oh, he is nice! he defended poets!

I think it says a lot that mankind based almost its entire foundation upon his scientific teachings and didn't develop a great deal upon his philosophical teachings for a good 1400 years after he died... the man was a pure genius and came up with some things that would have been inconceivable beforehand.

Though very much a chauvinist, he was an important thinker, and contributed much to the fields of philosophy and science.

Easily one of the most- if not the most- prolific and influential philosophers in world history. Born the son of a royal physician he moved to Athens to study to study under Plato. His interests in various schools of thought are unparallelled. He wrote copiously on biology, zoology, ethics, economics, virtues, poetry, physics, metaphysics, and politics. His concern with forms of association and naturally created forms sent in motion by a Prime Mover that lend themselves to deducible moral virtues through rational deliberation and skilled understanding leave him as the founder of modern conservative thought. He theorized the essence of each thing has two distinct intrinsic principles: matter and form. Matter was simply the elements that the thing comprised of. The essence of that thing's form was it's higher purpose. A plant seed's purpose was to be plant. The evolution and development of that thing without the deviation of perversions in causality would allow it to develop into it's true essence. Behaviors of man were distinctly categorized by their natural higher purpose with varying extremes on both sides. For example: courage is a moral virture to which mankind should aspire. But perversions of that on both sides eg cowardice and reckless abandon exist. The development of natural forms of human association-most notably the highest form of human development: the state- evolve to allow man to attain the Highest Good as a collective body. The purpose of the state is the Good Life. Man is only fully human through the emergence of the state in which citizens (property owners) aspired to administer statecraft for the common good of all. Individuals alone not survive with out any form of association- only beasts and Gods were capable of doing such. Mankind naturally formed families for basic wants and needs. Formed Villages for communal desires and basic cultural needs. But only through the state could they achieve a higher good. Aristotle however theorizes that a Kingship or Aristocracy would be the perfect for of government if men were living Gods- but they are not. These forms of government erode into tryannies (rule for the private interest). The best form of government he argued would a constitutional government that mixed the principles of wealth and the numbers of the masses. This he felt- with a sizable middle class- could create a sustainable equalibrium that would avoid the pitfalls of other forms of government.

It's easy to see much of his theory in the creation of our constitution and the arguments made by our founders. It is impossible to overstate Aristotles importance to Western society. No other philosopher has had such and impact.

While much of Aristotle's work was flawed (especially his Physics, which remained the accepted standard until Galileo) his range of accomplishment in every branch of human knowledge is so great that it surpassed all those who came before or after. The modern division of intellectual labor is inherited from Aristotle, who pushed human knowledge to the point where a single person could no longer possess universal knowledge. To remedy this problem, Aristotle founded the Lycaeum, the first proto-University/Research Institute, where scientists and scholars could share knowledge and collaborate for the common good. Unfortunately, Aristotle's work was so impressive that it became a brake on progress; from shortly after his death until the Renaissance, 'Aristotelian' doctrine was holy writ and scientific progress was limited to a handful of fields (optics, medicine, astronomy). It is unfair to blame Aristotle for those who misused his legacy; he remains the greatest scholar of his own age, or any other.

a is a

No, not the father of the West, the father of categorization. Aristotle was a mental house-keeper and loved making categories of just about everything. He would have loved RIA. A thinker who looked for the good life, he believed in the pursuit of happiness and moderation while creating formulaic scientific analysis. Of course he was Alexander the Great's teacher, but it's debatable how much Mr. Great took in. Obviously he had ideas bigger than logical categorization of scientific theories in mind.

What a mind not a good as a writter a Plato.I fond his words a little to entangled.I find it a bit of a task to keep up with his nibble mind and that he did not convey his ideas in fashion in a compelling way as did Plato.Now I realize the subject matter was different in some cases.But never the less a person who for good and ill left his place and made history through his influence.

The father of the West.

Plato was a great philosopher, but I find Aristotle to be far more accessible and practical in application. His political writings in "Politics" and other works formed the backbone of western democratic thought. What I find most interesting are his views on the different types of rule. He said--and this has relevance today--that political rule must be regulated by laws in order to be constitutional, and these laws must rest on the consent of the governed. These were revolutionary ideas that formed the backbone of the Founders views on government. Plato was far more of a elitist, he believed that rule by the upper crust and intellectuals would guarantee good government.

Aristotle pointed out that the best form of government was some kind of mixture of democracy and elite leadership. He thought that having all these groups represented will produce the most stable and legitimate form of government. In other words, no one wants to trade in this form of government, a republic, because everyone is getting something out of it. Doesn't that sound familiar? That's the American system of government.

According to Aristotle, any "pure" government tended to be unstable. A monarchy, by granting privileges to personal favorites and the creation of monopolies, evolves into oligarchy- that is, government by a few. They exploit resources; thus the few in power become rich while leaving behind the majority. A government by the rich is contrived of. This therefore would lead towards a social unrest that would result in a government by the people, a democracy.

This should serve as a warning to those who would seek to abandon the republican form of government for oligarchical systems like fascism.

According to Aristotle, a democracy is not a good form of government; it is a state run by "opportunistic riffraff politicians". Many mistakes are made at the hands of the masses. Democracy by itself answers nothing. It's only as good as it's people, but the people must be changed. That really isn't possible, it's hard to change human nature and many times the result is mob rule. The French learned that the hard way after their revolution.

The result of pure democracy is despotism. A charismatic leader rises, one who is a despot, who comes in "to clean up the mess" and the cycle begins once again. Think of someone like Napoleon. To Aristotle, politics is a series of cycles, or transformations, of governments through a long period. He believed that the ideal government is the one established according to the model the Founding Fathers established for us, the republican model (not the political party). Basically, the keystone of a republican government is the separation of public and private sectors; the checks and balances system. This ensures a stable government with all competeing interests in check.

The Ancient Greeks were timeless. Indeed, they were asking the timeless questions, about government, human nature, science. philosophy. Aristotle ultimately believed that corruption comes from a lack of education on the part of the leadership class. In the United States its just the opposite, the corruption of our leadership class comes from too much education! Education perhaps refers to virtue in ancient times, not knowledge per se!

Aristotle was an astounding relevance to Western thought. A man ahead of his time, he influenced generations to come.

Aristotle was the bomb! He was a philosopher who upheld the virtue of reason and the potential of mankind. Ayn Rand called him the "barometer" of civilization: when the climate of ideas has been in concert with his philosophical contributions, mankind has enjoyed incredible renaissances. When civilization has turned toward the mysticism of Plato, it has entered prolongued dark periods.