the earlier philosophers made frequent use of concepts like ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'' in their discussions, but never truly understood the logical implications. Even Plato had difficulties with logic; although he had a reasonable conception of a [[deductive system]], he could never actually construct one, thus he relied instead on his [[dialectic]].<ref name="Bocheński, 1951">Bocheński, 1951.</ref>
Plato believed that deduction would simply follow from [[premise]]s, hence he focused on maintaining solid premises so that the [[Logical consequence|conclusion]] would logically follow. Consequently, Plato realized that a method for obtaining conclusions would be most beneficial. He never succeeded in devising such a method, but his best attempt was published in his book ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]'', where he introduced his division method.<ref>{{cite book
| last =Rose
| first =Lynn E.
| title =Aristotle's Syllogistic
| publisher =Charles C Thomas Publisher
| year =1968
| location =Springfield
}}</ref>
====Analytics and the ''Organon''====
{{Main|Organon}}
What we today call ''Aristotelian logic'', Aristotle himself would have labeled "analytics". The term "logic" he reserved to mean ''dialectics''. Most of Aristotle's work is probably not in its original form, since it was most likely edited by students and later lecturers. The logical works of Aristotle were compiled into six books in about the early 1st century AD:
#''Categories''
#''On Interpretation''
#''Prior Analytics''
#''Posterior Analytics''
#''Topics''
#''On Sophistical Refutations''
The order of the books (or the teachings from which they are composed) is not certain, but this list was derived from analysis of Aristotle's writings. It goes from the basics, the analysis of simple terms in the ''Categories,'' the analysis of propositions and their elementary relations in ''On Interpretation'', to the study of more complex forms, namely, syllogisms (in the ''Analytics'') and dialectics (in the ''Topics'' and ''Sophistical Refutations''). The first three treatises form the core of the logical theory ''stricto sensu'': the grammar of the language of logic and the correct rules of reasoning. There is one volume of Aristotle's concerning logic not found in the ''Organon'', namely the fourth book of ''Metaphysics.''<ref name="Bocheński, 1951"/>
===Aristotle's epistemology===
[[File:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg|thumb|Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), a detail of ''[[The School of Athens]]''<!-- this should link to an article about the famous artwork -->, a fresco by [[Raphael]]. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge through empirical observation and experience, while holding a copy of his ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' in his hand, whilst Plato gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in [[The Forms]].]]
{{details|Aristotle's theory of universals}}
[[File:Francesco Hayez 001.jpg|thumb|"Aristotle" by Francesco Hayez (1791–1882)]]
Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle's philosophy aims at the [[Universality (philosophy)|universal]]. Aristotle's [[ontology]], however, finds the universal in [[particular]] things, which he calls the essence of things, while in Plato's ontology, the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their [[prototype]] or [[exemplar]]. For Aristotle, therefore, [[epistemology]] is based on the study of particular phenomena and rises to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato epistemology begins with knowledge of universal [[Theory of Forms|Forms]] (or ideas) and descends to knowledge of particular imitations of these. For Aristotle, "form" still refers to the unconditional basis of [[phenomena]] but is "instantiated" in a particular substance (see ''[[Aristotle#Universals and particulars|Universals and particulars]]'', below). In a certain sense, Aristotle's method is both [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] and [[Deductive reasoning|deductive]], while Plato's is essentially deductive from ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' principles.<ref>{{cite book
| last =Jori
| first =Alberto
| title =Aristotele
| publisher =Bruno Mondadori Editore
| year =2003
| location =Milano
}}</ref>
In Aristotle's terminology, "natural philosophy" is a branch of philosophy examining the phenomena of the natural world, and includes fields that would be regarded today as physics, biology and other natural sciences. In modern times, the scope of ''philosophy'' has become limited to more generic or abstract inquiries, such as ethics and metaphysics, in which logic plays a major role. Today's philosophy tends to exclude empirical study of the natural world by means of the [[scientific method]]. In contrast, Aristotle's philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry.
In the larger sense of the word, Aristotle makes philosophy coextensive with reasoning, which he also would describe as "science". Note, however, that his use of the term ''science'' carries a different meaning than that covered by the term "scientific method". For Aristotle, "all science (''dianoia'') is either practical, poetical or theoretical" (''Metaphysics'' 1025b25). By practical science, he means ethics and politics; by poetical science, he means the study of poetry and the other fine arts; by theoretical science, he means physics, [[mathematics]] and metaphysics.
If logic (or "analytics") is regarded as a study preliminary to philosophy, the divisions of Aristotelian philosophy would consist of: (1) [[Logic]]; (2) Theoretical Philosophy, including Metaphysics, Physics and Mathematics; (3) Practical Philosophy and (4) Poetical Philosophy.
In the period between his two stays in Athens, between his times at the Academy and the Lyceum, Aristotle conducted most of the scientific thinking and research for which he is renowned today. In fact, most of Aristotle's life was devoted to the study of the objects of natural science. Aristotle's metaphysics contains observations on the nature of numbers but he made no original contributions to mathematics. He did, however, perform [[original research]] in the natural sciences, e.g., botany, zoology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, and several other sciences.
Aristotle's writings on science are largely qualitative, as opposed to quantitative. Beginning in the 16th century, scientists began applying mathematics to the physical sciences, and Aristotle's work in this area was deemed hopelessly inadequate. His failings were largely due to the absence of concepts like mass, velocity, force and temperature. He had a conception of speed and temperature, but no quantitative understanding of them, which was partly due to the absence of basic experimental devices, like clocks and thermometers.
His writings provide an account of many scientific observations, a mixture of precocious accuracy and curious errors. For example, in his ''[[History of Animals]]'' he claimed that human males have more teeth than females.<ref>Aristotle, ''History of Animals'', 2.3.</ref> In a similar vein, [[John Philoponus]], and later [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]], showed by simple experiments that Aristotle's theory that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object is incorrect.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philoponus/#2.2 |title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Plato.stanford.edu |date= |accessdate=26 April 2009}}</ref> On the other hand, Aristotle refuted [[Democritus]]'s claim that the [[Milky Way]] was made up of "those stars which are shaded by the earth from the sun's rays," pointing out (correctly, even if such reasoning was bound to be dismissed for a long time) that, given "current astronomical demonstrations" that "the size of the sun is greater than that of the earth and the distance of the stars from the earth many times greater than that of the sun, then ... the sun shines on all the stars and the earth screens none of them."<ref>Aristotle, ''Meteorology'' 1.8, trans. E.W. Webster, rev. J. Barnes.</ref>
In places, Aristotle goes too far in deriving 'laws of the universe' from simple observation and over-stretched [[reason]]. Today's scientific method assumes that such thinking without sufficient facts is ineffective, and that discerning the validity of one's hypothesis requires far more rigorous experimentation than that which Aristotle used to support his laws.
Aristotle also had some scientific blind spots. He posited a [[geocentrism|geocentric cosmology]] that we may discern in selections of the ''Metaphysics'', which was widely accepted up until the 16th century. From the 3rd century to the 16th century, the dominant view held that the Earth was the rotational [[History of the Center of the Universe|center of the universe]].
Since he was perhaps the philosopher most respected by European thinkers during and after the Renaissance, these thinkers often took Aristotle's erroneous positions as given, which held back science in this epoch.<ref>[[John Burnet (classicist)|Burent, John.]] 1928. ''Platonism'', Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 61, 103–104.</ref> However, Aristotle's scientific shortcomings should not mislead one into forgetting his great advances in the many scientific fields. For instance, he founded logic as a formal science and created foundations to biology that were not superseded for two millennia. Moreover, he introduced the fundamental notion that nature is composed of things that change and that studying such changes can provide useful knowledge of underlying constants.
===Geology===
===Physics===
{{Main|Physics (Aristotle)}}
====Five elements====
{{Main|Classical element}}
====Motion====
{{Main|potentiality and actuality}}
Aristotle defined [[Motion (physics)|motion]] as the actuality of a potentiality ''as such''.<ref>''Physics'' 201a10–11, 201a27–29, 201b4–5</ref> Aquinas suggested that the passage be understood literally; that motion can indeed be understood as the active fulfillment of a potential, as a transition toward a potentially possible state. Because [[Aristotle#Substance, potentiality and actuality|actuality and potentiality]] are normally opposites in Aristotle, other commentators either suggest that the wording which has come down to us is erroneous, or that the addition of the "as such" to the definition is critical to understanding it.<ref>{{Citation|last=Sachs|first=Joe|title=Aristotle: Motion and its Place in Nature|year=2005|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-mot/|journal=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>
====Causality, the four causes====<!-- This section is linked from [[Retrocausality]]. See [[WP:MOS#Section management]] -->
{{Main|Four causes}}
Aristotle suggested that the reason for anything coming about can be attributed to four different types of simultaneously active causal factors:
*[[Material cause]] describes the material out of which something is composed. Thus the material cause of a table is wood, and the material cause of a car is rubber and steel. It is not about action. It does not mean one domino knocks over another domino.
====Chance and spontaneity====
According to Aristotle, spontaneity and chance are causes of some things, distinguishable from other types of cause. Chance as an incidental cause lies in the realm of [[sumbebekos|accidental things]]. It is "from what is spontaneous" (but note that what is spontaneous does not come from chance). For a better understanding of Aristotle's conception of "chance" it might be better to think of "coincidence": Something takes place by chance if a person sets out with the intent of having one thing take place, but with the result of another thing (not intended) taking place.
For example: A person seeks donations. That person may find another person willing to donate a substantial sum. However, if the person seeking the donations met the person donating, not for the purpose of collecting donations, but for some other purpose, Aristotle would call the collecting of the donation by that particular donator a result of chance. It must be unusual that something happens by chance. In other words, if something happens all or most of the time, we cannot say that it is by chance.
There is also more specific kind of chance, which Aristotle names "luck", that can only apply to human beings, since it is in the sphere of moral actions. According to Aristotle, luck must involve choice (and thus deliberation), and only humans are capable of deliberation and choice. "What is not capable of action cannot do anything by chance".<ref>Aristotle, ''Physics'' 2.6</ref>
===Metaphysics===
{{See also|Potentiality and actuality (Aristotle)}}
Aristotle examines the concepts of [[Substance theory|substance]] and [[essence]] (''ousia'') in his ''Metaphysics'' (Book VII), and he concludes that a particular substance is a combination of both matter and form. In book VIII, he distinguishes the matter of the substance as the [[Material substratum|substratum]], or the stuff of which it is composed. For example, the matter of a house is the bricks, stones, timbers etc., or whatever constitutes the ''potential'' house, while the form of the substance is the ''actual'' house, namely 'covering for bodies and chattels' or any other [[Genus-differentia definition|differentia]] (see also [[predicables]]) that let us define something as a house. The formula that gives the components is the account of the matter, and the formula that gives the differentia is the account of the form.<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' VIII 1043a 10–30</ref>
With regard to the change (''[[Potentiality and actuality|kinesis]]'') and its causes now, as he defines in his [[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]] and [[On Generation and Corruption]] 319b–320a, he distinguishes the coming to be from:
# growth and diminution, which is change in quantity;
# locomotion, which is change in space; and
# alteration, which is change in quality.
The coming to be is a change where nothing persists of which the resultant is a property. In that particular change he introduces the concept of potentiality (''[[Dunamis|dynamis]]'') and actuality (''[[entelecheia]]'') in association with the matter and the form.
Referring to potentiality, this is what a thing is capable of doing, or being acted upon, if the conditions are right and it is not prevented by something else. For example, the seed of a plant in the soil is potentially (''dynamei'') plant, and if is not prevented by something, it will become a plant. Potentially beings can either 'act' (''poiein'') or 'be acted upon' (''paschein''), which can be either innate or learned. For example, the eyes possess the potentiality of sight (innate – being acted upon), while the capability of playing the flute can be possessed by learning (exercise – acting).
Actuality is the fulfillment of the end of the potentiality. Because the end (''telos'') is the principle of every change, and for the sake of the end exists potentiality, therefore actuality is the end. Referring then to our previous example, we could say that an actuality is when a plant does one of the activities that plants do.
<blockquote>
"For that for the sake of which a thing is, is its principle, and the becoming is for the sake of the end; and the actuality is the end, and it is for the sake of this that the potentiality is acquired. For animals do not see in order that they may have sight, but they have sight that they may see."<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' IX 1050a 5–10</ref>
</blockquote>
In summary, the matter used to make a house has potentiality to be a house and both the activity of building and the form of the final house are actualities, which is also a [[final cause]] or end. Then Aristotle proceeds and concludes that the actuality is prior to potentiality in formula, in time and in substantiality.
With this [[definition]] of the particular substance (i.e., matter and form), Aristotle tries to solve the problem of the unity of the beings, for example, "what is it that makes a man one"? Since, according to Plato there are two Ideas: animal and biped, how then is man a unity? However, according to Aristotle, the potential being (matter) and the actual one (form) are one and the same thing.<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' VIII 1045a–b</ref>
====Universals and particulars====
Aristotle's predecessor, Plato, argued that all things have a universal form, which could be either a property, or a relation to other things. When we look at an apple, for example, we see an apple, and we can also analyze a form of an apple. In this distinction, there is a particular apple and a universal form of an apple. Moreover, we can place an apple next to a book, so that we can speak of both the book and apple as being next to each other.
Plato argued that there are some universal forms that are not a part of particular things. For example, it is possible that there is no particular good in existence, but "good" is still a proper universal form. [[Bertrand Russell]] is a 20th-century philosopher who agreed with Plato on the existence of "uninstantiated universals".
Aristotle disagreed with Plato on this point, arguing that all universals are instantiated. Aristotle argued that there are no universals that are unattached to existing things. According to Aristotle, if a universal exists, either as a particular or a relation, then there must have been, must be currently, or must be in the future, something on which the universal can be predicated. Consequently, according to Aristotle, if it is not the case that some universal can be predicated to an object that exists at some period of time, then it does not exist.
In addition, Aristotle disagreed with Plato about the location of universals. As Plato spoke of the world of the forms, a location where all universal forms subsist, Aristotle maintained that universals exist within each thing on which each universal is predicated. So, according to Aristotle, the form of apple exists within each apple, rather than in the world of the forms.
===Biology and medicine===
In Aristotelian science, especially in biology, things he saw himself have stood the test of time better than his retelling of the reports of others, which contain error and superstition. He dissected animals but not humans; his ideas on how the human body works have been almost entirely superseded.
====Empirical research program====
[[File:Octopus3.jpg|thumb|Octopus swimming]]
[[File:Torpedo fuscomaculata2.jpg|thumb|''Torpedo fuscomaculata'']]
Aristotle is the earliest natural historian whose work has survived in some detail. Aristotle certainly did research on the natural history of [[Lesbos]], and the surrounding seas and neighbouring areas. The works that reflect this research, such as ''[[History of Animals]]'', ''[[Generation of Animals]]'', and ''[[Parts of Animals]]'', contain some observations and interpretations, along with sundry myths and mistakes. The most striking passages are about the sea-life visible from observation on Lesbos and available from the catches of fishermen. His observations on [[catfish]], [[Electric ray|electric fish]] (''[[Torpedo (genus)|Torpedo]]'') and angler-fish are detailed, as is his writing on [[cephalopod]]s, namely, ''[[Octopus]]'', ''Sepia'' ([[cuttlefish]]) and the paper nautilus (''[[Argonauta argo]]''). His description of the [[hectocotylus|hectocotyl arm]], used in sexual reproduction, was widely disbelieved until its rediscovery in the 19th century. He separated the aquatic mammals from fish, and knew that sharks and rays were part of the group he called Selachē ([[selachians]]).<ref name="Singer, Charles 1931">Singer, Charles. ''A short history of biology''. Oxford 1931.</ref>
Another good example of his methods comes from the ''Generation of Animals'' in which Aristotle describes breaking open fertilized chicken eggs at intervals to observe when visible organs were generated.
He gave accurate descriptions of [[ruminant]]s' four-chambered fore-stomachs, and of the [[Ovoviviparity|ovoviviparous]] embryological development of the [[hound shark]] ''[[Mustelus mustelus]]''.<ref>Emily Kearns, "Animals, knowledge about," in ''[[Oxford Classical Dictionary]]'', 3rd ed., 1996, p. 92.</ref>
====Classification of living things====
Aristotle's classification of living things contains some elements which still existed in the 19th century. What the modern zoologist would call vertebrates and invertebrates, Aristotle called 'animals with blood' and 'animals without blood' (he did not know that complex invertebrates do make use of [[hemoglobin]], but of a different kind from vertebrates). Animals with blood were divided into live-bearing (humans and mammals), and egg-bearing (birds and fish). Invertebrates ('animals without blood') are insects, crustacea (divided into non-shelled – cephalopods – and shelled) and testacea (molluscs). In some respects, this incomplete classification is better than that of [[Linnaeus]], who crowded the invertebrata together into two groups, Insecta and Vermes (worms).<ref>Guthrie, ''A History of Greek Philosophy'' Vol. 1 pp. 348</ref>
For [[Charles Singer]], "Nothing is more remarkable than [Aristotle's] efforts to [exhibit] the relationships of living things as a ''scala naturae''"<ref name="Singer, Charles 1931"/> Aristotle's ''History of Animals'' classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "[[Great chain of being|Ladder of Life]]" (''scala naturae'' or [[Great Chain of Being]]), placing them according to complexity of structure and function so that higher organisms showed greater vitality and ability to move.<ref>Aristotle, of course, is not responsible for the later use made of this idea by clerics.</ref>
Aristotle believed that intellectual purposes, i.e., [[final cause]]s, guided all natural processes. Such a [[teleological]] view gave Aristotle cause to justify his observed data as an expression of formal design. Noting that "no animal has, at the same time, both tusks and horns," and "a single-hooved animal with two horns I have never seen," Aristotle suggested that Nature, giving no animal both horns and tusks, was staving off vanity, and giving creatures faculties only to such a degree as they are necessary. Noting that ruminants had multiple stomachs and weak teeth, he supposed the first was to compensate for the latter, with Nature trying to preserve a type of balance.<ref>Mason, ''A History of the Sciences'' pp 43–44</ref>
In a similar fashion, Aristotle believed that creatures were arranged in a graded scale of perfection rising from plants on up to man, the ''scala naturae''.<ref>Mayr, ''The Growth of Biological Thought'', pp 201–202; see also: Lovejoy, ''The Great Chain of Being''</ref> His system had eleven grades, arranged according "to the degree to which they are infected with potentiality", expressed in their form at birth. The highest animals laid warm and wet creatures alive, the lowest bore theirs cold, dry, and in thick eggs.
Aristotle also held that the level of a creature's perfection was reflected in its form, but not preordained by that form. Ideas like this, and his ideas about souls, are not regarded as science at all in modern times.
He placed emphasis on the type(s) of soul an organism possessed, asserting that plants possess a vegetative soul, responsible for reproduction and growth, animals a vegetative and a sensitive soul, responsible for mobility and sensation, and humans a vegetative, a sensitive, and a rational soul, capable of thought and reflection.<ref>Aristotle, ''De Anima'' II 3</ref>
Aristotle, in contrast to earlier philosophers, but in accordance with the Egyptians, placed the rational soul in the heart, rather than the brain.<ref>Mason, ''A History of the Sciences'' pp 45</ref> Notable is Aristotle's division of sensation and thought, which generally went against previous philosophers, with the exception of [[Alcmaeon of Croton|Alcmaeon]].<ref>Guthrie, ''A History of Greek Philosophy'' Vol. 1 pp. 348</ref>
====Successor: Theophrastus====
====Influence on Hellenistic medicine====
{{details|Medicine in ancient Greece}}
After Theophrastus, the Lyceum failed to produce any original work. Though interest in Aristotle's ideas survived, they were generally taken unquestioningly.<ref>Annas, ''Classical Greek Philosophy'' pp 252</ref> It is not until the age of [[Alexandria]] under the [[Ptolemaic dynasty|Ptolemies]] that advances in biology can be again found.
===Practical philosophy===
====Ethics====
{{Main|Aristotelian ethics}}
Aristotle considered ethics to be a practical rather than theoretical study, i.e., one aimed at becoming good and doing good rather than knowing for its own sake. He wrote several treatises on ethics, including most notably, the ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]''.
Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function (''ergon'') of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle reasoned that humans must have a function specific to humans, and that this function must be an activity of the ''[[De Anima|psuchē]]'' (normally translated as ''soul'') in accordance with reason (''[[logos]]''). Aristotle identified such an optimum activity of the soul as the aim of all human deliberate action, ''[[eudaimonia]]'', generally translated as "happiness" or sometimes "well being". To have the potential of ever being happy in this way necessarily requires a good character (''ēthikē'' ''[[aretē]]''), often translated as moral (or ethical) virtue (or excellence).<ref>[[Nicomachean Ethics]] Book I. See for example chapter 7 [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1098a 1098a].</ref>
Aristotle taught that to achieve a virtuous and potentially happy character requires a first stage of having the fortune to be habituated not deliberately, but by teachers, and experience, leading to a later stage in which one consciously chooses to do the best things. When the best people come to live life this way their practical wisdom (''[[phronesis]]'') and their intellect (''[[nous]]'') can develop with each other towards the highest possible human virtue, the wisdom of an accomplished [[theory|theoretical]] or speculative thinker, or in other words, a [[philosophy|philosopher]].<ref>[[Nicomachean Ethics]] Book VI.</ref>
====Politics====
{{Main|Politics (Aristotle)}}
{{quote|''Like Aristotle, conservatives generally accept the world as it is; they distrust the politics of abstract reason – that is, reason divorced from experience.''<br>'''''Benjamin Wiker'''''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2010/08/191121 |title=Aristotle: Father of political conservatism |publisher=Wnd.com |date=14 August 2010 |accessdate=15 October 2012}}</ref>}}
In addition to his works on ethics, which address the individual, Aristotle addressed the city in his work titled ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]''. Aristotle considered the city to be a natural community. Moreover, he considered the city to be prior in importance to the family which in turn is prior to the individual, "for the whole must of necessity be prior to the part".<ref>Politics 1253a19–24</ref> He also famously stated that "man is by nature a political animal". Aristotle conceived of politics as being like an [[organism]] rather than like a machine, and as a collection of parts none of which can exist without the others. Aristotle's conception of the city is organic, and he is considered one of the first to conceive of the city in this manner.<ref>{{cite book | last =Ebenstein | first =Alan | coauthors =William Ebenstein | title =Introduction to Political Thinkers | publisher =Wadsworth Group | year =2002 | page =59}}</ref>
The common modern understanding of a political community as a modern state is quite different to Aristotle's understanding. Although he was aware of the existence and potential of larger empires, the natural community according to Aristotle was the city (''[[polis]]'') which functions as a political "community" or "partnership" (''koinōnia'')<!-- (1252a1) -->. The aim of the city is not just to avoid injustice or for economic stability<!-- (1280b29–31) -->, but rather to allow at least some citizens the possibility to live a good life, and to perform beautiful acts: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together<!-- (1281a1–3) -->." This is distinguished from modern approaches, beginning with [[social contract]] theory, according to which individuals leave the [[state of nature]] because of "fear of violent death" or its "inconveniences."<ref>For a different reading of social and economic processes in the ''Nicomachean Ethics'' and ''Politics'' see Polanyi, K. (1957) "Aristotle Discovers the Economy" in ''Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi'' ed. G. Dalton, Boston 1971, 78–115</ref>
====Rhetoric and poetics====
Aristotle was a keen systematic collector of riddles, folklore, and proverbs; he and his school had a special interest in the riddles of the [[Pythia|Delphic Oracle]] and studied the fables of [[Aesop]].<ref>Temple, Olivia, and Temple, Robert (translators), [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZB-rVxPvtPEC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_0 The Complete Fables By Aesop] Penguin Classics, 1998. ISBN 0-14-044649-4 Cf. Introduction, pp. xi–xii.</ref>
===Views on women===
{{Main|Aristotle's views on women}}
Aristotle's analysis of procreation describes an active, ensouling masculine element bringing life to an inert, passive female element. On this ground, feminists have accused Aristotle of [[misogyny]]<ref name="Freeland">{{cite book | title=Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle | publisher=Penn State University Press | author=Freeland, Cynthia A. | year=1998 | isbn=0-271-01730-9}}</ref> and [[sexism]].<ref name="Morsink">{{cite journal | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4330727 | title=Was Aristotle's Biology Sexist? | author=Morsink, Johannes | journal=Journal of the History of Biology | year=1979 | month=Spring | volume=12 | issue=1 | pages=83–112}}</ref> However, Aristotle gave equal weight to women's happiness as he did to men's, and commented in his ''Rhetoric'' that a society cannot be happy unless women are happy too.
==Loss and preservation of his works==
{{See also|Corpus Aristotelicum}}
Modern scholarship reveals that Aristotle's "lost" works stray considerably in characterization<ref name="Cornell">Terence Irwin and Gail Fine, [[Cornell University]], ''Aristotle: Introductory Readings.'' Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1996), Introduction, pp. xi–xii.</ref> from the surviving Aristotelian corpus. Whereas the lost works appear to have been originally written with an intent for subsequent publication, the surviving works do not appear to have been so.<ref name="Cornell" /> Rather the surviving works mostly resemble lecture notes unintended for publication.<ref name="Cornell" /> The authenticity of a portion of the surviving works as originally Aristotelian is also today held suspect, with some books duplicating or summarizing each other, the authorship of one book questioned and another book considered to be unlikely Aristotle's at all.<ref name="Cornell" />
Some of the individual works within the corpus, including the ''[[Constitution of Athens]],'' are regarded by most scholars as products of Aristotle's "school," perhaps compiled under his direction or supervision. Others, such as ''On Colors,'' may have been produced by Aristotle's successors at the Lyceum, e.g., [[Theophrastus]] and [[Strato of Lampsacus|Straton]]. Still others acquired Aristotle's name through similarities in doctrine or content, such as the ''De Plantis,'' possibly by [[Nicolaus of Damascus]]. Other works in the corpus include medieval palmistries and [[astrological]] and [[magic (paranormal)|magical]] texts whose connections to Aristotle are purely fanciful and self-promotional.<ref>Lynn Thorndike, "Chiromancy in Medieval Latin Manuscripts," ''Speculum'' 40 (1965), pp. 674–706; Roger A. Pack, "Pseudo-Arisoteles: Chiromantia," ''Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge'' 39 (1972), pp. 289–320; Pack, "A Pseudo-Aristotelian Chiromancy," ''Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge'' 36 (1969), pp. 189–241.</ref>
According to a distinction that originates with Aristotle himself, his writings are divisible into two groups: the "[[exoteric]]" and the "[[esoteric]]".<ref>[[Jonathan Barnes]], "Life and Work" in ''The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle'' (1995), p. 12; Aristotle himself: ''Nicomachean Ethics'' 1102a26–27. Aristotle himself never uses the term "esoteric" or "acroamatic". For other passages where Aristotle speaks of ''exōterikoi logoi'', see [[W. D. Ross]], ''Aristotle's Metaphysics'' (1953), vol. 2, pp. 408–410. Ross defends an interpretation according to which the phrase, at least in Aristotle's own works, usually refers generally to "discussions not peculiar to the [[Peripatetic school]]", rather than to specific works of Aristotle's own.</ref> Most scholars have understood this as a distinction between works Aristotle intended for the public (exoteric), and the more technical works intended for use within the school (esoteric). Modern scholars commonly assume these latter to be Aristotle's own (unpolished) lecture notes (or in some cases possible notes by his students).<ref name="Barnes, Life and Work, p. 12">Barnes, "Life and Work", p. 12.</ref> However, one classic scholar offers an alternative interpretation. The 5th century [[neoplatonist]] [[Ammonius Hermiae]] writes that Aristotle's writing style is deliberately [[Obscurantism|obscurantist]] so that "good people may for that reason stretch their mind even more, whereas empty minds that are lost through carelessness will be put to flight by the obscurity when they encounter sentences like these."<ref>{{cite book
| author= Ammonius
| year= 1991
| title= On Aristotle's Categories
| location= Ithaca, NY
| publisher= Cornell University Press
| isbn= 0-8014-2688-X
}} p. 15</ref>
Another common assumption is that none of the exoteric works is extant – that all of Aristotle's extant writings are of the esoteric kind. Current knowledge of what exactly the exoteric writings were like is scant and dubious, though many of them may have been in dialogue form. (''Fragments'' of some of Aristotle's dialogues have survived.) Perhaps it is to these that [[Cicero]] refers when he characterized Aristotle's writing style as "a river of gold";<ref>{{cite web
| last =Cicero
| first =Marcus Tullius
| title =flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles
| work =Academica
| date =106 BC – 43 BC
| url =http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/9/7/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm#BkII_119
| accessdate =25 January 2007}}</ref> it is hard for many modern readers to accept that one could seriously so admire the style of those works currently available to us.<ref name="Barnes, Life and Work, p. 12"/> However, some modern scholars have warned that we cannot know for certain that Cicero's praise was reserved specifically for the exoteric works; a few modern scholars have actually admired the concise writing style found in Aristotle's extant works.<ref>Barnes, "Roman Aristotle", in Gregory Nagy, ''Greek Literature'', Routledge 2001, vol. 8, p. 174 n. 240.</ref>
One major question in the history of Aristotle's works, then, is how were the exoteric writings all lost, and how did the ones we now possess come to us?<ref>The definitive, English study of these questions is Barnes, "Roman Aristotle".</ref> The story of the original manuscripts of the esoteric treatises is described by [[Strabo]] in his ''Geography'' and [[Plutarch]] in his ''[[Parallel Lives]]''.<ref>"Sulla."</ref> The manuscripts were left from Aristotle to his successor Theophrastus, who in turn willed them to [[Neleus of Scepsis]]. Neleus supposedly took the writings from Athens to [[Scepsis]], where his heirs let them languish in a cellar until the 1st century BC, when [[Apellicon of Teos]] discovered and purchased the manuscripts, bringing them back to Athens. According to the story, Apellicon tried to repair some of the damage that was done during the manuscripts' stay in the basement, introducing a number of errors into the text. When [[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]] occupied Athens in 86 BC, he carried off the library of Apellicon to Rome, where they were first published in 60 BC by the grammarian [[Tyrannion of Amisus]] and then by the philosopher [[Andronicus of Rhodes]].<ref>Ancient Rome: from the early Republic to the assassination of Julius Caesar – Page 513, Matthew Dillon, Lynda Garland</ref><ref>The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 22 – Page 131, Grolier Incorporated – Juvenile Nonfiction</ref>
Carnes Lord attributes the popular belief in this story to the fact that it provides "the most plausible explanation for the rapid eclipse of the Peripatetic school after the middle of the third century, and for the absence of widespread knowledge of the specialized treatises of Aristotle throughout the Hellenistic period, as well as for the sudden reappearance of a flourishing Aristotelianism during the first century B.C."<ref>{{cite book
|last=Lord
|first=Carnes
|title=Introduction to the Politics, by Aristotle
|publisher=[[Chicago University Press]]
|year=1984
|location=Chicago
|page=11
}}</ref> Lord voices a number of reservations concerning this story, however. First, the condition of the texts is far too good for them to have suffered considerable damage followed by Apellicon's inexpert attempt at repair.
Second, there is "incontrovertible evidence," Lord says, that the treatises were in circulation during the time in which Strabo and Plutarch suggest they were confined within the cellar in Scepsis. Third, the definitive edition of Aristotle's texts seems to have been made in Athens some fifty years before Andronicus supposedly compiled his. And fourth, ancient library catalogues predating Andronicus' intervention list an Aristotelian corpus quite similar to the one we currently possess. Lord sees a number of post-Aristotelian interpolations in the ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', for example, but is generally confident that the work has come down to us relatively intact.
On the one hand, the surviving texts of Aristotle do not derive from finished literary texts, but rather from working drafts used within Aristotle's school, as opposed, on the other hand, to the [[Corpus Aristotelicum#Fragments|dialogues and other "exoteric" texts]] which Aristotle published more widely during his lifetime. The consensus is that Andronicus of Rhodes collected the esoteric works of Aristotle's school which existed in the form of smaller, separate works, distinguished them from those of Theophrastus and other Peripatetics, edited them, and finally compiled them into the more cohesive, larger works as they are known today.<ref>Anagnostopoulos, G., "Aristotle's Works and Thoughts", ''A Companion to Aristotle'' (Blackwell Publishing, 2009), p. 16. See also, Barnes, J., "Life and Work", ''The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle'' (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 10–15.</ref>
==Legacy==
==List of works==
{{Main|Corpus Aristotelicum}}
The works of Aristotle that have survived from antiquity through medieval manuscript transmission are collected in the Corpus Aristotelicum. These texts, as opposed to Aristotle's lost works, are technical philosophical treatises from within Aristotle's school. Reference to them is made according to the organization of [[Immanuel Bekker]]'s Royal Prussian Academy edition (''Aristotelis Opera edidit Academia Regia Borussica'', Berlin, 1831–1870), which in turn is based on ancient classifications of these works.
[[Aristotle Mountains]] on [[Oscar II Coast]] in [[Graham Land]], [[Antarctica]] are named after Aristotle who was the first to conjecture the existence of a landmass in the southern high-latitude region, calling it ''Antarctica''.<ref>[https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/scar/display_name.cfm?gaz_id=137410 Aristotle Mountains.] [[SCAR]] [[Composite Antarctic Gazetteer]].</ref>
==See also==
*[[Aristotelian physics]]
*[[Aristotelian view of God]]
*[[Conimbricenses]]
*[[Corpus Aristotelicum]]
*[[Hylomorphism]]
*[[List of writers influenced by Aristotle]]
*[[Otium]]
*[[Philia]]
==তথ্যসুত্ৰ==
==Notes and references==
{{Reflist|20em}}
==লগতে চাওক==
==Further reading==
The secondary literature on Aristotle is vast. The following references are only a small selection.
{{refbegin|30em}}
|
