亚里士多德的政治学 political theory (Fred Miller)
首次发表于 1998 年 7 月 1 日，实质性修订于 2022 年 7 月 1 日
亚里士多德（公元前 384 年-公元前 322 年）是一位希腊哲学家、逻辑学家和科学家。与他的老师柏拉图一起，亚里士多德被普遍认为是古代思想家中最有影响力的人之一，涉及多个哲学领域，包括政治理论。亚里士多德出生在希腊北部的斯塔吉拉，他的父亲是马其顿国王的宫廷医生。年轻时，他在柏拉图的雅典学院学习。柏拉图去世后，他离开雅典前往亚洲小亚细亚和莱斯博斯岛进行哲学和生物学研究，后来受到马其顿国王菲利普二世的邀请，成为他年幼的儿子亚历山大大帝的导师。亚历山大继承父亲王位后，巩固了对希腊城邦的征服，并发起了对波斯帝国的入侵。亚里士多德作为一名外籍居民返回雅典，并成为马其顿总督安提帕特的亲密朋友。在这段时间（公元前 335 年-公元前 323 年），他写作了一些重要的著作，包括《政治学》。亚历山大突然去世后，亚里士多德因为与马其顿的联系而不得不逃离雅典，不久后去世。亚里士多德的生活似乎以各种方式影响了他的政治思想：他对生物学的兴趣似乎反映在他的政治学的自然主义中；他对比较政治学的兴趣以及对民主和君主制的有限同情可能受到他的旅行和多样化政治制度经验的鼓励；他对他的老师柏拉图做出批判性回应，同时广泛借鉴了柏拉图的《理想国》、《政治家》和《法律》；他自己的《政治学》旨在指导统治者和政治家，反映了他所处的高级政治圈子。
1. 总论政治学
现代词汇“政治”源自希腊语 politikos，意为“与城邦有关的”。（这里将希腊词 polis 翻译为“城邦”。它也常被翻译为“城市”或直接音译为“polis”。像雅典和斯巴达这样的城邦是相对较小且紧密的单位，政治、宗教和文化问题相互交织。它们与现代国家的相似程度存在争议。）亚里士多德用于“政治”的词是 politikê，它是 politikê epistêmê 或“政治科学”的简称。它属于亚里士多德所区分的三个主要科学领域之一，这些领域根据它们的目标或对象进行区分。思辨科学（包括物理学和形而上学）关注的是为了真理或知识本身；实践科学关注的是良好的行动；生产科学关注的是制造有用或美丽的物品（《论学术问题》VI.6.145a14–16，《形而上学》VI.1.1025b24，XI.7.1064a16–19，《伦理学》VI.2.1139a26–8）。政治是一门实践科学，因为它关注的是公民的高尚行动或幸福（尽管它在寻求创造、保护和改革政治体系方面类似于生产科学）。因此，亚里士多德将政治理解为一门规范性或指导性学科，而不是纯粹的经验性或描述性研究。
在 Nicomachean Ethics 中，亚里士多德将他的研究对象描述为“政治学”，并将其描述为最具权威性的科学。它规定了在城邦中应该学习哪些科学，其他科学（如军事科学、家政管理和修辞学）则属于其权威范围。由于它统治其他实践科学，它们的目标成为实现其目标的手段，而这个目标无非是人类的幸福。“即使个人和城邦的目标是相同的，至少从某种程度上来说，城邦的目标似乎更伟大、更完整，更值得追求和保持。因为虽然为个人而追求这个目标是值得的，但为一个国家或城邦而追求这个目标则更高尚、更神圣”（EN I.2.1094b7–10）。这两部伦理学著作（Nicomachean Ethics 和 Eudemian Ethics）解释了构成政治学基础的原则：幸福是最高的人类善，幸福是道德美德的活动，以中庸为定义，而正义或共同利益则是政治善。因此，亚里士多德的政治学涵盖了现代哲学家区分为伦理学和政治哲学的两个领域。（请参阅有关亚里士多德伦理学的条目。）狭义上的政治哲学大致上是他所著的《政治学》的主题。有关此主题的进一步讨论，请参阅以下补充文件：
2. 亚里士多德对政治的看法
政治学研究政治家或政治家（政治家）的任务，就像医学研究医生的工作一样（参见《政治学》第四卷第 1 章）。事实上，这是这些从业者如果真正专家，也将在追求自己的任务中运用的知识体系。政治家最重要的任务是作为立法者（nomothetês）为城邦制定适当的宪法。这涉及到为公民制定持久的法律、习俗和制度（包括道德教育体系）。一旦宪法建立起来，政治家需要采取适当的措施来维护它，当他认为必要时引入改革，并防止可能颠覆政治体制的发展。这是立法科学的领域，亚里士多德认为它比日常政治活动中的政治更重要，比如通过法令（见《尼各马可伦理学》第六卷第 8 章）。
亚里士多德经常将政治家比作工匠。这个比喻并不准确，因为政治学在严格意义上是一种实践知识，而建筑或医学等工艺则是一种生产知识。然而，这个比较在于政治家根据普遍原则生产、运作和维护一个法律体系是有效的（《尼各马可伦理学》第六卷第 8 章和第十卷第 9 章）。为了理解这个比喻，有助于观察亚里士多德如何解释制作像饮杯这样的工艺品，他将其解释为四个原因：材料、形式、效能和目的（《物理学》第二卷第 3 章和《形而上学》A.2）。例如，黏土（材料原因）由陶工（效能或运动原因）塑造成一个粗略的圆柱形状，在一端封闭（形式原因），以便容纳饮料（目的原因）。 （有关四个原因的讨论，请参阅亚里士多德物理学的条目。）
人们还可以通过四个原因来解释城邦的存在。它是一种社群（koinônia），即具有共同功能和利益的部分集合体（Pol. II.1.1261a18，III.1.1275b20）。因此，它由部分组成，亚里士多德在不同的背景下以不同的方式描述这些部分：作为家庭，或经济阶级（例如，富人和穷人），或地方政治单位（即地方政治单位）。但是，最终，城邦由个体公民组成（参见 III.1.1274a38–41），他们与自然资源一起是构成城邦的“材料”或“设备”（参见 VII.14.1325b38–41）。
城邦的形式原因是其宪法（politeia）。亚里士多德将宪法定义为“城邦居民的某种秩序”（III.1.1274b32–41）。他还将社群的宪法称为“化合物的形式”，并认为社群是否随时间变化而保持一致取决于它是否具有相同的宪法（III.3.1276b1–11）。宪法不是一份书面文件，而是一种内在的组织原则，类似于有机体的灵魂。因此，宪法也是公民的“生活方式”（IV.11.1295a40–b1，VII.8.1328b1–2）。在这里，公民是具有完全政治权利的居民人口的少数派（III.1.1275b17–20）。
城邦的存在也需要一个高效的原因，即其统治者。亚里士多德认为，任何类型的社群只有在拥有统治元素或权威的情况下才能具备秩序。这个统治原则由宪法定义，宪法为政治职位设定了标准，特别是最高统治职位（III.6.1278b8–10；参见 IV.1.1289a15–18）。然而，在更深层次上，必须有一个高效的原因来解释为什么城邦首先获得其宪法。亚里士多德说：“最早建立 [城邦] 的人是非常伟大利益的原因”（I.2.1253a30–1）。这个人显然是立法者（nomothetês），类似于雅典的索伦（Solon）或斯巴达的吕库尔古斯（Lycurgus），他们创立了宪法。亚里士多德将立法者或更普遍地说，政治家比作工匠（dêmiourgos），如纺织工或造船工，将材料制成成品（II.12.1273b32–3，VII.4.1325b40–1365a5）。
最终原因的概念主导着亚里士多德的《政治学》从开篇的几行开始：
由于我们看到每个城邦都是一种社群，而每个社群都是为了某种好处而建立的（因为每个人都为了他们认为是好的东西而做任何事情），所以很明显每个社群都追求某种好处，而拥有最高权威并包括所有其他社群的社群追求的是最高的好处，也就是最有权威的好处。这就是所谓的城邦或政治社群（I.1.1252a1–7）。
不久之后，他指出城邦的存在是为了生活而产生的，但是为了美好的生活而存在（2.1252b29-30）。关于美好的生活或幸福是城邦的适当目标的主题在《政治学》中反复出现（III.6.1278b17-24，9.1280b39；VII.2.1325a7-10）。
总结一下，城邦是一个物质形态（即物质-形式）的复合体，由特定的人口（即公民团体）在给定的领土上（物质原因）和一种宪法（形式原因）组成。宪法本身由立法者制定，并由政治家统治，他们就像工匠一样（效果原因），宪法定义了城邦的目标（最终原因，IV.1.1289a17-18）。亚里士多德的物质形态分析对他来说具有重要的实际意义：正如工匠不应该试图将不适合的材料强加给形式（例如用沙子建造房屋），立法者也不应该制定或改变与公民性质相悖的法律。亚里士多德因此拒绝了乌托邦计划，例如柏拉图的《理想国》中提出的所有公民共同拥有儿童和财产的建议。因为这与事实相悖，即“人们对自己的财产最关注，对公共财产关注较少，或者只关注他们需要关注的部分”（Pol. II.3.1261b33-5）。亚里士多德还对随意的政治创新持谨慎态度，因为它可能会破坏公民遵守法律的习惯（II.8.1269a13-24）。有关亚里士多德政治学理论基础的进一步讨论，请参阅以下补充文件：
因此，亚里士多德理解政治的基本规范问题是以什么样的宪法形式和材料来建立和保持，以达到什么样的目的？
3. 宪法和公民的一般理论
亚里士多德说：“政治家和立法者完全致力于城邦，而宪法是组织居住在城邦中的人们的一种特定方式”（III.1.1274b36–8）。他在《政治学》第三篇中阐述了他对宪法的一般理论。他从公民（politês）的定义开始，因为城邦本质上是一个集体实体，由众多公民组成。公民与其他居民（如居住在城邦的外国人和奴隶）有所区别；即使是儿童和老年人也不是无条件的公民（大多数普通工人也不是）。在进一步的分析之后，他将公民定义为具有参与决策或司法职位的权利（1275b18–21）。例如，在雅典，公民有权参加议会、理事会和其他机构，或者担任陪审团成员。雅典的制度与现代代议制民主制度不同，因为公民在治理中更直接参与。尽管希腊城邦中的完全公民权利往往受到限制（妇女、奴隶、外国人和其他一些人被排除在外），但公民在治理中的参与程度比现代代议制民主制度更深入。这在亚里士多德对公民（无条件）的定义中得到了体现。此外，他将城邦（无条件意义上）定义为足以自给自足的生活所需的众多公民的集合体（1275b20–21）。
亚里士多德将宪法（politeia）定义为组织城邦办公室的方式，特别是主权办公室（III.6.1278b8–10；参见 IV.1.1289a15–18）。因此，宪法定义了治理机构，它采取不同的形式：例如，在民主制度中，它是人民，在寡头制度中，它是少数精英（富人或出身高贵的人）。在试图区分和评估各种宪法之前，亚里士多德考虑了两个问题。首先，为什么会有一个城邦？他回忆起在《政治学》第 1.2 节中辩护的论点，即人类是天生的政治动物，他们自然而然地想要一起生活。有关此主题的进一步讨论，请参阅以下补充文件：
亚里士多德接着补充道：“共同的利益也使他们聚集在一起，因为他们每个人都追求高尚的生活。这是他们共同和个别的最终目标”（III.6.1278b19–24）。其次，一个人或一组人可以通过哪些不同形式的统治来统治另一个人或群体？亚里士多德根据统治者和被统治者的灵魂性质区分了几种统治形式。他首先考虑了专制统治，这在主仆关系中得到了体现。亚里士多德认为，在天生的奴隶身上，这种统治形式是合理的，他们（没有证据的情况下）缺乏思考能力，因此需要一个天生的主人来指导他们（I.13.1260a12；奴隶制在《政治学》I.4–8 中得到了详细辩护）。尽管天生的奴隶据称从有主人的好处中受益，但专制统治主要是为了主人的利益，对奴隶而言只是次要的（III.6.1278b32–7）。（亚里士多德没有为此提供论证：如果有些人天生无法自我管理，为什么他们不应该主要是为了自己的利益而受统治呢？）他接着考虑了父权和夫权统治，他也认为这是可辩护的：“男性天生比女性更有领导能力，除非他在某种程度上与天性相悖，而年长和完善的人 [天生更有领导能力] 比年轻和不完善的人”（I.12.1259a39–b4）。
亚里士多德在他辩称儿童需要成人监督的时候是有说服力的，因为他们的理性是“不完善的”（ateles）或者不成熟的。但是当他声称（没有提供证据）尽管女性有决策能力，但是“没有权威”（akuron），所以女性需要男性监督时，对于现代读者来说是不令人信服的（I.13.1260a13–14）。（亚里士多德关于奴隶和女性的论证似乎很薄弱，以至于一些评论者认为他们是讽刺的。然而，对于现代读者来说显而易见的事情对于古希腊人来说可能并非如此，所以我们不必假设亚里士多德的讨论是不诚实的。）然而值得注意的是，父权和夫权的实践是为了被统治者的利益（分别是孩子和妻子的利益），就像医学或体育等艺术是为了患者的利益一样（III.6.1278b37–1279a1）。在这方面，它们类似于政治统治，当统治者和被统治者具有相等和相似的理性能力时，政治统治是适当的形式。这可以通过天生平等的公民轮流为彼此的利益而统治（1279a8–13）来证明。这为亚里士多德的宪政理论的基本主张铺平了道路：“以共同利益为目标的宪政是正确和公正的，而以统治者的利益为目标的宪政是异常和不公正的，因为它涉及不适合自由人群体的专制统治”（1279a17–21）。
正确和异常宪政的区别与政府可以由一个人、少数人或多数人组成的观察相结合。因此，有六种可能的宪政形式（政治学 III.7）：
Correct | Deviant | |
一位统治者 | Kingship | Tyranny |
少数统治者 | Aristocracy | Oligarchy |
多数统治者 | Polity | Democracy |
这种六重分类（无疑是从柏拉图的《政治家》302c-d 中改编而来）为亚里士多德对最佳宪法的探究奠定了基础，尽管在整个《政治学》中以各种方式进行了修改。例如，他观察到，寡头政治（字面上是寡头统治，即少数人统治）中的统治阶级通常是富人，而在民主政治（字面上是人民统治）中是穷人，因此这些经济阶级应该包括在这些形式的定义中（参见《政治学》III.8、IV.4 和 VI.2 中的其他解释）。此外，政体后来被描述为一种“混合”的宪法，以中产阶级为特征，中产阶级位于富人和穷人之间（《政治学》IV.11）。
亚里士多德的宪政理论基于他的正义理论，该理论在《尼各马可伦理学》第五卷中阐述。亚里士多德区分了两种不同但相关的“正义”概念——普遍正义和特殊正义——这两种概念在他的宪政理论中都起着重要作用。首先，在普遍意义上，“正义”意味着“合法性”，关注政治共同体的共同利益和幸福（《尼各马可伦理学》第五卷 1.1129b11–19，参见《政治学》第三卷 12.1282b16–17）。普遍正义的概念支撑着正确（公正）和异常（不公正）宪政之间的区别。但是，“共同利益”（koinê sumpheron）具体包含什么内容是学术争议的问题。一些段落暗示正义涉及所有公民的利益；例如，最好的宪政中的每个公民都有对私有财产和教育的正当要求（《政治学》第七卷 9.1329a23–4，13.1332a32–8）。但亚里士多德也允许，即使强大的公民没有被判犯有任何罪行，放逐他们也可能“在某种程度上”是公正的（第三卷 13.1284b15–20）。亚里士多德是否将共同利益理解为保护每个公民的利益，这与他是否预见到现代人所理解的个人权利理论有关。（有关不同解释，请参见弗雷德·米勒和理查德·克劳特的观点。）
其次，在特定意义上，“正义”意味着“平等”或“公平”，这包括分配正义，根据这种正义，不同的个体对某些共同财产的份额有公正的要求。亚里士多德分析了支持和反对不同宪法的论证，这些都是分配正义原则的不同应用（III.9.1280a7-22）。他说，每个人都同意，正义意味着平等对待平等的人，不平等对待不平等的人，但他们对个体被认为平等（或不平等）有价值或应得的标准并不一致。他假设自己在 V.3 中阐述的分配正义分析：正义要求按照个体的价值或应得比例分配利益。寡头错误地认为，财富优越的人也应该拥有更高的政治权利，而民主派认为，自由出生平等的人也应该拥有平等的政治权利。在亚里士多德看来，这两种对政治正义的理解都是错误的，因为它们假设了对城邦最终目标的错误理解。城邦既不是为了最大化财富的商业企业（寡头们所认为的），也不是为了促进自由和平等的协会（民主派所主张的）。相反，亚里士多德认为，“美好的生活是城邦的目标”，即由高尚行为组成的生活（1280b39-1281a4）。因此，正义的正确理解是贵族的，将政治权利授予那些对政治共同体做出充分贡献的人，即具有美德、财产和自由的人（1281a4-8）。这就是亚里士多德所理解的“贵族”宪法：字面上，贵族的统治，即最优秀的人的统治。 亚里士多德在《政治学》第三部剩余部分中探讨了这个论点的含义，考虑了法治和至高无上的有德之人统治之间的竞争。在这里，绝对君主制是贵族政体的一种极端情况。此外，在第七至第八册中，亚里士多德描述了一个理想的宪法，其中公民们都是完全有德的。
尽管正义在亚里士多德看来是最重要的政治美德（Pol. III.9.1283a38–40），但另一个伟大的社会美德——友谊，也不容忽视，因为这两种美德共同努力，以确保各种形式的联合（EN VIII.9.1159b26–7）。正义使得一个城邦的公民能够和平地分享合作的利益和负担，而友谊则使他们团结在一起，防止他们分裂成敌对派别（参见 Pol. II.4.1262b7–9）。朋友们期望彼此公正相待，但友谊超越了正义，因为它是一种复杂的相互纽带，个体选择他人的利益，并相信他人也在选择他们的利益（参见 EE VII.2.1236a14–15, b2–3; EN VIII.2.1155b34–3.1156a10）。因为为彼此选择好处对于友谊至关重要，并且有三种不同的方式可以称之为对人类来说是“好”的——有德（即无条件的好），有用，或者愉快——所以有三种类型的友谊：享乐主义的友谊，功利主义的友谊和有德的友谊。政治（或公民）友谊是功利主义友谊的一种形式，它是最重要的功利主义友谊形式，因为城邦是最伟大的社群。与政治友谊相对立的是敌意，它导致派系或内战（斯塔西斯），甚至导致政治革命和城邦的瓦解，正如在《政治学》第五册中所讨论的那样。亚里士多德在 EE VII.10 和 EN VIII.9–12 中提供了关于政治或公民友谊的一般性描述，作为他关于友谊的一般理论的一部分。
4. 具体宪法的研究
政治学的目的是指导“善良的立法者和真正的政治家”（IV.1.1288b27）。像任何完整的科学或技艺一样，它必须研究与其主题相关的一系列问题。例如，体育（体育教育）研究什么样的训练最适合或适应天生最好的身体，什么样的训练最适合大多数身体，以及对于不想要与竞技比赛相适应的条件或知识的人来说，什么样的能力是合适的。政治学研究一系列相似的宪法（1288b21–35）：首先，最好的宪法，没有任何限制，即“最符合我们的祈祷，没有外部障碍”；其次，根据情况而言最好的宪法，“因为许多人可能无法达到最好的宪法”；第三，适应给定人口目标的宪法，即基于假设的最佳宪法：“因为 [政治学家] 应该能够研究一个给定的宪法，无论它最初是如何形成的，以及当它形成后，它如何以最长时间保存；我的意思是，例如，如果一个特定的城市既不是由最好的宪法统治，也没有必要的事物，也不是在现有情况下最好的可能性，而是一种较低级别的。”因此，亚里士多德的政治学不仅局限于理想的体系，还研究第二好的宪法甚至较差的政治体制，因为这可能是立法者在特定情况下接近完全政治正义的最接近近似。
关于理想或“依照祈祷”而设立的宪法，亚里士多德在《政治学》中批评了他的前辈们的观点，然后在第七至第八卷中提供了一个相当简略的蓝图。尽管他自己的政治观点受到了他的老师柏拉图的影响，但亚里士多德对柏拉图在《理想国》中提出的理想宪法持高度批评，认为它过分重视政治统一，拥护一种对人类本性来说既不切实际又有害的共产主义制度，并忽视了个体公民的幸福（《政治学》第二卷第 1-5 章）。相比之下，在亚里士多德的“最佳宪法”中，每个公民都将拥有道德美德和实践所需的能力，从而实现卓越的生活和完全的幸福（见第七卷第 13 章 1332a32-8）。所有公民都将担任政治职务并拥有私人财产，因为“我们应该称赞城邦的幸福，不是看它的一部分，而是看所有的公民”（第七卷第 9 章 1329a22-3）。此外，所有公民将接受共同的教育体系，因为他们追求相同的目标（《政治学》第八卷第 1 章）。
如果（正如大多数现存的城邦一样）人口缺乏完全幸福所需的能力和资源，立法者必须满足于制定一部适当的宪法（《政治学》第四卷第 11 章）。第二好的制度通常采取城邦形式（其中公民拥有较低、更普遍的美德等级）或混合宪法（结合了民主、寡头政治和在可能的情况下的贵族政治的特点，以便没有任何一组公民能够滥用其权利）。亚里士多德认为，对于不完美的城邦来说，最好的宪法是由一个众多的中产阶级控制的，他们处于富人和穷人之间。因为那些适度拥有财富的人“最容易服从理性的规则”（《政治学》第四卷第 11 章 1295b4-6）。因此，他们比富人或穷人更不容易对其他公民不公正行事。基于中产阶级的宪法是寡头政治（富人统治）和民主政治（穷人统治）之间的中庸之道。“中庸之道最好是显而易见的，因为它最不容易出现派系：当中产阶级人数众多时，公民之间最少出现派系和分裂”（IV.11.1296a7-9）。因此，中庸之道比寡头政治和民主政治更加稳定和公正。
虽然亚里士多德将民主分类为一种异常的政体（尽管是众多糟糕政体中最好的一种），但他在《政治学》第三卷第 11 章中辩称，民主统治可能是有道理的，这一讨论引起了现代民主理论家的关注。核心观点是，当众多人聚集在一起时，他们可能比少数有德行的人更好，即使从个体角度来看，众多人可能较差。因为如果每个人都具有一定的德行和实践智慧，他们可以将这些道德资产汇集起来，成为比一个非常聪明的个体更好的统治者。这个论点似乎预示了对“多数人的智慧”进行论述的内容，比如孔多塞的“陪审团定理”。近年来，这一特定章节在与民主讨论和公共理由等主题相关的领域广泛讨论。
此外，政治学家必须关注即使是糟糕的现有宪法。亚里士多德指出，“改革宪法与从头开始建立宪法一样是一项任务 [政治学的任务]”，并且“政治家也应该帮助现有的宪法”（IV.1.1289a1–7）。政治学家还应该认识到可能破坏现有政权的政治变革力量。亚里士多德批评他的前辈过于乌托邦主义，忽视了政治理论家的实际职责。然而，他并不是一个马基雅维利主义者。最好的宪法仍然作为一个规范性理想，用来评估现有的制度。
这些主题占据了《政治学》的剩余部分。第四至第六卷涉及现有的宪法：即三种异常的宪法，以及政体或“混合”宪法，这些在大多数情况下是最好的（IV.2.1289a26–38）。混合宪法一直是学者们特别感兴趣的，因为它看起来像是现代共和制政权的先驱。第五卷全面研究了革命或政治变革（metabolê）以及内战或派系斗争（stasis）的原因和预防措施。第七至第八卷致力于理想宪法。正如预料的那样，亚里士多德试图实施这一计划面临许多困难，学者们对第四至第六卷和第七至第八卷之间的关系存在争议：例如，哪些是先写的，哪些是先阅读的，以及它们是否彼此一致。最重要的是，当亚里士多德在第四至第六卷中提出实际的政治建议时，他是以最好的宪法作为规范理想，还是简单地放弃政治理想主义，实行一种现实政治？有关这个主题的进一步讨论，请参阅以下补充文件：
5. 亚里士多德与现代政治
亚里士多德一直影响着思想家们，包括保守派（如汉娜·阿伦特、李奥·斯特劳斯和埃里克·福格林）、社群主义者（如阿拉斯泰尔·麦金泰尔和迈克尔·桑德尔）、自由主义者（如威廉·加尔斯顿和玛莎·努斯鲍姆）、古典自由主义者（如提伯尔·马钦、道格拉斯·拉斯穆森和道格拉斯·丹尤尔）以及民主理论家（如吉尔·弗兰克和杰拉尔德·玛拉）。
不足为奇的是，如此多样化的政治倾向都声称亚里士多德是他们的来源。因为他的方法常常导致不同的解释。当他处理一个困难的问题时，他倾向于以细致入微的方式考虑对立的论点，并且他常常愿意承认每一方都有一定的真理。例如，尽管他对民主持批评态度，但在某个段落中，他承认基于多数人的卓越智慧来统治的理由“或许也包含一些真理”（Pol. III.11.1281a39–42）。此外，他有时以可疑的方式运用自己的原则，例如，他推理道，因为协会应该以理性的方式进行管理，所以家庭应该由丈夫而不是妻子来管理，因为妻子的理性能力“缺乏权威”（I.13.1260a13）。对亚里士多德的整体方法持同情态度的现代评论家们常常认为，在这种情况下，他错误地运用了自己的原则，这也引发了如何应用这些原则的问题。此外，他运用原则的方式在他的社会政治背景下可能看似合理，例如，一个城邦的公民（通常是最可实现的宪法）必须是一个重装步兵士兵（参见 III.7,1297b4），但如何在现代民主国家中应用这些原则可能是有争议的。
在与亚里士多德在《政治学》第二卷第八章中对法律变革的讨论有关的问题上，我们可以更充分地说明将其推广到现代政治事务中的问题。他首先阐述了使法律可变的论点。例如，在医学领域，从传统方式发展到改进的治疗方式是有益的。现行法律可能是原始野蛮做法的残余。例如，亚里士多德提到了在西米的一项法律，允许原告提供他自己的亲属作为证人，以证明被告犯有谋杀罪。“因此，”亚里士多德总结道，“从前述事实可以明显看出，有些法律有时应该改变。但对于从不同角度看待这个问题的人来说，需要谨慎”（1269a12-14）。由于法律的力量来自公民的服从习惯，对于任何变革都应该谨慎行事。有时候，保留有缺陷的法律可能比频繁改变法律更好，以免鼓励违法行为。此外，还存在着如何改变法律以及谁来改变法律的问题。尽管亚里士多德提供了有价值的见解，但他中断了对这个主题的讨论，并没有在其他地方继续讨论。我们可以总结他的观点如下：当涉及改变法律时，要注意中庸：不要过于受传统法律的束缚，但另一方面也不要过于热衷于改变它们。显然，这个原则虽然合理，但在当代的“新亚里士多德主义”理论家中存在着相当大的分歧空间。例如，是否应该改变法律以允许自称为跨性别者的人使用性别隔离的洗手间？保守派和自由派可能会同意亚里士多德关于法律变革的一般规定，但在具体案例中可能存在广泛的分歧。
大多数亚里士多德学者明智地不试图表明他与任何当代意识形态一致。相反，只要他们认为他与我们的时代相关，那是因为他提供了一种理想主义和实用主义的卓越综合，通过深入而发人深省的政治哲学问题讨论，涉及永恒关切：人性在政治中的作用，个体与国家的关系，道德在政治中的地位，政治正义理论，法治，宪法的分析和评估，理想对实际政治的相关性，政治变革和革命的原因和治疗方法，以及道德教育公民的重要性。
Glossary of Aristotelian Terms
action: praxis
citizen: politês
city-state: polis (also ‘city’ or ‘state’)
community: koinônia
constitution: politeia (also ‘regime’)
faction: stasis (also ‘civil war’)
free: eleutheros
friendship: philia
good: agathos
happiness: eudaimonia
happy: eudaimôn
justice: dikaiosunê
law: nomos
lawgiver: nomothetês
master: despotês
nature: phusis
noble: kalon (also ‘beautiful’ or ‘fine’)
people (dêmos)
political: politikos (of, or pertaining to, the polis)
political science: politikê epistêmê
politician: politikos (also ‘statesman’)
practical: praktikos
practical wisdom: phronêsis
revolution: metabolê (also ‘change’)
right: exousia (also ‘liberty’)
ruler: archôn
self-sufficient: autarkês
sovereign: kurios
virtue: aretê (also ‘excellence’)
without qualification: haplôs (also ‘absolute’)
without authority: akuron
Bibliography
Note on Citations. Passages in Aristotle are cited as follows: title of treatise (italics), book (Roman numeral), chapter (Arabic numeral), line reference. Line references are keyed to the 1831 edition of Immanuel Bekker which had two columns (“a” and “b”) on each page. Politics is abbreviated as Pol. and Nicomachean Ethics as NE. In this article, “Pol. I.2.1252b27”, for example, refers to Politics book I, chapter 2, page 1252, column b, line 27. Most translations include the Bekker page number with column letter in the margin followed by every fifth line number.
Passages in Plato are cited in a similar fashion, except the line references are to the Stephanus edition of 1578 in which pages were divided into five parts (“a” through “e”).
Caveat on Bibliography. Although fairly extensive, this bibliography represents only a fraction of the secondary literature in English. However, the items cited here contain many references to other valuable scholarly work in other languages as well as in English.
A. Greek Text of Aristotle’s Politics
Dreizehnter, Alois, Aristoteles’ Politik, Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1970 [generally the most reliable critical edition].
Ross, W. D., Aristotelis Politica, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
B. English Translations of Aristotle’s Politics
Barker, Ernest, revised by Richard Stalley, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Jowett, Benjamin, revised in The Complete Works of Aristotle (The Revised Oxford Translation), Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984, vol. II, pp. 1986–2129.
Lord, Carnes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013, revised edition.
Rackham, H., Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1932.
Reeve, C. D. C., Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2017 (new translation).
Simpson, Peter L. P., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Sinclair, T. A., revised by Trevor J. Saunders, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983.
The Clarendon Aristotle Series (Oxford University Press) includes translation and commentary of the Politics in four volumes:
Trevor J. Saunders, Politics I–II (1995).
Richard Robinson with a supplementary essay by David Keyt, Politics III–IV (1995).
David Keyt, Politics V–VI (1999).
Richard Kraut, Politics VII–VIII (1997).
Also of interest is the Constitution of Athens, an account of the history and workings of the Athenian democracy. Although it was formerly ascribed to Aristotle, it is now thought by most scholars to have been written by one of his pupils, perhaps at his direction toward the end of Aristotle’s life. A reliable translation with introduction and notes is by P. J. Rhodes, Aristotle: The Athenian Constitution. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984.
C. Anthologies
Barnes, Jonathan, Malcolm Schofield, and Richard Sorabji (eds.), Articles on Aristotle (Volume 2: Ethics and Politics), London: Duckworth, 1977.
Boudouris, K. J. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, 2 volumes, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995.
Deslauriers, Marguerite, and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Höffe, Otfried (ed.), Aristoteles Politik, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001.
Keyt, David, and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Kraut, Richard, and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.
Lockwood, Thornton, and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Lord, Carnes, and David O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
Patzig, Günther (ed.), Aristoteles’ Politik: Akten des XI. Symposium Aristotelicum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
D. Single-authored Commentaries and Overviews
Aquinas, Thomas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, translated by Richard J. Regan, Indianapolis Publishing Co.: Hackett, 2007.
Barker, Ernest, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, London: Methuen, 1906; reprinted, New York: Russell & Russell, 1959.
Bodéüs, Richard, The Political Dimensions of Aristotle’s Ethics, Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.
Brill, Sara, Aristotle on the Concept of the Shared Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Hansen, Mogens Herman, Reflections on Aristotle’s Politics, Copenhagen: Tusculaneum Press, 2013.
Keyt, David, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Leuven: Peeters, 2017.
Kontos, Pavlos, Aristotle on the Scope of Practical Reason: Spectators, Legislators, Hopes, and Evils, Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 2021.
Kraut, Richard, Aristotle: Political Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Miller, Fred D., Jr., Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Mulgan, Richard G., Aristotle’s Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Newman, W. L., The Politics of Aristotle, 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1887–1902; reprinted Salem, NH: Ayer, 1985.
Nichols, Mary, Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle’s Politics, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1992.
Pangle, Lorraine Smith, Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020.
Pellegrin, Pierre, Endangered Excellent: On the Political Philosophy of Aristotle, translated by Anthony Preus, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2020.
Riesbeck, David J., Aristotle on Political Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Roberts, Jean, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle and the Politics, London and New York: Routledge, 2009.
Schütrumpf, Eckart, Aristoteles: Politik, 4 vols. Berlin and Darmstadt: Akademie Verlag, 1999–2005.
Simpson, Peter, A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
Strauss, Leo, “On Aristotle’s Politics,” in The City and Man, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 13–49.
Susemihl, Franz, and R. D. Hicks, The Politics of Aristotle, London: Macmillan, 1894. [Includes books I–III and VII–VIII renumbered as IV–V.]
Trott, Adriel M., Aristotle on the Nature of Community, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Veogelin, Eric, Order and History (Vol. III: Plato and Aristotle), Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1977.
Yack, Bernard, The Problems of a Political Animal: Community, Justice, and Conflict in Aristotelian Political Thought, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
E. Studies of Particular Topics
1. Biographical and Textual Studies
Barker, Ernest, “The Life of Aristotle and the Composition and Structure of the Politics,” Classical Review, 45 (1931), 162–72.
Jaeger, Werner, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948.
Kelsen, Hans, “Aristotle and the Hellenic-Macedonian Policy,” in Jonathan Barnes et al. (eds.), Articles on Aristotle (Volume 2: Ethics and Politics), London: Duckworth, 1977, pp. 170–94.
Lord, Carnes, “The Character and Composition of Aristotle’s Politics,” Political Theory, 9 (1981), 459–78.
2. Methodology and Foundations of Aristotle’s Political Theory
Adkins, A. W. H., “The Connection between Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 75–93.
Cherry, Kevin M., Plato, Aristotle and the Purpose of Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Depew, David J., “The Ethics of Aristotle’s Politics,” in Ryan K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 399–418.
Frank Jill, “On Logos and Politics in Aristotle,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 9–26.
Frede, Dorothea, “The Political Character of Aristotle’s Ethics,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 14–37.
Gerson, Lloyd, “On the Scientific Character of Aristotle’s Politics,” in K. I. Boudouris, K. I. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995, vol. I, pp. 35–50.
Irwin, Terence H., “Moral Science and Political Theory in Aristotle,” History of Political Thought, 6 (1985), pp. 150–68.
Kahn, Charles H., “The Normative Structure of Aristotle’s Politics,” in Günther Patzig (ed.) Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 369–84.
Kamtekar, Rachana, “The Relationship between Aristotle’s Ethical and Political Discourses (NE X 9),” in Ronald Polansky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 370–82.
Keyt, David, “Aristotle’s Political Philosophy,” in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 165–95.
Lockwood, Thornton, “Politics II: Political Critique, Political Theorizing, Political Innovation,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 64–83.
Miller, Fred D., Jr., “The Unity of Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics,” in David Konstan and David Sider (eds.), Philoderma: Essays in Greek and Roman Philosophy in Honor of Phillip Mitsis (Siracusa: Parnassos Press, 2022), pp. 215–43.
Ober, Joshua, “Aristotle’s Political Sociology: Class, Status, and Order in the Politics,” in Carnes Lord and David O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
Pellegrin, Pierre, “On the ‘Platonic’ Part of Aristotle’s Politics,” in William Wians (ed.) Aristotle’s Philosophical Development, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996, pp. 347–59.
–––, “Is Politics a Natural Science?” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 27–45.
–––, “Aristotle’s Politics,” in Christopher Shields (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 558–85.
Peonids, F., “The Relation between the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics Revisited,” History of Political Thought 22 (2001): 1–12.
Rowe, Christopher J., “Aims and Methods in Aristotle’s Politics,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 57–74.
Salkever, Stephen G., “Aristotle’s Social Science,” Political Theory, 9 (1981), pp. 479–508; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 27–64.
–––, Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Santas, Gerasimos X.,“The Relation between Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics,” in K. I. Boudouris, K. I. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995, vol. I, pp. 160–76.
Smith, Nicholas D. and Robert Mayhew, “Aristotle on What the Political Scientist Needs to Know,” in K. I. Boudouris (ed.) Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Athens: International Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture, 1995, vol. I, pp. 189–98.
Vander Waerdt, Paul A., “The Political Intention of Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy,” Ancient Philosophy 5 (1985), 77–89.
–––, “The Plan and Intention of Aristotle’s Ethical and Political Writings,” Illinois Classical Studies 16 (1991), 231–53.
3. Political Naturalism
Ambler, Wayne, “Aristotle’s Understanding of the Naturalness of the City,” Review of Politics, 47 (1985), 163–85.
Annas, Julia, “Aristotle on Human Nature and Political Virtue,” The Review of Metaphysics, 49 (1996), 731–54.
Berryman, Sylvia, Aristotle on the Sources of the Ethical Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2919, esp. Ch. 3 “Naturalism in Aristotle’s Politics.”
Chan, Joseph, “Does Aristotle’s Political Theory Rest on a Blunder?” History of Political Thought, 13 (1992), 189–202.
Chappell, Timothy, “‘Naturalism’ in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy,” in Ryan K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 382–98.
Cherry, K. and E. A. Goerner, “Does Aristotle’s Polis Exist ‘By Nature’?” History of Political Thought, 27 (2006), 563–85.
Cooper, John M., “Political Animals and Civic Friendship,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 220–41; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 65–89.
DePew, David J., “Humans and Other Political Animals in Aristotle’s Historia Animalium,” Phronesis, 40 (1995), 156–76.
–––, “Political Animals and the Genealogy of the Polis: Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Statesman,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 238–57.
Everson, Stephen, “Aristotle on the Foundations of the State,” Political Studies, 36 (1988), 89–101.
Karbowski, Joseph, “Political Animals and Human Nature in Aristotle’s Politics,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 221–37.
Keyt, David, “The Meaning of BIOS in Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics,” Ancient Philosophy , 9 (1989), 15–21; reprinted in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 101–9.
–––, “Three Basic Theorems in Aristotle’s Politics,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 118–41; reprinted in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 111–38.
Kullmann, Wolfgang, “Man as a Political Animal in Aristotle,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 94–117.
Lloyd, Geoffrey, “Aristotle on the Natural Sociability, Skills and Intelligence of Animals,” in Verity Harte and Melissa Lane (eds.), Politeia in Greek and Roman Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 277–94.
Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle: Naturalism,” in Christopher J. Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 321–43.
Mulgan, Richard, “Aristotle’s Doctrine that Man is a Political Animal,” Hermes, 102 (1974), 438–45.
Reeve, C. D. C., “The Naturalness of the Polis in Aristotle,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 512–25.
Roberts, Jean, “Political Animals in the Nicomachean Ethics,” Phronesis, 34 (1989), 185–202.
4. Household: Women, Children, and Slaves
Booth, William James, “Politics and the Household: A Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics Book One,” History of Political Thought, 2 (1981), 203–26.
Brunt, P. A., “Aristotle and Slavery,” in Studies in Greek History and Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 434–88.
Chambliss, J. J., “Aristotle’s Conception of Children and the Poliscraft,” Educational Studies, 13 (1982), 33–43.
Cole, Eve Browning, “Women, Slaves, and ‘Love of Toil’ in Aristotle’s Moral Psychology,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 127–44.
Deslauriers, Marguerite, “The Virtues of Women and Slaves,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 25 (2003), 213–31.
–––, “Political Rule Over Women in Politics,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 46–63.
Fortenbaugh, W. W., “Aristotle on Slaves and Women,” in Jonathan Barnes et al. (eds.), Articles on Aristotle, vol. 2, Ethics and Politics. London: Duckworth, 1977, pp. 135–9.
Frank, Jill, “Citizens, Slaves, and Foreigners: Aristotle on Human Nature,” American Political Science Review, 98 (2004), 91–104.
Freeland, Cynthia, Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.
Garnsey, Peter, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Lindsay, Thomas K., “Was Aristotle Racist, Sexist, and Anti-Democratic?: A Review Essay,” Review of Politics 56 (1994), 127–51.
Lockwood, Thornton, “Justice in Aristotle’s Household and City,” Polis, 20 (2003), 1–21.
–––, “Is Natural Slavery Beneficial?” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 45 (2007), 207–21.
Mayhew, Robert, The Female in Aristotle’s Biology: Reason or Rationalization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Modrak, Deborah, “Aristotle: Women, Deliberation, and Nature,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 207–21.
Mulgan, Robert G., “Aristotle and the Political Role of Women,” History of Political Thought, 15 (1994), 179–202.
Nagle, D. Brendan, The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Pellegrin, Pierre, “Natural Slavery,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 92–116.
Saxenhouse, Arlene W., “Family, Polity, and Unity: Aristotle on Socrates’ Community of Wives,” Polity, 15 (1982), 202–19.
Schofield, Malcolm, “Ideology and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery,” in Günther Patzig (ed.) Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 1–27; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 91–119.
Senack, Christine M., “Aristotle on the Woman’s Soul,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 223–36.
Simpson, Peter, “Aristotle’s Criticism of Socrates’ Communism of Wives and Children,” Apeiron, 24 (1991), 99–114.
Smith, Nicholas D., “Plato and Aristotle on the Nature of Women,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21 (1983), 467–78.
–––, “Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 142–55.
Spelman, E. V., “Aristotle and the Politicization of the Soul,” in Sandra Harding and M. B. Hintikka (eds) Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983, pp. 17–30.
–––, “Who’s Who in the Polis,” in Bat-Ami Bar On (ed.), Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, Albany: SUNY Press, 1994, pp. 99–125.
Stauffer, Dana J., “Aristotle’s Account of the Subjection of Women,” Journal of Politics, 70 (2008), 929–41.
5. Political Economy
Ambler, Wayne H., “Aristotle on Acquisition,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 17 (1984), 487–502.
Crespo, Ricardo F., A Re-assessment of Aristotle’s Economic Thought. London: Routledge, 2014.
Dobbs, Darrell, “Aristotle’s Anticommunism,” American Journal of Political Science, 29 (1985), 29–46.
Finley, M. I., “Aristotle and Economic Analysis,” in Jonathan Barnes et al. (eds.), Articles on Aristotle, vol. 2, Ethics and Politics. London: Duckworth, 1977, pp. 140–58.
Gallagher, Robert L., Aristotle’s Critique of Political Economy with a Contemporary Application. London: Routledge, 2018.
Hadreas, Peter, “Aristotle on the Vices and Virtue of Wealth,” Journal of Business Ethics, 39 (2002), 361–76.
Hartman, Edwin M., “Virtue, Profit, and the Separation Thesis: An Aristotelian View,” Journal of Business Ethics ,99 (2011), 5–17.
–––, Virtue in Business: Conversations with Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Inamura, Kazutaka, “The Role of Reciprocity in Aristotle’s Theory of Political Economy,” History of Political Thought, 32 (2011), 565–87.
Irwin, Terence H., “Aristotle’s Defense of Private Property,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.). A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 200–25.
Judson, Lindsay, “Aristotle on Fair Exchange,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 15 (1997), 147–75.
Keyt, David, “Aristotle and the Joy of Working,” in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Leuven: Peeters, 2017, pp. 223–39.
Mathie, William,“Property in the Political Science of Aristotle,” in Anthony Parel & Thomas Flanagan(eds.), Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1979, pp. 12–35.
Mayhew, Robert, “Aristotle on Property,” The Review of Metaphysics, 46 (1993), 802–31.
McNeill, D., “Alternative Interpretations of Aristotle on Exchange and Reciprocity,” Public Affairs Quarterly, 4 (1990), 55–68.
Mei, Todd S., “The Preeminence of Use: Reevaluating the Relation between Use and Exchange in Aristotle’s Economic Thought,” American Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (2009), 523–48.
Meikle, Scott, “Aristotle on Money” Phronesis 39 (1994), 26–44.
–––, Aristotle’s Economic Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Miller, Fred D. Jr., “Property Rights in Aristotle,” in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 121–44.
–––, “Was Aristotle the First Economist?” Apeiron, 31 (1998), 387–98.
–––, “Aristotle and Business: Friend or Foe?” in Eugene Heath and Byron Kaldis (eds.), Wealth, Commerce and Philosophy: Foundational Thinkers and Business Ethics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017, pp. 31–52.
Morris, Tom, If Aristotle Ran General Motors: The New Soul of Business, New York: Henry Holt, 1997.
Nielsen, Karen Margrethe, “Economy and Private Property,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 67–91.
Solomon, Robert C., “Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 2 (1992), 317–39.
–––, “Aristotle, Ethics, and Business Organizations,” Organization Studies, 25 (2004), 1021–43.
6. Political Justice and Injustice
Brunschwig, Jacques, “The Aristotelian Theory of Equity,” in Michael Frede and Gisela Striker (eds.), Rationality in Greek Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–55.
Marguerite Deslauriers, “Political Unity and Inequality,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 117–43.
Georgiadis, Constantine, “Equitable and Equity in Aristotle,” in Spiro Panagiotou (ed.), Justice, Law and Method in Plato and Aristotle, Edmonton: Academic Printing & Publishing, 1987, pp. 159–72.
Keyt, David, “Aristotle’s Theory of Distributive Justice,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 238–78.
–––, “The Good Man and the Upright Citizen in Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), Freedom, Reason, and the Polis: Essays in Ancient Greek Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 220–40. Reprinted in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 197–221.
–––, “Nature and Justice,” in David Keyt, Nature and Justice: Studies in the Ethical and Political Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Leuven: Peeters, 2017, pp. 1–19.
Lockwood, Thornton, “Polity, Political Justice, and Political Mixing,” History of Political Thought, 27 (2006), 207–22.
Morrison, Donald, “The Common Good,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 176–98.
Nussbaum, Martha C., “Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 153–87.
Roberts, Jean, “Justice and the Polis,” in Christopher J. Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 344–65.
Rosler, Andrés, “Civic Virtue: Citizenship, Ostracism, and War,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 144–75.
Saxonhouse, Arlene W., “Aristotle on the Corruption of Regimes: Resentment and Justice,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 184–203.
Schütrumpf, Eckart, “Little to Do With Justice: Aristotle on Distributing Political Power,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 163–83.
Young, Charles M., “Aristotle on Justice,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 27 (1988), 233–49.
Zingano, Marco, “Natural, Ethical, and Political Justice,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 199–222.
7. Political Friendship and Enmity
Cooper, John M., “Political Animals and Civic Friendship,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 220–41; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 65–89.
Hatzistavrou, Antony, “Faction,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 301–23.
Irrera, Elena, “Between Advantage and Virtue: Aristotle’s Theory of Political Friendship,” History of Political Thought, 26 (2005), 565–85.
Jang, Misung, “Aristotle’s Political Friendship as Solidarity,” in Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer, & Nuno M.S. Coelho (eds.), Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics, Dordrecht: Springer, 2018. pp. 417–33.
Kalimtzis, Kostas, Aristotle on Political Enmity and Disease: An Inquiry into Stasis, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000.
Kreft, Nora, “Aristotle on Friendship and Being Human,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 182–99.
Kronman, Anthony, “Aristotle’s Idea of Political Fraternity,” American Journal of Jurisprudence, 24 (1979),114–138.
Leontsini, Eleni, “The Motive of Society: Aristotle on Civic Friendship, Justice, and Concord,” Res Publica, 19 (2013), 21–35.
Ludwig, Paul W., Rediscovering Political Friendship: Aristotle’s Theory and Modern Identity, Community, and Equality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle on Deviant Constitutions,” in K. I. Boudouris, K. I. (ed.), Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Athens: Kardamitsa Publishing Co., 1995, vol. II, pp. 105–15.
Mulgan, Richard, “The Role of Friendship in Aristotle’s Political Theory,” in Preston King, and Heather Devere (eds.), The Challenge to Friendship in M**odernity, London: Frank Cass, 2000, pp. 15–32.
Schofield, Malcolm, “Political Friendship and the Ideology of Reciprocity,” in Saving the City, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 82–99.
Schwarzenbach, Sibyl, “On Civic Friendship,” Ethics, 107 (1996), 97–128.
Skultety, Steven C.,. “Defining Aristotle’s Conception of Stasis in the Politics,” Phronesis 54 (2009), 346–70.
–––, Conflict in Aristotle*’*s Political Philosophy, Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 2019.
Sosa, Javier Echeñique & Jose Antonio Errázuriz Besa, “Aristotle on Personal Enmity,” Ancient Philosophy, 62 (2022), 215–31.
Ward, Ann, “Friendship and politics in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics,” European Journal of Political Theory, 10 (2011), 443–62.
Weed, Ronald, Aristotle on Stasis: A Psychology of Political Conflict, Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2007.
Yack, Bernard, “Community and Conflict in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy,” Review of Politics, 47 (1985), 92–112.
–––, “Natural Right and Aristotle’s Understanding of Justice,” Political Theory, 18 (1990), 216–37.
8. Citizenship, Civic Obligation, and Political Rights
Allan, D. J., “Individual and State in the Ethics and Politics,” Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique IX, La ‘Politique’ d’Aristote, Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1964, pp. 53–95.
Barnes, Jonathan, “Aristotle and Political Liberty,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 249–63; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 185–201.
Collins, Susan D., Aristotle and the Rediscovery of Citizenship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Frede, Dorothea, “Citizenship in Aristotle’s Politics,” in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 167–84.
Horn, Christoph, “Law, Governance, and Political Obligation,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 223–46.
Irwin, Terence H., “The Good of Political Activity,” in Günther Patzig (ed.), Aristoteles’ ‘Politik’, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 73–98.
Kraut, Richard, “Are There Natural Rights in Aristotle?” The Review of Metaphysics, 49 (1996), 755–74.
Lane, Melissa, “Claims to Rule: The Case of the Mutlitude,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 247–74.
Long, Roderick T., “Aristotle’s Conception of Freedom,” The Review of Metaphysics, 49 (1996), 775–802; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law, Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 384–410.
Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle and the Origins of Natural Rights,” The Review of Metaphysics, 49 (1996), 873–907.
–––, “Aristotle’s Theory of Political Rights,” in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law, Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 309–50.
Morrison, Donald, “Aristotle’s Definition of Citizenship: A Problem and Some Solutions,” History of Philosophy Quarterly, 16 (1999), 143–65.
Mulgan, Robert G., “Aristotle and the Value of Political Participation,” Political Theory, 18 (1990), 195–215.
Roberts, Jean, “Excellences of the Citizen and of the Individual,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 555–65.
Rosler, Andrés, “Civic Virtue: Citizenship, Ostracism, and War,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 144–75.
Samaras, Thanassis, “Aristotle and the Question of Citizenship,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 123–41.
Schofield, Malcolm, “Sharing in the Constitution,” The Review of Metaphysics, 49 (1996), 831–58; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law, Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 353–80.
Zuckert, Catherine H., “Aristotle on the Limits and Satisfactions of Political Life,” Interpretation, 11 (1983), 185–206.
9. Constitutional Theory
Balot, Ryan, “The ‘Mixed Regime’ In Aristotle’s Politics,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 103–22.
Bates, Clifford A., Aristotle’s “Best Regime”: Kingship, Democracy, and the Rule of Law, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2003.
Bobonich, Christopher, “Aristotle, Decision Making, and the Many,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 142–62.
Cherry, Kevin M., “The Problem of Polity: Political Participation in Aristotle’s Best Regime,” Journal of Politics, 71 (2009), 406–21.
Coby, Patrick, “Aristotle’s Three Cities and the Problem of Faction,” Journal of Politics, 50 (1988), 896–919.
Destrée, Pierre, “Aristotle on Improving Imperfect Cities,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 204–23.
Dietz, Mary G., “Between Polis and Empire: Aristotle’s Politics,” American Political Science Review 106 (2012), 275–93.
Garsten, Bryan, “Deliberating and Acting Together,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 324–49.
Huxley, G., “On Aristotle’s Best State,” in Paul Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux: Essays Presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, London: Duckworth, 1985, pp. 139–49.
Johnson, Curtis N., Aristotle’s Theory of the State, New York: Macmillan, 1990.
Keyt, David, “Aristotle and Anarchism,” Reason Papers, 18 (1993), 133–52; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety. Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 203–22.
Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle’s Critique of False Utopias,” in Otfried Höffe (ed.), Aristoteles Politik, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001, pp. 59–73.
Lintott, Andrew, “Aristotle and Democracy,” The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 42 (1992), 114–28.
Mayhew, Robert, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
–––, “Rulers and Ruled,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 526–39.
Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle on the Ideal Constitution,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 540–54.
–––, “The Rule of Reason,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 38–66.
Mulgan, Richard, “Aristotle’s Analysis of Oligarchy and Democracy,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 307–22.
–––, “Constitutions and the Purpose of the State,” in Otfried Höffe (ed.), Aristoteles Politik, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001, pp. 93–106.
Mulhern, J. J., “Politeia in Greek Literature, Inscriptions, and in Aristotle’s Politics: Reflections on Translation and Interpretation,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 84–102.
Murray, O., “Polis and Politeia in Aristotle,” in Mogens Herman Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State, Copenhagen: Muksgaard, 1993, pp. 197–210.
Ober, Joshua, “Aristotle’s Natural Democracy,” in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 223–43.
–––, “Democracy’s Wisdom: An Aristotelian Middle Way for Collective Judgment,” American Political Science Review, 107 (2013), 104–22.
–––, “Nature, History, and Aristotle’s Best Possible Regime,” in Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 224–43.
Polansky, Ronald, “Aristotle on Political Change,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 322–45.
Rosler, Andres, Political Authority and Obligation in Aristotle, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Rowe, C. J., “Reality and Utopia,” Elenchos, 10 (1989), 317–36.
–––, “Aristotelian Constitutions,” in Christopher J. Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 366–89.
Strauss, Barry, “On Aristotle’s Critique of Athenian Democracy,” in Carnes Lord and David O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991, pp. 212–33.
Vander Waert, Paul A., “Kingship and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Best Regime,” Phronesis, 30 (1985), 249–73.
Waldron, Jeremy, “The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics,” Political Theory, 20 (1992), 613–41; reprinted in Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, pp. 145–65.
Wilson, James L., “Deliberation, Democracy, and the Rule of Reason in Aristotle’s Politics,” American Political Science Review, 105 (2011), 259–74.
10. Education
Burnyeat, Myles F., “Aristotle on Learning to Be Good,” in Amelie O. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980, pp. 69–92.
Curren, Randall R., Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
Depew, David J., “Politics, Music, and Contemplation in Aristotle’s Ideal State,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 346–80.
Destrée, Pierre, “Education, Leisure, and Politics,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 301–23.
Frede, Dorothea, “The Deficiency of Human Nature: The Task of a ‘Philosophy of Human Nature’,” in Geert Keil and Nora Kreft (eds.), Aristotle’s Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 258–74.
Jimenez, Marta, Aristotle on Shame and Learning to Be Good, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle on Method and Moral Education,” in Jyl Gentzler (ed.), Method in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 171–90.
–––, “Aristotle on Becoming Good: Habituation, Reflection, and Perception,” in Christopher Shields (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 529–57.
Lord, Carnes, Education and Culture in the Political Thought of Aristotle, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.
Lynch, John Patrick, Aristotle’s School, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
Muzio, G. D., “Aristotle on Improving One’s Character,” Phronesis, 45 (2000), 205–19.
Reeve, C. D. C, “Aristotelian Education,” in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Philosophers on Education, London: Routledge, 1998, pp. 51–65.
Stalley, Richard, “Education and the State,” in Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, pp. 566–76.
11. Law
Brooks, Richard O. and James B. Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law, Aldershot Hants, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.
Burns, Tony, “Aristotle and Natural Law,” History of Political Thought, 19 (1998), 142–66.
Duke, George, Aristotle and Law: The Politics of Nomos, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gordley, James R., “Tort Law in the Aristotelian Tradition,” in Salvador Rus Rufino (ed.), Aristoteles: El Pensamiento Politico y Juridico. León & Seville: University of León & University of Seville, 1999, pp. 71–97.
Hamburger, Max, Morals and Law: The Growth of Aristotle’s Legal Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951.
Huppes-Cluysenaer, Liesbeth & Nuno M..S. Coelho (eds.), Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics, Dordrecht: Springer, 2018.
Miller, Eugene, “Prudence and the Rule of Law,” American Journal of Jurisprudence, 24 (1979), 181–206.
Miller, Fred D., Jr., “Aristotle’s Philosophy of Law,” in Fred D. Miller, Jr. and Carrie-Ann Biondi (eds.), A History of the Philosophy of Law from the Ancient Greeks to the Scholastics [vol. 6 of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, ed. Enrico Pattaro]. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007, pp.79–110.
Schroeder, Donald N., “Aristotle on Law,” Polis, 4 (1981), 17–31; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law, Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 37–51.
Wormuth, F. D., “Aristotle on Law,” in M. R. Korvitz and A. E. Murphy (eds.), Essays in Political Theory Presented to G. H. Sabine, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1948, pp. 45–61.
Zanetti, Gianfrancesco, “Problematic Aspects of Aristotle’s Philosophy of Law,” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 81 (1995), 49–64.
12. Aristotle and Contemporary Politics
Biondi, Carrie-Ann, “Aristotle on the Mixed Constitution and Its Relevance for American Political Thought,” in David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), Freedom, Reason, and the Polis: Essays in Ancient Greek Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 176–98.
Frank, Jill, A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Galston, William A., Justice and the Human Good, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Garver, Eugene, Aristotle’s Politics: Living Well and Living Together, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011.
Goodman, Lenn E. and Robert Talise (eds.), Aristotle’s Politics Today, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.
Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle and Rawls on the Common Good,” in Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 350–74.
Lord, Carnes, “Aristotle and the Idea of Liberal Education,” in Josiah Ober and Charles Hedrick (eds.), Demokrateia: A Conversation of Democracy, Ancient and Modern, Princeton: Princeton University Press Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, pp. 271–88.
Machan, Tibor R., “Aristotle and the Moral Status of Business,” Journal of Value Inquiry, 38 (2004), 217–33.
Mara, Gerald M., “The Culture of Democracy: Aristotle’s Athênaiôn Politeia as Political Theory,” in Aristide Tessitore (ed.), Aristotle and Modern Politics: The Persistence of Political Philosophy, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002, 307–41.
Mulgan, Robert G., “Was Aristotle an ‘Aristotelian Social Democrat’?” Ethics, 111 (2000), 79–101.
Murphy, James Bernard, The Moral Economy of Labor: Aristotelian Themes in Economic Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Nussbaum, Martha C., “Aristotelian Social Democracy,” in R. Bruce Douglas, Gerald M. Mara, and Henry S. Richardson (eds.) Liberalism and the Good, London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 203–52.
–––, “Capabilities and Human Rights,” Fordham Law Review, 66 (1997), 273–300; reprinted in Richard O. Brooks and James Bernard Murphy (eds.), Aristotle and Modern Law, Aldershot Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 413–40.
–––, “Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities: A Response to Anthony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan,” Ethics, 111 (2000), 102–40.
Pack, Spencer J., “Aristotle’s Difficult Relationship with Modern Economic Theory,” Foundations of Science, 13 (2008), 256–80.
Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Douglas J. Den Uyl, Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1991.
–––, Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005.
Schollmeier, Paul, Rewriting Contemporary Political Philosophy with Plato and Aristotle: An Essay on Eudaimonic Politics, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.
Salkever, Stephen S., Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Political Philosophy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Tessitore, Aristide (ed.), Aristotle and Modern Politics: The Persistence of Political Philosophy, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002.
Wallach, John C., “Contemporary Aristotelianism,” Political Theory, 20 (1992), 613–41.
Academic Tools
Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). | |
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database. |
Other Internet Resources
[Please contact the author with suggestions.]
Related Entries
Aristotle, General Topics: biology | Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | Aristotle, Special Topics: natural philosophy
Copyright © 2022 by Fred Miller <fmiller@sppfbg.org>
最后更新于
