



































AQUINO VOLUME3 ISSUE 3 JUNE 2023


1

A CRITICAL PRESENTATION OF ARISTOTLE'S 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIOPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 

IKS J. NWANKWOR, PH.D.
Department of Philosophy,
University of Uyo, Uyo.

ABSTRACT

Aristotle is a great philosopher of the ancient period in Western Philosophy. His works 
and contributions to philosophy, education and civilization, span through all fields of 
learning. His relevance in his age and subsequent years has not waned, even in our own 
generation. The thrust of our present work is to examine his contributions, particularly in 
the areas of sociopolitical philosophizing. In so doing, we shall be scooping materials 
from his works, analyzing them vis-à-vis other scholars contributions and critically 
augmenting the areas we feel need fine and proper approaches. It is hoped this would beef 
up literature in the field and assist budding scholars in understanding this sagacious sage 
of antiquity.

Keywords: Critical, Sociopolitical, Philosophy and Presentation

INTRODUCTION
ARISTOTLE'S BACKGROUND: LIFE AND TIMES
Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. at Stageira in Chalcidice which was then under the 
dominion of Macedon. Aristotle's father was a physician who attended to Amyntas, the 
King of Macedon. Later, when Philip succeeded Amyntas as King of Macedon, he 
(Philip) employed Aristotle in 343 B.C. to teach his young son, the future Alexander the 
Great. Aristotle taught Alexander for about two years. Although the content of what he 
(Aristotle) taught him (Alexander) is not known, but one can decipher from Alexander's 
military invincibility that the diversity and fecundity of Aristotle's philosophical mind 
must have opened the young Alexander to the wisdom of different military tactics. It must 
have been in appreciation of Aristotle's tutelage of him also, that Alexander, the great, 
made him in-charge of Alexanderian school of taught that was located in Egypt. 

Before his rise to academic prominence, Aristotle left Stageira in Macedon to 
Athens at the age of seventeen (17) to study Mathematics, Ethics and Politics in the 
famous Academy of Plato. He stayed in Plato's Academy for twenty (20) years, learning 
and teaching. It must have been during this period that he wrote those dialogues on ethical 
and political matters which Plutarch called Platonic (dialogues). He left the Academy 
after Plato's death in 346 B.C., crossing the Aegean Sea to Asia Minor, where he settled in 
Assos in the Troad with some of his companions. Here, to satiate his “rapidly extending 
intellectual interests,” he continued his scientific studies, especially in marine biology, 
the physical world and man's place in it. These studies helped him in forming a general 
outlook on man. “Man was an animal, but he was the only animal that could be described 
as “political,” capable of, and designed by nature for life in a polis” (Aristotle: The 
Politics 1981:13). This general outlook on man will influence Aristotle's contributions to 



sociopolitical debates, issues and philosophy. 
Aristotle got married to his first wife from Macedon around this time of his 

intellectual development, but went back to Athens by 336 B.C. with his family. By 336 
B.C. also, King Philip (Alexander's Father) who was preparing to invade Asia, having 
grouped Greek States into a kind of federation, was assassinated. It was Alexander, his 
son, who succeeded him and led the expedition. Aristotle, with the support of Macedonian 
upper class and Macedonian Antipater, whom Alexander left in charge, while invaliding 
the Eastern world, had no difficulty in establishing his school, the Lyceum, with its 
adjoining Walk (Peripatos) in Athens. It was this Lyceum and Peripatos that occupied 
Aristotle's most important and productive periods of existence. While Alexander reigned 
and was conquering the Asian countries, Aristotle, his teacher, enjoyed unrestricted 
academic freedom and prosperity. However, “The news of Alexander's death in 323 was a 
signal for a revival of anti-Macedonian feelings at Athens and Aristotle judged it prudent 
to retire to Euboea, where he died in the following year (322 B.C.) at the age of about 
Sixty-two (62)” (Aristotle 1981:14).

At the Lyceum, Aristotle lectured with a staff of lecturers that were as vast and 
diversified as he was. He had ingenuous people like the botanist, Theophrasian, author of 
the popular work “Characters.” The branches of knowledge they lectured include: the 
theoria (theoretike), which is truly philosophical and truly scientific, based on the 
methods of observation and contemplation. The courses taught were theology, 
metaphysics, astronomy, mathematics, biology, botany, meteorology. The other branch is 
the practical (Praktike) in which they taught Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric and Poetics, using 
the methods of collecting, studying and analyzing available data. The knowledge or 
sciences in this group have practical aim and relevance; therefore, the students are 
expected to be practitioners in a sense. This idea of knowledge for use/utility or “power” 
(in the words of Francis Bacon) is no less evident in the fields of Ethics and Politics. “In 
ethics and Politics, for example, it does not suffice to learn what things are; they must find 
out also what can be done about them” (Aristotle 1981:15).

It is with this sagacity of mind and blend of thoughts that Aristotle ventured into 
sociopolitical realm (having studied so many constitutions). We shall briefly examine his 
contributions to sociopolitical philosophy from four different perspectives namely:

a. His Conception of Man, The Theory of the State, Constitution of Government and 
Ethics

b. His Conception of Law and Justice in the State
c. His Theory of Equality, Sharing of Power and Property, Economic Theory and 

Systems of Government and Ideology
d. His Educational Policy, Principles and Theory.

A. Aristotle on Man, State, Government and Ethics: Aristotle is one of those earliest 
authors who have homogenous perception of the nature of man. He believes that man 
by nature is social and political, endowed with the power of intellect for rational and 
moral reasoning, as well as the power of speech for communication, affecting and 
influencing his existential domains, either positively or negatively. He writes:

Nature… does nothing without some purpose; and she has 
endowed man alone among the animals with the power of speech. 

2

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



Speech… serves to indicate what is useful and what is harmful, 
and so, also what is just and what is unjust. For the real difference 
between men and other animals is that humans alone have 
perception of good and evil, just and unjust, etc. It is the sharing of 
a common view in these matters that makes a household and a state 
(Aristotle 1981:60).

On the origin, nature and purpose of the state, Aristotle based his theories on 
several premises, according to Puja Mondal (https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com…). 
“…the origin of the state depends on the triangular nature of the human soul…” 
According to Aristotle, “life manifests through several forms – vegetation, animals and 
men. The vegetative soul performs only two (2) functions, viz; nutrition and growth. 
…the animal soul is vegetative soul and passion; human soul, on the other hand, is 
vegetative soul (appetite) coupled with the animal soul (passion) and reason.” This 
principle naturally followed, even in the society, where the vegetative soul is seen as 
manifesting in the family, the animal soul in the village, while the human soul is seen as 
manifesting in the state. So, the state for Aristotle is natural and organic and not artificial 
or conventional as some social contract theorists hold. The state for him is the highest kind 
of community or human organization.

Thus, just as the human soul retains the features of the vegetative and animals 
souls, the state naturally incorporates the family, made up of men and women, masters 
and slaves as well as the village structure; for several families combined make a village, 
several villages form a state – provided that it is self-sufficing.

Worthy of note also is that Aristotle's derivation of the state from the “triangular 
nature of the human soul” is related to his theory of causes. According to his causal theory, 
the final cause is the end or purpose “which a thing attains,” that is, its essential form. He 
reasons that, “…the state is the natural end and culmination of the other and earlier 
associations, which were themselves natural; the state therefore exists by nature” 
(Aristotle 1981:55). In other words, “the human society, when fully developed, becomes 
a state and thus, the nature of human society, for what each thing is when fully developed, 
we call its nature” (Aristotle 1981:55). Thus, “the state, though later in time than the 
family, is prior to it,” just like the whole of an organism is prior to its part. The implication 
of this is that an individual or a village cannot “fulfill his/her purpose unless he/she is part 
of a state” (confer: Aristotle The Politics 1981:55). The state,

“…provides all men's needs (materials, social, religious etc.), and 
offers them the fulfillment not only of living, but of living “well” 
in accordance with those virtues that are peculiarly human. The 
state is thus “all – providing,” which is best, which is characteristic 
of natural ends” (Aristotle 1981: 55).

The state, therefore, being self-sufficient and all-providing by nature, has the 
responsibility of not only “…securing life itself,” but “…it continues in being to secure 
the good life” (Aristotle 1981:59). This is why man cannot afford not to be in a state. 
Stressing this point, Aristotle writes:

…man is by nature a political animal (politikon zoon). Anyone 
who by his nature and not simply ill-luck has no state is either too 
bad or too good, either subhuman or superhuman – he is like the 

3

IKS J. NWANKWOR A Critical Presentation Of Aristotle's  ...             



war-mad man condemned in Homer's words as 'having no family, 
no law, no home… he is a non-cooperator… (Aristotle 1981:59-
60).

By this explanation of the natural existence of the state, Aristotle distinguishes 
himself from the position of social contract theorists especially, those who taught that the 
state is alien and hostile to man, such as Thomas Hobbes. It should be observed that, by 
this natural and organismic theory of the State, Aristotle would unwittingly, be joining 
camp with totalitarians, who subsume the individual, his/her rights and privileges, under 
totalitarian and authoritarian principles. It may also be pointed out that although Aristotle 
rooted the origin of the state to association of villages, then to families and finally to the 
human soul, yet, he did not stretch the logic from the human soul, to its (soul's) 
ontological origin.

B. On Law and Justice:
The aim or purpose of the state for Aristotle is the good life; the state, according to 

him, is not merely a society “for exchange and the prevention of crime.” It is “an 
association intended to enable its members in their households and their kinships (gene, 
clans) and villages …to live well; its purpose is a perfect and self-sufficient life… and 
that, we hold, means living happily and nobly” (Kalos, “fine,” “good”) (Aristotle 
1981:198). But to realize the happy life in the polis (state), Aristotle has recommended a 
constitutional government which lives according to Laws and justice. He praises the 
founder of the state, who introduced law as the greatest of benefactors, “for without law 
man is the worst of animals, and law depends for its existence on *the state” (Aristotle 
1981:55). However, Aristotle has different characteristics of laws as “order,” “reason,” 
and “agreement.” Generally,

Laws are …rules that produce a kind of order in the actions and 
desires of the citizens, which are devised in a rational manner by a 
legislator and which are effective only if the governed accept and 
obey them (https://lawexplores.com>aristotles-...).

According to Aristotle, there are two (2) sources of this law or orderliness viz; 
nature and reason. From this perspective, the purpose of law would be moral, that is, “to 
make men good and righteous, above all, to serve the common interest” 
(https://www.cambridge.org>...)

Law then is a prescription for the good of all departments of life. For Aristotle, 
“Laws prescribe for all the departments of life, aiming at the common advantage, either of 
all the citizens or of the best of them, or of the ruling class, or on some such basis” 
(Aristotle, Ethics 1976:173). The prescription of law is in form of a commandment of 
some kinds of behaviour or a prohibition of others. For “the law commands; some kinds 
of behaviour and forbids others …” (Aristotle 1976:173). Examples of some “goodness” 
and “wickedness” which the law enjoins (commands) and prohibits (forbids) include: 
brave conducts, such as, not leaving one's duty post, or taking to flight, or throwing away 
one's weapons; or fearing the outcome of acting from one's good conscience. It also 
include the commandments on temperate conducts, such as not committing adultery or 
assault, not stealing what belongs to another, or greed in taking possession of a common 
good. The law also commands (enjoins) patient conducts, such as refraining from blows 

4

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



or abuse, waiting for one's turn in temporal distributions, bearing the injuries and pains 
that may be necessitated by one's state or calling in life. While the law commands 
(enjoins) bravery, temperance and patience, it forbids (prohibits) their opposites, such as 
cowardice, intemperance and impatience. For Aristotle, the Law is right, if these conducts 
commanded or forbidden are rightly enacted; but the law may not be right, if what it 
commands or forbids and enforces is an improvisation (an act of 
improvision/improvising) such as edicts and bylaws or regulations. Aristotle maintains 
that if what the law commands or forbids is rightly enacted and perhaps, properly 
enforced, there would be justice, a universal justice, which is complete virtue. In this 
sense, we may also add that there could be just law(s) or unjust law(s) depending on 
whose or what purpose the law is serving or meant to serve.
ON JUSTICE: Justice is attributed of law(s) if its purpose is good or virtuous, that is if it is 
serving a moral excellence. Aristotle noted that the virtue meant here is “in relation to 
somebody else” (Aristotle 1976:173). It is also in this sense that justice is “regarded as the 
sovereign virtue” or the summation of virtue. Justice is the sum of virtue or complete 
virtue because its exercise requires obedience to an external factor or somebody else, 
while other virtues do not necessarily require their possessor to exercise them “in relation 
to another person” (Aristotle 1976:174).

There is no gainsaying the fact that obedience to oneself is sometimes very hard 
not to talk of offering it to another person. Aristotle puts this fact succinctly in this way: 
“…there are plenty of people who can behave uprightly in their own affairs, but are 
incapable of doing so in relation to somebody else (Aristotle 1976:174). For Aristotle, 
justice is “a social virtues that belongs to people insofar as they live with, cooperate with 
and rely on others (https://www.colorado.edu> lee-justice). It has to do with “proper 
relations with and fulfillment of obligations to others” (https://www.colorado.edu>lee-
justice). Aristotle defines justice in terms of its opposites, whereby he determines what 
justice consists in, and its opposite becomes unjust (justice). This type of determination 
works well with certain sorts of “opposite;” such as justice. However, the “equality part 
(of justice) has to do with not grasping far more than what is fair” 
(https://www.uvm.edu>notes/crant ).4

Consequently, Aristotle notes that there are two (2) types of justice, namely, 
universal justice and particular justice. Universal justice is had when one is obedient to 
laws or is said to be virtuous. Particular justice is further divided into two (2), namely, 
“ d i s t r i b u t i v e  j u s t i c e  a n d  r e m e d i a l  o r  c o r r e c t i v e  j u s t i c e ”  
(https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com>...). Distributive justice “involves dividing benefits 
and burdens fairly among members of a community…” In this sense, the state is expected 
to “…divide or distribute goods and wealth among citizens,” in order of their merit. 
According to Aristotle, distributive justice manifests in “the distributions of honour or 
money or other things that fail to be divided among those who have a share in the 
constitution (for in these it is possible for one man to have share either unequal or equal to 
that of another)” (https://www.jetir. org>papers). It is also in this sense that Aristotle will 
consider justice as “treating equals equally and unequals unequally (meaning people get 
what they deserve)” (Retrieved November, 2021 – https://study.com>learn>plato-aris). 
Thus, it is not surprising that Aristotle justifies slavery on the grounds that the slave is 
naturally inferior to the master. According to him:

5

IKS J. NWANKWOR A Critical Presentation Of Aristotle's  ...             



…one has to admit that there are some who are slaves everywhere, 
others who are slaves nowhere: And the same is true of noble birth: 
nobles regard themselves as of noble birth not only among their 
own people but everywhere,” …it is expedient for one to be 
master, the other to be the slave, whereas the one must be ruled, the 
other should exercise the rule for which he is fitted by nature, thus 

a21 b4being the master” (Aristotle 1981:72-73 (1255  & 1255 )).
C. (1). On Equality: Thus, justice for Aristotle, just like Thrasymachus in Plato's 

Republic, is in favour of the stronger or superior, since apart from being inferior or a 
slave by natural endowment, one could also be a slave by being a prisoner of war, 
having been conquered by the superior power or forces of his master or victor. So, as a 
matter of fact, slaves or inferiors have no proper claims in distributive justice. 
However, Aristotle still believed that distributive justice (which concerns mainly 
political privileges), was the most powerful law to prevent revolution. This is so 
because this type of justice gives room for proper and proportionate allocation of 
offices, honours, goods and services, the only requirement for a beneficiary being 
membership (a citizen) of the state (polis) in question.

C. (2). Sharing of Power: Aristotle “…rejected democratic as oligarchic criteria of justice 
and permitted the allocation of offices to the virtuous only owing to their highest 
contributions to the society, because the virtuous people are few. Aristotle believes 
that most of the offices should be allocated to those few only” (Article Shared by Puja 
Mondal: https://www. yourarticlelibracry.com>…). By virtue in respect of justice, 
Aristotle means “a rational mean between bad extremes.” Defining “the mean,” he 
says:

The “mean” of justice lies between the vices of getting too much 
and getting too little, relative to what one deserves, these being 
two (2) opposite types of injustice, one of “disproportionate 
excess,” the other of disproportionate “deficiency” (Aristotle 

a b a
1976:67-74, 76 (1129 -1132 , 1134 )).

C. (3). Sharing of Property: At this juncture, it may as well be proper to point out that 
Aristotle considers justice both as a political, as well as a moral virtue. Thus, the other 
type of particular justice, which deals with moral issues, is known as remedial or 
corrective justice. Remedial (corrective) justice is further “divided into two (2), 
dealing with voluntary transactions (Civil Law) and dealing with involuntary 
transaction (Criminal Law).” All laws and issues relating to commercial transactions 
are dealt within the remedial and corrective justices or actions. This moral justice 
aims at restoring what an individual had lost due to injustice of the society. This type 
of justice prevents from encroachments of one right over the other. According to 
Aristotle, “…corrective justice requires us, in some circumstances, to try to restore a 
fair balance in interpersonal relations where it has been lost” (from: Western Theories 
of Justice in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Aristotle pointed out the areas 
covered by remedial or corrective justice as relating to “voluntary and commercial 
activities such as hire, sale and furnishing security. These actions involve aggression 
on life, property, honour and freedom. In brief, this justice aims at virtue and moral 
excellence of character and it is for this reason, it is called corrective justice.”

6

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



Thus, for Aristotle, justice consists in what is lawful – universal justice and what is 
fair – particular justice. In respect of fairness, justice involves equitable distributions – 
political virtue and correcting or remedying of what is inequitable, which is a function of 
moral virtue or justice. To determine proportionate equality or equity, would involve the 
determination of “the intermediate” position between someone's unfairly getting “less” 
than is deserved and unfairly getting “more” at another's expense” (Aristotle 1976:67-74, 

a b a76 (1129  – 1132 , 1134 )).
What this justice as fairness means, for Aristotle, is that everyone is given or gets 

what is due him/her, regarding his/her circumstance – equality, and that no one is given or 
gets “less” or “more” than he/she deserves. However, it must yet be emphasized that 
Aristotle does not believe in equality. He sanctions the subjugation of women and slaves, 
as well as politically unequal or inferiors.
C. (4). Economic Theory: Furthermore, Aristotle's economic theory is capitalistic as 

opposed to Plato's communism. He does not favour Plato's common sharing of 
women and by extension, children and fatherhood (patrimony). His preference is 
private ownership of property, but he adds, according Russell, that, “people should be 
so trained in benevolence, as to allow the use of it to be largely common” (Russell 
119). His reason, according to Russell, is that: “benevolence and generosity are 
virtues and without private property, they are impossible” (Russell 199). Our position 
is that no economic theory is altogether good that it may not be faulted nor is any 
altogether bad that it may not yield success. Nevertheless, all need truthfulness, 
honesty and sincerity; above all, economic theories should be based on human 
concern, love and kindness for meaningful and positive impact.

C. (5) System of Government: Moreover, Aristotle's system or theory of government does 
not favour democracy. He would rather go for monarchy, aristocracy or 
constitutionalism. He outlined three (3) kinds of good government in their descending 
order as: monarchy, aristocracy and constitutionalism with their opposites as: 
tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. But, he also noted some intermediate forms of 
government. Aristotle's determination of the goodness or badness of a government is 
based on the ethical qualities of the holders of power and not on the form of 
constitution. His preference for aristocracy (a rule of men of virtues) to oligarchy (a 
rule of the rich) is based on this contention that virtue stands in the mean (middle) and 
so men of excessive wealth (like the oligarchs) may not be virtuous. His doctrine of 
the golden mean in terms of virtues and happiness runs thus:

Mankind do not acquire or preserve virtue by the help of external 
goods, but external goods by the help of virtue and happiness, 
whether consisting in pleasure or virtue, or both, is more often 
found with those who are most highly cultivated in their mind and 
in their character and have only a moderate share of external 
goods, than among those who possess external goods to a useless 
extent but are deficient in higher qualities (Aristotle, The Politics: 

a b 1323  and in Russell 200).  
The rule of the best (aristocracy) is therefore preferable to the rule of the richest 

(oligarchy) “since the best are likely to have only moderate fortunes” (Russell 200). The 
only distinction between monarchy and tyranny, for Aristotle, is one based on ethical 

7

IKS J. NWANKWOR A Critical Presentation Of Aristotle's  ...             



consciousness. Here below is Aristotle's classification of different governments and their 
opposites:

From the above, Bertrand Russell surmises that Aristotle's argument is: 
“Monarchy is better than aristocracy, aristocracy is better that polity (constitutionalism). 
But, the corruption of the best is worst: therefore tyranny is worse than oligarchy and 
oligarchy than democracy” (Russell 201).

From this position, one could say that Aristotle arrived at a qualified defense of 
democracy: “for most actual governments are bad and therefore, among actual (bad) 
governments, democracy tends to be best” (Russell 201).

As revolutions were rife in the Greek City-States, where Aristotle operated, he 
recommends three (3) things needed to prevent them, namely: (a.) Propaganda in 
education; (b.) respect of law, even in small things, and (c.) justice in law and 
administration, that is, equality according to proportion and for every man to enjoy his 

a b a
own (Aristotle, The Politics (1307 , 1307 , 1310 ) in Russell 201).

In respect of the population of an ideal state, Aristotle opined that a state “ought to 
be large enough to be more or less self-sufficing, but not too large for constitutional 
government” (Russell 203). All said and done, Aristotle's theory of government follows 
his practical sense of wisdom in arguments. We concur with him that the system of 
government practiced may not be the problem, but the people practicing it, especially 
those at the helm of affairs (leaders). We also agree with him on the role of virtue and 
virtuous leaders and citizens for good and prosperous governance. However, we point out 
that the role of an absolute law-giver – God, in whom and through whom all virtuous acts 
gain relevance and to whom all man-made (positive) laws are referenced for 
meaningfulness and efficacy, cannot be down-played. Any system of government in 
practice depends on God and the application of Godly principles for its success.
A. Educational Policy and Theory: Nevertheless, education, for Aristotle, is 

inevitable for the achievement of political goals. But, his educational theory is 
deficient both in content or curriculum and in application, that is, to those who are 
beneficiaries. It is only the citizens, according to Aristotle, that could partake in the 
share of political power and education as well. His educational policy in the state is 
discriminatory against slaves who are to receive education, if at all, only in useful 
acts, such as cooking, but not full citizenship education. We note that Aristotle's 
policy in education was influenced by his objective for the state. For Aristotle, “the 
aim of the state is …to produce cultured gentlemen, who combine the aristocratic 
mentality with love of learning and the arts” (Russell 204).

8

S/N GOOD GOVERNMENTS S/N BAD GOVERNMENTS 

1.  Monarchy (Best) 1.  Tyranny (Worst) 

2.  Aristocracy (Better) 2.  Oligarchy (Worse) 

3.  Constitutionalism/Polity (Good)  3.  Democracy (Bad) 

 

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



Thus, decency in speech, avoiding vulgarization, are to be cultivated in the 
education of the citizen. The education of the citizens' children is made to emphasize 
moral ideals and de-emphasize professional skills in athletics, as this may drift them from 
their political ambitions. For Aristotle, the purpose of education is for “virtue” (as stated 
in his Ethics) and not just for “usefulness.” The children of the citizens should learn 
drawing, in order to appreciate the beauty of the human form; they should be taught 
painting and sculpture as expressions of moral ideals, they may learn to sing and to play 
musical instruments enough to be able to enjoy music critically, but not enough to be 
skilled performers, for no freeman would play or sing unless drunk; they must learn to 
read and write, as they are “useful arts” for his political ambitions.

Aristotle's educational theory, principles and policies, found their highest 
practical expressions and perfection in Athens under the leadership of Pericles, among the 
well-to-do, not with the entire population. We observe that the thrust of Aristotle's 
educational policy is political; hence its contents and scope of applications are limited. 
Thus, we note that education serves multifarious purposes and as such, its horizons, 
contents (curriculum/curricula) and spheres of application (beneficiaries), is expected to 
be integral, comprehensive, all-including, all-involving and all-partaking. Education 
should be able to touch all aspects of man in his living environment and address all issues 
engaging man in his existence and involvements. Consequently, education should be able 
to touch the totality of man and his environment of existence from the perspectives of 
somatic/body affections and feelings, physiological/ anatomical levels, 
psychological/mental states, spiritual cum economic influences, scientific-technological 
developments, as well as health and total well-being. There should be no discrimination 
in the application of the values of education or its beneficiaries. Discriminatory attitudes 
based on sex, tribe, social status, political and social lineages, economic/financial 
positions or any such affiliations should be decried in highest terms in the delivery of 
education. However, content censorship of educational curriculum(a) may be necessary 
for people of particular ages and circumstances; but, utmost care must be taken to make 
sure that this does not become the general rule “modus operandi” (operational mode or 
means). Furthermore, care must be taken to ensure that education does not become a 
means of operation, suppression, deprivation or subjugation of some class of people in the 
society by depriving them or making it impossible for them to gain education and its 
values. For the aforementioned reason of censorship and educational application, 
educators, educationists, curriculum planners and implementers should first undergo 
serious and rigorous trainings in morals and religious prudence by competent, trusted and 
reliable experts.

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
Aristotle and his mentor – Plato, have laboured so much to furnish Western 

Philosophy, education, and civilization with the skeletons and rubrics which have made 
them appealing to the entire world over the years. Aristotle, specifically, brought 
philosophy from platonic Olympian mountains of idealism to the accessible valleys of 
realism and made us see the other side of the coin of reason. We think their pedagogical 
and preparatory pace need commendation for the vast areas they covered, the issues they 
raised, the insights they brought and the explanations they gave. In our present exercise, 

9

IKS J. NWANKWOR A Critical Presentation Of Aristotle's  ...             



we examined Aristotle's contributions to sociopolitical, philosophy from the perspectives 
of his background, life and times, his notions, content and constitution of the ideal state, 
his ideas on law and justice, through his theories/systems of economics and government, 
to his educational policies and theory in the state (polis). We have also offered our own 
little assessments, observations and inputs to augment the areas we felt needed some fine 
polishing. It is our hope that working on the pedestal of venerable men and women of 
antiquity and ancient scholars and sages, and improving on their legacies, following 
Divine principles, can put the global human society on solid foundations in economic 
matters, sociopolitical fields, scientific and technological ingenuities, and other realms of 
learning.

WORKS CITED

Aristotle, Ethics (The Nicomachean Ethics). Trans. by J.A.K. Thomson and Rev. by Hugh 
Tredeanick, Penguin Books Ltd., 1976.

Aristotle, The Politics (Revised Edition). Trans. by T.A. Sinchair and Rev. by Trevor J. 
Saunders, penguin Books Ltd., 1981.

Article Shared by Puja Mondal: Aristotle Theory of Origin of State: Concepts, Elements 
and Necessary Conditions. https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com. 

Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin Ltd. 
(Counterpoint Edition), 1984.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Western Theories of Justice.
https://lawexplores.com>aristotles
https://www.cambridge.org>
https://www.colorado.edu> lee-justice
https://www.uvm.edu>notes/crant4

https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com>...
https://www.jetir. org>papers
Retrieved November, 2021 

10

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 


