Arystoteles
Według Arystotelesa wiedza zaczyna się od uważnej obserwacji świata, wszystko dąży do jakiegoś celu, a dobre życie polega na ćwiczeniu cnót – każda z nich jest środkiem między za dużo a za mało, jak odwaga między tchórzostwem a brawurą.
Umiejscowienie
Usystematyzował niemal wszystkie dziedziny wiedzy – logikę, fizykę, metafizykę, etykę, politykę. Forma realizuje się w materii.
Kluczowe idee
- Sylogistyka
- Cztery przyczyny
- Cnota jako złoty środek
- Eudajmonia
Nauczyciele: Platon
Wpływ
Pod wpływem 3
Empedokles
pod wpływem ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Empedokles › ok. 494–434 p.n.e.
Sokrates
pod wpływem ✓
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
Sokrates › 470–399 p.n.e.
Demokryt
pod wpływem ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Demokryt › ok. 460–370 p.n.e.
Wpływ na 60
Awicenna
wpływ na ✓
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]”
Awicenna › 980–1037
Tomasz z Akwinu
wpływ na ✓
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”
Tomasz z Akwinu › ok. 1225–1274
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
wpływ na ✓
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
wpływ na
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
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Adam Smith › 1723–1790
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
wpływ na ✓
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
wpływ na ✓
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
Pokaż wszystko (60)Pokaż mniej
Plotyn
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Plotyn › 204–270
Porfiriusz
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Porfiriusz › ok. 234–305
Proklos
Boecjusz
wpływ na ✓
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”
Boecjusz › ok. 477–524
Al-Kindi
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Al-Kindi › ok. 801–873
Al-Farabi
wpływ na ✓
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 › ok. 872–950
Miskawajh
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Miskawajh › ok. 932–1030
Ibn Hazm
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Ibn Hazm › 994–1064
Piotr Abelard
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Piotr Abelard › 1079–1142
Avempace
wpływ na
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]”
Źródło: szkic AI
Avempace › ok. 1085–1138
Awerroes
wpływ na ✓
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)
Awerroes › 1126–1198
Majmonides
wpływ na ✓
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”
Majmonides › 1138–1204
Albert Wielki
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Albert Wielki › ok. 1200–1280
Nasir ad-Din Tusi
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Nasir ad-Din Tusi › 1201–1274
Roger Bacon
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Roger Bacon › ok. 1219–1292
Siger z Brabancji
wpływ na ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Siger z Brabancji › ok. 1240–1284
Jan Duns Szkot
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Jan Duns Szkot › ok. 1266–1308
Marsyliusz z Padwy
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Marsyliusz z Padwy › ok. 1275–1342
William Ockham
wpływ na ✓
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 Ockham › ok. 1287–1347
Gersonides
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Gersonides › 1288–1344
Jan Buridan
wpływ na ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Jan Buridan › ok. 1300–1360
Ibn Chaldun
wpływ na
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Ibn Chaldun › 1332–1406
Christine de Pisan
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Christine de Pisan › ok. 1364–1430
Pietro Pomponazzi
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Pietro Pomponazzi › 1462–1525
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola › 1463–1494
Franciszek Suárez
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Franciszek Suárez › 1548–1617
Hugo Grotius
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Hugo Grotius › 1583–1645
Edmund Burke
wpływ na ✓
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
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Bernard Bolzano › 1781–1848
Karol Marks
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Karol Marks › 1818–1883
Franz Brentano
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Franz Brentano › 1838–1917
Charles Sanders Peirce
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Charles Sanders Peirce › 1839–1914
Jan Łukasiewicz
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Jan Łukasiewicz › 1878–1956
Karl Polanyi
wpływ na
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Karl Polanyi › 1886–1964
Hans-Georg Gadamer
wpływ na ✓
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
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Alfred Tarski › 1901–1983
Hannah Arendt
wpływ na ✓
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
John Langshaw Austin
wpływ na ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
John Langshaw Austin › 1911–1960
Alexis Kagame
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Alexis Kagame › 1912–1981
Chaïm Perelman
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Chaïm Perelman › 1912–1984
Paul Ricoeur
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Paul Ricoeur › 1913–2005
Elizabeth Anscombe
wpływ na ✓
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”
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Elizabeth Anscombe › 1919–2001
Mary Midgley
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: także w InPhO · InPhO
Mary Midgley › 1919–2018
Philippa Foot
wpływ na ✓
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
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Alasdair MacIntyre › 1929–2025
Bernard Williams
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Bernard Williams › 1929–2003
Amartya Sen
wpływ na
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Amartya Sen › ur. 1933
Kwame Gyekye
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Kwame Gyekye › 1939–2019
Giorgio Agamben
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Giorgio Agamben › ur. 1942
Martha Nussbaum
wpływ na ✓
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)
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Martha Nussbaum › ur. 1947
Christine Korsgaard
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Christine Korsgaard › ur. 1952
Michael Sandel
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Michael Sandel › ur. 1953
Miranda Fricker
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Miranda Fricker › ur. 1966
Shannon Vallor
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Shannon Vallor › osoba współczesna
Krytyka
Krytyka ze strony 26
Jan Filopon wpływ na
wpływ na
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Jan Filopon › ok. 490–570
Bartolomé de Las Casas wpływ na
wpływ na
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
krytyka ze strony
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Bartolomé de Las Casas › 1484–1566
Thomas Hobbes
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Thomas Hobbes › 1588–1679
Kartezjusz
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Kartezjusz › 1596–1650
John Locke
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
John Locke › 1632–1704
John Stuart Mill
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
John Stuart Mill › 1806–1873
Pokaż wszystko (26)Pokaż mniej
Saadja ben Josef
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Saadja ben Josef › 882–942
Al Biruni
krytyka ze strony
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Al Biruni › 973–1048
Al-Ghazali
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Al-Ghazali › 1058–1111
Jehuda Halewi
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Jehuda Halewi › ok. 1075–1141
Szihab ad-Din Jahji as-Suhrawardi
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Szihab ad-Din Jahji as-Suhrawardi › 1154–1191
Święty Bonawentura
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Święty Bonawentura › ok. 1221–1274
Ibn Tajmijja
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Ibn Tajmijja › 1263–1328
Chasdaj Kreskas
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Chasdaj Kreskas › ok. 1340–1411
Jerzy Gemist-Pleton
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Jerzy Gemist-Pleton › ok. 1355–1452
Lorenzo Valla
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Lorenzo Valla › ok. 1407–1457
Bernardino Telesio
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Bernardino Telesio › 1509–1588
Giordano Bruno
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Giordano Bruno › 1548–1600
Francisco Sanches
krytyka ze strony
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Francisco Sanches › 1551–1623
Francis Bacon
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Francis Bacon › 1561–1626
Galileusz
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Galileusz › 1564–1642
Tommaso Campanella
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Tommaso Campanella › 1568–1639
Pierre Gassendi
krytyka ze strony
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Pierre Gassendi › 1592–1655
Monteskiusz
krytyka ze strony
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”)
Źródło: szkic AI
Monteskiusz › 1689–1755
Xavier Zubiri
krytyka ze strony
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)
Źródło: szkic AI
Xavier Zubiri › 1898–1983
Karl Popper
krytyka ze strony
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”)
Źródło: szkic AI
Karl Popper › 1902–1994
Krytykuje 3
Heraklit
krytykuje
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Heraklit › ok. 535–475 p.n.e.
Parmenides
krytykuje
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
Źródło: szkic AI
Parmenides › ok. 515–450 p.n.e.
Platon nauczyciel(ka)
nauczyciel(ka) ✓
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
krytykuje
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”
Źródło: szkic AI
Platon › 428–348 p.n.e.
Dzieła
- ok. 350 p.n.e.O duszy (De anima)
Dusza jako forma żywego ciała.
- ok. 350 p.n.e.Organon
Pisma logiczne: kategorie, sylogistyka, teoria dowodu.
- ok. 350 p.n.e.Fizyka
Ruch, czas, miejsce i cztery przyczyny.
- ok. 340 p.n.e.Metafizyka
Byt jako byt, substancja i nieruchomy poruszyciel – z krytyką Idei Platona.
- ok. 340 p.n.e.Etyka nikomachejska
Szczęście (eudajmonia) jako cnotliwa aktywność; cnota jako środek; roztropność.
- ok. 335 p.n.e.Poetyka
Tragedia, mimesis i katharsis – odpowiedź na krytykę poetów u Platona.
- ok. 335 p.n.e.Polityka
Człowiek jako zwierzę polityczne (zoon politikon); porównanie ustrojów.
Stanowisko
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.
Życie i kontekst
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.
Dalsze główne dzieła
- Physics (c. 350 BCE)
- Metaphysics (c. 340 BCE)
- Nicomachean Ethics (c. 340 BCE)
- Politics (c. 335 BCE)
Pojawia się w
- Podróż „Od mythosu do logosu” · Przystanek 8 z 8
- Podróż „Podróż Arystotelesa” · Przystanek 1 z 9
- Podróż „Co jest sprawiedliwe?” · Przystanek 2 z 10
- Podróż „Zagadka świadomości” · Przystanek 3 z 10
Stan na listopad 2026 · Źródła · Ulepsz tę stronę · Jak powstaje Agora