Aristotle
For Aristotle, knowledge begins with careful observation of the world, everything strives toward a purpose, and a good life means exercising the virtues – each a middle path between too much and too little, like courage between cowardice and recklessness.
Placement
Systematized nearly every field of knowledge – logic, physics, metaphysics, ethics, politics. Form realizes itself in matter.
Key ideas
- Syllogistic
- Four causes
- Virtue as the mean
- Eudaimonia
Teachers: Plato
Influence
Influenced by 3
Empedocles
influenced by ✓
Aristotle took over Empedocles’ four elements as the simple bodies of the sublunary world, crediting him as the first to posit four (Metaphysics I.4). Aristotle, Metaphysics I.4, 985a31–33; On Generation and Corruption II.1–6; SEP “Empedocles”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Empedocles › c. 494–434 BCE
Socrates
influenced by ✓
Aristotle credited Socrates with inductive arguments and universal definition, the starting point of the theory of Forms, but rejected his denial of weakness of will (Metaphysics; Nicomachean Ethics). Aristotle, Metaphysics XIII.4, 1078b27–30; I.6, 987b1–6; Nicomachean Ethics VII.2, 1145b21–27
Socrates › 470–399 BCE
Democritus
influenced by ✓
Aristotle treated Democritus as the earlier physicist who argued most from nature, discussing his atoms and void at length while rejecting both (On Generation and Corruption I.2, I.8). Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption I.2, I.8; Physics IV.6–9; SEP “Democritus”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Democritus › c. 460–370 BCE
Influenced 60
Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
influenced ✓
Avicenna’s Book of the Cure (al-Shifa) follows the order of Aristotle’s corpus from logic to metaphysics, but reworks it into a system of his own. Ibn Sina, al-Shifa; D. Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition (1988; 2nd ed. 2014); SEP “Ibn Sina [Avicenna]”
Ibn Sina (Avicenna) › 980–1037
Thomas Aquinas
influenced ✓
Aquinas made Aristotle’s philosophy of nature and the soul the framework of his theology and, chiefly in 1268–73, commented on a dozen of his works. Thomas Aquinas, Sentencia libri De anima; In Metaphysicam; Sententia libri Ethicorum; SEP “Thomas Aquinas”
Thomas Aquinas › c. 1225–1274
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
influenced ✓
Leibniz rehabilitated Aristotle’s substantial forms against the mechanists in the Discourse on Metaphysics (1686) and later called his simple substances ‘entelechies’ (Monadology, 1714). G. W. Leibniz, Discours de métaphysique (1686); Monadologie (1714); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz › 1646–1716
Adam Smith
influenced
Smith ranked Aristotle’s virtue as a mean among the systems of propriety, saying it agrees ‘pretty exactly’ with his own account (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759). A. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; 6th ed. 1790), part VII, sect. ii, ch. 1
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
Adam Smith › 1723–1790
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
influenced ✓
Hegel closed his Encyclopaedia (1830) with Aristotle’s account of the divine thought that thinks itself, quoted in Greek from Book Lambda of the Metaphysics. G. W. F. Hegel, Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1830), conclusion; Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book Lambda; SEP “Hegel”
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel › 1770–1831
Martin Heidegger
influenced ✓
Heidegger read Aristotle’s ethics and ontology phenomenologically in early lectures and the ‘Natorp report’ (1922, publ. 1989), groundwork for the analysis of Dasein in Being and Time (1927). M. Heidegger, “Phänomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles (Anzeige der hermeneutischen Situation)” (1922; publ. 1989); Platon: Sophistes (lectures 1924–25; publ. 1992); Sein und Zeit (1927); SEP “Martin Heidegger”
Martin Heidegger › 1889–1976
Show all (60)Show fewer
Plotinus
influenced
Plotinus took over Aristotle’s self-thinking divine intellect as his second principle, Intellect, but set the One above it; Porphyry notes Aristotle’s Metaphysics is condensed in the Enneads. Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 14; Plotinus, Enneads V.3, VI.1–3; Aristotle, Metaphysics XII.9; SEP “Plotinus”
Evidence: AI draft
Plotinus › 204–270
Porphyry
influenced
Porphyry wrote the Isagoge as an introduction to Aristotle’s Categories and held his logic compatible with Plato’s metaphysics, making Aristotle part of the Platonist curriculum. Porphyry, Isagoge; On Aristotle’s Categories (by question and answer); SEP “Porphyry”
Evidence: AI draft
Porphyry › c. 234–305
Proclus
Boethius
influenced ✓
Boethius planned to translate all of Aristotle, to comment on him and show his agreement with Plato; his logical translations became the basis of early medieval logic. Boethius, In Aristotelis Peri hermeneias, editio secunda II, prologue; SEP “Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius”
Boethius › c. 477–524
al-Kindi
influenced
Al-Kindi’s circle translated Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and his On First Philosophy took up its idea of a science of first causes while arguing against the world’s eternity. al-Kindi, On First Philosophy, tr. A. L. Ivry, Al-Kindi’s Metaphysics (1974); P. Adamson, Al-Kindi (2007); SEP “al-Kindi”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
al-Kindi › c. 801–873
al-Farabi
influenced ✓
Al-Farabi commented on Aristotle’s logical works, notably On Interpretation, and surveyed his whole corpus in The Philosophy of Aristotle; later tradition called him the ‘Second Teacher’. al-Farabi, Commentary on De interpretatione, tr. F. W. Zimmermann (1981); The Philosophy of Aristotle, tr. M. Mahdi, Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle (1962); SEP “al-Farabi”
al-Farabi › c. 872–950
Miskawayh
influenced
Miskawayh built the Refinement of Character on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in Ishaq ibn Hunayn’s Arabic translation: virtue as a mean between two vices and happiness as the perfection of the rational soul. Miskawayh, Tahdhīb al-akhlāq; O. Leaman, “Ibn Miskawayh”, in S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy (1996)
Evidence: AI draft
Miskawayh › c. 932–1030
Ibn Hazm
influenced
In the Approach to the Limits of Logic Ibn Hazm set out Aristotle’s logic, replacing the usual examples with examples from law and grammar, and defended it as useful for every science, the religious ones included. Ibn Ḥazm, al-Taqrīb li-ḥadd al-manṭiq; C. Adang, M. Fierro and S. Schmidtke (eds.), Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (2013)
Evidence: AI draft
Ibn Hazm › 994–1064
Peter Abelard
influenced
Knowing only Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation in Boethius’ Latin, Abelard built on them his logic and his view that universals are words, not things. Abelard, Logica ‘Ingredientibus’; Dialectica; SEP “Peter Abelard”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
Peter Abelard › 1079–1142
Ibn Bajja (Avempace)
influenced
Ibn Bajja commented on Aristotle’s Physics and On the Soul; his objection that motion in a void need not be instantaneous was reported and discussed by Averroes. E. A. Moody, “Galileo and Avempace”, Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (1951); SEP “Ibn Bajja [Avempace]”
Evidence: AI draft
Ibn Bajja (Avempace) › c. 1085–1138
Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
influenced ✓
Averroes commented on almost all of Aristotle’s works, in short, middle and long commentaries, seeking to recover Aristotle’s own doctrine from later Neoplatonic additions. SEP “Ibn Rushd [Averroes]”; H. A. Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect (1992)
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) › 1126–1198
Maimonides
influenced ✓
Maimonides accepted Aristotle’s account of the sublunary world as demonstrated, but held his arguments for the world’s eternity to be inconclusive (Guide of the Perplexed, c. 1190). Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed (c. 1190), tr. S. Pines (1963); SEP “Maimonides”
Maimonides › 1138–1204
Albertus Magnus
influenced
Albert set out to make the whole of Aristotle intelligible to Latin readers in paraphrases of logic, physics, metaphysics, ethics and the life sciences, using Arabic commentators. Albertus Magnus, Physica I tr. 1 c. 1 (programme); SEP “Albert the Great”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
Albertus Magnus › c. 1200–1280
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi
influenced
Al-Tusi’s Persian logic, The Foundation of Acquisition (Asas al-iqtibas, 1244), treats the whole Aristotelian Organon, including rhetoric and poetics. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Asas al-iqtibas (1244); Encyclopaedia Iranica “Asas al-eqtebas”
Evidence: AI draft
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi › 1201–1274
Roger Bacon
influenced
Bacon was among the first masters to lecture on Aristotle’s natural philosophy and Metaphysics at Paris in the 1240s; his question commentaries from these years survive. Roger Bacon, Quaestiones supra libros Physicorum; Quaestiones supra Metaphysicam (Opera hactenus inedita); SEP “Roger Bacon”
Evidence: AI draft
Roger Bacon › c. 1219–1292
Siger of Brabant
influenced ✓
Siger expounded Aristotle literally as a Paris arts master, reporting what the Philosopher held even where it conflicted with faith, as on the world’s eternity. Siger of Brabant, De aeternitate mundi; Quaestiones in tertium De anima; SEP “Siger of Brabant”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Siger of Brabant › c. 1240–1284
John Duns Scotus
influenced
Scotus took up Aristotle’s science of being as being and, siding with Avicenna, held that being is its subject and is said univocally of God and creatures. Duns Scotus, Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum I q. 1; Ordinatio I d. 3 p. 1 qq. 1–3; SEP “John Duns Scotus”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
John Duns Scotus › c. 1266–1308
Marsilius of Padua
influenced
Marsilius built the first discourse of Defensor pacis (1324) on Aristotle’s Politics: the city exists for living and living well, and peace is like its health. Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis (1324), Discourse I; A. Gewirth, Marsilius of Padua and Medieval Political Philosophy (1951)
Evidence: AI draft
Marsilius of Padua › c. 1275–1342
William of Ockham
influenced ✓
Ockham commented on Aristotle’s logic and Physics and read the categories as classes of terms, admitting only substances and qualities as distinct things (Summa logicae, c. 1323). William of Ockham, Expositio in libros Physicorum; Summa logicae I (c. 1323); SEP “William of Ockham”
William of Ockham › c. 1287–1347
Gersonides (Levi ben Gershom)
influenced
Gersonides argued as a strict Aristotelian in method and psychology, yet departed from Aristotle in arguing that the world had a beginning (The Wars of the Lord, 1329). Gersonides, Milhamot ha-Shem (1329); SEP “Gersonides”
Evidence: AI draft
Gersonides (Levi ben Gershom) › 1288–1344
John Buridan
influenced ✓
As a Paris arts master Buridan expounded most of Aristotle’s works in question commentaries, revising him within his framework, as with impetus in place of air pushing projectiles. John Buridan, Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum VIII q. 12; SEP “John Buridan”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
John Buridan › c. 1300–1360
Ibn Khaldun
influenced
Ibn Khaldun opened his science of civilisation with the philosophers’ dictum that the human being is political by nature, explained by the need for cooperation (Muqaddima, 1377). Ibn Khaldun, al-Muqaddima (1377), tr. F. Rosenthal (1958); Aristotle, Politics
Evidence: AI draft
Ibn Khaldun › 1332–1406
Christine de Pizan
influenced
Christine drew on Aristotle’s Politics in Nicole Oresme’s French translation for Le Livre du corps de policie (1406–07), alongside John of Salisbury. Christine de Pizan, Le Livre du corps de policie, ed. A. J. Kennedy (1998); N. Oresme, Le Livre de Politiques d’Aristote (1370s); S. Lefèvre, ‘Christine de Pizan et l’Aristote oresmien’, in proceedings of the 3rd International Christine de Pizan Colloquium (2000); K. L. Forhan, The Political Theory of Christine de Pizan (2002)
Evidence: AI draft
Christine de Pizan › c. 1364–1430
Pietro Pomponazzi
influenced
Pomponazzi asked what Aristotle’s philosophy, read on its own terms, says about the soul, and concluded that it cannot prove immortality (De immortalitate animae, 1516). P. Pomponazzi, Tractatus de immortalitate animae (1516); SEP “Pietro Pomponazzi”
Evidence: AI draft
Pietro Pomponazzi › 1462–1525
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
influenced
Pico held that Aristotle agrees with Plato in substance and argued this on being and the one in De ente et uno (1491). G. Pico della Mirandola, De ente et uno (1491); Conclusiones (1486); SEP “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola”
Evidence: AI draft
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola › 1463–1494
Francisco Suárez
influenced
Suárez’s Metaphysical Disputations (1597) treat Aristotle’s metaphysics no longer as a commentary but by topics, with an index matching his questions to Aristotle’s books. F. Suárez, Disputationes metaphysicae (1597), with the Index locupletissimus in Metaphysicam Aristotelis; SEP “Francisco Suárez”
Evidence: AI draft
Francisco Suárez › 1548–1617
Hugo Grotius
influenced
Grotius placed Aristotle first among the philosophers and reworked his distributive and corrective justice into attributive and expletive justice (De jure belli ac pacis, 1625). H. Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis (1625), Prolegomena; I.1.8; IEP “Hugo Grotius”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
Hugo Grotius › 1583–1645
Edmund Burke
influenced ✓
Burke invoked Aristotle’s observation that a democracy has many points of resemblance with a tyranny against absolute democracy in revolutionary France (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790). E. Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790); Aristotle, Politics IV.4
Edmund Burke › 1729–1797
Bernard Bolzano
influenced
Commentators trace Bolzano’s objective relation of ground and consequence (Abfolge) among truths to Aristotle’s demonstrative science; unlike Aristotle, he admitted infinite chains of grounds (Wissenschaftslehre, 1837). B. Bolzano, Wissenschaftslehre (1837); S. Roski, Bolzano’s Conception of Grounding (2017); SEP “Bernard Bolzano”
Evidence: AI draft
Bernard Bolzano › 1781–1848
Karl Marx
influenced
In Capital I (1867) Marx praised Aristotle’s analysis of the value form in exchange and traced its limit, missing labour as the substance of value, to Greek slavery. K. Marx, Das Kapital I (1867), on the form of value; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book V; SEP “Karl Marx”
Evidence: AI draft
Karl Marx › 1818–1883
Franz Brentano
influenced
Brentano began with Aristotle: his dissertation on the manifold senses of being (1862) and Die Psychologie des Aristoteles (1867) prepared his descriptive psychology of intentional acts. F. Brentano, Von der mannigfachen Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles (1862); Die Psychologie des Aristoteles (1867); SEP “Franz Brentano”
Evidence: AI draft
Franz Brentano › 1838–1917
Charles Sanders Peirce
influenced
Peirce took his term ‘abduction’ for inference to an explanatory hypothesis from Aristotle’s apagoge in the Prior Analytics, setting it beside deduction and induction. Aristotle, Prior Analytics; SEP “Abduction”; SEP “Charles Sanders Peirce”
Evidence: AI draft
Charles Sanders Peirce › 1839–1914
Jan Łukasiewicz
influenced
Łukasiewicz questioned Aristotle’s principle of contradiction (1910), drew three-valued logic from his problem of future contingents (1920) and axiomatised the syllogistic (Aristotle’s Syllogistic, 1951). J. Łukasiewicz, O zasadzie sprzeczności u Arystotelesa (1910); “O logice trójwartościowej”, Ruch Filozoficzny 5 (1920); Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic (1951); SEP “Jan Łukasiewicz”
Evidence: AI draft
Jan Łukasiewicz › 1878–1956
Karl Polanyi
influenced
In ‘Aristotle Discovers the Economy’ (1957) Polanyi read Aristotle’s distinction between householding and money-making as a response to markets beginning to disembed the economy from society. K. Polanyi, “Aristotle Discovers the Economy”, in K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg and H. W. Pearson (eds.), Trade and Market in the Early Empires (1957); Aristotle, Politics, Book I
Evidence: AI draft
Karl Polanyi › 1886–1964
Hans-Georg Gadamer
influenced ✓
Gadamer took Aristotle’s practical wisdom (phronesis) as the model of hermeneutic application: understanding, like ethical knowledge, applies the general to a concrete situation (Truth and Method, 1960). H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode (1960), “Die hermeneutische Aktualität des Aristoteles”; Die Idee des Guten zwischen Plato und Aristoteles (1978); SEP “Hans-Georg Gadamer”
Hans-Georg Gadamer › 1900–2002
Alfred Tarski
influenced
Tarski presented his semantic definition of truth as a precise form of Aristotle’s formula ‘to say of what is that it is … is true’ (1944). A. Tarski, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 (1944); Aristotle, Metaphysics IV (Γ); SEP “Tarski’s Truth Definitions”
Evidence: AI draft
Alfred Tarski › 1901–1983
Hannah Arendt
influenced ✓
Arendt drew on Aristotle’s bios politikos and his distinction of praxis from poiesis in separating action from work and labour (The Human Condition, 1958). H. Arendt, The Human Condition (1958); SEP “Hannah Arendt”
Hannah Arendt › 1906–1975
J. L. Austin
influenced ✓
Austin, trained as a classicist, read Aristotle closely and examined his concepts of the good and of happiness (‘Agathon and Eudaimonia in the Ethics of Aristotle’, publ. 1967). J. L. Austin, “Agathon and Eudaimonia in the Ethics of Aristotle”, in J. M. E. Moravcsik (ed.), Aristotle: A Collection of Critical Essays (1967); SEP “John Langshaw Austin”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
J. L. Austin › 1911–1960
Alexis Kagame
influenced
Kagame read the grammar of Kinyarwanda as yielding four categories of being, which he compared with Aristotle’s ten (La Philosophie bantu-rwandaise de l’être, 1956). A. Kagame, La Philosophie bantu-rwandaise de l’être (1956); La Philosophie bantu comparée (1976)
Evidence: AI draft
Alexis Kagame › 1912–1981
Chaïm Perelman
influenced
With Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, Perelman revived Aristotle’s dialectical and rhetorical reasoning as a ‘new rhetoric’ of argumentation about values (Traité de l’argumentation, 1958). C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique (1958)
Evidence: AI draft
Chaïm Perelman › 1912–1984
Paul Ricœur
influenced
Ricœur built his theory of narrative on Aristotle’s Poetics, reading muthos as emplotment and mimesis as a threefold process (Time and Narrative I, 1983). P. Ricœur, Temps et récit I (1983); SEP “Paul Ricoeur”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
Paul Ricœur › 1913–2005
G. E. M. Anscombe
influenced ✓
Anscombe took Aristotle’s practical syllogism as a model of intentional action (Intention, 1957) and urged that ethics start from psychology and the virtues (‘Modern Moral Philosophy’, 1958). G. E. M. Anscombe, Intention (1957); “Modern Moral Philosophy”, Philosophy 33 (1958); SEP “Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
G. E. M. Anscombe › 1919–2001
Mary Midgley
influenced
Midgley defended, with Aristotle, a specific human nature whose characteristic needs and capacities set the conditions of a good human life (Beast and Man, 1978). M. Midgley, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature (1978)
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
Mary Midgley › 1919–2018
Philippa Foot
influenced ✓
Foot built on Aristotle’s link between virtue and the good of living things: human virtues are natural goodness relative to the human life form (Natural Goodness, 2001). P. Foot, Natural Goodness (2001); Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy (1978); SEP “Philippa Foot”
Philippa Foot › 1920–2010
Alasdair MacIntyre
influenced
MacIntyre answered the choice ‘Nietzsche or Aristotle’ with Aristotle, recasting the virtues as excellences acquired within practices, narratives and traditions (After Virtue, 1981). A. MacIntyre, After Virtue (1981); SEP “Virtue Ethics”
Evidence: AI draft
Alasdair MacIntyre › 1929–2025
Bernard Williams
influenced
Williams began ethics with Socrates’ question how one should live and examined Aristotle’s attempt to ground ethics in human well-being (Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, 1985). B. Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (1985); Shame and Necessity (1993); SEP “Bernard Williams”
Evidence: AI draft
Bernard Williams › 1929–2003
Amartya Sen
influenced
Sen cited Aristotle’s remark that wealth is merely useful for the sake of something else and linked capabilities to Aristotelian functioning (Development as Freedom, 1999). A. Sen, Development as Freedom (1999); “Capability and Well-Being”, in M. C. Nussbaum and A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of Life (1993); Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I.5
Evidence: AI draft
Amartya Sen › b. 1933
Kwame Gyekye
influenced
Gyekye, trained in Greek and Arabic philosophy, translated Ibn al-Tayyib’s commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge, the gateway to Aristotle’s logic (Arabic Logic, 1979). K. Gyekye (trans.), Arabic Logic: Ibn al-Tayyib’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge (1979); An Essay on African Philosophical Thought (1987)
Evidence: AI draft
Kwame Gyekye › 1939–2019
Giorgio Agamben
influenced
Agamben took from Aristotle the potentiality not to be (adynamia; ‘Bartleby, o della contingenza’, 1993) and the contrast of life and good life opening Homo Sacer (1995). G. Agamben, “Bartleby, o della contingenza”, in G. Deleuze and G. Agamben, Bartleby. La formula della creazione (1993); Homo sacer (1995); Aristotle, Metaphysics; Politics; SEP “Aristotle”
Evidence: AI draft
Giorgio Agamben › b. 1942
Martha Nussbaum
influenced ✓
Nussbaum grounded her capabilities approach in Aristotle’s idea of human functioning (‘Nature, Function, and Capability’, 1988) and studied his ethics of fragile goods (The Fragility of Goodness, 1986). M. C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness (1986); “Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, suppl. vol. (1988)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Martha Nussbaum › b. 1947
Christine Korsgaard
influenced
Korsgaard compared Aristotle and Kant on the source of value (1986) and drew on Aristotle’s view of action and form in arguing that agents constitute themselves (Self-Constitution, 2009). C. M. Korsgaard, “Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value”, Ethics 96 (1986); Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity (2009)
Evidence: AI draft
Christine Korsgaard › b. 1952
Michael Sandel
influenced
Sandel drew on Aristotle’s teleological reasoning – justice as allocating goods by their purpose – to question liberal neutrality (Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, 2009). M. J. Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (2009); The Case against Perfection (2007)
Evidence: AI draft
Michael Sandel › b. 1953
Miranda Fricker
influenced
Fricker modelled testimonial and hermeneutical justice as Aristotelian virtues of the hearer, a trained, second-nature sensibility that corrects prejudice in judging credibility (Epistemic Injustice, 2007). M. Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (2007)
Evidence: AI draft
Miranda Fricker › b. 1966
Shannon Vallor
influenced
Vallor modelled her ‘technomoral wisdom’ on Aristotle’s practical wisdom and used virtue ethics as a frame for living well with emerging technologies (Technology and the Virtues, 2016). S. Vallor, Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting (2016)
Evidence: AI draft
Shannon Vallor › contemporary
Criticism
Criticized by 26
John Philoponus influenced
influenced
Philoponus wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics, On the Soul and logic and worked inside his framework while revising it, as with an impressed force for projectiles. Philoponus, In Physica; In De anima; In Analytica priora; SEP “John Philoponus”
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
Philoponus attacked Aristotle’s eternal world and fifth element (Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World) and explained projectile motion by an impressed force instead of the air. Philoponus, Contra Aristotelem (fragments, ed. C. Wildberg, 1987); In Physica 639–642 Vitelli; SEP “John Philoponus”
Evidence: AI draft
John Philoponus › c. 490–570
Bartolomé de las Casas influenced
influenced
At Valladolid (1550–51) Las Casas turned Aristotle against Sepúlveda, distinguishing kinds of barbarians to show that the Indigenous peoples were not natural slaves (Apologia, c. 1552). B. de las Casas, Apologia (c. 1552), trans. S. Poole, In Defense of the Indians (1974); L. Hanke, Aristotle and the American Indians (1959)
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
Against Sepúlveda at Valladolid (1550–51) Las Casas denied that Aristotle’s natural slavery applied to the peoples of America, who were fully capable of reason; in an earlier dispute he had bidden Aristotle farewell in the name of Christian charity. B. de Las Casas, Apologia (c. 1552); Historia de las Indias, book III (on the dispute of 1519); L. Hanke, Aristotle and the American Indians (1959)
Evidence: AI draft
Bartolomé de las Casas › 1484–1566
Thomas Hobbes
criticised by
Hobbes wrote that scarcely anything is more absurd than Aristotle’s Metaphysics or more repugnant to government than his Politics, attacking ‘separated essences’ (Leviathan, 1651, ch. 46). T. Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), ch. 46
Evidence: AI draft
Thomas Hobbes › 1588–1679
René Descartes
criticised by
Descartes rejected the scholastic-Aristotelian substantial forms and real qualities, explaining nature by extension and motion and banishing final causes from physics (letter to Regius, January 1642; Meditations IV). Descartes to Regius, Jan. 1642 (AT III 491–510); Meditationes IV (AT VII 55); Principia philosophiae IV §§198–203; SEP “Descartes’ Physics”
Evidence: AI draft
René Descartes › 1596–1650
John Locke
criticised by
Locke denied that Aristotle’s syllogism is the instrument of reasoning: God did not leave it ‘to Aristotle to make them rational’ (An Essay concerning Human Understanding, 1689). J. Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding (1689), IV.xvii.4
Evidence: AI draft
John Locke › 1632–1704
John Stuart Mill
criticised by
Mill dismissed Aristotle’s categories as ‘a mere catalogue’ of everyday distinctions and held that the syllogism, taken as proof, begs the question (A System of Logic, 1843). J. S. Mill, A System of Logic (1843), book I, ch. 3; book II, ch. 3
Evidence: AI draft
John Stuart Mill › 1806–1873
Show all (26)Show fewer
Saadia Gaon
criticised by
Saadia argued against the eternity of the world with proofs of creation and denied that Aristotle’s ten categories apply to God (Book of Beliefs and Opinions I–II, 933). Saadia Gaon, Kitāb al-amānāt wa-l-iʿtiqādāt (933) I–II, tr. S. Rosenblatt, 1948
Evidence: AI draft
Saadia Gaon › 882–942
al-Biruni
criticised by
In questions to Ibn Sina (c. 997) al-Biruni challenged Aristotle’s On the Heavens and Physics: why the heavens should be neither heavy nor light, why other worlds should be impossible, and why there could be no vacuum. al-Bīrūnī and Ibn Sīnā, al-Asʾila wa-l-ajwiba, ed. S. H. Nasr and M. Mohaghegh (1972); tr. R. Berjak and M. Iqbal, Islam & Science (2003–06)
Evidence: AI draft
al-Biruni › 973–1048
al-Ghazali
criticised by
Al-Ghazali judged that Aristotle’s metaphysics, as transmitted by al-Farabi and Avicenna, contains unbelief, while accepting his logic as neutral (al-Munqidh min al-dalal, c. 1108). al-Ghazālī, al-Munqidh min al-ḍalāl, tr. R. J. McCarthy, Freedom and Fulfillment, 1980
Evidence: AI draft
al-Ghazali › 1058–1111
Judah Halevi
criticised by
Judah Halevi’s Kuzari sets the Aristotelian philosopher’s God, who knows nothing of individuals, against the God of revelation and history (Kuzari I.1–25, V.14). Judah Halevi, Kuzari (c. 1140) I.1–25, V.14; Y. Silman, Philosopher and Prophet, 1995
Evidence: AI draft
Judah Halevi › c. 1075–1141
Suhrawardi
criticised by
Suhrawardi rejected the Peripatetic theory of definition by genus and differentia and their categories, grounding knowledge in illumination and presence (Hikmat al-ishraq, 1186). Suhrawardī, Ḥikmat al-ishrāq (1186), tr. J. Walbridge & H. Ziai, 1999; SEP “Suhrawardi”
Evidence: AI draft
Suhrawardi › 1154–1191
Bonaventure
criticised by
Bonaventure blamed Aristotle for rejecting Plato’s exemplary ideas, from which errors such as the world’s eternity and the denial of providence follow (Collationes in Hexaemeron VI, 1273). Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaemeron VI.2–5 (1273); In II Sententiarum d. 1 p. 1 a. 1 q. 2
Evidence: AI draft
Bonaventure › c. 1221–1274
Ibn Taymiyya
criticised by
Ibn Taymiyya attacked Aristotelian logic: definitions cannot capture essences, and the syllogism yields no knowledge not available otherwise (al-Radd ala al-mantiqiyyin). Ibn Taymiyya, al-Radd ʿalā al-manṭiqiyyīn; W. Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya against the Greek Logicians, 1993
Evidence: AI draft
Ibn Taymiyya › 1263–1328
Hasdai Crescas
criticised by
Crescas criticised Aristotle’s physics as Maimonides had summarised it, defending the possibility of an actual infinite, of void and of many worlds (Or Adonai I.2, 1410). Ḥasdai Crescas, Or Adonai (1410) I.2; H. A. Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle, 1929
Evidence: AI draft
Hasdai Crescas › c. 1340–1411
George Gemistos Plethon
criticised by
Plethon argued in Florence in 1439 that Aristotle falls short of Plato, faulting him on God as creator, the Forms and the immortal soul (De differentiis). G. Gemistos Plethon, De differentiis (1439); C. M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes, 1986
Evidence: AI draft
George Gemistos Plethon › c. 1355–1452
Lorenzo Valla
criticised by
Valla reduced Aristotle’s ten categories to three – substance, quality, action – and measured scholastic terms against classical Latin usage (Repastinatio dialectice et philosophie, c. 1439). L. Valla, Repastinatio dialectice et philosophie (c. 1439) I; SEP “Lorenzo Valla”
Evidence: AI draft
Lorenzo Valla › c. 1407–1457
Bernardino Telesio
criticised by
Telesio replaced Aristotle’s form and matter with heat, cold and passive matter, studying nature ‘according to its own principles’ rather than by authority (De rerum natura, 1565). B. Telesio, De rerum natura iuxta propria principia (1565; 1586); SEP “Bernardino Telesio”
Evidence: AI draft
Bernardino Telesio › 1509–1588
Giordano Bruno
criticised by
Bruno attacked Aristotle’s finite, geocentric cosmos, arguing for an infinite universe with innumerable worlds (De l’infinito, universo e mondi, 1584; Camoeracensis Acrotismus, 1588). G. Bruno, De l’infinito, universo e mondi (1584); Camoeracensis Acrotismus (1588); SEP “Giordano Bruno”
Evidence: AI draft
Giordano Bruno › 1548–1600
Francisco Sanches
criticised by
Sanches attacked the Aristotelian ideal of science as demonstration from definitions and causes, concluding that nothing can be known with certainty (Quod nihil scitur, 1581). F. Sanches, Quod nihil scitur (1581), ed. E. Limbrick & D. F. S. Thomson, 1988
Evidence: AI draft
Francisco Sanches › 1551–1623
Francis Bacon
criticised by
Bacon charged that Aristotle had corrupted natural philosophy with his dialectic, and set against the syllogism a method of gradual induction (Novum Organum, 1620, I.63). F. Bacon, Novum Organum (1620), I.11–14, I.54, I.63; SEP “Francis Bacon”
Evidence: AI draft
Francis Bacon › 1561–1626
Galileo Galilei
criticised by
Galileo argued against Aristotle’s physics – that heavier bodies fall faster and the heavens cannot change – in the Dialogue (1632) and Two New Sciences (1638). Galileo, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi (1632), Day 1; Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche (1638), Day 1; SEP “Galileo Galilei”
Evidence: AI draft
Galileo Galilei › 1564–1642
Tommaso Campanella
criticised by
Campanella defended Telesio’s philosophy of nature against the Aristotelians, grounding knowledge in the senses rather than in Aristotle’s authority (Philosophia sensibus demonstrata, 1591). T. Campanella, Philosophia sensibus demonstrata (1591); SEP “Tommaso Campanella”
Evidence: AI draft
Tommaso Campanella › 1568–1639
Pierre Gassendi
criticised by
In his Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos (1624) Gassendi attacked Aristotelian logic and physics as taught in the schools, later setting Epicurean atomism against them. P. Gassendi, Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos (1624); Syntagma philosophicum (1658); SEP “Pierre Gassendi”
Evidence: AI draft
Pierre Gassendi › 1592–1655
Montesquieu
criticised by
Montesquieu faulted Aristotle for classifying monarchies not by the form of the constitution but by accidents such as the prince’s virtues or vices (De l’esprit des lois, 1748). Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois (1748), XI.9 (“De la manière de penser d’Aristote”)
Evidence: AI draft
Montesquieu › 1689–1755
Xavier Zubiri
criticised by
Zubiri rejected Aristotle’s conception of essence as the correlate of definition and of reality as substance, conceiving essence as the physical structure of things (Sobre la esencia, 1962). X. Zubiri, Sobre la esencia (1962); Inteligencia sentiente (1980)
Evidence: AI draft
Xavier Zubiri › 1898–1983
Karl Popper
criticised by
Popper attacked Aristotle’s ‘methodological essentialism’, the search for definitions of essences, as a root of Hegelian historicism (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945). K. R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 2 (1945), ch. 11 (“The Aristotelian Roots of Hegelianism”)
Evidence: AI draft
Karl Popper › 1902–1994
Criticizes 3
Heraclitus
criticised
Aristotle objected to the claim, ascribed by some to Heraclitus, that the same thing is and is not: the principle of non-contradiction makes it unbelievable (Metaphysics IV). Aristotle, Metaphysics IV.3, 1005b23–26; IV.7, 1012a24–26; SEP “Heraclitus”
Evidence: AI draft
Heraclitus › c. 535–475 BCE
Parmenides
criticised
Aristotle objected that Parmenides’ argument for a single unchanging being fails because ‘being’ is said in many ways (Physics I.2–3). Aristotle, Physics I.2–3, 184b–187a; Metaphysics I.5, 986b
Evidence: AI draft
Parmenides › c. 515–450 BCE
Plato studied with
studied with ✓
Attested by Aristotle himself, who counts himself among the Platonists (‘we’, Metaphysics I.9, 990b9–17; ‘friends of ours’, Nicomachean Ethics I.6, 1096a11–17); his twenty years in the Academy are reported by later biographers (Diogenes Laertius 5.9). Aristotle, Metaphysics I.9, 990b9–17; Nicomachean Ethics I.6, 1096a11–17; Diogenes Laertius 5.9
criticised
Aristotle criticised Plato’s separate Forms for explaining neither change nor knowledge – ‘empty words and poetic metaphors’ – and rejected a single Form of the Good. Aristotle, Metaphysics I.9, 990b–991b; Nicomachean Ethics I.6, 1096a11–1097a14; SEP “Aristotle’s Metaphysics”
Evidence: AI draft
Plato › 428–348 BCE
Works
- c. 350 BCEOn the Soul (De anima)
The soul as the form of the living body.
- c. 350 BCEOrganon
The logical writings: categories, syllogistic, theory of demonstration.
- c. 350 BCEPhysics
Motion, time, place and the four causes.
- c. 340 BCEMetaphysics
Being qua being, substance and the unmoved mover – with a critique of Plato's Forms.
- c. 340 BCENicomachean Ethics
Happiness (eudaimonia) as virtuous activity; virtue as a mean; practical wisdom.
- c. 335 BCEPoetics
Tragedy, mimesis and catharsis – a reply to Plato's critique of the poets.
- c. 335 BCEPolitics
The human being as a political animal (zoon politikon); a comparison of constitutions.
Position
Aristotle brought Plato’s Forms down to earth: form exists not in a separate realm but in individual things, as the structure that makes matter into this horse or this house. To explain anything, one asks for four causes – matter, form, moving cause and purpose. Nature is goal-directed; living things strive to realise their potential. In ethics, the goal of life is eudaimonia, flourishing through the exercise of the virtues, each a mean between two extremes. He founded formal logic, systematised biology, politics and poetics, and for medieval thinkers in Islam and Christianity he was simply “the Philosopher”. His Politics also defended “natural slavery” and held that a woman’s capacity to deliberate “lacks authority” – views later used to justify colonial enslavement (Sepúlveda) and long contested.
Life & context
Aristotle was born in Stagira in northern Greece, the son of a physician at the Macedonian court. He studied for twenty years at Plato’s Academy, later tutored the young Alexander the Great and in 335 BCE founded his own school in Athens, the Lyceum. After Alexander’s death he left Athens and died a year later in Chalcis.
Appears in
- Journey ‘From Mythos to Logos’ · Stop 8 of 8
- Journey ‘The Journey of Aristotle’ · Stop 1 of 9
- Journey ‘What Is Just?’ · Stop 2 of 10
- Journey ‘The Riddle of Consciousness’ · Stop 3 of 10
As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made