Essays in History, Politics and Culture

Copyright © 2000 R. James Ferguson

Aristotle: The Practical Sciences - Politics and Ethics


Background Briefing Topics:

- Aristotle and the Origins of Political Science

- Biographical Details

- The Breadth of the Aristotelian System

- The Practical Sciences: Politics and Ethics

- Happiness and Practical Wisdom

- Conclusion


1. Aristotle and the and Origins of Political Science

The importance of Plato in the history of Western thought can only be matched by the importance of one of his students. Aristotle is in many ways equally innovative, but provides strong counter-arguments to many of Plato’s views. Interest in politics and political theory was the outcome of the active political life lead by the Greek city-states during 200 years of continuous change and political conflict. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Greeks began to reflect upon these events and tried to develop some systematic account of political life. As noted by Cynthia Farrar: -

The period in which radical, direct democracy was created, and political power gradually devolved to the people in assembly and absorbed local and sacral authorities, raised deep questions about the sources of political order and harmony. (Farrar 1988, p26)

It should not surprise us, therefore, that the issues of justice and power, and how society should be organized, became areas of heated debate. Plato, too, was deeply interested in the way justice could be instituted in both the individual and the state, but his approach to this issue was to set up an ideal constitution, The Republic, and through this means implicitly criticize the current state-of-affairs in early fourth century Athens. A similar approach was used in Plato's book The Statesman, but it was only in his later work, The Laws, that he recognized that political life, practically, could only be controlled by a rigid adherence to a chosen set of laws.

Aristotle took a very different approach to these issues. First, he was concerned to collect data about existing city-states and the way their constitutions operated. Some 158 constitutions in all were collected, probably including information on the Carthaginian Constitution. He had a stronger observational and descriptive basis for his researches and conclusions than Plato, though may have been rather selective in the way he used historical examples (for this criticism, see Lintott 1992). Second, he argued that the preferable constitution had be achievable by ordinary people within historical time: in other words, for Aristotle's politics was a practical rather than an ideal discipline. It is for this reason that Aristotle's work has had a profound effect on the history of political science. Aristotle influenced seminal thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and Machiavelli, gave modern politics many of its terms for analyzing political and constitutional structures, and was the forerunner of comparative political studies as well as comparative constitutional law (Rosenthal 1953). Aristotle also criticized the type of ideas put forward in Plato's Republic. For Aristotle such a society would be rigid and dead: in any case, no one within it would be really happy (Politics, 1264b). The Guardian class, in particular, would eventually be corrupt and turn the society in a tyranny run for their own narrow interests. Aristotle denied the organic metaphor that Plato used to argue that a society was like an individual, in which the mind should rule the passions and appetites. Rather, Aristotle though that a city or a nation was a collection of different groups trying to achieve benefits for themselves: rather than being a single organism, it was a pluralistic system.

2. Biographical Details

Aristotle was born at Stageira in Macedonia in 384, and lived until 322 B.C., dying at the age of 62 years. Aristotle's father, Nicomachus, had been a physician at the court of Philip of Macedon, which partly accounts for his traditional friendship and association with influential people in Macedonia, and in part for his interest in natural science.

In 367 B.C., at the age of 17 years, Aristotle came to study at Plato's Academy in Athens. Aristotle remained in the Academy for some twenty years, though his ideas may have diverged more and more from those of Plato. Thus Aristotle acquired the nickname of the Foal, i.e. one who will kick the mare, that is, his teacher, when he has had enough milk (Guthrie 1990). In 347 B.C., when Plato died, Aristotle left the Academy and joined the small Platonic circle at Assos, in the Troad, where he enjoyed close relations with Hermias, the ruler of the neighbouring city of Atarneus. Here he may have glimpsed more the practical side of political science and foreign affairs (Warrington, xi).

In 343/2 B.C. Philip of Macedon invited Aristotle to tutor the young Alexander the Great. He was one of many prominent individuals who had been drawn to the Macedonian court; figures such as Pindar, Bacchylides, the painter Zeuxis received patronage there, (Herodotus 5.22; Thucydides 2.99. & 4.124; Pausanias 7.25; Pindar Fragments 120-121; Bacchylides 20B), as did the poets Choerilus (Athenaeus 8.345) and Timotheus (Plutarch Moralia 177b), and the dramatists Agathon and Euripides. The exact level of influence Aristotle would have had on Alexander's ideas and ambitions is still a matter of scholarly debate and subject to a great paucity of information. Indeed, it is also possible that Aristotle would have criticized the increasing autocracy and arbitrariness of Alexander's rule and his willingness to incorporate Persian and eastern elements into his kingship.

Aristotle left Athens in 322 B.C., after the death of Alexander, due to the opprobrium felt towards him because of his connection with the Macedonian ruling house. Now that Alexander had died and the democratic faction was on the upswing, Aristotle said that he did want the Athenians to 'commit a second crime against humanity' (Barnes 1995, p6), for he too, had been summoned to court to answer the charge of impiety. The first 'crime', of course, had been the Athenian prosecution and execution of Socrates in 399 B.C. Aristotle, instead, chose to leave Athens for Euboea. This once again seems to indicate a more practical view of political and social life.

3. The Breadth of the Aristotelian System

The range of Aristotle's work is amazing: it includes works such as the Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, Eudemian Ethics, On Justice, On the Poets, The Art of Rhetoric, On Animals, On Planets, On Astronomy, Deductions, Definitions etc., a total of some 150 different works. Most of these works seem to have been extant lecture notes, which presumably Aristotle used at the private and public lectures in the advanced school he set up in Athens, the Lyceum. This school was actually a sanctuary and gymnasium, and the courses run there probably had no set syllabus, no examinations, and presumably no fees (Barnes 1982, p5).

Aristotle had a different view to Plato on how to secure genuine knowledge. In Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations speech as a model of thought is viewed as being prone to error; dialectic is inferior to demonstration, where one begins with principles which are true and primary. Aristotle looked more to mathematics for a model for building a secure body of provable knowledge, though Plato did accept that a basis in mathematics was needed for advanced studies. Furthermore, Aristotle was not happy with Plato's theory of forms: for Aristotle the concrete objects making up any class precede the quality they share, e.g. individual horses precede the notion of the abstract form of the horse. Therefore, in his view, Forms do not account for all that is real (Barnes 1982, p46). For Aristotle any individual object incorporates a fusion of both form and matter, and a sound philosophy had to do justice to both 'the claims of systematic unity and those of independent plurality' (Brumbaugh 1981, p175).

According to Aristotle one should argue from first principles, once these have been accepted, to build up a true, systematic and meaningful account in any area of study (see Barnes 1982, pp23; Seeskin 1987, pp26-30 for a critical view of this). Such a systematic system would of course involve a detailed understanding of causes, but in Greek the word for cause, 'aitia', is rather broad - it includes the notion of explanation, of knowing why something is as it is rather than simply the antecedent conditions necessary to its generation. Aristotle, developed four sets of causes which help 'explain' any thing: these included the material, formal, efficient and final causes. The final cause, telos, discusses the final purpose for which an object is made or used, and in the cases of natural objects goes beyond a mere functionalism - natural things have the goal of self-realization which directs their stages of growth and maturity (Brumbaugh 1981, p184). The final goal of human beings is discussed at length in Aristotle's consideration of ethics, and likewise it involves the fullest self-realization of what is it to be a human being. This in turn leads on to a discussion of the environment which supports the pursuit of a good and well-fashion life, and for Aristotle this was the political life of the State.

4. The Practical Sciences: Politics and Ethics

For Aristotle man was not simply another object in the world which could be studied using material and formal views of causation and explanation. Man was more than a mere object because he had potentiality, power and creativity in his own right: in other words, a level of freedom which meant that not all his actions are caused by external factors. Furthermore, human nature and behaviour are subject to 'errors, accidents and responsibilities for choice that make them significantly different from the rest of reality. . . . Freedom results from man's peculiar metaphysical location. It means that nature does not dictate the development of intelligence and excellence.' (Brumbaugh 1981, p197). Man creates forms of virtue and intelligence, e.g. in terms of character, institutions and societies, and is in turn affected by these creations. Humans are in a sense partly self-causing, and societies carry these causes forward onto future generations.

Ethics and politics, therefore, can not be as systematic as logic or biology, and had to be aware of the variations and potentials of human choice and development. In ethics and politics, he argued that completely true laws can only rarely be proven, rather, we can assess statements such as ‘in general, something is the case’, or ‘everything being equal, x is the case’. Yet these kinds of insights are still very useful in understanding human behaviour and human societies. Aristotle regarded the practical sciences as those that help humans live properly. The two central works on this topic were his Nicomachean Ethics (apparently named after Aristotle's son, Nicomachus), and his Politics. A brief summary of the basic orientation of these practical enquiries has been provided by Robert Brumbaugh: -

PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE means the result of studying the world from the standpoint of human existence, human nature and human value. It has as its subject matter (a) habits and decisions that form the individual character (ETHICS), (b) the conventions and institutions that societies set up as means to attaining a common good, and (c) the complex interaction of nature and convention that gives men in society a 'second nature' more or less adequate to their ideals of self-realization (POLITICS). (Brumbaugh 1981, p188, capitalization is the author's.)

Aristotle's studies on ethics aimed at improving a person's character: the Greek word 'ethika' means 'concerning the character', and in particular, how this character can achieve eudaemonia, not just a state of happiness, but a successful and excellent life. In other words, the central question is not just how to be happy, but 'what it is to be a successful human being' (Barnes 1982, p78). This idea was very influential in the classical world, but was also taken up as the ideal of the man with a wide range of balanced virtues in 19th and 20th century British-American education. 'Nothing in excess' and everything according to an appropriate measure were some of the common-places which were developed out of the much stronger psychological analysis developed by Aristotle. Such views have also influenced modern psychological and educational ideas concerning human self-realization and the complete actualization of the human's potential in experience of the world (developed by thinkers such as J.S. Mill, Maslow and Rogers).

The citizen-based city-state was held to provide the environment for the achievement of individual development through public means, and the proper management of the state for this purpose should be the goal of political behaviour. Many of our current political and constitutional concerns and terminology are discussed in Aristotle's book, the Politics, e.g. notions of citizenship, civic virtue, sovereignty, democracy, polity, plurality, the role of wealth in the state, representation of the interests of differing groups, causes of revolution, and methods for stabilizing various constitutions, criteria for office-holding, questions of population, and land distribution.

The central aim of states, also, is eudaemonia, in particular to provide the opportunities for their citizens to find a life of excellence and full human achievement. A State is a sharing 'by households and families in a good life, for the purpose of a complete and self-sufficient life." (in Barnes 1982, p81). Furthermore, all states share certain characteristics:

Experience teaches us that every state is an association, and that every association is formed with some good end in view, for an apparent good is the spring of all human activity. Consequently, the state or political association, which is supreme and all-embracing, must aim at the sovereign good. (Politics, 1252a)

The organization called the state must reach a certain size for purposes of self-sufficiency: -

When several villages unite so as to form a single association large enough to be almost if not wholly self-sufficient, that association has reached the level of a state. Though it owed its origin to the bare necessities of life, it continues to exist for the sake of the good life. Hence, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so too is the state, which is their end. . . . I have now made it clear that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. (Politics, 1252b-1253a)

States then, are natural societies conforming to a final cause, a teleology for the benefit of the individual. States and human society are not purely the creation of human convention, as some of the more extreme sophists implied. A State, furthermore, is 'an association of citizens within the framework of a constitution' (Politics, 1276a), In other words, the state is not just or region, nation, or collection of people, it is a group of people where political and social life is organized in a particular way. The constitution, of course, may be written or unwritten. Generally, we can see that Aristotle has been deeply influenced by the formation of, and the way of life implicit in, the Greek polis (city-state).

The definition of citizenship, likewise, is connected to its function, rights, and political ends: -

The picture of a citizen now begins to emerge more clearly: (a) he who has the right to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of a particular state is said to be a citizen of that state; (b) a group of such persons large enough to be self-sufficient constitutes, broadly speaking, a state. (Politics, 1275b).

Citizens are those who take their turn 'in ruling and being ruled' (Politics, 1283b), knowing how to act in both roles. The implications of these views are important: in so far as one is a member of a state, the full opportunity for developing human excellence and potentially is available. To be without citizenship, however, limits this opportunity, while to be entirely stateless, e.g. an outcast or a slave, is be limited in one's ability to be fully human. This is why slaves, for Aristotle, are indeed less fully human in that they are not fully political animals. For Aristotle man is a political animal.

Furthermore, although there are beneficial forms of the rule of one, the few, and the many (viz. kingship, aristocracy and a polity or moderate democracy), there are also corrupt forms of all three as well: tyranny, oligarchy and radical democracy (which is equivalent to the tyranny of the many). A polity is a constitutional state where the fighting men of the state have full citizenship, and where those 'who possess arms are the citizens' (Politics, 1279a). The central notion here is that those both able to meet the requirements of self-defence for the state, and those who have some means of livelihood, make the best citizen body. This idea might seem strange to modern thinkers, but we should remember than many modern states still insist that it is the duty of all citizens to take an active part in the defence of the state, e.g. Switzerland, or to have the right to self-defence (e.g. the right to own weapons, originally for service in a national militia, as in the U.S.A.).

We can tabulate Aristotle's view on these forms of government: -

Aristotle’s Analysis of Types of Government: -



(rule for society


(rule for ruling group)

Rule by one



Rule by few



Rule by many


(moderate democracy)

Radical Democracy

(mob rule)


The corrupt forms of rule differ from beneficial constitutions in the following way: -

Those forms of government which have regard to the common good are right constitutions, judged by the norm of absolute justice. But those which take account only of the rulers' interests are all perversions, all deviation forms; they are despotic, whereas the state is a society of freemen. (Politics, 1279a)

For Aristotle, oligarchies were ruled with the interests of the well-to-do paramount, while in radical democracies the interests of the have-nots is paramount (Politics, 1279b). Neither, therefore, are completely legitimate systems, and lead to problems in equity and justice. Furthermore, the different distributions between poverty and wealth may also increase the tensions between these two social orders.

Aristotle had a generally positive view of the rule of the many when it was moderated by an appropriate constitution and rule of Law, arguing that a well structured democracy could reach a higher level of virtue than the individual virtue of the members making up the state (Barnes 1982, p81). He specifically rejects the rule by an elite group such as the guardians of Plato's Republic, arguing that such a static ruling group would cause enmity among the other groups of society, and argues that no one in such a state will be really happy (Politics, 1264b).

Aristotle's ideal state is not the type of utopia proposed by Plato's Republic. In his analysis of the best constitution Aristotle argues that: -

In doing so we shall not assume a standard of excellence beyond the reach of an ordinary man, or a standard of education calling for exceptional gifts of nature or fortune, or, yet again an ideal form of government. No, we shall confine ourselves to the sort of life which most men are able to share, and a constitution to which most states can attain. (Politics, 1295a).

Aristotle, then, is describing states which he thinks could be set up if reasonable steps are put in motion by citizens who agree on the common good. Aristotle recognizes that a plurality of types of person should make up the state, and that 'civic and moral virtue cannot be identical' (Politics, 1276a). He nonetheless does argue by analogy that just as the virtuous individual is guided by the mean between extremes, so the best state will have a large and politically powerful middle class. For it is this middle class (in modern terms), which unlike the poor and rich who have too much to gain and lose respectively by social revolution, which are able to provide the proper guidance for an impartial running of the state. Furthermore, for Aristotle it is this group that has most civic virtue and should therefore have greater access to offices and deliberative power in the state.

Unfortunately for Aristotle, due to the absence of any large-scale industrial or productive base, it was exactly this 'middle class' which tended to remain small in most Greek city-states. Usually wealth was based on land (though Athens and Corinth were also active trade centres), while the poor often spiralled down into a debt and were trapped in poverty. It was perhaps at Athens more than most other poleis that there was some chance for this middle class to develop: the reforms of Solon, combined with a stronger emphasis on trade and maritime affairs would have supported a larger group in the lower hoplite class. Aristotle explicitly states that democracies tend to be safer and more permanent than oligarchies because such democracies give the middle class a large role in government (Politics, 1296a). Ironically, the emphasis on a large war fleet also made Athens dependent on the poorer citizens who were the sailors and rowers of this fleet - and this would have pushed the emerging polity in the direction of a more radical democracy.

The State then, must support the liberty of the citizen, though Aristotle does not argue for the liberty of slaves or women. Nonetheless, the State should regulate all things shared in common, that is to say, all public life, and in doing so it strongly interferes in social life, customs and especially education, which should be directed towards inculcating the dominate ideas of the constitution under which the citizens live (Politics, 1310a). Here Aristotle assigns a positive function to the State, and this may lead to a conflict with the liberty of the individual. As noted by Jonathan Barnes: -

He confidently assigns a positive function to the State, supposing that its goal is the promotion of the good life. Given that, it is easy to imagine that the State, eager to ameliorate the human condition, may properly intervene in any aspect of human life and may compel its subjects to do whatever will make them happy. Those who see the State as a promoter of Good often end up as advocates of repression. Lovers of liberty will prefer to assign a negative function to the State and to regard it rather as a defence and protection against Evil." (Barnes 1982, pp82-3)

This is a major criticism of Aristotle's position: in legislating for the 'good' one may also be over-regulating the conduct of social life. But the cry for 'freedom' had often led to phases of destructive government, and we should not be surprised that Aristotle was only willing to give the citizens freedom to act in proportion to their civic and moral virtue. This remained a major for modern European states which achieved democracies through revolutions, as in France and America.

5. Happiness and Practical Wisdom

As we have seen, Aristotle argued that making progress as an excellent human being was the only path to genuine happiness and contentment. This involved the development of the higher human faculties, including logic and contemplation. But Aristotle also gave some very practical advice about what was required to get to his excellence (arete). First, a number of virtues should be developed and encouraged. These qualities included things such as courage, temperance, justice, liberality, and kindness.

However, Aristotle added an important qualification to this. He though all virtues should be followed in moderation. Any good quality taken to an extreme can become harmful. Take courage for example. Too much courage means that a person is foolhardy and willing to take excessive risks. Too little courage means that people can be ruled by fear and timid or cowardly.

Aristotle on the Mean in Good Qualities (adapted from Ethics, Penguin Edition, p104): -


MEAN (virtue)










Lack of Spirit





Aristotle also argued that we need to combine a sense of ethics, that is, a knowledge of the good goals we should pursue, with two other things. First of all, we need to have the practical wisdom to be able to figure out how to achieve a goal (see Fortenbaugh 1969). This will help us choose the appropriate means to the chosen end. Second, Aristotle argued that our character should be shaped to respond automatically in a virtuous and sensible way, i.e. we should have a disposition to take effective and good action, even in an emergency situation. For Aristotle this was a kind of emotional disposition which included a cognitive assessment of the cause of the emotion (see Fortenbaugh 1969, p167). This meant that we would always tend to be courageous, just, kind etc. In other words, even if you don’t have the time to think things through logically, you will tend to act in conformity with the moderate virtues, and tend to take a pragmatic path towards this goal.

These ideas have been applied by modern thinkers to help take a sensible approach to a wide range of modern social problems. For example, one of the great issues of the modern period, surprisingly, is the problem of leisure ('free' time, see Morgan 1997). Too little leisure, with excessive work due to poverty or a workaholic environment, means that from Aristotle's point of view there is no time to develop the self fully, to be involved in political or social life, or to get a rounded education. People often cite certain sectors of corporate culture, Japanese business life (at least until recently) and parts of China as suffering from this work-syndrome. On the other hand, in modern Western societies, many people simply have too much leisure and they do not know what to do with it. They lack the ability to find worthwhile tasks, and find that entertainment media only fills part of the gap. Because people have intelligent, forward planning minds with aspirations and imaginations, they also suffer from boredom, anxiety and alienation (see Kenny 1966). This problem is particularly acute for youth, the unemployed, the house-bound, and the retired. In fact, one of the great challenges for the future is to find enough productive jobs for all human adults. This is led to a major paradox: people need to be educated to make effective use of their leisure and recreational time. Here Aristotle's notion of the mean seems to apply: to little or too much leisure can be destructive. Furthermore, there is a very constructive role for leisure in providing opportunities for people to round out their lives and become more complete human beings. This has enormous implications for the health industry, for education, for information technology and the entertainment industry. This has also been taken in a different direction: humans not only need time for work and education, but also time for creative 'play' (see Huizinga 1998)


6. Conclusion

At this stage we can briefly compare Aritotle's views to that of Plato.

Contrasts between Aristotle and Plato: -



Knowledge by Observation + Logic

Dialogue, Dialectic and Forms

Eudaemonia and the Mean

Know the Good, do good

Pluralistic Society

Organic metaphor (society as organism)

Moderate Democracy can work

Rule by Guardians (knowledge elites)

Practical, imperfect systems

Ideal, perfect systems


Ironically, the Hellenic world which had helped form most of Aristotle's political and social ideals was about to have the rug pulled from under it by the very men with whom he had associated in Macedonia, Philip II and Alexander the Great. Hegel noted this when he said that 'The shades of night are falling before the Owl of Athena takes flight.' (in Brumbaugh 1981, p205). But such things can be known only in hindsight, and in 322 B.C., even with the political autonomy of the Greek polis eclipsed, the vistas for Hellenic culture seemed wide and bright. Greek culture, through its Macedonian patrons, was about to be exported throughout the Middle East, and in time would be one of the main cultural influences on the Roman Empire and on Byzantine culture. Aristotle, too, was a major influence on thinkers of the later Middle Ages such as Thomas Aquinas, and one of the threads underlying the renewed humanism of the Renaissance. Aristotle's thought was to directly influence the tradition of political analysis from Machiavelli to Locke, and is still influential today. In the east, the thought of Aristotle would be central to major Arabic thinkers such as Avicenna and Averroes. Aristotle's political vocabulary is still influential today, and his ideas on the 'mean' have been used in professional ethics and also in notions of distributive justice.


7. Bibliography and Further Reading

ARISTOTLE (trans. H.Rackham) Politics, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1977

ARISTOTLE, (trans. J. Thomson) The Ethics of Aristotle: the Nicomachean Ethics, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1987

ARISTOTLE, (trans. John Warrington) The Politics and The Athenian Constitution, London, Heron Books, n.d.

BARNES, Jonathan Aristotle, Oxford, OUP, 1982

BARNES, Jonathan "Aristotle and the Methods of Ethics", Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 34 no. 133, 1980, pp490-511

BARNES, Jonathan, The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge, CUP, 1995

BRUMBAUGH, Robert S. The Philosophers of Greece, Albany, State University of N.Y. Press, 1981

de CRESCENZO, Luciano History of Greek Philosophy, Albany, State Uni. of N.Y., Press, 1981

EDEL, Abraham Aristotle and His Philosophy, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1982

EVANS, J.D.G. Aristotle (Philosophers-in-Context), Sussex, Harvester Press, 1987

FARRAR, Cynthia The Origins of Democratic Thinking: The Invention of Politics in Classical Athens, Cambridge, CUP, 1988

FAUROT, J.H. Problems of Political Philosophy, Pennsylvania, Chandler, 1970

FORTENBAUGH, W.W. "Aristotle: Emotional and Moral Virtue", Aresthusa, 2 no. 2, 1969, pp163-185

GREEN, Peter Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C., Berkeley, University of California Press, 1991

GUTHRIE, W.K.C. A History of Greek Philosophy, Volume 6, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990

HARDIE, W.F.R. "The Final Good in Aristotle's Ethics", Philosophy, 40. no. 154, October 1965, pp277-295

HUIZINGA, Johan H. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, London, Routledge, 1998

KAZEPIDES, A.C. "What is the Paradox of Moral Education?", Philosophy of Education Society: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting in Philosophy of Education, 25, 1969, pp177-183

KENNY, A.J.P. "Happiness", Proceedings of the Aristotle Society, 1966, pp93-102

LEYDEN, W. von Aristotle on Equality and Justice: His Political Argument, St. Martins Press, 1985

LINTOTT, Andrew "Aristotle and Democracy", The Classical Quarterly, 42 no. 1, 1992, pp114-128 [Access via JSTOR database]

MACINTYRE, Alasdair A Short History of Ethics, London, Macmillan, 1966

MORGAN, Jeffrrey "Leisure Education: An Aristotelian View (1)", Internet Source []

ROSENTHAL, Erwin I. J. "The Place of Politics in the Philosophy of Ibn Rushd", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 15 no. 2, 1953, pp246-278

SEESKIN, Kenneth Dialogue and Discovery: A Study in Socratic Method, Albany, State University of N.Y. Press, 1987

STRAUSS, Barry S. Athens After the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403-386 B.C., London, Routledge, 1987

WARMINGTON, John "Introduction" to Aristotle, The Politics and The Athenian Constitution, London, Heron Books, n.d.


Essays in History, Politics and Culture Copyright © 2000 R. James Ferguson