Aristotle

== Practical philosophy ==
Aristotle's practical philosophy covers areas such as [[ethics]], [[politics]], [[economics]], and [[rhetoric]].{{sfn| Wildberg | 2016}}

{| class="wikitable floatright" align=right style="font-size: 80%;"
|+ Virtues and their accompanying vices{{sfn|Humphreys|2009}}
! Too little !! Virtuous mean !! Too much
|-
|Humbleness||High-mindedness||Vainglory
|-
|Lack of purpose||Right ambition||Over-ambition
|-
|Spiritlessness||Good temper||Irascibility
|-
|Rudeness||Civility||Obsequiousness
|-
|Cowardice||Courage||Rashness
|-
|Insensibility||Self-control||Intemperance
|-
|Sarcasm||Sincerity||Boastfulness
|-
|Boorishness||Wit||Buffoonery
|-
|Shamelessness||Modesty||Shyness
|-
|Callousness||Just resentment||Spitefulness
|-
|Pettiness||Generosity||Vulgarity
|-
|Meanness||Liberality||Wastefulness
|}

=== 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, most notably including the ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]''.{{sfn| Kraut | 2001}}

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]]'' (''soul'') in accordance with reason (''[[logos]]''). Aristotle identified such an optimum activity (the virtuous mean, between the accompanying vices of excess or deficiency{{sfn|Humphreys|2009}}) 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'' ''[[arete (moral virtue)|aretē]]''), often translated as moral or ethical virtue or excellence.{{sfn| Nicomachean Ethics | ps= &nbsp;Book I. See for example chapter 7.}}

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 theoretical or speculative thinker, or in other words, a philosopher.{{sfn| Nicomachean Ethics | p= Book VI}}

=== Politics ===
{{Main|Politics (Aristotle)}}

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".{{sfn| Politics | pp=1253a19–124}} He famously stated that "man is by nature a political animal" and argued that humanity's defining factor among others in the animal kingdom is its rationality.{{sfn| Aristotle | 2009 | pages=320–321}} 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.{{sfn| Ebenstein | Ebenstein | 2002 | page=59}}

[[File:Aristotle's constitutions.svg| thumb|upright=1.5 | Aristotle's classifications of political constitutions.]]

The common modern understanding of a political community as a modern state is quite different from 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".{{efn-ua | For a different reading of social and economic processes in the ''Nicomachean Ethics'' and ''Politics'' see Polanyi, Karl (1957) "Aristotle Discovers the Economy" in ''Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi'' ed. G. Dalton, Boston 1971, 78–115.}}

In ''[[Protrepticus (Aristotle)|Protrepticus]]'', the character 'Aristotle' states:{{sfn| Hutchinson | Johnson | 2015 | p=22}}

{{blockquote | For we all agree that the most excellent man should rule, i.e., the supreme by nature, and that the law rules and alone is authoritative; but the law is a kind of intelligence, i.e. a discourse based on intelligence. And again, what standard do we have, what criterion of good things, that is more precise than the intelligent man? For all that this man will choose, if the choice is based on his knowledge, are good things and their contraries are bad. And since everybody chooses most of all what conforms to their own proper dispositions (a just man choosing to live justly, a man with bravery to live bravely, likewise a self-controlled man to live with self-control), it is clear that the intelligent man will choose most of all to be intelligent; for this is the function of that capacity. Hence it's evident that, according to the most authoritative judgment, intelligence is supreme among goods.{{sfn| Hutchinson | Johnson | 2015 | p=22}}}}

As Plato's disciple Aristotle was rather critical concerning democracy and, following the outline of certain ideas from Plato's ''[[Statesman (dialogue)|Statesman]]'', he developed a coherent theory of integrating various forms of power into a so-called mixed state:
{{blockquote| It is … constitutional to take … from oligarchy that offices are to be elected, and from democracy that this is not to be on a property-qualification. This then is the mode of the mixture; and the mark of a good mixture of democracy and oligarchy is when it is possible to speak of the same constitution as a democracy and as an oligarchy. |Aristotle. ''Politics'', Book 4, 1294b.10–18|source=}}[[Aristotle's views on women]] influenced later [[Western philosophy|Western philosophers]], who quoted him as an authority until the end of the [[Middle Ages]], but these views have been controversial in modern times. Aristotle's analysis of procreation describes an active, ensouling masculine element bringing life to an inert, passive female element. The biological differences are a result of the fact that the female body is well-suited for reproduction, which changes her body temperature, which in turn makes her, in Aristotle's view, incapable of participating in political life.<ref>See Marguerite Deslauriers, "Sexual Difference in Aristotle's Politics and His Biology," ''Classical World'' 102 3 (2009): 215–231.</ref> On this ground, proponents of [[feminist metaphysics]] have accused Aristotle of [[misogyny]]{{sfn| Freeland | 1998}} and [[sexism]].{{sfn| Morsink | 1979 | pp=83–112}} However, Aristotle gave equal weight to women's happiness as he did to men's, and commented in his ''Rhetoric'' that the things that lead to happiness need to be in women as well as men.{{efn-ua | "Where, as among the Lacedaemonians, the state of women is bad, almost half of human life is spoilt."{{sfn| Rhetoric | p=Book I, Chapter 5}}}}

=== Economics ===
{{Main|Politics (Aristotle)}}

Aristotle made substantial contributions to [[economics|economic thought]], especially to thought in the Middle Ages.{{sfn| Robbins | 2000 | pages=20–24}} In ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', Aristotle addresses the city, [[property]], and [[trade]]. His response to criticisms of [[private property]], in [[Lionel Robbins]]'s view, anticipated later proponents of private property among philosophers and economists, as it related to the overall [[utility]] of social arrangements.{{sfn| Robbins | 2000 | pages=20–24}} Aristotle believed that although communal arrangements may seem beneficial to society, and that although private property is often blamed for social strife, such evils in fact come from [[human nature]]. In ''Politics'', Aristotle offers one of the earliest accounts of the origin of [[money]].{{sfn| Robbins | 2000 | pages=20–24}} Money came into use because people became dependent on one another, importing what they needed and exporting the surplus. For the sake of convenience, people then agreed to deal in something that is intrinsically useful and easily applicable, such as iron or [[silver]].{{sfn| Aristotle | 1948 | pages=16–28}}

Aristotle's discussions on [[retail]] and [[interest]] was a major influence on economic thought in the Middle Ages. He had a low opinion of retail, believing that contrary to using money to procure things one needs in managing the household, retail trade seeks to make a [[profit (economics)|profit]]. It thus uses goods as a means to an end, rather than as an end unto itself. He believed that retail trade was in this way unnatural. Similarly, Aristotle considered making a profit through interest unnatural, as it makes a gain out of the money itself, and not from its use.{{sfn| Aristotle | 1948 | pages=16–28}}

Aristotle gave a summary of the function of money that was perhaps remarkably precocious for his time. He wrote that because it is impossible to determine the value of every good through a count of the number of other goods it is worth, the necessity arises of a single universal standard of measurement. Money thus allows for the association of different goods and makes them "commensurable".{{sfn| Aristotle | 1948 | pages=16–28}} He goes on to state that money is also useful for future exchange, making it a sort of security. That is, "if we do not want a thing now, we shall be able to get it when we do want it".{{sfn| Aristotle | 1948 | pages=16–28}}

=== Rhetoric ===
{{Rhetoric}}
{{Main|Rhetoric (Aristotle)}}

Aristotle's ''Rhetoric'' proposes that a speaker can use three basic kinds of appeals to persuade his audience: ''[[ethos]]'' (an appeal to the speaker's character), ''[[pathos]]'' (an appeal to the audience's emotion), and ''[[logos]]'' (an appeal to logical reasoning).{{sfn| Garver | 1994 | pages=109–110}} He also categorizes rhetoric into three genres: [[epideictic]] (ceremonial speeches dealing with praise or blame), [[Forensic rhetoric|forensic]] (judicial speeches over guilt or innocence), and [[Deliberative rhetoric|deliberative]] (speeches calling on an audience to make a decision on an issue).{{sfn| Rorty | 1996 | pages=3–7}} Aristotle also outlines two kinds of rhetorical [[Proof (truth)|proofs]]: ''[[enthymeme]]'' (proof by [[syllogism]]) and ''[[paradeigma]]'' (proof by example).{{sfn| Grimaldi | 1998 | p=71}}

=== Poetics ===
{{Main|Poetics (Aristotle)}}
Aristotle writes in his ''Poetics'' that [[epic poetry]], tragedy, comedy, [[Dithyramb|dithyrambic poetry]], painting, sculpture, music, and dance are all fundamentally acts of ''[[mimesis]]'' ("imitation"), each varying in imitation by medium, object, and manner.{{sfn| Halliwell | 2002 | pp=152–159}}{{sfn| Poetics | p= I 1447a}} He applies the term ''mimesis'' both as a property of a work of art and also as the product of the artist's intention{{sfn| Halliwell | 2002 | pp=152–159}} and contends that the audience's realisation of the ''mimesis'' is vital to understanding the work itself.{{sfn| Halliwell | 2002 | pp=152–159}} Aristotle states that ''mimesis'' is a natural instinct of humanity that separates humans from animals{{sfn| Halliwell | 2002 | pp=152–159}}{{sfn| Poetics | p= IV}} and that all human artistry "follows the pattern of nature".{{sfn| Halliwell | 2002 | pp=152–159}} Because of this, Aristotle believed that each of the mimetic arts possesses what [[Stephen Halliwell (academic)|Stephen Halliwell]] calls "highly structured procedures for the achievement of their purposes."{{sfn| Halliwell | 2002 | pp=152–59}} For example, music imitates with the media of rhythm and harmony, whereas dance imitates with rhythm alone, and poetry with language. The forms also differ in their object of imitation. Comedy, for instance, is a dramatic imitation of men worse than average; whereas tragedy imitates men slightly better than average. Lastly, the forms differ in their manner of imitation – through narrative or character, through change or no change, and through drama or no drama.{{sfn| Poetics | p=III}}

[[File:Bénigne Gagneraux, The Blind Oedipus Commending his Children to the Gods.jpg| thumb | upright=1.35 | ''The Blind Oedipus Commending his Children to the Gods'' (1784) by [[Bénigne Gagneraux]]. In his ''[[Poetics (Aristotle)|Poetics]]'', Aristotle uses the tragedy ''[[Oedipus Rex|Oedipus Tyrannus]]'' by [[Sophocles]] as an example of how the perfect tragedy should be structured, with a generally good protagonist who starts the play prosperous, but loses everything through some ''[[hamartia]]'' (fault).{{sfn| Kaufmann | 1968 | pages=56–60}}]]

While it is believed that Aristotle's ''Poetics'' originally comprised two books – one on comedy and one on tragedy – only the portion that focuses on tragedy has survived. Aristotle taught that tragedy is composed of six elements: plot-structure, character, style, thought, spectacle, and lyric poetry.{{sfn| Poetics | p=VI}} The characters in a tragedy are merely a means of driving the story; and the plot, not the characters, is the chief focus of tragedy. Tragedy is the imitation of action arousing pity and fear, and is meant to effect the [[catharsis]] of those same emotions. Aristotle concludes ''Poetics'' with a discussion on which, if either, is superior: epic or tragic mimesis. He suggests that because tragedy possesses all the attributes of an epic, possibly possesses additional attributes such as spectacle and music, is more unified, and achieves the aim of its mimesis in shorter scope, it can be considered superior to epic.{{sfn| Poetics | p=XXVI}} 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]].{{sfn| Aesop | 1998 | pages=Introduction, xi–xii}}